The Lawson report in 2010 was a wake-up call. An independent review of wildlife sites by Sir John Lawson left one phrase lingering almost a decade later: “bigger, better, more joined up”. The report investigated the question of whether England’s current wildlife sites are capable of adapting to the growing challenges of climate change and other demands on our land. The answer was a stark "no". We need larger wildlife sites, less isolated from each other and in better condition to reverse the decline of some of our characteristic species and create more resilient landscapes. And that’s why this is incorporated as part of our Wilder Kent strategy.

But without proper regulation enforcing these changes of habit in our industries, today’s climate heroes and heroines are largely part of a voluntary market. The many charities, businesses, developers, landowners and farmers who want to create a “nature-positive” economy and the many investors ready to put in the green finance are the pioneers calling for change, but they alone cannot tip the scales. In fact the environment watchdog suspects that the government have broken their own laws!

Biodiversity Net Gain

While Biodiversity net gain (BNG) enforces the principles that developments leave biodiversity in a better state than before but, it only asks for a minimum 10% gain in biodiversity and only focuses on the development sector. 10% gain in a small industry after hundreds of years of destruction to wildlife across the board just doesn’t seem ambitious enough to cut it. BNG is set to be mandatory in England from November 2023 (with some exceptions) but was already making an impact. Developers had already started following the requirements before the regulation had even come into force, including factoring in nutrient neutrality and BNG reporting to new development.

Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

The government’s own response to a consultation on BNG said it would not “introduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversity net gain” and yet this month we find ourselves reading the proposed amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) which would have completely thrown these regulations out the window and given a green light to developers to build on identified Nutrient Neutrality catchment land even if scientific advice suggests it could harm the environment. To make matters worse, the government have suggested that the taxpayer will pick up the bill to mitigate the damage caused while development companies profit.

But where do these free passes for polluting stop? If the development sector can, why not water companies or food producers?

As The Rivers Trust points out, changes to the bill would:

• tell local authorities to assume developments will have no nutrient impact, even when faced with evidence to the contrary;
• move the burden of paying for nutrient pollution from the polluters to the taxpayer;
• make long term, regressive legislative changes to environmental protections for short term gains and set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of important laws;
• throw away all the progress that has been made developing nutrient mitigation markets. [Developers, working with local authorities, with support from environmental organisations, landowners, and regulators have been working to find solutions to allow housing to progress without increasing the nutrient burden on water bodies.]
• What’s more, these changes are not necessary. Around 70% of the 100,000 houses that Government say will be ‘unblocked’ with their amendment have already been signed off and are ready to start building.
• These highly significant proposals have been rushed through at the very last minute, preventing meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. 26 pages of dense amendments were tabled with no consultation, 5 working days before debate in the House of Lords.

Daniel Wynn Head of Nature-based Solutions at Kent wildlife Trust said:

“In Kent, the Stour Catchment is quite literally flooded with nitrates and phosphates from various sources, housebuilding being just one of them. Other sources include the agricultural sector and the poorly maintained Waste-water Treatment Works (WwTW) run by the water companies. Legal policies are in place to ensure that water companies upgrade these WwTWs, but now, who can trust the Government to see this through?

Time and again economic growth has been favoured over environmental protection, and especially now, when the natural capital markets present us with a golden opportunity to imbed green finance within our economy to the benefit of both nature & society, what does the Government do? They get scared and fall back on manifesto commitments to the environment.

This short-term mindset for immediate gain foreshadows all attempts to build the sustainable future we and many others are working towards. We need a systemic change to rewrite our future and cut off future threats to nature and people through building a sustainable economy with nature at its heart.

Our rivers need protection, it is disgraceful that a nationally protected site like the Stodmarsh has been allowed to creep into poor condition because of the rubbish, pollution and sewerage that is allowed to freely flow into the river, a river that used to be the life-support system of our landscape is rapidly turning into the poison that will erode the last pieces of nature still clinging on.

The public has a right to be angry about this, and we stand with them. Nature recovery is fundamental to the health and wellbeing of our society, and we are allowing it to be polluted and ignored – there are other ways, nutrient neutrality is just one of them and a fundamental one for our rivers. If housebuilders and developers get off the hook, then who else will get a free pass to pollute without consequence?"

Just yesterday, The Baroness Hayman of Ullock tabled an amendment 247YYDA which would "require the Government to undertake a public consultation on the proposals to introduce further nutrient neutrality legislation for the purposes of increasing housebuilding without any detrimental impact on the natural environment."

Because of the late stage at which the government tried to introduce the change, it cannot try again in the House of Commons now it has been defeated in the Lords. But ministers can still look to water down environmental regulations in other bills and it is important that we don't rest on our laurels thinking that this is the last we're going to see of these tactics from Government. More on how to campaign with us below.

Nature 2030

In he 1970’s, campaigns like ‘Save the Rainforest’ forced private companies to stop using ingredients from the Amazon and helped shed light on the importance of an ecosystem so far from home. Today, we’re facing our own plight. Already one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, we must act now to reverse the damage already done and restore nature.

The good news is that individuals can make a difference. By shining a light on this issue, like we did in the past with the ‘Save the Rainforest’ campaign, we can force companies and governments to act. Nature 2030 sets out the asks. We want polluters to pay.

1. Starting with corporate disclosure agreements, organisations would be required to report impact.
2. Corporations would be required to set-out how they will align their operations and influence to help meet the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework.
3. Obligations should be on responsible sectors, not just to make good on the harm they continue to do, but to go beyond offsetting and contribute to nature’s recovery.

You can help by signing the Nature 2030 petition here.

References

• The Lawson report
• Biodiversity net gain impact assessment
• Rivers Trust on nutrient neutrality
• Farmers Weekly asks if food producers should get a free pass too
• Nature 2030 report
• Global Biodiversity Framework
• Biodiversity Net Gain FAQs
• Government may have broken law over sewage | Guardian
• Opposing Government amendments 247YYA and 247YY

• Lords sink plan to axe homebuilding pollution rules

• Labour to oppose ‘reckless’ Tory plans to rip up EU pollution laws

• Nutrient Neutrality: Amendment 247YYDA, tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Keep an eye out for part two of our blog where we look at what could happen if nutrient neutrality was scrapped on the River Stour catchment area and Stodmarsh Nature Reserve.

This blog was written by Natasha Aidinyantz.