Nature Protections Are Under Threat
Photo credit: Jasmine Kamal-Pasha
Recently, a recurring theme has been worryingly prevalent in political discourse; that of nature being in opposition to development, and a blocker to progress. Whether it’s the prime minister scoffing at the idea of a £100M ‘bat tunnel’ adding expense and delays to the HS2 rail project, or the First Minister of Scotland John Swinney stating categorically that there will be no lynx (or other large carnivore) reintroduced to Scotland under this government, wildlife is presented as a burdensome inconvenience that cannot be prioritised when more important considerations need to take precedent. These ‘more important’ considerations are key social priorities for the government – affordable housing, robust travel infrastructure and food security. These are unarguably important to all of us, but it seems strange that wildlife is repeatedly held up as a barrier to achieving progress in these areas.
Firstly, it seems to fly against the important (but often overlooked) fact that nature is not only as important as these areas of focus for a thriving economy and healthy population, but is the very foundation for all health, wealth and happiness. We need our soil to self-replenish as it provides for our food needs. We need rivers that run clean to provide freshwater and nutrients where needed, whilst being able to withstand extreme weather without bursting their banks or drying up. We need trees, forests, peatlands, grasslands, and in all of them we need wildlife at all trophic levels to drive nature’s systems. If you keep on taking from the foundations to make your tower higher it is only a matter of time before it collapses.
Secondly, this scapegoating of nature as a key blocker to development feels misdirected. Our Chair Dr Steph Wray recently addressed this eloquently and succinctly in an article critiquing the approach set out in the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill:
“There are lots of reasons why too few houses are being built - developers not building out consented sites, under-staffed planning departments, local community opposition, to name a few. Like nature itself, planning is a complex system, so tackling one issue alone cannot possibly deliver growth. In summary, I see this as a very large sledgehammer to crack a nut which is only rumoured to exist.”
In presenting the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the government does not come out and say that nature is to be sacrificed for progress. In fact, the claim is that nature recovery overall will be boosted, thanks to a new strategic and centralised approach fuelled by a ‘Nature Recovery Fund’. The idea is that for projects that meet certain criteria developers will be able to pay into this fund as an alternative to addressing the direct impact of their development on a particular site or species. Paying into this fund will be an alternative to mitigating against the impact on even protected species at a local level, where this feels like it will impact on the feasibility, cost or timeline of an important infrastructure development. They argue that the money will go further and have more impact when pooled to be used for big nature recovery initiatives. This betrays a worrying misconception about how nature works. It compares two things purely in terms of quantity and not in terms of quality. Wheels and handlebars are both parts of a bike, but anyone knows that you couldn’t take the wheels off and add more handlebars so that you had the same ‘amount of bike’ and expect it to get you to the shops. In the same way, you can’t think it is OK to sacrifice inconveniently located ‘bits of nature’ and think that there will be nothing meaningful lost provided you do some nature recovery elsewhere.
Perhaps even more important to our members and local groups will be the fact that this approach can lead to the loss of particular animals from a particular area, with no regard to their importance to the local community. Whether it is the sight of bats hunting over the park at dusk, a local wood where badgers have been seen raising cubs year-on-year, or a stream where the distinctive ‘plop’ of water voles can be heard by passing walkers, such experiences are treasured and can be part of the identity of an area that locals hold dear. And the animals present are not just units of some ‘total nature’ for the country, but much-loved neighbours. It is not enough to know that some action to improve biodiversity will happen elsewhere if your local area has become less wild, some of its character and soul removed.
When it comes down to a particular housing development or piece of infrastructure, the implication seems to be that there is a stark choice between 'people OR nature' on that site, when in fact the nature sector is calling for 'people AND nature' to be the guiding principle around development. Nature recovery should not be seen as a 'tax' on development. It should be a parallel, complimentary objective. Infrastructure and housing that is developed in a way that is mindful and accommodating of wildlife can draw on the benefits of nature to be more resilient to the challenges presented by a warming climate, and more healthy and nurturing for the people for whom it is built. To suggest that nature can be sacrificed to achieve better living standards and economic growth betrays a fundamental lack of understanding that both are dependent on nature.
The UK is already severely nature-depleted so we can't pick and choose when or where nature recovery is a priority - it needs to be now and everywhere. However this should not be seen to present a barrier to the development of essential housing and infrastructure - it just determines how this should be undertaken. Imagine if, alongside any landscape regeneration projects in the most unpopulated areas of the UK, our farming and urban landscapes could also become thriving habitats for wildlife.
The government claims that the Planning and Development Bill offers a ‘win-win’ for nature and development, but the ‘win’ for nature is not well backed by scientific certainties, and even if it were to offer benefits for overall nature recovery it could still lead to the loss of wildlife and habitat of huge importance to a local area or to the prospects for a particular vulnerable species. The Mammal Society has joined partners across the conservation and ecology sectors in calling for amendments to the Bill or for it to be paused for reconsideration. You can add your voice by speaking to your MP about your concerns, and watching out for opportunities to support public campaigns from the Mammal society and others in the sector.
This is why the theme for this year’s National Mammal Week (21-27 April) is ‘Where the wild things SHOULD be’. We want to spread the message that wild mammals can and should exist alongside humans in all of our currently nature-depleted landscapes, and both nature and people can benefit when this is so. We can all play our part in achieving this, whether through nature-friendly gardening, food choices that support nature-friendly farming, or conversations with our local MP and Council to influence national policy and local landscape management.
Author: Matt Larsen-Daw, CEO of the Mammal Society
Find out how to email your MP about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill here.
Download our template email here.