Cut red tape hindering marine restoration to boost coastal towns
The Conservative Environment Network (CEN) warned of the impact on towns of declining tourism and flooding, storms and coastal erosion, in a report outlining measures to help them.
The group, which includes dozens of Tory MPs, called for regulation to be streamlined for projects such as the Solent Seascape Project, an initiative to restore saltmarsh, seagrass, oyster reefs, and seabird nesting sites between the Isle of Wight and mainland England.
Shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins backed the report, calling it a 'valuable conservative contribution for consideration in our ongoing policy renewal programme'.
'Britain's once-buzzing seaside towns are facing growing economic and environmental pressures. The Conservatives are determined to set out a plan to protect our coastal communities and preserve them for future generations,' she said.
She added: 'Needless red tape continues to hamstring investment into marine restoration projects that could bring coastal communities jobs, nature-abundant habitats, and protection against the growing threats of climate change.'
The network is also calling on Labour to use the flood defences budget to fund more nature-based solutions and to designate more highly protected marine areas in English waters to protect against practices like bottom trawling, in which fishing gear is dragged across the seabed destroying habitats and scooping up a wide array of species.
They also want the Government to publish blue carbon codes – frameworks that define how carbon stored in marine habitats like seagrass and saltmarsh can be measured, verified and sold as credits – to unlock more funding for coastal resilience.
They say these moves will boost nature recovery as well as local economies through nature tourism and job creation as more projects could get off the ground.
Some 67% of English coastal towns are in the Office for National Statistics higher deprivation category and 3,500 properties are in areas at risk from coastal erosion.
Kitty Thompson, head of campaigns at CEN, said offering solutions for coastal communities could also help the Conservatives challenge Nigel Farage's Reform UK.
'The teal tide is not inevitable. Reform offers an easy outlet of anger for many coastal towns who have watched their neighbourhoods fade.
'But they won't give these communities the solutions they deserve. If the Conservatives offer a pragmatic, credible alternative that can deliver for coastal communities, then they can challenge Reform in coastal target seats, stopping them in their tracks,' she said.
Jacques Villemot, marine rewilding lead for Rewilding Britain, said the current marine licensing framework is outdated and called for the application process for projects to be streamlined.
'This framework urgently needs to be updated to support marine rewilding projects. Though necessary, in its current format marine licensing acts as a blocker, a laborious and costly process which was designed for approving developments like huge oil rigs and large wind farms,' he said.
A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: 'We are committed to supporting coastal communities.
'This government inherited flood defences in their worst condition on record.
'Through our Plan for Change, we're investing a record £2.65 billion over two years to repair and build more than 1,000 flood defences across the country, including nature-based projects. This will protect tens of thousands of homes and businesses.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
8 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Keir Starmer alienates left and right on Gaza
Photo by Toby Melville -. Over the weekend, three posters appeared next to Kentish Town West overground station, plastered onto the billboards which sit under the bridge to the left of the entrance. They read: 'Wanted Keir Starmer', calling out the Prime Minister for his perceived complicity in Israel's war in Gaza. They, and other posters, popped up around London on Saturday ahead of a wider mobilisation of activists, led by Palestinian Youth Movement. Kentish Town is at the heart of Starmer's constituency – Holborn and St Pancras – but it is also the place that the Prime Minister called home before last year's general election. His favourite pub, The Pineapple sits to the north of the area, and he still plays five-aside football on a Kentish Town pitch. It is a political home. But things are shifting. In 2019 Starmer was returned to Holborn and St Pancras with a majority of 27,763. In 2024 it had dropped to 18,884. This cannot be explained away entirely by the war in Gaza. But the pro-Gaza independent who ran against Starmer in 2024, Andrew Feinstein certainly squeezed some of his vote. The slow gestation of the new left-wing party (whose founding is being co-led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana) has awakened talk of Feinstein's candidacy. He has said he will support and likely join the new party and Holborn and St Pancras is already being talked about as a key target (despite the next general election still being four years away). But this is a scenario which is playing out for members across the cabinet; it is not unique to the Prime Minister. Fury over Gaza was bubbling even before the last election, now it is organised. Wes Streeting, Shabanna Mahmood and Jess Philips have already felt the heat in their constituencies. Streeting held onto his Ilford North constituency last year by just 528 votes with Philips facing a similar position, winning a majority of 693. Both constituencies featured heavily mobilised campaigns over Gaza. Protests under the banner of a 'Siege on Labour' will take place in all three of these constituencies today; Lammy and Streeting's offices will be directly targeted by protesters. The catalyst for this was likely Starmer's decision last week that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine if the Israeli government commits to a ceasefire (government insiders have said the PM has been working on a plan for exactly how to do this for months). But the government has repeatedly been criticised for dragging its feet on the issue and last week, this disparagement grew to include members of the cabinet. The timing of last week's announcement seemed as much an act of party management as anything else. But his announcement last Tuesday has assuaged the concerns of no one. Pro-Gaza MPs say he is not moving fast enough. A group of peers, sympathetic to Israel, said last week that Starmer risks breaking international law with his pledge, and lawyers representing the remaining hostages have expressed their fury at what they see as the UK's capitulation to the demands of Hamas. Both sides say they are being used as 'bargaining chips'. On Sunday night, Starmer came under renewed pressure to delay recognition after a senior Hamas official said the same move by the UK and other nations to recognise a Palestinian state is 'one of the fruits of October 7'. Wider comparisons between Starmer and Tony Blair (and the rage over Iraq) are being made. For the New Labour leader, as for Starmer, a deep crisis in the Middle East has created a fresh and choleric fault line in British politics. But unlike Iraq, the war in Gaza is a crisis Starmer was dealing with before he became Prime Minister; and the damage to Labour has already been wrought. Indeed, the electoral peril to Labour over this issue already appears greater than that over Iraq. And with the arrival of a new party, whose main focus is likely to be government failures on Gaza, this is just the beginning of four years of firefighting. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
