Help stop the nature crisis becoming a catastrophe

Dear Mr Miliband,

Please don't undermine environmental protections.

The Fingleton Review, published on the 24th November, proposes the weakening of the Habitats Regulations – which protect nature sites (recommendations 11 and 12) - as well as “to remove or constrain” the duty that helps National Park and National Landscape authorities to protect landscapes for wildlife and people (recommendation 19).

I'm shocked to think that a Government elected on a manifesto that promised to tackle the nature and climate crisis would put wildlife sites at risk in this way - and in doing so, take the UK even further away from achieving net zero.

The wildlife-rich sites which recommendations 11, 12 and 19 threaten are hugely important to me personally. Your personal comment will be inserted here.

As you are the Minister responsible, I urge you to reject these three Fingleton recommendations as you prepare your Department’s response.

Please remember that:

• Evidence shows that nature is in crisis, and the only way to ensure recovery is through retaining protected sites and landscapes. Wildlife is only hanging on because of these special natural spaces. If protections are lowered, these havens for nature will decline fast - along with any prospect of allowing wider nature recovery.
• Without nature recovery, net zero will simply not be achieved. Healthy natural spaces are vital to storing carbon and to helping communities adapt to climate change impacts like flooding.  Every step taken away from this is a step away from net zero.
• There is limited evidence that environmental protections impose undue costs on infrastructure developers – this case rests on very shaky ground. In fact, evidence shows that often-used examples of expensive mitigation measures originated from developer mistakes, in projects that saw massive overspends which are unconnected to the environment. Blaming nature is just a way of avoiding accountability.

I am really worried by the risks these three recommendations pose. I have also let my MP know I have written to you, and to share my concern.

Please take this opportunity to avoid turning an existing nature crisis into an environmental catastrophe.

The Fingleton Review is a new policy report commissioned by the UK Government. There are parts of this report that say nature protections should be weakened. The review argues that these protections impose unnecessary costs on developers who are pursuing infrastructure projects.

The Chancellor has asked the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, to prepare a plan to take forward the Fingleton Review recommendations. If this plan includes those recommendations, it could be devestating for the places that nature’s recovery relies on. It’s a short-sighted and flawed idea which prioritises cost-cutting for a few developers while risking turning the nature crisis into an environmental catastrophe. Everyone, and everything, will suffer.

Say NO to this now before it is too late.

We're writing to Ed Miliband to urge him to reject three recommendations in the Fingleton Review that put nature at risk. 

The more people who write to ask that the three recommendations are rejected, the better. Please email him too.

Our system will then give you the opportunity to write to your MP and let them know you have written to Ed Miliband. You can also ask your MP to explain the reasoning behind weakening nature protections because, honestly, we just don't understand why it's even being considered.

Remember - this isn’t Government policy yet. This is our chance to ensure it never is.

The Fingleton Review was commissioned by the UK Government to assess how nuclear energy could be delivered more cheaply. The review was conducted largely by people who work in and around the nuclear industry. Environmental experts were excluded from the review team.

The absence of environmental experts can be seen in the recommendations from the review which relate to nature. Recommendations 11 and 12 propose amending the Habitats Regulations so that developers don’t have to worry about avoiding harm to nature sites when they build nuclear plants. Recommendation 19 proposes removing a duty on local authorities and other public bodies to further the conservation and public access purpose of National Parks and National Landscapes, which the review authors felt imposed undue burdens on developers.

These conclusions were reached on the basis of faulty evidence. The review minimised the impact that nuclear power stations can have on the natural environment. This extends far beyond their built footprint, and can include significant strain on water and coastal ecosystems. The review team also failed to consider how protected sites don’t just protect listed habitats and species, but underpin wider nature recovery efforts, and the climate progress reliant on nature recovery.

The review also considerably overstated the costs that following environmental rules incurs for developers, highlighting an acoustic deterrent designed to protect fish which was originally proposed by the developers themselves. Nowhere is it mentioned that this choice came from a project running 14 years late and £18 billion over budget due to a series of developer errors unconnected to the environment.

