King hailed as nature ‘leader' at event to drive private money into biodiversity
Ministers, indigenous leaders and businesses and investors representing £12.2 trillion in finance gathered at the conference convened by the UK Government at Lancaster House in London to discuss how to drive private money into restoring and conserving nature and natural services.
Charles has long been an advocate for investing in nature, with leading environmentalist and head of Natural England Tony Juniper describing him as 'being right about these issues 20 years' before anyone else.
At a reception after the meeting the King watched a performance by public art and climate initiative The Herds featuring life-sized puppets of African animals including a zebra, lioness and a gorilla, which Charles shook hands with.
He also discussed the urgency of saving the forests with Brazilian environment and climate minister Marina Silva, who showed him a picture of a tree he had planted 35 years ago, which is now a towering specimen, as he remarked 'I have green fingers'.
Charles was presented with gifts by Mona Ainu'u, minister of natural resources of the Pacific island of Niue, including honey and a certificate showing he had been made a 'care-holder' of one square kilometre of the island's Moana Mahu marine protected area, as a gift from the country.
The scheme is part of an innovative financing mechanism called 'ocean conservation commitments' in which donors can sponsor the conservation of one square kilometre of the reserve, a vast area half the size of the UK and home to coral reefs, undersea mountains, sharks, whales, dolphins and rays.
The payments of around £110 aim to protect each piece of the marine protected area for a period of 20 years, with the proceeds used to fund conservation, resilience and sustainable development.
Mr Juniper said the King had been making the case for 'natural capital' – valuing and investing in the world's natural resources such as forests, fish and water to benefit humans – for decades, adding 'I think he might even have invented the idea quite a long time ago'.
He said: 'He has a particular credibility as a leader in this subject, and hopefully him being here today will really send a signal to everybody that this is a serious proposition, this idea that we need to invest in nature to be able to get returns.'
Mr Juniper added: 'He's always been right about these issues, 20 years before everyone really understood it was a serious thing that we were dealing with, and so him being here today, hopefully, sends a signal that there's something real going on here that people need to attend to.'
Mr Juniper warned there was a 'huge job' ahead in recovering nature globally but also in England and it would require private finance.
'With England being one of the most nature depleted countries on Earth, you know, the job is particularly acute and urgent,' he said.
'We have some positive government policy that's come through during recent years, but we're going to need to augment that with private investment to be able to get to where we need to go.'
Mr Juniper pointed to nascent markets in 'biodiversity net gain', where developers have to pay to boost nature when carrying out housing or other projects.
And he said there was a need to drive private finance into areas such as fresh water and flood water, where utilities or insurance companies fund nature restoration, or nature-based solutions to reduce the cost of cleaning up water or paying for flood damage.
Speaking at the event, Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: 'Nature underpins everything. Without it there is no economy, no food, no health and ultimately no society.
'With this Government, Britain stands ready to lead on climate and nature.
'The UK is playing our part to protect nature at home and abroad. We will work with other nations around the world who commit to do the same.'
The event was attended by environment ministers and representatives of businesses, banks and investors such as GSK, Aviva, Lloyds, BlackRock and State Street, as well as conservation and ecology experts and indigenous and community representatives.
Those taking part in roundtable discussions described how regenerative agriculture and agroforestry was already investable, but the financial sector needed to understand the importance of the oceans, the need for integrity and regulation of markets and working with indigenous people.
Speaking after the event, UK Government Special Representative for Nature Ruth Davis said it was 'full of investors and businesses for whom the penny has dropped that if they don't look after nature, natural capital, soils, water, biodiversity, they are literally going to lose the basis upon which their existing businesses are founded'.
