41 / 56
They could be supplemented by
revenues from private sources,
such as water companies that
would benefit from investments that
reduce pollution, or from businesses
that depend on natural assets.
Alternatively, obligations could be
created for businesses that degrade
natural assets—internationally or
locally—to pay into the Catchment
Commissioners funds for investment
in natural capital. This would follow
the “polluter pays” principle more
closely, simultaneously providing an
incentive for reducing environmental
damage among businesses and
creating a flow of capital for the
Catchment Commissioner. If
combined with a bidding process for
land-use change, this would provide
a triple efficiency: reducing damage,
creating funds, and delivering the
most cost-effective investment.
A system for mandatory offsetting
for certain kinds of natural capital
degradation could be included
in this framework. It should rule
out irreplaceable habitat, retain a
preference for local investment,
and include a multiplier for ensuring
adequate compensation. Additionally,
and particularly in the longer term,
sums could be set aside from major
Government schemes, such as grant-
in-aid flood funding.
As an initial step, the Government
should reserve £175 million of the
additional £700million of new flooding
funding announced after the 2015–16
floods for natural capital investment
that can help alleviate flooding.
In this way, new revenue streams
will be created for land management
choices that deliver the maximum
public benefit for the least cost.
In summary, Commissioners would
plan investment at the catchment
scale. Mapping would work by
overlaying and stacking maps to
show where there is greatest synergy.
This would be applied on the ground
by local coordination, and new
commercial opportunities would
be created through a bidding and
commissioning process:
Mapping:
data on site condition, such
as value of assets at risk, or costs
of water pollution, and ecological
opportunity maps, aggregating data
for different habitat types
Coordinating:
local site knowledge
and preferences of local communities
with national priorities
Commissioning:
through bids by
individual land managers willing
to undertake change in return for
long-term investment.
Mapping would work by overlaying
and stacking maps to show where
there is greatest synergy.