When announcing the budget on 26 November, the Chancellor accepted the Fingleton Review recommendations in principle and instructed Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) to prepare an implementation plan by the end of February 2026.

Then, in a speech on 1 December the Prime Minister said he agreed with all of the Fingleton Review recommendations and asked the Business Secretary to apply them to sectors beyond nuclear in the upcoming Industrial Strategy. This means the harmful recommendations could be extended beyond potential new nuclear energy sites.

The environmental recommendations made by the review are an attempt to weaken environmental protections which are important to everyone, just so a handful of developers can cut costs by bending the rules. This risks huge environmental damage, which will have significant knock-on impacts for public health and economic stability.

Big business can afford to abide by the rules. No-one can afford environmental catastrophe.

If DESNZ gives a green light to the recommendations relating to the Habitats Review and protected landscapes, new legislation will be needed. This would be yet another environmentally regressive Bill, hot on the heels of the damaging Planning and Infrastructure Bill which so many nature groups, businesses, MPs and members of the public opposed.

Nature cannot afford this. Even recent evidence shows nature continues to decline:

• In December Defra found 'we are yet to reverse the negative trend in many aspects of biodiversity'.
• Earlier this autumn Defra analysis found that farmland birds are in severe decline as well as a sharp drop in seabird numbers.
• In November, the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland published a new GB Red List revealing that 26% of wild plants are now ‘threatened’ and a further 140 species found to be ‘near threatened’.

These latest figures add to the ever-expanding list of wildlife declines documented by successive State of Nature reports, each underlining the UK’s dubious status as one of the most nature depleted countries in the world.

Damage to nature is also damage to climate. The restoration of natural habitats constitutes the most proven, cost-effective carbon capture technology available to us, capable of providing a third of the climate change mitigation needed to reach net zero by 2050. Nature recovery is also needed to help us adapt to the climate change already underway. Restored habitats help safeguard food production by increasing pollination and soil health, provide cool spots in overheated landscapes and absorb much of the force of flooding.

If DESNZ give the green light for the harmful Fingleton Review recommendations, it makes a second Planning Bill inevitable, slamming the door on nature’s recovery and making net zero even harder to achieve.

People will suffer as well as wildlife. The recommendations in the review will make natural spaces less safe from development and more vulnerable to damage and loss. These spaces might be close to where you live, or special landscapes that you visit and care about. The UK has already lost more biodiversity than any other country over the last few decades. The risks of environmental damage through these recommendations will also have significant knock-on impacts for economic stability, which affects everyone through the cost of living. Allowing the natural world to be neglected in this way will only benefit a handful of developers who can cut costs by bending the rules in future.

Yes. But there are just a few short weeks to see off this major threat.

In the last year, the UK Government has specifically targeted nature and wildlife, calling spiders and bats and newts 'blockers' and deliberately getting rid of legal safeguards and policies that are supposed to help nature recover. This goes against all evidence, and the public's views that nature is necessary to everyone. Evidence shows a healthy environment underpins our economy and our well-being, and that building with nature in mind does help to ensure development is high quality and sustainable.

Nature lovers may be feeling bruised after the Planning & Infrastructure Act. Unfortunately, the Government made sure it was impossible to stop. After lots of work it ended up being slightly less damaging than it might have been.

Unlike the Planning & Infrastructure Act, the Fingleton recommendations are only proposals at this stage. They have not yet been taken forward. This is your chance to defend the Habitat Regulations, and stop more damaging laws like a second Planning Bill, before it is launched. We can still nip this in the bud, together.

Not yet. The UK Government is only responsible for energy consultation and policy in England, so initially the Fingleton Review recommendations should only apply to nuclear projects there.

However, the impacts of nuclear development can be felt across the UK and therefore we recommend that nature lovers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland contact their elected representatives in the Devolved Governments to ask them to firmly oppose these recommendations.

This isn’t about nuclear energy and whether or not it’s a good idea. This is about stopping a real threat that the natural world will lose the legal protections it relies on. Protections that are designed to keep it as safe as possible. The Prime Minister wants the Fingleton Recommendations to apply to all sectors, so we must make sure recommendations 11, 12 and 19 are not part of any plans.