From Labour's first year to a big little parcel: Edith Pritchett's week in Venn diagrams
From Labour's first year to a big little parcel: Edith Pritchett's week in Venn diagrams – cartoon
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The real danger in this permacrisis is not the political drama: it's the risk that nothing changes
A new party has launched in the UK, and it didn't take long for it to become the subject of frantic speculation. Will it split the left? Will it create more of an opening for Reform UK? Should it forge an alliance with the Greens? The stunning speed with which Jeremy Corbyn's new party amassed supporters, now standing at 600,000 in a week, reasonably makes it feel like a real and viable thing. And the next logical step is to assess its chances in meaningfully challenging the mainstream. But the bigger question is, can the mainstream be meaningfully challenged, or is the future one of increasing fragmentation, with a persistent but tense monopoly on power by the political establishment? The signs that the centre is fraying at the margins became clear at the last general election. There was a historically low turnout by share of the population (resulting in the most disproportionate election outcome in history), Labour won its lowest share of the vote among those in deprived areas, and up came a new crop of independent MPs and Reform winners. Since then, the already 'broad but shallow' mandate given to Labour has diminished even more, with approval ratings dropping the most for any governing party within its first year since John Major's disaster in the 1990s. And internally, a raft of suspensions over the welfare reform bill continue to expose a party struggling even to maintain satisfaction within its own ranks. This is not a stable state of affairs, but it could very likely be a sustainable one. Because even as establishments rot and lose public support, they still benefit from scale and deep roots within the governing and electoral system – there's a reason it's called an 'establishment'. Combine this with no proportional representation, and you have a situation where numbers do not necessarily translate into seats. Cycling between two mainstream parties, both out of ideas and solutions for everything from the cost of living to foreign policy, has led to a state of repetitive disaffection. The story in the US is the same. The Democrats were rejected for a second time in eight years in favour of Donald Trump, but Trump himself is now posting the lowest approval rating of his second term. Neither centrists nor rightwingers can deliver, and yet their parties squat and sprawl on the site of government, with high barriers to entry precluding outside challenge and disincentivising internal reform. This is a recipe for permanent disconnect; failing governments, angry protest movements on the right and the left, quirky election results – and no change. Those individuals who break through, from Zohran Mamdani in New York to independent MPs in the UK, instead of alerting the parties they are closest to that the political net must be widened, are in fact actively fought against. The most senior Democrats in the House of Representatives have still not endorsed Mamdani. And why would they if they can stay in their political comfort zone, then win again on their own terms when the disenchantment with Trump kicks in proper, and the cycle resets? In the meantime, the sort of vexation that coalesces around figures such as Mamdani and the UK's new party means that they inherit a gigantic burden of expectation. It is one that is impossible to fulfil, because frustration with mainstream parties is so high that new ones, unless they become constant foghorns channeling feelings of anger rather than political projects, will have to constantly manage being the voice of outrage against the government, as well as working out how to be the alternative. Adding to the clamouring appetite for sharp challenge is a new information ecosystem where there are now more ways to dispute mainstream accounts of political reality. The process of fragmentation combined with persistent monopoly is one that is mirrored in the media. Over the past two years alone, entire outlets have grown and flourished over what it seems is the media's inability to adequately capture and express anger over Gaza. From Zeteo (dubbed a 'breakout hit') to Drop Site News, which launched only a year ago, now has almost 400,000 subscribers and closely works with journalists in Gaza, there is a vast appetite for more uncompromising discourse and intimate coverage of the Middle East and complicity on Gaza. Still, this has not diminished anger at mainstream outlets because it is understood that these organisations still have enormous reach and therefore power over public opinion, and by extension political outcomes. It is why the New York Times's reports on starvation in Gaza have been heavily contested by pro-Israeli government voices, as the paper holds huge authority in the one country that has power over Israel. But all that residual power, from politics to the media, does not change the fact that something big is up for grabs – the default belief that these establishment institutions deserve their power, whether it can be taken away from them or not. Talk about new leftwing movements empowering Reform or the threat to the Labour government (talk that we have been hearing since before the last general election) misses the broader point – it's too late. Labour is running on inertia, legacy, and historical and physical entrenchment, rather than active belief in the party. It has long given up on shaping public opinion, rather following, headless, what cynical politicians have forged, and economic and geopolitical realities have created. It is now a mutant party that is chasing Reform voters by trying (and failing) to outflank Nigel Farage, while trying to win over pro-Gaza opinion with a bizarre threat to recognise Palestine if Israel does not agree to a ceasefire. As well as trying to continue austerity while putting out the fires that it causes. There are two ways in which new parties and movements can produce results. The first is by actually being in government, and the second is by gathering enough support that they can apply pressure on government. The second is a more immediate and tangible way forward, but the problem is that the scale and range of what incumbent parties have failed to address, or take control of, is now too wide and polarised for any outside pressure to create breakthrough. The risk now is of a sort of permanent bifurcation. On the one hand, increasingly out-of-control hysteria on immigration empowers ghouls like Farage and makes them and their poisonous rhetoric permanent features of our lives and politics, while rage over Gaza and economic policies constantly clouds the political atmosphere. On the other, a government is caught in the headlights, unable to tackle anything, while also hoping that it's too big to fail and its opponents too small and diverse to succeed. What if the problem isn't that the centre cannot hold, but that it can, and in doing so brings about a new, volatile, miserable status quo of escalating rage and impotent government? Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist
