Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

It's good to be a California beaver. Again.

News Feed
Tuesday, January 7, 2025

For the first time in 200 years it’s great to be a beaver in California. In a show of unanimous bipartisan support, the state Legislature voted this summer to pass Assembly Bill 2196, which codifies the state’s Beaver Restoration Program at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The law gives the program, which implements beaver-assisted environmental projects, protection from state budget cuts and political upheaval, and it stands as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s devastating ruling in 2023 that removed up to 70% of the nation’s waterways and wetlands from Clean Water Act protections.California environmental activists, biologists and Indian tribes have been advocating for beavers for more than two decades, launching an extensive education campaign that included having to convince authorities that beavers are a native species throughout the state. Now the restoration effort will add to California’s “30x30” goals — the national effort to set aside and protect 30% of U.S. lands and coastal waters by 2030.A beaver management plan is underway, and $2 million has been allocated to develop statewide coexistence strategies and help relocate beavers from where they cause problems to where they can solve them. Finally Castor canadensis, long maligned as a pest, is getting a rebrand as an ecological hero.“I’m really proud of the transition we’ve made from laggard to leader on beavers,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources. “While there’s no silver bullet solutions to environmental restoration, beavers are a keystone species, and an important part of the puzzle to restore our ecosystems in California.”Beavers, once plentiful, were wiped out of most of their range in California by 1900, hunted by fur traders and chased out by development. Those that were left often annoyed landowners who didn’t want their trees gnawed down to the ground and carted off to build dams, or who found their farmland or roadways inundated when a beaver colony moved in nearby. “Nuisance” beavers were killed. And yet California needs beavers — they are nature’s superlative ecosystem and water engineers.Climate change has fundamentally altered California’s hydrology, delivering more rainwater and less snowmelt, exacerbating wildfire, drought and the depletion of groundwater and aquifers. When beavers move into a stream or creek and begin building their damming complexes, the ponds and wetlands they create are an antidote to all these problems.The water swelling out of a beaver pond is just the beginning. Beaver ponds slow rivers and streams, storing an average of three times the water that’s visible by creating what are essentially huge underground sponges that can keep things flowing in dry summers and during drought. In times of flood, those same sponges soak up some of the excess, creating resiliency.Studies have shown in stark terms how beavers fight fire. Satellite photos of the aftermath of the massive Manter fire in 2000 in Tulare County show a charred landscape except for a line of healthy green where beavers had built dams. Before and after data convinced the researchers that “Smokey the Beaver” was a low-cost creator of “ribbons” of fire-resistant habitat.Beavers are critical to healthy rivers and our future water supply. The wetlands ringing a beaver pond sequester carbon and clean the water, filtering out pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus. Beaver “engineers” build dams and canals that create connectivity between land and water; these beaver wetlands function as vital biodiversity hubs for plant and animal species, including many that are endangered. River wetland systems with beavers have 30% more animal and plant species than those without.In recent years, studies have established the dollar value of having beavers in the landscape. The University of Helsinki, for instance, estimated the savings at $500 million annually for the Northern Hemisphere alone.Molly Alves, a senior environmental scientist who joined the California Department of Fish and Wildlife this past summer as the Beaver Restoration Program supervisor, is mapping watersheds and collecting data so she can move nuisance beavers to where they can do the most good.“We are looking at the landscape as a whole,” she said. “Where is the greatest wildfire risk? What areas are most impacted by drought? Where is erosion?” She is also working on a progress report of current translocations.Last year, beavers were returned to two sites on the traditional lands of Indigenous Californians, the Mountain Maidu and the Tule River Indians.On land the Maidu call Tásmam Koyóm, 2,000 acres near the headwaters of the Feather River, seven beavers joined a single resident in October 2023. In June of 2024, the Fish and Wildlife department announced that another group of beavers was translocated to the south fork of the Tule River, in Sequoia National Forest east of Porterville, Calif.In both cases, the releases were true homecomings. Researchers found remnant beaver dams in the mountain meadow Tásmam Koyóm streams, and in the southern Sierra, as Kenneth McDarment, the range manager for the Tule River Tribe, puts it, “There are beaver in our [ancient] pictographs.”Tribal leaders worked with scientists, nonprofits and the state to prepare beaver-friendly habitat, planting willows and other plants beavers eat and installing human-made beaver dam analogs to bring enough water to the area that beavers could survive to establish colonies.The Maidu want Tásmam Koyóm to be a showcase for traditional ecological knowledge. “Bringing the beaver back,” said Lorena Gorbert, a spokesperson for the Maidu Consortium, “was bringing back more balance to the area, putting it back … the way it should be.”As for the Tule River site, as McDarment explains, “We were in a drought in 2014 and the river was drying up. We said, ‘Why not bring beaver home?’ When the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of waterways covered by the Clean Water Act, it denied protection from development, pollution and destruction to “noncontinuous” rivers and streams — these include tributaries and wetlands, the exact waterways that beavers help construct, maintain and keep healthy. We’ve already destroyed more than 50% of our national wetlands, even more in California. With pilot beaver relocations and the codification of the restoration project, California is pushing back against that history and the Supreme Court’s dangerous shortsightedness. It’s showing the nation how political engagement with nature-based solutions can create environmental and economic resiliency. All eyes are on California now … and its beavers.Leila Philip is the author of “Beaverland: How One Weird Rodent Made America.” She is a professor at the College of the Holy Cross, where she holds a chair in the humanities.