She said the meeting would help scale up action to drive investment in natural capital.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves is cynically squeezing us dry– without raising taxes
The Chancellor has not had much luck with some of her tax rises. Rachel Reeves was expecting to raise up to £3.2bn each year, or around £12.7bn in this parliament, with the scrapping of non-dom status – a policy announced by her Conservative predecessor Jeremy Hunt and then ramped up by Labour. She is heading for disappointment. With the exodus of more than 10,000 millionaires from the UK last year and an expected 16,000 this year, Reeves has been warned that the move may in fact reduce rather than increase tax receipts. Speculation is thus rife that the measures may be further watered down; there has already been some initial tweaking and softening earlier this year. The imposition of VAT on school fees is likewise now widely expected to raise less than the predicted £1.7bn by 2030, due to more than expected numbers of children transferring to the state sector and becoming a burden on education budgets. The spate of independent school closures – not just as a result of the VAT change but also employer National Insurance rises, the loss of business rate relief for schools with charitable status and the gamut of extra regulation affecting all businesses – will inevitably make this worse. But, ironically, Reeves may have been rather more adept at boosting Treasury revenue with some of the tax measures she did not actually implement. Before last year's Halloween Budget there was much speculation that rates of capital gains tax (CGT) would be brought into line with those for income tax. This would have meant that higher-rate taxpayers earning over £50,270 would have had to pay 40pc instead of 24pc on taxable property gains and 20pc on other assets. Additional rate taxpayers, earning over £125,140, even worried they might be faced with a full 45pc levy on any uplift. The fear that these rates would be aligned was an entirely rational one. The great Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson in his 1988 Budget had done just that – although the medicine that year was very much sweetened by the scrapping of all income tax rates over 40pc at the same time. Labour's manifesto, while pledging not to raise the rates of income tax or employee National Insurance, was silent about CGT. And after winning the election, Sir Keir Starmer and Reeves never tired of talking up a £22bn 'black hole' the Tories had allegedly left them. This would soon need filling – and Reeves did nothing to dampen down speculation that CGT rises and changes to the pension regime would be how she would achieve at least part of this. In the event, the Chancellor took less drastic action. She raised the rate of CGT for non-property gains from 10pc to 18pc for basic-rate taxpayers and 20pc to 24pc for those on the higher and additional rates. In other words, she aligned the rates for different asset classes to the one already levied on property. But the speculation alone did pay dividends for Reeves. In October last year, the month running up to the Budget, CGT receipts on residential property disposals was £408m – more than double that of most other months in the last tax year. Revenue from CGT is notoriously volatile when compared to other taxes. In the 2023-24 tax year, for example, CGT liabilities were 18pc down from the previous year. But the surge in the run-up to the Budget was vast. The best explanation for the Treasury's October windfall is that residential landlords sold up in advance of a clobbering that did not materialise. As Chris Etherington, of accountants RSM, has noted: 'It is clear that anticipation of CGT changes can distort taxpayer behaviour... the Chancellor benefitted from an inadvertent windfall... Reeves does not necessarily need to increase CGT rates to raise revenues. It's potentially possible to maximise CGT receipts by simply saying very little on the subject.' The Chancellor will insist that she cannot speculate about what moves she will be making in future Budgets – due to such information having an impact on the markets. But that argument does not quite wash. She is more than happy to rule out some fiscal moves, such as raising the rate of income tax. So why not others? Is it too cynical to suggest that Reeves has found her own third way? She can benefit from increased inflows without actually raising taxes. But such tactics are far from victimless – the uncertainty and disruption caused comes at a high price. Additionally, it makes it much more difficult for people to plan for the future and may make them take unnecessary decisions that they will live to regret. In other circumstances, allowing speculation to rip may in fact hurt Treasury coffers. Not closing down current Labour Party debates about a wealth tax will surely mean more wealthy people leaving the UK in anticipation of such a move. This will not only hurt our economy but also mean lower tax yields, resulting in less money for public services.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Fears that London house price fall will spread through UK
