Wildlife charities urge Labour to scrap ‘licence to kill nature' in planning bill
The RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, whose membership is more than 2 million, said Labour had broken its promises on nature. They called for part three of the bill, which allows developers to avoid environmental laws at a site by paying into a national nature recovery fund to pay for environmental improvements elsewhere, to be ditched.
Beccy Speight, CEO of the RSPB, said: 'It's now clear that the bill in its current form will rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall.
'The fate of our most important places for nature and the laws that protect them are all in the firing line. The wild spaces, ancient woodlands, babbling brooks and the beautiful melody of the dawn chorus – it's these natural wonders that delight people all over the country and support our physical and mental health that are under threat. That cannot be allowed to stand.'
The charities released new research that suggested bats and newts were not the reason for delays in planning in 2024. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves; the prime minister, Keir Starmer; and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner; have repeatedly framed nature as a blocker to growth, blaming bats and newts for delays to infrastructure and housing projects.
The data from analysis of 17,433 planning appeals in England in 2024 found that newts were relevant in just 140 (0.8%) planning appeals and bats in 432 (2.48%).
Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, said: 'Before the general election, Labour promised to restore nature. Under a year later, the chancellor is leading an ideological charge against the natural world despite it being the very foundation of the economy, society and people's health. Promises have been broken, and millions of people have been betrayed.'
The leading British wildlife charities spoke out as more than 60 conservationists, including presenter Chris Packham, business leaders and legal experts signed a joint statement calling for the planning and infrastructure bill to be paused and for a meaningful consultation over part three of the draft legislation.
Anger from environmental groups, ecologists and some economists has grown after Labour MPs and housing minister Matthew Pennycook rejected every amendment to strengthen protections for nature in the bill, which were put forward by MPs on the committee examining the draft legislation.
These include a call for better protections for rare and vulnerable chalk streams and for all so called irreplaceable habitats which cannot by their very nature be recreated anywhere else in a compensatory scheme.
British ecologist Sir John Lawton, who signed the joint statement, said the government should pause the bill for proper consultation: 'Legal changes of this magnitude should at least follow due process. A hurried competition for last-minute 'rescue' amendments to this dangerous bill helps no one, and will surely harm our environment, and our economy on which it depends,' he said.
'Normal, evidence-led, democratic due process is all we are asking for.'
In a separate letter to Steve Reed, the environment secretary, the body representing ecologists said part three of the bill effectively allowed on-site habitats and species to be 'wantonly destroyed to make way for development' with the vague hope that it would be restored somewhere else at some future point in time.
'[This] is quite evidently a catastrophically wrong approach,' said the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
Bennett said the so-called nature recovery part of the bill was a misnomer because in reality it was a licence to destroy nature.
He said: 'The Wildlife Trusts and others have offered constructive solutions that would allow the bill to proceed and achieve its aim to accelerate development whilst maintaining strong environmental protections. We're appalled that these have all been spurned. Nature is in crisis and must not suffer further damage. Much loved places like the New Forest could now be at risk – that's why we're now saying the misleadingly named 'nature recovery' section must be removed.'