California has by law acknowledged beavers, nature's preeminent water and environmental engineers, as partners in environmental restoration.

For the first time in 200 years it’s great to be a beaver in California. In a show of unanimous bipartisan support, the state Legislature voted this summer to pass Assembly Bill 2196, which codifies the state’s Beaver Restoration Program at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The law gives the program, which implements beaver-assisted environmental projects, protection from state budget cuts and political upheaval, and it stands as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s devastating ruling in 2023 that removed up to 70% of the nation’s waterways and wetlands from Clean Water Act protections.

California environmental activists, biologists and Indian tribes have been advocating for beavers for more than two decades, launching an extensive education campaign that included having to convince authorities that beavers are a native species throughout the state. Now the restoration effort will add to California’s “30x30” goals — the national effort to set aside and protect 30% of U.S. lands and coastal waters by 2030.

A beaver management plan is underway, and $2 million has been allocated to develop statewide coexistence strategies and help relocate beavers from where they cause problems to where they can solve them. Finally Castor canadensis, long maligned as a pest, is getting a rebrand as an ecological hero.

“I’m really proud of the transition we’ve made from laggard to leader on beavers,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources. “While there’s no silver bullet solutions to environmental restoration, beavers are a keystone species, and an important part of the puzzle to restore our ecosystems in California.”

Beavers, once plentiful, were wiped out of most of their range in California by 1900, hunted by fur traders and chased out by development. Those that were left often annoyed landowners who didn’t want their trees gnawed down to the ground and carted off to build dams, or who found their farmland or roadways inundated when a beaver colony moved in nearby. “Nuisance” beavers were killed. And yet California needs beavers — they are nature’s superlative ecosystem and water engineers.

Climate change has fundamentally altered California’s hydrology, delivering more rainwater and less snowmelt, exacerbating wildfire, drought and the depletion of groundwater and aquifers. When beavers move into a stream or creek and begin building their damming complexes, the ponds and wetlands they create are an antidote to all these problems.

The water swelling out of a beaver pond is just the beginning. Beaver ponds slow rivers and streams, storing an average of three times the water that’s visible by creating what are essentially huge underground sponges that can keep things flowing in dry summers and during drought. In times of flood, those same sponges soak up some of the excess, creating resiliency.

Studies have shown in stark terms how beavers fight fire. Satellite photos of the aftermath of the massive Manter fire in 2000 in Tulare County show a charred landscape except for a line of healthy green where beavers had built dams. Before and after data convinced the researchers that “Smokey the Beaver” was a low-cost creator of “ribbons” of fire-resistant habitat.

Beavers are critical to healthy rivers and our future water supply. The wetlands ringing a beaver pond sequester carbon and clean the water, filtering out pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus. Beaver “engineers” build dams and canals that create connectivity between land and water; these beaver wetlands function as vital biodiversity hubs for plant and animal species, including many that are endangered. River wetland systems with beavers have 30% more animal and plant species than those without.

In recent years, studies have established the dollar value of having beavers in the landscape. The University of Helsinki, for instance, estimated the savings at $500 million annually for the Northern Hemisphere alone.

