Whenever thinking about the finance of rewilding, it’s important to be clear about what the activity of rewilding actually is. The word wild implies that plants and animals are allowed to go about their business completely unchecked. This is not possible in the United Kingdom for reasons of space and public safety, so rewilding is usually something that is managed.

Usually, the piece of land will be broken up into parcels, each with a different ecological function within the whole. For example, there might be a river through the land which will have high ecological value in the riparian zone. There may also be a part of the land reserved to high profile species such as osprey or lynx which occupy a valuable place in the land’s food web, but which may require some management to ensure their survival. The white storks at Knepp[1] are an example of a high profile reintroduction.

The workforce will usually constitute a few experts supported by teams of volunteers and carefully chosen animals which will have a positive impact on the land. Cattle can ensure that trees are controlled, pigs can rootle in the soil giving fresh opportunity to dormant seeds.

This is the background against which the commercial opportunities must be understood. There will usually not be one single source of income, but a variety, based upon sales of produce, selling the experience, ecosystem services and various grants. These are all briefly touched on below.

1 Sale of produce

The sale of products might commonly include berries, meat, honey, and wood thinnings. The thinnings can be turned into charcoal for barbeques or used to create products for sale. These products can be created using traditional techniques such as bodging, which can be linked to ecotourism.

Fruits can be sold through organised foraging for family days out at which food and drinks can also be sold to the customers. The cattle and pigs used for maintaining the complex mosaic of habitats can be carefully slaughtered at appropriate times for the sale of meat in the shop.

The activities on the land can create good footfall that wider local farming community can benefit from, and often it will be possible to sell products at a premium at a shop which can be open to products of neighbouring farms.

2 Selling the experience

2.1 Eco tourism

Enjoyment of nature creates strong incomes from ecotourism, sponsorship and the medical benefits of being in nature. Most ecotourism happens over a season of around 42 weeks of the year. Camping can give fairly good returns with little investment needed and relatively small ongoing costs.

Holiday cottages selling an experience will be able to charge premium rates and this can be connected with guided tours and wildlife encounters.

Alongside providing accommodation, events can be held on the land to strengthen the bond with nature, and these can have varied and surprising sources of finance. An interesting example I was involved in was to allow disabled war veterans to get together in woodlands to create a living space out of found materials under a parachute that had been used by one of them in action. During the day the veterans would face challenges such as river crossings or traversing the woodland without touching the ground and all funded through national charities.

2.2 Social prescribing

Social prescribing is described by NHS England as “a key component of Universal Personalised Care”[2]. A rewilding project gives many opportunities for individuals to work with other volunteers as part of the management of the land. “Link workers” funded from the NHS can have a role in co-ordinating these activities providing a valuable source of labour to help with the overall management of the land.

2.3 Corporate social responsibility

Sponsorship from local and national companies who want to advertise their green credentials is a common source of income for wilded sites. The sponsor will have certain requirements linked to their own organisation’s policies.

3 Selling ecosystem services

3.1 Stacking

Before going into detail on ecosystem services, it is worth a comment about how these “stack” together. There will often not be a single system of ecosystem services that will be applicable to the project, but instead complex system of different types of payments for different parts of the project. As a rule, a payment to motivate behaviour will usually prevent qualification for payments under other schemes. Some combinations of different payment can work together, and this is referred to as “stacking”.

It will often be the case that taking a selection of different payments that work together will lead to a better result than just relying on one and increase reliance for the project as a whole. See government guidance on this[3].

3.2 Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

BNG can provide large sums of money upfront that can be used for investment into landscaping and creation of public facilities. The work on creating the habitat units is backed by a 30 year covenant which restricts activities on the land during that period.

On top of the payment for habitat units, some grazing or thinnings is probably part of the HMMP and will generate some income. These items can be fed back into the commercial activities described earlier.

BNG mixes very well with eco tourism. The management agreement can be written in such a way as to allow paying members of the public to come onto the land to enjoy nature, whether that be bird watching or messing about with boats on a pond! This will come at a small cost in the habitat units created but fits extremely well into the ecotourism model.

3.3 Nutrient neutrality

Nutrient neutrality applies to certain river catchments in England[4]. Developments within these catchments will be required to ensure that local arrangements are made to compensate any increase in pollution levels. Reedbeds, for example, are a very good nature based solution for filtering out pollutants and can also have a valuable place within a river rewiggling scheme or managed wetland habitat.

Nutrient neutrality can stack with payments for BNG offsets[5].