A government spokesperson said: 'We completely reject these claims. The government has inherited a failing system that has delayed new homes and infrastructure while doing nothing for nature's recovery, and we are determined to fix this through our plan for change. That's why our planning and infrastructure bill will deliver a win-win for the economy and nature by unblocking building and economic growth, and delivering meaningful environmental improvements.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Nearly two million more casualties': The numbers that show Russia is years from victory
Donald Trump's message – or rather, the message he transmitted from Vladimir Putin – to Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington on Monday was stark: accept the deal Russia is offering, because otherwise you'll lose the war. But if Moscow appears strong now, Ukraine and its European allies believe, it's partly because Trump's choices have made it stronger – namely, his decisions to curtail US military aid, interrupt intelligence sharing and, above all, accept Putin's insistence on a peace deal before a ceasefire. And in fact, Russia is far from battlefield supremacy. Just hours before the Oval Office discussions, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) declared it would take 4.4 years of fighting at current rates of advance for Russia to capture the remainder of territory it has 'annexed'. It would also, according to the MoD calculations based on Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties, cost Russia an additional 1.93m killed and wounded to achieve Putin's goals. That would be on top of the more than one million casualties it has already sustained. In other words, Russia could be headed for breaking points of its own. How long can Russia last? All of which raises the question, if Trump chose to throw his weight behind Ukraine, could he change the tide? Should the US president be asking not how much Ukraine must surrender, but how long Russia can last? Sam Greene, professor of Russian politics at King's College London, points to two potential Russian breaking points: the military and the economic. Predictions about when either will come has become something of a mug's game, he cautions. Nor should we underestimate Russia's capacity to keep going. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point: there are strains on the economy. There are strains on the military. A breaking point will come,' he says. 'Because Trump is in a hurry, Putin has the ability to sort of shift that sense of emergency, so that, all of a sudden, it feels like this sort of political breaking point for the West – whereas, if there was a little bit more strategic patience and consistency from the White House, the opposite would actually be true.' The British Defence Intelligence assessment about the Russian rate of advance is meant for public consumption rather than real strategic analysis. Applying the same crude logic to British military performance in the First World War, one might have said in early 1918 that the Allies were decades from victory. By the end of that year, Germany had suffered a devastating defeat, and arguing about rates of advance and attrition in the previous four years were not much use to German negotiators at armistice talks. 'The problem is, wars are not linear,' points out Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an expert in the Russian and Ukrainian militaries. Nor are they boxing matches to be decided on points. Nonetheless, Russia's advance is indeed painfully slow. Even a recent 10-mile infiltration near Dobropillia, while initially alarming for Ukraine, failed to achieve an operational breakthrough. It ended instead with hundreds of Russians being captured or killed. 'Limitless manpower is a myth' In the Oval Office, the US president led Zelensky over to an easel holding a large map of Ukraine showing the current line of control. The implication: to stop the conflict, the map will have to be redrawn. There was little progress on Monday, however, partly because Zelensky and his allies see that map in a very different way. Speaking after the talks Emmanuel Macron said that in the past 1,000 days of war Russian forces 'took less than one per cent' of Ukrainian territory. 'Those who are saying… 'The Ukrainians are lost. They will lose'. It's total fake news,' the French president said. As the Institute for the Study of War has pointed out, Russian forces are currently struggling to complete the encirclement or envelopment of Kupyansk despite 22 months of offensive operations. It took them 14 months to cover the 6.4 miles from the eastern to western outskirts of Toretsk, and 26 months to advance 6.8 miles from western Bakhmut to the western edge of Chasiv Yar. And yes, says Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and veteran watcher of the Russian military, it is true to say that Russia faces increasing risk as the war goes on. 'The question is not how much territory is Russia gaining per day. The only question that's actually being tested in the fighting in 2024 and 2025 is which proposition is more likely to be true: is Russia able to sustain its offensive effort and eventually put Ukraine in an untenable position? Or is Ukrainian defence more viable and more likely to exhaust Russian offensive potential, if not this year then next?' he says. 