Molly Alves, a senior environmental scientist who joined the California Department of Fish and Wildlife this past summer as the Beaver Restoration Program supervisor, is mapping watersheds and collecting data so she can move nuisance beavers to where they can do the most good.

“We are looking at the landscape as a whole,” she said. “Where is the greatest wildfire risk? What areas are most impacted by drought? Where is erosion?” She is also working on a progress report of current translocations.

Last year, beavers were returned to two sites on the traditional lands of Indigenous Californians, the Mountain Maidu and the Tule River Indians.

On land the Maidu call Tásmam Koyóm, 2,000 acres near the headwaters of the Feather River, seven beavers joined a single resident in October 2023. In June of 2024, the Fish and Wildlife department announced that another group of beavers was translocated to the south fork of the Tule River, in Sequoia National Forest east of Porterville, Calif.

In both cases, the releases were true homecomings. Researchers found remnant beaver dams in the mountain meadow Tásmam Koyóm streams, and in the southern Sierra, as Kenneth McDarment, the range manager for the Tule River Tribe, puts it, “There are beaver in our [ancient] pictographs.”

Tribal leaders worked with scientists, nonprofits and the state to prepare beaver-friendly habitat, planting willows and other plants beavers eat and installing human-made beaver dam analogs to bring enough water to the area that beavers could survive to establish colonies.

The Maidu want Tásmam Koyóm to be a showcase for traditional ecological knowledge. “Bringing the beaver back,” said Lorena Gorbert, a spokesperson for the Maidu Consortium, “was bringing back more balance to the area, putting it back … the way it should be.”

As for the Tule River site, as McDarment explains, “We were in a drought in 2014 and the river was drying up. We said, ‘Why not bring beaver home?’

When the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of waterways covered by the Clean Water Act, it denied protection from development, pollution and destruction to “noncontinuous” rivers and streams — these include tributaries and wetlands, the exact waterways that beavers help construct, maintain and keep healthy.

We’ve already destroyed more than 50% of our national wetlands, even more in California. With pilot beaver relocations and the codification of the restoration project, California is pushing back against that history and the Supreme Court’s dangerous shortsightedness. It’s showing the nation how political engagement with nature-based solutions can create environmental and economic resiliency.

All eyes are on California now … and its beavers.

Leila Philip is the author of “Beaverland: How One Weird Rodent Made America.” She is a professor at the College of the Holy Cross, where she holds a chair in the humanities.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Where’s nature positive? Australia must ensure environment reforms work to restore what’s been lost

Australia is among many countries working to protect and restore nature at scale. But long-awaited environmental law reforms won’t help much as they stand.