Fears are growing that a downturn in the prime London property market may spread across the country as a recent rise in stamp duty forces sellers to lower their asking prices. Evidence suggests the ultra-rich are renting rather than buying mansions in the capital to avoid the hated tax. Stamp duty is paid by buyers when they buy a property and in April two key thresholds were changed – meaning most homebuyers now pay it. Property portal Zoopla found that 83 per cent of buyers would pay stamp duty if they bought a home today, compared to 49 per cent before April. This has led more buyers to negotiate a price cut to compensate for the extra tax. Some 951,000 now pay the levy. That is still below a recent peak of 1.2million but the figure is set to rise sharply as more people are dragged into the tax net. More than a third – or £4.5billion – of the money raised by stamp duty comes from property deals in the capital. In London, where property prices are higher than the rest of the country, it now costs home movers up to £2,500 more than before April if they buy an average house costing £532,449. But the impact of the rise is most keenly felt in central London locations where prices are being slashed by up to 30 per cent to attract foreign buyers. The stamp duty charge on a £20million mansion in Belgravia or Mayfair is £2.3million for a UK purchaser. For a person not resident in the UK, acquiring a second home in the city, the bill is about £3.7million. This used to be seen as the price of admission to the London lifestyle. But now even the mega-rich are baulking at the bill. Property experts say the international set are now preferring to rent not buy in London. 'The annual rent on a £20million pad would be about £570,000,' said Neil Hudson of the Built Place consultancy. 'On that basis, if you were a UK purchaser, you could rent for four years for what you would have to pay in stamp duty alone.' There are concerns the downbeat mood in central London could spread nationwide. 'At the height of the boom in 2015, London's properties became overpriced and have been largely moving sideways ever since,' said Richard Donnell, head of research at Zoopla. 'This is bad news for the whole market since London has been the engine of house price growth, with the effects rippling out to other regions.'
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
HMRC made a mistake — but won't give us our £15k back
My mother died last year and I have been settling her estate with help from my brother-in-law. It was relatively simple: she had some investments and a mortgage-free house. But it has been time-consuming. Filling in all the paperwork took us an entire day, and we are professionals (he is an accountant and I am a retired judge). Even then we had problems because HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) gave us different information about what tax we should pay. After probate was granted in October, we spoke to two estate agents who estimated that the house was worth £550,000. We told HMRC this was the probate value and we also put it up for sale at that price. Several months later we ended up selling the house for £627,000. We sent a form to HMRC to correct the probate value to the sold price. We then calculated the inheritance tax (IHT) due as roughly £27,800 and immediately paid HMRC to avoid any interest charges. But then HMRC wrote to us to say that we should pay capital gains tax (CGT) instead. We were convinced that this advice was wrong, so we each called HMRC separately, but were both told that we should pay CGT. HMRC then sent a CGT calculation saying we owed £14,965, which we paid. We then asked HMRC to return the IHT payment. Twice we were told that the refund was in progress but that was weeks ago and we still don't have it. After chasing HMRC for a third time we were told that we should have paid IHT after all. It said an IHT calculation would be sent, but we are still waiting for that. We are so confused. We just want to pay the correct tax and get a refund on the other and address supplied I was so sorry to hear how painstaking the probate process had been for your family. It sounded emotionally and practically difficult enough without HMRC adding to your burden by giving you conflicting information. An estate is exempt from IHT on the first £325,000, which increases to £500,000 if the person who has died passes on their main home to children or grandchildren. Married couples and civil partners can leave assets to each other free of tax, and also inherit each other's tax-free allowances. Your father died in March 1990 when the IHT allowance was £118,000. But he had left this amount to you and your sisters on his death, which meant that his tax-free allowance had already been used up and could not be inherited by your mother. The good news is that even though he died before the residence allowance was introduced in 2017, your family could claim this extra £175,000 allowance from his estate because his wife had died after this date (yet another example of how complex the rules are). This meant that up to £675,000 of your mother's estate was free of tax. When her house was sold for £627,000 and combined with other taxable assets in her estate of nearly £117,000, she was put over the tax-free threshold by more than £69,000. IHT is charged at a rate of up to 40 per cent, leaving £27,800 to pay. If a property is sold for a lot more than the estimated value when you inherited it, HMRC might ask questions and expect you to pay extra tax. I spoke to Stefanie Tremain from the accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg who said that HMRC will usually get the district valuer, which is a government service, to review property valuations in an IHT return. • Will my partner pay tax on the property he inherits from me? Tremain said: 'If the value in the IHT return is accepted, a future sale value should not be queried or cause HMRC to revise the probate value.' But you had applied for a correction, essentially changing the estimated valuation to the price that the property was actually sold for. This meant that technically there had been no increase in the value of the property since you inherited it because you had corrected the value that should be used for the IHT calculation. CGT is charged if you make a profit when you sell a property that isn't your main home. When you inherit a property there is no CGT to pay. It is only when you sell the property at a later date, and it has increased in value since you inherited it, that CGT would be owed. When you changed the value of the property, HMRC was under the impression that the property had increased in value by £77,000 between you inheriting and selling it. After the tax-free allowance of £3,000 and other exemptions, such as estate agent and solicitor fees to sell the property, were deducted, CGT was charged at a rate of 24 per cent on the rest of the gain. Tremain said: 'If you have corrected the IHT return to increase the probate value of the house then you have increased the estate's IHT liability. But as a result you have effectively wiped out the CGT liability.' So in other words, CGT didn't apply to you. It sounds as though there was some confusion during those conversations with HMRC that caused it to believe that you needed to pay CGT rather than IHT, which wasn't right. The fact that even HMRC manages to get things like this wrong tells you everything you need to know about how complicated our tax system is. After my involvement HMRC spoke to you to apologise for giving you incorrect advice and has finally refunded the CGT payment of £14,965, plus £63 interest. It also finally sent an IHT calculation showing that you had actually overpaid by £52, which has also been refunded. HMRC said: 'We have apologised and confirmed that CGT was not due.' You said: 'We never thought the problem was a particularly difficult one, but we were getting nowhere and would no doubt still be in limbo without your help.' • How to gift property — your questions answered In March last year my husband and I went on the holiday of a lifetime to Chile. We booked several internal flights through All was going well until we tried to check in for our flight from Patagonia to Santiago. It looked like our flight didn't exist. After logging into the airline's website, we discovered that the flight had been rescheduled and we had been reallocated to a flight for the previous day, so we had unknowingly missed it. There was no way we could have caught that flight as we had been hiking in a remote location. told me that it had sent me an email about the change but I have searched my inbox, including my junk folder, and I can't find any evidence that it contacted me about this. We were incredibly stressed when we found out. We were in a remote part of Chile where transport options are limited, so we felt pretty stranded. also wasn't particularly helpful in finding us alternative arrangements, so we requested a refund of £377.91 for the flight we missed. We managed to book a flight for the next day with a different airline for £583.80. Given that failed to tell us about the flight change, we think it should reimburse us for our more expensive replacement flight. But a year on, we now have a six-week-old baby but still no refund. We have contacted many times over the past year but are repeatedly told that it won't refund us until they receive it from the airline. While we have been told the matter has been escalated, we have seen no evidence of address supplied A year is a long time and much can happen, so much so that you had welcomed a new family member, and yet there was no sign of your refund. has a partnership with the travel agent Gotogate which arranges flights. When I spoke to Gotogate's parent company, Etraveli Group, it claimed it had emailed you on February 20 last year to tell you that your flight was leaving a day earlier than planned. I couldn't get to the bottom of why you didn't get that message. Etraveli Group said: 'While we acknowledge the customer's claim that she did not see this message, and understand the stress and consequences this situation caused, the communication was sent and delivered correctly from our end.' • Cancelled flight fiasco on has cost me £3,600 While it did request a refund from the airline, usually when a customer misses a flight the ticket is seen as 'used'. I suspected this was why a refund from the airline wasn't forthcoming. But thankfully after I explained the situation to the airline, it sent a refund of £346.99 to which it then passed on to you. It was odd that you were missing the remaining £30.92 which you had paid for checked-in bags, and it was only after I chased all three companies that you got this payment. said: 'We can see that the airline made a schedule change which is not uncommon in the aviation industry. Our partner, Etraveli Group, informed the customer of the change and provided options to accept the new flight or request a full refund.' As a gesture of goodwill, has given you £189 travel credit to make up for the extra cost of the replacement flight. While this left a shortfall of nearly £17, you were satisfied with this. • £1,495,607 — the amount Your Money Matters has saved readers so far this year If you have a money problem you would like Katherine Denham to investigate, email yourmoneymatters@ Please include a phone number