'This is what both parties are looking at to try to inform their decision on the questions of how much time they have and whether they can hope to attain a better and different outcome.' At the moment, Kofman says, time seems to favour Russia. Ukraine is not facing either imminent defeat or a collapse of the front line that would force it to sign a humiliating surrender, but the Russians are accelerating. Year-on-year, their pace of advance has picked up in 2025 compared to 2024. And while Ukraine has serious problems with manpower, Russia still has a steady supply of men to replace battlefield losses, which, according to Britain's Defence Intelligence, currently stand at 1,060,000, including 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead. The recent Russian infiltration at Dobropillia shows that Ukraine's drone units, despite their remarkable effectiveness, cannot stabilise the front alone in the absence of sufficient infantry. For now, however, the Russians are struggling to translate their dominance in infantry into decisive advantage. 'Russia's vulnerability is simply that they are far too slow and they don't have the force quality, nor do they employ the tactics, to achieve a major breakthrough. So their overall approach is deeply inefficient and costly in terms of manpower,' says Kofman. 'The political leadership doesn't care about this, but Russia does not have limitless manpower either – that's a myth. It also does not have limitless time. That's another myth.' Russia 'on the verge of recession' There are other constraints on Russia too, Kofman argues. 'The reality is that the war is a significant strain on the Russian economy. Despite outwardly projecting the ability and willingness to keep fighting for many more years, if the war enters 2026 and Russia doesn't appear to be winning decisively on the battlefield, it is eminently unclear that they, too, will not run into significant sustainability problems that could force them to a much weaker negotiating position,' he says. That explains why Putin may be keen to seal a deal now: he feels comparatively strong, but knows the moment of apparent dominance may not last. For two years, Russia's economy appeared to defy gravity, turning massive military spending into rapid GDP growth despite Western sanctions. But the sugar high appears to be over. And the signs of the comedown are everywhere. In June, Maxim Reznikov, the minister of economic development of the Russian Federation, warned the St Petersburg economic forum that the country was 'on the verge of recession'. The following month, the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, the country's second largest steel producer, reported a 21.1 per cent collapse in profits and a sharp drop in output that it attributed to high interest rates and a general slowdown in the Russian economy. Indeed, at the end of July, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cut its 2025 growth estimate for Russia to 0.9 per cent, down from an initial 1.5 per cent forecast it made in April. Even that was a dramatic drop from the 4.3 per cent growth the IMF estimated in 2024. And inflation has prompted the ministries of agriculture and of trade and industry to draft a law for price caps on vegetables, poultry and dairy products, according to a report in Kommersant, a Russian business daily, earlier this month. 'The economy is an interesting thing because there's an objective standpoint to it, which is, frankly, that they do have considerable fiscal and monetary headroom, and they remain very good at managing the economy, albeit at increasing cost,' says Greene. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point.' 'If you remember back to January, the very last thing the Biden administration did was to impose some new sanctions, somewhat unexpectedly, on the Russians. And that sent Russian markets into a tailspin for two or three weeks. If the West were interested in manufacturing those sorts of moments of unpredictability, then it would bring some very real risks, including near-term risks, for the Russian economy.' 'They're playing with fire' None of these factors mean Russia is facing imminent collapse, says Ian Bond, deputy director for the London-based Centre for European Reform. There is no sign that the casualty rate or the economic strains of the war have created any kind of serious domestic political challenge to Putin so far. 'But Russia is strong until it's not. It looks mighty, and then mental fatigue sets in, and things fall apart quite quickly,' he says. 'Is that going to happen this time? We simply don't know,' Bond adds. But, he argues, it is a reason for Europe and Ukraine to resist acquiescing to a bad deal – like surrendering Donbas – that would leave them much more vulnerable. These are the considerations that Russian, Ukrainian and European leaders will be weighing up as Trump shepherds them into more negotiations in the coming weeks. In the final analysis, 'war is very much an uncertain business, and even though some things may be in Russia's favour, there's a great deal of uncertainty', says Kofman. 'And keep in mind the external factors: at the end of the day, much for Russia depends on things, like the price of oil, that they can neither predict nor control. The longer things go on, the more they're playing with fire.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House Proudly Promotes Trump's Snub to Greatest Allies
