I also understand and agree with the scepticism that surrounds businesses that are still damaging the planet while investing in nature. Any organisations making nature based investments must be actively reducing their emissions and overall impact on the environment in alignment with a scientifically credible pathway to net-zero.  However, I don’t agree with the view some hold that making such investments is businesses gaining cover to maintain the status quo. Where investments are scientifically credible, socially just and long term, they represent real, if imperfect, progress – not a cover for inaction. In practice, there are already some excellent examples of businesses and private finance making significant contributions to nature restoration, and the communities that host it in Scotland.  

Beginning my current role at the start of 2025, the most striking issue was the chasm between those developing and delivering many nature restoration projects, and the main sources of actual demand and financing. Not hypothetical or desired demand from institutional investors (like pension funds and private equity looking for significant long-term returns), but actual demand that can be realised now. This includes developers meeting planning obligations to deliver nature uplift, UK companies beginning to engage in carbon markets as net zero deadlines approach, businesses investing in natural resources that their supply chains depend on – like clean and cold water, and sustainable farming practices for agricultural inputs. These things are already happening in Scotland.  

Admittedly the scale is still small. The expectation that the billions of pounds of capital held in pension funds, insurance portfolios and household savings will pour into nature investments, simply because some would like it to is overly optimistic and risks misunderstanding how capital behaves. But that doesn’t mean that there’s no market at all. A differently shaped market is already emerging in Scotland, albeit far more modest than early narratives around rapidly expanding offset markets that envisaged tens of billions of pounds of investment in the UK. 

When discussing the nature “market” I think it’s important to be clear what this includes. This is often interpreted as speculative or purely financialised models of nature investment, usually in carbon credits. This can risk creating extractive practices and leaving communities to the side. Aside from these critical social and ethical concerns, there is also limited evidence this model is gaining traction at scale.  

However, there are other more credible types of project and investment that I believe still sit within the nature market, under a different model. These include investment in ecosystem services such as water quality and flood management, biodiversity funding linked to development requirements, and forms of carbon finance that are tied directly to delivery rather than speculation. Rather than relying on finance to fund large scale land acquisition, these projects are delivered through partnerships with existing land managers and communities, helping to retain local control while still attracting investment. 

Through the NCCP project we’ve had direct exposure to a range of projects already putting this into practice. A strong example is the work of the Findhorn, Nairn and Lossie Rivers Trust, which operates at a catchment scale, bringing together landowners, communities, businesses and public funding to restore river systems. Their model blends multiple funding sources, including public funds, private sector partnerships and philanthropic support, into co-ordinated, place based delivery. What stands out is not just the diversity of funding (and market mechanisms used), but the integrity of the approach. Investment is tied to practical delivery; riparian woodland creation, river and peatland restoration, invasive species control, and is tied to a long-term vision for the catchment. At the same time, there is a clear emphasis on collaboration, local stewardship, and shared benefit, with projects designed and delivered alongside the people who live and work in these landscapes. 

This kind of model illustrates what a well-functioning nature market can look like in practice. Not abstract financial instruments, but grounded, place based partnerships that align environmental outcomes with community benefit. 

In practice, this feels less like a market that will be unlocked from the top down, and more like one that is emerging from the ground up. The most credible progress is coming from projects responding to real demand and shaped by the needs of the communities and landscapes they sit within, rather than from fully formed national frameworks or financial mechanisms. We should strive to learn from and support the projects like this that are already showcasing what works, strengthening relationships between supply and demand, and ensuring that communities are at the core of these projects and benefit from their success.