3.4 Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration is supported by two main organisations – the Woodland Carbon Code[6] and Peatland Code[7]. A unit under the Woodland Carbon Code is one metric tonne of carbon and the price[8] fluctuates around £20. A case from the Forestry Commission[9] showed that returns of a little over £200 per hectare per years could be expected from this.

A study published by Savills[10] showed that the Peatland Code generally gives a more modest income around £70 per hectare per year.

3.5 Flood risk mitigation

Rewiggling rivers can contribute to flood management plans. There will often be funding available for this from Countryside Stewardship (see below), local flood resilience plans or from private arrangements made between business and homeowners. These plans can play a valuable part in the overall rewilding scheme and can involve wild animals such as beavers. Beavers will attract publicity and provide opportunities for ecotourism. Good advice on beavers is available to the Beaver Trust[11].

In addition, there may be some scope to allow sacrificial flooding of land for which payment can be received. This can lead to large areas of liminal land transitioning between dry and wetland with constantly changing margins. This can give unique opportunities for rare plants[12] such as amphibious bistort, great burnet and marsh marigold, along with opportunities to watch birds such as corncrake[13]. Such wildlife will help attract visitors to synergise with ecotourism activities.

4 Grants

4.1 Forestry grants

Various grants are available from the Forestry Commission[14]. Some of these might be relevant to a rewilding scheme, especially those for natural colonisation[15]. This can include payments for recreational infrastructure to help to provide public access which can work well with eco-tourism.

4.2 Agri-environment schemes

The system of farm payments inherited from the EU prior to Brexit has evolved into a three tier system, most of which can potentially be applicable to a rewilding scheme. The direct connection with farming has been removed potentially opening these payments up to all landowners.

In terms of stacking, it will usually not be possible to sell habitat enhancements under BNG or nutrient neutrality, but the contrary can apply. It can be possible to enhance habitats that have been created using agri-environmental schemes to create further habitat enhancements on top of the agri-environment agreement. The habitat achieved under the agri-environment agreement will be the baseline for the BNG scheme.

The scheme levels are as follows:

4.2.1 Sustainable Farm Incentive (SFI)

This is the lowest level and mainly aimed at farmers. It has a menu of fixed price actions mainly to improve soil structure, reduce reliance on fertilisers and enhance habitats for wildlife.

4.2.2 Countryside stewardship

These are tailored schemes that can apply to a rewilding scheme and can include capital grants. As such they are much more ambitious than SFI. These are aimed at enhancing the natural environment, restoring habitat and managing flood risk. This latter part can often be an important part of a river rewiggling or flood risk scheme.

4.2.3 Landscape recovery

Landscape Recovery schemes operate across landscapes at large scale (more than 500 hectares). Because of the requirement for scale, they usually involve many different landowners working together. Many of these involve wetland creation which can fit will into a rewilding scheme for example.

5 Sterilisation of the land

The value of land can be expressed as the Present Value of the income streams that can be generated from it. Where there is any restriction on activities the value will often be diminished. For example, the 30-year covenant that BNG creates puts restrictions on what can be done on the land. The curtailment of income generating activities is often referred to as “sterilization”. In the case of BNG the value of the land may sink by up to 80%. Here most of the yield of the land has effectively been taken upfront.

This can lead to difficulties where the value of the land is an important consideration. An example of this is where land is held in a pension fund. The farmer receives a payment for BNG and at the same time the asset in the pension reduces in value. Effectively value has been shifted from the pension fund causing an immediate tax charge. This can be solved by ensuring the lease allows the pension fund to participate in the BNG profits.

Similar considerations apply to tenanted land, where the landowner will usually insist on a participation in income from the activity such as BNG that results in the reduction in value.

6 Taxes

6.1 Income taxes

Most of the income from the land will be taxable. Income from managing land for ecological purposes will usually be treated as trading income which will entitle the landowner to tax perks such being able to offset losses against other income

Woodlands managed commercially can be exempt from income tax, but it is rare that this exemption would apply in a rewilding situation as the woodlands would not mainly be managed for sales of timber.

6.2 Capital gains tax

The land on which the rewilding project is carried on will be subject to capital gains tax on a sale. Where the land is used for trading purposes, special reliefs become available such as rollover relief to allow capital gains made on farmland and buildings, for example, to be reinvested, delaying the payment of the tax.

6.3 Inheritance tax

Inheritance tax is taxable on death estates at the rate of 40% after some relief of which APR, BPR (see below) and Woodlands Relief have been deducted. Whether these reliefs are available is therefore an important consideration to the landowner.