Kai Wing Yiu/GettyFor decades, conservation was focused on stemming how much nature was being lost. But a new era of nature positive environmental policy is taking hold worldwide, shifting from preventing further harm to restoring what’s been lost. In 2022, almost 200 countries signed up to the goal of 30 by 30 – restoring 30% of lands and seas by 2030. Globally, the goal is to restore an area almost the size of India. Australia is working towards this international goal of increasing protection and restoring the highest priority areas under its Strategy for Nature. Over the last two centuries, Australia has already lost much biodiversity. Laws should play a key role in protecting and restoring nature. But Australia’s national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not currently fit for purpose. The 2020 Samuel Review concluded the existing laws do not “facilitate the maintenance or restoration of the environment”. In 2022, the Australian government promised to reverse the decline of nature with new nature positive laws which would repair ecosystems and help species recover. Shortly afterwards, parliament created a national Nature Repair Market to provide incentives for land managers to restore degraded ecosystems. After a failed attempt at reform last year, the federal government last week announced its long-awaited broader reform package. In introducing the bill, Environment Minister Murray Watt said the laws would enable “stronger environmental protection and restoration”. Will these reforms be a game changer for restoration? It’s not so clear. Protecting habitat isn’t enough – restoration will be essential to stop the decline of nature. Adam Campbell/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND What would the proposed laws do for restoration? Labor’s reform bills run to over 550 pages. This level of complexity means it’s hard to give a definitive answer on what the reforms would do for restoration. At this stage, it appears that while the package contains long-awaited reforms, it falls short on ecosystem restoration. The cornerstone of the reforms will be a new power for the Environment Minister to create National Environmental Standards, as called for in the Samuel Review. Once in place, they would work by requiring environment approvals not to be inconsistent with any standard. These standards have been watered down somewhat. The Samuel Review recommended binding national standards which would outline clear requirements for protecting endangered species and other nationally significant matters. Under the current reforms, the minister is not obliged to make any standards and environment approvals need only be “not inconsistent” with them. The reform package continues Australia’s reliance on environmental offsets – the practice of allowing developers to destroy habitat in one place by “compensating” for it by restoring habitat elsewhere. The text of the draft bills suggests a developer must compensate for any long-lasting significant impact through offsets or paying a restoration contribution. The goal is to have a net gain for nature. This sounds promising, but the concept of “net gain” is unclear and the focus on offsets still assumes the loss of nature somewhere. A better option would be if developers were legally required to explore ways to avoid or mitigate environmental damage first before relying on offsets. While the minister must “consider” this hierarchy of options in making decisions, they’re not actually obliged to apply it. Overall, this is disappointing. Rather than creating new incentives for restoration at a landscape scale, restoration work will instead be linked to the traditional legal model of approval for specific, environmentally degrading projects through the use of offsets and restoration elsewhere. The new “restoration contributions” scheme is even more troubling. It would allow developers to contribute to an offset fund rather than undertake the work themselves. This would be a shortcut, allowing developers to pay for environmental destruction. Offsets should only be used where habitat can genuinely be replaced. But as they stand, these reforms don’t require assessment of whether offsets are even feasible for a particular project. Biodiversity offsets have also been thoroughly criticised for their failure to prevent loss of nature, let alone generate nature positive outcomes. The reforms would also allow biodiversity certificates issued under the Nature Repair Market to serve as offsets, despite the government ruling this out in 2023. Linking the nature repair market to offsets may divert investment away from some types of restoration projects. It diminishes the net gain from voluntary restoration when the results merely compensate for a loss elsewhere. Planning across landscapes To boost ecological restoration, the Samuel Review recommended better planning at the national and regional scale. Taking a zoomed-out view would help environmental planners connect habitat, safeguard climate refuges and protect critical habitat on a landscape scale. These new reforms seem to be a step forward on this front. The minister, though, would retain a power to make bioregional plans at their discretion. If plans are made under the environment laws, they should specify zones for development and areas where restoration will be undertaken. It’s heartening to see restoration included in these plans. The problem is, restoration is still tied to land-degrading activities such as mining or land clearing. That is, it’s done as a response to new damage caused to the environment, not to repair already degraded landscapes. Landscape-scale planning will be essential in arresting nature’s decline. Ant Le Breton/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND Time for a new model What’s missing from the proposed reforms is a positive agenda to address Australia’s deep historic losses of nature. As the draft laws are debated in parliament, the best outcome would be if clear measures to actually restore nature at landscape-scale and to do it actively, rather than as a response to development damage. An excellent example Australia could look to is the European Union’s Nature Restoration Law adopted last year. It sets ambitious targets to restore the EU’s heavily degraded ecosystems: 30% by 2030, 90% by 2050. The targets would help restore biodiversity while combating climate change and boosting nature-based adaptation. Under the law, EU states must prepare their own national restoration plans. Prototype ecosystem restoration laws are also being developed by the international Society for Ecological Restoration. After decades of decline and species loss, Australians deserve environment laws which genuinely protect and restore unique wildlife and ecosystems. The government’s proposed reforms have promise. But they don’t yet make restoration the national priority it must be. Emille Boulot receives funding from the Society for Ecological Restoration. She is affiliated with the Australian Environment Review and the Tasmanian National Parks Association. Jan McDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, is a Director of the Tasmanian Land Conservancy and a member of the Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water's Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group.

Shein bans sex dolls after outcry in France over ‘childlike’ appearance

France had threatened to bar the fast-fashion retailer after an investigation found that sex dolls resembling children were being sold on Shein’s platform.