European leaders arrived at the White House on Monday not to be met by President Donald Trump, but by the former Fox News host Monica Crowley—a snub the Trump administration is now proudly promoting. The official White House account compiled a montage of top U.S. allies arriving at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to be met by an unfamiliar face, with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky being the lone exception. The dramatic clip showed the arrivals of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. The seven leaders were greeted by Crowley, 56, who is the chief of protocol at the White House. The White House wrote on Instagram, 'Peace and American leadership are BACK under President Trump.' Crowley commented under the video herself, writing, 'It is an honor and a privilege to serve our greatest President and the American people as Chief of Protocol of the United States, and to welcome world leaders to the White House.' Trump, 79, rolled out the red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday in Alaska. He exited Air Force One first, while Putin waited on his presidential jet, and then struggled to walk in a straight line until he reached their meeting point. There, the president smiled and clapped as the longtime U.S. adversary approached him. He then surprised Putin with a U.S. Air Force flyover and a ride in his presidential limo. The White House has not explained why Trump opted not to greet the majority of the Europeans upon their arrival on Monday—something critics noted the president would demand from them if he ever hastily crossed the Atlantic Ocean for a meeting. Trump did trek to the White House's north entrance to greet Zelensky. The men shared a warm handshake and smiled as they met for the first time since February, when Trump and Vice President JD Vance ambushed him in the Oval Office and literally chased him out of the White House over his response. Zelensky, 47, appeared overly friendly with Trump on Monday. He is attempting to secure all-important guarantees from Trump that the U.S. will ensure his country's safety if he strikes a deal with Putin to end more than three years of fighting. Russia—and the Soviet Union before it—has been among America's top adversaries since the mid-20th century. However, Trump has long been sympathetic to Putin, and, after meeting with him in Alaska, aligned his position to be more in line with that of Russia. Trump has notably said he no longer wishes for a ceasefire, as Zelensky says is necessary. He instead wants to see an immediate peace deal made, even if it requires Ukraine to cede large swaths of its land to Russia. It is not all doom and gloom for Ukraine, however. The New York Times reported Monday that Trump is now considering security guarantees for Ukraine. That is a change from his previous position earlier this term, when he demanded that Europe alone should be responsible for protecting its mutual ally.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
World leader softens up Trump with a gift he's sure to love
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is apparently appealing to President Donald Trump through his favorite pastime. Zelenskyy presented Trump with an engraved golf putter from a Ukrainian soldier who lost his leg while fighting in the war against Russia, his office announced on Tuesday. The New York Post revealed that the club displays the words 'Let's putt peace together!' It was gifted to Trump in the Oval Office on behalf of Junior Sgt. Kostiantyn Kartavtsev, who has found solace in the sport. Kartavtsev has an artificial leg through a rehabilitation program under United by Golf, a Ukrainian veteran organization. In a statement, Zelenskyy's office said that golf 'became part of Kostiantyn Kartavtsev's rehabilitation and helped him regain balance – both physical and emotional." It added that he had lost his leg within the first months of Russia's invasion in 2022. Zelenskyy had showed a video of Kartavtsev to Trump 'to help Ukraine end the war with a just and lasting peace,' his office said, adding that Trump had recorded a video to thank the soldier. 'I know a lot about golf, and your swing is great,' Trump said in the video, according to The Post. 'It's beautiful and it's made with real love, and it's given to me with real love from you, and I appreciate that," he continued, joking 'Every time I sink a putt, I'll be thinking of you.' Zelenskyy had met with Trump at the White House on Monday, alongside other European leaders, where the two discussed potential security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a peace deal to end the war. In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Trump emphasized that American boots will not be on the ground. 'I hope President Putin is going to be good, and if he's not, that's going to be a rough situation,' Trump said during his 'Fox & Friends' appearance. 'And I hope that President Zelenskyy will do what he has to do. He has to show some flexibility also. The thing is a mess.' In July, Trump, an avid golfer, had visited Scotland for the opening of his new golf course as part of a five-day trip. The Trump Organization, the president's family business, owns two other courses in the country: an additional one in Aberdeen that opened in 2012, and another in Turnberry that opened in 2014. While initially intended to be a private visit designed to promote his family's properties and play golf, the president had announced a trade agreement with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. A website that tracks Trump's golfing throughout his second term claims that he has played the sport for 24.1% of his presidency thus far, coming to 51 out of 212 days. Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to