APR and BPR give the owner a relief at either 100% or 50% of the value of the assets concerned. With effect from 6 April 2026 the amount of APR or BPR at the rate of 100% is capped at £2.5m with a facility to transfer unused amounts of this cap to a surviving spouse. The balance of the assets are then only entitled to 50% relief.

Brief summaries are given below of what APR and BPR can apply to. Both of these reliefs have complex qualifying criteria which are not described in detail for reasons of space.

6.3.1 Agricultural Property Relief (APR)

APR applies to agricultural land that where there is an agricultural activity. This does not need to be motivated by profit, unlike BPR.

First and foremost, there must be an activity. What has become a leading authority here is the unreported 1982 Lands Valuation Appeal Court case of Assessor for Tayside Region v Reedways Ltd which concerned the cutting of reeds for thatching. The reeds were a natural growth. There was no tilling, sowing, or cultivating. All the ratepayers did was cut the reeds down. The absence of any tillage of the soil meant that the reed beds could not be agricultural. It is very hard to find a copy of this case but worth the effort.

Secondly the activity needs to be about growing something. In the context of rewilding this will might include berries, fungus, charcoal and keeping livestock. Livestock for this purpose are defined as being animals providing products for human consumption such as wool or meat, but not animals such as beavers whose purpose on the land is more architectural or for kept pure enjoyment such as ponies for riding.

It is usually accepted that the mere requirement to look after animals and keep the public safe from them is an activity so some sales of meat from animals such as cows and pigs will result in part at least of the land being treated as being agricultural. There do not need to be many sales for this to apply – some consider that a single annual sale is enough. If, on the other hand, berries are sold there must be some husbandry of the trees to show there is an activity.

6.3.2 Business Property Relief (BPR)

BPR can apply to a rewilding project if it can be shown that the land is operated as a business for monetary gain and not mainly a passive investment. Where land is actively managed with a profitable income it will usually qualify. Land under BNG for example would usually qualify.

Land used for camping or buildings for holiday lettings would not usually qualify for BPR unless the value of services provided to guests exceeds the rental value of the accommodation.

6.3.3 Woodlands relief

In addition to APR and BPR there is a deferral relief for woodlands. This is not an exemption but instead allows IHT on growing trees to be deferred until they are later sold be the beneficiaries of the estate. It only applies on death and not on lifetime transfers.

In the past it has been preferable to claim BPR on woodlands where possible, but in view of the cap on 100% relief mentioned above this deferral is becoming more popular. This does not require there to be an active business involving the trees, merely the existence of trees and underwood.

6.4 Business rates

Land and buildings which can be classified as agricultural are exempt from business rates and have tax perks such as Agricultural Property Relief for Inheritance Tax and capital gains tax gift relief. The sudden burden of business rates often surprises agricultural landowners who change the use of their land. This is therefore highly relevant in understanding the taxation position.

7 Summary

Because of the complexity of the interactions between the component parts of a rewilding project, it is important to be clear about how the finances will work at the outset. Of course, it is never possible to control nature and there will be unexpected twists and turns along the way, but many of these will open up new opportunities. As will be seen there are many and various ways to cover the costs of the project and maybe even make a profit. This can be attractive enough to encourage capital investment from entrepreneurs.

Farmers I have met have commented that the interesting spread of income sources gives a natural resilience to a rewilding project. While it is unlikely to be as profitable as conventional farming it has a place as part of a diversification of the farm business and can bring high profile quickly.

And finally, the Land Use Framework[16] published in March 2026 envisages 9% of farmland being used for climate change and nature benefits by 2050[17]. Rewilding projects combining a wide variety of complex habitats and species will probably have an important role to play in this.

Stephen Poole

May 2026

[1] https://knepp.co.uk/rewilding/reintroductions/white-stork/

[2] https://www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/

[3] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/combining-environmental-payments-biodiversity-net-gain-bng-and-nutrient-mitigation#how-bng-and-nutrient-mitigation-work-with-other-schemes

[4] https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/nutrient-neutrality-catchments-england/about

[5] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/combining-environmental-payments-biodiversity-net-gain-bng-and-nutrient-mitigation#how-bng-and-nutrient-mitigation-work-with-other-schemes

[6] https://www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/

[7] https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/peatland-code

[8] https://www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/uk-carbon-prices#para-155-2-0

[9] https://www.gov.uk/government/case-studies/financial-case-study-commercial-woodland-over-100-hectares

[10] https://www.savills.co.uk/landing-pages/landscope/PeatAction.pdf