Shein on Monday banned all sales of sex dolls on its site after France threatened to bar the Chinese-founded fast-fashion online retailer from operating there, citing the result of an investigation that found that sex dolls resembling children were being sold on Shein’s platform.France’s office for consumer affairs, competition policy and fraud control said last week that it had referred Shein to the country’s public prosecutor after discovering that sex dolls with a “childlike” appearance were available on the company’s website. “Their description and categorization on the site leave little doubt as to the child pornography nature of the content,” the office said in a statement.Roland Lescure, France’s finance minister, said Monday on social media that he would call for the Shein platform to be banned in France if there were any further sales of such dolls. The company is set to open its first brick-and-mortar store in France this week.Sarah El Haïry, France’s high commissioner for children, called the products a serious threat to children.In response, Shein said in a statement that it had banned the sale of all sex dolls and temporarily removed all adult products while it conducted a review. Besides selling its own products, Shein operates an e-commerce platform for other sellers.“While each seller is responsible for their own listings, SHEIN does not tolerate any breach of marketplace rules and policies,” the statement said. It added that it would cooperate with any investigations.Executive Chairman Donald Tang said in the statement that “the fight against child exploitation is non-negotiable” for the company. “These were marketplace listings from third-party sellers — but I take this personally,” he added.The French consumer affairs office also said Monday in a separate statement that it had expanded its investigation to Chinese-based online retail platform AliExpress — through which it said childlike sex dolls were also available for sale — and had also referred the matter to France’s public prosecutor.Alibaba Group, AliExpress’s parent company, said in an email that the listings are prohibited under its rules and were removed as soon as the company became aware of them. “As a third-party marketplace, we require all sellers to comply with applicable laws and our platform policies,” it said.Shein, known for its huge inventory of fast-fashion products, is set to open its first physical store Wednesday in Paris, an announcement that ruffled feathers in the couture capital of the world. It plans to open stores in six locations throughout France owned by the SGM Group, including landmark Paris department store BHV Marais, according to Reuters.Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo last month expressed concern about the upcoming store, saying in a social media post that it was “contrary to the environmental and social ambitions of Paris, which supports responsible and sustainable local commerce.”The brand had already faced union-led protests last month over its plan to open an outlet at BHV Marais, where there were more protests this week by children’s rights advocates over the sex dolls.Frédéric Merlin, president of the SGM Group, said on social media that the sex dolls for sale on Shein were unacceptable. He added that only goods produced directly by Shein would be sold at the physical stores, rather than items from third-party sellers.Leo Sands contributed to this report.

Australia must put politics aside and pass nature laws that benefit the economy and the environment. We owe it to our kids | Zoe Daniel

There’s no such thing as a perfect legislative solution. It’s about finding one that’s workable – for the community, for the economy and for natureVictoria’s Healesville Sanctuary is helping to protect and restore the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot which is predicted to be extinct within five years.With only 50 known to be left in the wild, a major breeding program aims to release up to 20 pairs of the migratory birds annually.Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads Continue reading...

