Resilience Investing Rises: Can Nature-Based Solutions Stem the Tide of UK Flooding?

London, UK – November 8, 2025 – As extreme weather events become increasingly frequent and severe, a new cross-sector partnership is betting on nature to protect the UK from the growing threat of flooding. The FloodAction Coalition, launched this week with the backing of Aviva and The Conduit, aims to mobilize up to £1 billion in investment for natural flood management (NFM) projects across the country.

But beyond the headlines and ambitious financial goals, a closer look reveals a complex landscape of opportunity, potential conflicts, and pressing questions about the true beneficiaries of this emerging ‘resilience investing’ market.

Turning Risk into Reward

The coalition brings together a formidable array of players – insurers like Aviva and Howden, landowners like The National Trust and The Crown Estate, infrastructure giants like National Highways, and investment firms like UBS. Their shared goal: to transform NFM – restoring wetlands, reconnecting rivers, and improving soil health – from a niche environmental practice into a mainstream investable asset class.

“The number of homes at risk from flooding is set to increase significantly,” explains a representative from Aviva, speaking on background. “We see this as a crucial step in proactively managing climate risk and protecting both our policyholders and the wider community.”

The coalition’s approach is built on the premise that investing in preventative measures – harnessing the natural power of landscapes to absorb and slow down floodwaters – is ultimately more cost-effective than repeatedly rebuilding after disasters. Early estimates suggest that well-implemented NFM schemes can reduce downstream flood risk by 10-30% when combined with traditional infrastructure.

Beyond the Greenwash? Scrutinizing the Motives

However, experts caution against viewing NFM solely as an altruistic environmental initiative. While the ecological benefits are undeniable, the involvement of major insurance companies and landowners raises legitimate questions about underlying motives.

“There’s a clear financial incentive for insurers to reduce the frequency and severity of flood claims,” explains an independent climate risk analyst, speaking anonymously. “But we need to ensure that these investments genuinely prioritize community resilience, rather than simply shifting risk onto vulnerable populations.”

The coalition’s blended finance model – combining philanthropic grants, public funding, and private capital – further complicates the picture. While this approach can unlock significant funding, it also raises concerns about accountability and transparency.

“It’s crucial to understand where the money is coming from and how it’s being allocated,” warns an environmental activist. “We need to ensure that local communities have a voice in these projects and that their needs are prioritized.”

The Landowner’s Dilemma: Balancing Conservation and Profit

The involvement of large landowners like The National Trust and The Crown Estate also presents a complex dynamic. While these organizations are committed to conservation, they also have a financial stake in land use and revenue generation.

“There's a delicate balancing act here,” says a source within The National Trust, speaking anonymously. “We want to promote NFM on our land, but we also need to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the organization.”

Critics argue that some NFM schemes could inadvertently exacerbate flood risk in neighboring areas, benefiting landowners while displacing the problem onto others. This highlights the need for comprehensive, holistic flood risk management strategies that consider the entire catchment area.

Lessons from Pickering and Somerset: The Promise – and Limitations – of NFM

Despite the potential pitfalls, successful NFM projects demonstrate the tangible benefits of harnessing nature’s power. The Pickering Catchment in North Yorkshire, for example, has seen a 50% reduction in downstream flood risk following the implementation of a large-scale NFM scheme. Similarly, restoration efforts in the Somerset Levels have saved an estimated £1.6 million in flood damages annually.

However, experts caution that NFM is not a silver bullet. These schemes require long implementation timelines (often 5-10 years) and careful planning to avoid unintended consequences. They also need to be integrated with traditional flood defences – such as dams and levees – to provide comprehensive protection.

“NFM is a valuable tool in the fight against flooding, but it’s not a replacement for traditional infrastructure,” explains a hydrologist who has worked on several NFM projects. “We need a multi-faceted approach that combines the best of both worlds.”

The Future of Resilience Investing

The FloodAction Coalition represents a growing trend towards ‘resilience investing’ – recognizing that investing in preventative measures is not just ethically sound, but also economically prudent. As climate change intensifies, this market is poised for significant growth.

However, the success of this approach hinges on transparency, accountability, and a genuine commitment to community resilience. Without these safeguards, the promise of nature-based solutions could be overshadowed by the pursuit of profit.

The coalition’s ambitious £1 billion target is a bold step forward. But whether it truly delivers on its promise – protecting communities and ecosystems from the growing threat of flooding – remains to be seen.