In his article on nature protections (How can we really protect Britain’s environment?, 8 March), Sam Dumitriu of Britain Remade celebrates habitat recovery and calls for more focus on such efforts and less on legal protections for nature. But legal protections are the only thing protecting the habitats we have left.
Over the past 100 years, the amount of healthy natural habitat in England has shrunk: 99.7% of fens, 97% of species‑rich grasslands, 80% of lowland heathlands, up to 70% of ancient woodlands and up to 85% of saltmarshes have been lost.
Attempting to restore natural habitats while trashing those we have left is akin to building a house while simultaneously robbing the foundations.
Mr Dumitriu also claims that legal protections for nature “block the green building we desperately need”. This will come as a surprise to those working on thousands of projects where vital climate infrastructure is being delivered alongside nature mitigations. Healthy, carbon-storing natural habitats are a prerequisite for achieving net zero; climate infrastructure and nature recovery measures go hand‑in-hand. Mr Dumitriu’s approach would undermine the very objectives he seeks.
Joan Edwards Director of policy and public affairs at The Wildlife Trusts
Kevin Austin Director of policy and advocacy at RSPB
Ali Plummer Director of policy and advocacy at Wildlife and Countryside Link
Abi Bunker Director of nature recovery at the Woodland Trust
Asking a pro-growth lobby group what they think of environmental regulations is like asking Tony Blair about an illegal war in the Middle East – you’re going to get the wrong answer. Sam Dumitriu’s article suggests that we can somehow protect Britain’s environment by watering down environmental legislation. Many ecologists, conservationists and indeed displaced wildlife would be surprised by his statement that the UK doesn’t, and almost certainly never will, build enough to drive nature loss.
Development poses a severe threat to biodiversity, degrading nature way beyond the boundaries of new projects. Current regulations are insufficient and poorly enforced, with significant cuts to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the statutory conservation bodies and the Environment Agency since 2010. These regulations, for example, do not deal adequately with chemical, light and noise pollution from new builds or force the creation of green, biodiversity-supporting spaces, especially wildlife corridors. Instead, developers are asked for inadequate “biodiversity net gain” offsetting.
Claiming that money spent adhering to these inadequate regulations would be better used on other projects assumes we can’t do both. We need to spend money to both save Bechstein’s bats and create new habitat. Indeed, why doesn’t the building sector contribute more to protecting and restoring the nature they are exploiting? As one of the most nature-depleted nations globally, we certainly need a huge amount more spent on conservation, and the profits reported by many developers suggest they could spare some change to help with this.
Prof James Bullock
Wimborne, Dorset