Victoria’s Healesville Sanctuary is helping to protect and restore the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot which is predicted to be extinct within five years.With only 50 known to be left in the wild, a major breeding program aims to release up to 20 pairs of the migratory birds annually.It’s just one of several threatened species programs supported by the sanctuary near Melbourne, which attracts about 400,000 people every year – many of them schoolchildren – who visit to learn about and experience nature.It’s a case study that the author of the 2021 review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, Graeme Samuel, keeps front of mind.Because the “pure politics” of the debate, he says, obscures what the conversation is about – nature – and its intrinsic value to our communities.And it’s not about environment or economy. It’s both.The EPBC Act, the latest iteration of which has just hit the federal parliament, touches on everything from “productivity to renewable energy, mining, nature and climate goals, the housing crisis, cultural heritage, and resources and energy security”.It’s a big moment, or it could be.As former Treasury secretary Ken Henry has said, with “glistening ambition” Australia can “build an efficient, jobs-rich, globally competitive, high-productivity, low-emissions nature-rich economy”.But if you want to see a case study of politics in action, look no further than nature law reform, or the lack of it.The last significant federal reform in this space happened under the Howard government a full quarter of a century ago.That version of the act is undeniably no longer fit for purpose in the face of massive loss of plants and animals and historically significant technological and industrial change.Successive reports have detailed catastrophic loss of species that is “ongoing and accelerating”. Meanwhile, business describes cumbersome environmental regulation as “the new enemy of progress”.“Without faster project approvals we will never meet our net zero ambitions, for instance,” says Bran Black, the CEO of the Business Council of Australia.It’s threading those two needles simultaneously that has been the problem.And inevitably, that has led to a long-running game of political point-scoring.It’s a fine playing field but there are no winners.It will be five years in January since Samuel delivered his review of the act, commissioned by then environment minister Sussan Ley under the Morrison government.At the time, she indicated qualified acceptance of the review recommendations, and released a pathway for reform which didn’t progress due to the 2022 change of government.Coming in with high expectations from those who care about the natural environment, the Albanese government subsequently released its ill-fated “nature positive plan”, also based on Samuel’s report. That legislative package was shelved before the 2025 election, in a definitive broken promise by Labor following pressure from business interests in Western Australia.Now it’s a question of whether Labor, the Coalition and the Greens can come up with a compromise to deliver what Samuel describes as a “massive leap forward for nature”, and for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.Instead of outright rejecting the legislation or seeking to delay progress by breaking it into separate bills which she opposed during the last parliament, Ley could take the package as a win.She started it, after all.And the Greens, always looking for the moral high ground, will need to apply some cost-benefit analysis to opposing a bill that’s undoubtedly a vast improvement on what currently exists after a five-year process.I hate to say it, but 80% is probably about as good as it’s going to get.The absence of an explicit climate trigger is problematic, however new national environmental standards would require development proposals to explicitly consider climate impact.Provisions around offsets have been tightened so they can’t be used unless every attempt has been made to mitigate or avoid damage to nature. Meanwhile, the bill enables more certainty for business for more efficient and effective decision-making.All of these things warrant careful analysis to make sure they’re as watertight as they can be. Crossbenchers are rightly critical of being landed with a 1,500-page bill this week for a likely House vote next week.It has been five years; the government should at least allow time and scope for constructive amendments that make the law better.And the minister should have to convince the Australian people – not just other parliamentarians – that the “national interest” provision not only won’t but can’t be misused to give the green light to nature-wrecking projects, or indeed, the other way around.Former industry minister Ed Husic is right to flag that ministerial discretion to override decisions could be a back door to open-slather development in the hands of a future government.Another Juukan Gorge, anyone?“We’ll do the right thing,” won’t wash in the Trump era.There’s no such thing as a perfect legislative solution. It’s about finding one that’s workable – for the community, for the economy and for nature.And, as Samuel rightly says, for our kids.

Nature groups rebuke Reeves for ‘cynical’ 11th-hour planning bill changes

Chancellor accused of removing environmental protections to win short-term growth and save her budgetUK politics live – latest updatesLast-minute changes to the government’s landmark planning bill have sparked a furious backlash from nature groups who have mounted an attack on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, over her plans to remove environmental protections.The changes to the legislation come as it enters its final stages before being signed into law. Continue reading...

Last-minute changes to the government’s landmark planning bill have sparked a furious backlash from nature groups who have mounted an attack on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, over her plans to remove environmental protections.The changes to the legislation come as it enters its final stages before being signed into law.Promoted by Reeves, they are designed to make it easier for developers to side-step environmental laws in order to build major projects such as AI datacentres.They include new powers for the government to overrule local democracy if councils refuse developments based on environmental grounds, or on issues such as water shortages.But in outspoken attacks on the chancellor, charities including household names such as the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts say Reeves is seeking to grab short-term growth headlines to save her budget, rather than well-thought-out reforms to planning.Reeves is pushing for the planning bill to be passed before her budget on 26 November so that she is able to factor it into forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which could give her about £3bn extra breathing room against her own debt rules.The charities have spent months working with ministers in an attempt to forge the best planning bill to ensure growth and nature recovery go hand in hand.Dr James Robinson, the RSPB’s chief operating officer, said: “Dropping 67 amendments to the planning bill at the 11th hour isn’t just poor process, it’s legislative chaos. There’s no time for proper scrutiny, no clarity on the cumulative impact, and no confidence this is about good planning rather than political optics.“It looks like a cynical attempt to game a better forecast from the OBR, rather than a serious effort to fix the planning system.”The intervention by Reeves into the landmark bill comes after she was filmed boasting about her closeness to a major developer after she intervened to lift legal blocks to their housing plans.The objections to 21,000 homes being built in Sussex concerned water shortages and concerns over the amount of water being taken from rivers and wetlands in the Arun Valley, which risked affecting protected wildlife and local water resources. The MP for Horsham, John Milne has criticised the chancellor’s intervention, stating that it was top-down government at its worst.“This decision rides roughshod over the work that Horsham district council has been carrying out to find a balanced solution.”One amendment promoted by Reeves would allow more central government intervention in local decision making. It allows the secretary of state to overrule councils that refuse permission for projects, even if they have legitimate concerns on environmental grounds, or there are issues relating to water shortages.The amendment is designed to ease the path of major infrastructure projects, for example AI datacentres, which create vast amounts of CO2 and put huge pressure on water resources.Alexa Culver, an environmental lawyer from RSK Wilding, said: “For the first time, the secretary of state will be able to make orders that prevent refusals of planning permission by planning authorities.“This could direct authorities to ignore real-world infastructure and environmental constraints – like water shortages – to allow harmful development through that leaves local communities stranded.”Joan Edwards, director of policy and public affairs at the Wildlife Trusts, said Reeves was trying to grab headlines about growth measures before her budget.“The chancellor continues to fail to understand that a healthy natural environment underpins a healthy economy. These performative amendments represent neither a win for development or the economy, and promise only delay and muddle in planning and marine policy.”Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the government’s race to speed up planning decisions would fall flat on its face if it did not include the environment at its core.“Last-minute changes to the bill are being made in a hurried and piecemeal approach,” he said. “This kind of scattergun policymaking doesn’t give businesses or investors the certainty they need to drive growth, and it puts the UK’s irreplaceable natural environment at risk.”Government officials have said the amendments were required in part because an earlier watering down of the bill in the summer damaged investor confidence. However, no data has been provided to back this claim.The government said if passed, each of these “pro-growth changes” would accelerate the government’s “plan for change” to build 1.5m homes, achieve clean power by 2030 and raise living standards across the country.Steve Reed, the housing secretary, said: “Britain’s potential has been shackled by governments unwilling to overhaul the stubborn planning system that has erected barriers to building at every turn. It is simply not true that nature has to lose for economic growth to succeed.“Sluggish planning has real-world consequences. Every new house blocked deprives a family of a home. Every infrastructure project that gets delayed blocks someone from a much-needed job. This will now end.”

The Guardian view on Labour targeting nature: the problem isn’t snails, but a broken housing model | Editorial

Rachel Reeves’s drive to speed up development is beginning to treat wildlife and the environment as expendable. Voters want homes built, but not at any costIt began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums. Continue reading...

It began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums.The scheme was given the go-ahead a day before drought was declared in Sussex, potentially giving water companies cover to breach their licence obligations – including measures meant to protect the snails. Ms Reeves won’t like being compared to Liz Truss, but the analogy works. Three years ago, Ms Truss railed against an “anti-growth coalition” of environmentalists, lawyers and regulators who, she claimed, were blocking Britain’s path to prosperity. Ms Reeves is framing the issue the same way: growth is the priority, nature the obstacle.But the public don’t agree. Luke Tryl of More in Common told a Conservative conference fringe meeting that most Britons can’t be categorised as “nimby” or “yimby”. They want both: to build and also to protect the countryside. However, when asked whether wildlife should be protected even if it delays or raises the cost of infrastructure, every single voter group – including Labour, Conservative and Reform UK – chose wildlife. Among the general public, 62% prioritised nature protection while 18% sided with building at any cost.The Treasury reportedly plans to gut green rules with amendments to its planning and infrastructure bill – ditching the precautionary principle, slashing species protections and curbing legal challenges. The bill, currently in the Lords, already allows developers to bypass environmental obligations by paying into a fund to offset damage elsewhere. Under its “environmental delivery plans”, ministers could disapply environmental protections in exchange for vague promises of ecological improvement within 10 years.Labour, significantly, is turning its back on the work of the Dasgupta review. This argues that nature is not a constraint on growth but its foundation, a form of capital on which the economy depends. Labour is not only rejecting that view but deluding itself by claiming housebuilding will be accelerated by dismissing concerns around conservation. The Wildlife Trusts points out that more than a million homes already have planning permission since 2015, but remain unbuilt. The real barriers to housebuilding are skills shortages, hoarded land and slow delivery. They need sorting out. Blaming snails, it would seem, is easier.Many of Labour’s younger voters are already tempted by the Green party, which combines environmentalism and leftwing economics. Now, by mocking green protections and cosying up to developers, the chancellor is giving these voters more reasons to jump ship. The problem isn’t the planning system. It’s a broken, profit-driven housing model that banks land and starves supply. Scrapping nature protections won’t build 1.5m homes, it will just bulldoze public trust and the countryside.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.