A Love Letter to Logic: Strong Laws for Nature in the Age of Political Churn

Introduction

Britain has a new Prime Minister and a refreshed administration at a moment when the relationship between nature, economic growth and infrastructure has become increasingly contested. This change in leadership presents an opportunity not only to reset environmental policy, but to move away from treating nature protections as obstacles to development and towards recognising clear, effective environmental laws as foundations for a thriving economy, public confidence, and lasting prosperity. Before considering what such a reset could achieve, it is worth returning to where Britain’s nature laws began.

Where it all began

Organised nature conservation in Britain began largely as a Victorian response to the industrial revolution and the associated urban pressures on landscapes accelerating at that time. This period coincided with groundbreaking discoveries in the natural sciences that were dismantling centuries-old assumptions about humanity’s dominion over nature. The Commons Preservation Society was formed in 1865 to protect threatened open green spaces around London, the Sea Birds Preservation Act 1869^[1] was the first British wildlife protection statute, and the Wild Birds Protection Act followed shortly afterwards in 1872. Campaigners were influenced, in part, by Darwin’s “tangled bank”: an interdependent web of plants, birds and insects that challenged the idea of nature as a fixed hierarchy.

After two world wars, a period of post-war consensus followed in Britain, where major political parties broadly agreed on the foundational social, economic, and environmental principles to govern the rebuilding of the country. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 was passed, along with the establishment of the Nature Conservancy (Natural England’s great-grandparent) in the same year. Four national parks were designated by 1951. Politicians were aligned around the need to protect the environment from the pressures of population growth, development, industry and consumption.

The second reading in Parliament in 1949 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill could almost have been written today. Introducing the Bill, the then planning minister Mr Silkin spoke of Britain being “one of the most densely populated countries in the world” with rapid urbanisation “increasing [the] nervous strain of life” making it all the more necessary for people to enjoy the “peace and spiritual refreshment which only contact with nature can give”^[2].

As agriculture intensified during the 1970s and 1980s, evidence of farmland species declines strengthened the environmental movement. Domestic governments recognised that they could not protect migratory species, like birds, or marine life, on their own. International treaties emerged, like the Bern Convention of 1979 to protect domestic ecological assets and domestic economic interests by setting a level playing field that should not be uncompetitively undermined elsewhere.

Over decades, the Bern Convention 1979 eventually percolated into continental and domestic lawbooks through the various EU Habitats Directives, and ultimately the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) in the UK. These protections sought to prevent irreversible harm whilst channelling investment into research and ecological compensation efforts and embedding ecological skills and technical understanding into the expanding development sector.

Where we are now

Geopolitical fragmentation, realpolitik, underpowered governments, and economic pressures are fraying the global and political consensus on nature and climate^[3]. In England, we are seeing a domestic dilution of nature protections through the unravelling of the Habitats Regulations 2017 under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the broadening of exemptions to biodiversity laws and rollbacks on climate targets.

One of the critical strengths, but also weaknesses, of the system is the principle that the “polluter” should “pay” for their harms. It is a strength because the requirement for the polluter to pay (rather than, say, the taxpayer) should act as a disincentive to harm. But it is also a weakness. Polluters inevitably then work hard with governments to reduce what they need to pay by weakening the laws. A perpetual ‘yin and yang’ fight is inevitable, as corporate performance targets naturally motivate business decisions that maximise economic returns, while laws remain the only meaningful safeguard against over-exploitation.

Governments of isolated countries, no longer reined in by international standards and market harmonisation, are easily enticed by special interests and drawn in by seductive ‘zero-cost’ opportunity of deregulating in pursuit of growth. This apparent ‘silver bullet’ often appeases short-term growth advocates while creating greater legal friction and costs for the sectors they are looking to protect. Governments focusing on deregulation as a panacea then dodge the more difficult work of anchoring realistic growth ambitions to an environmentally and politically resilient future. Ignoring these problems, as we know, makes them worse. We are seeing a rise of public protest and vigilantism across the spectrum, as groups feel that existential threats are not being taken seriously.

“The polluter-pays principle is one of the system’s critical strengths – but also one of its weaknesses”

Where we can get to

Nature laws are not the problem

The ‘greenlash’ of recent years has been caused, or, at least, accelerated by political fragmentation in the UK. A series of unstable Governments combined with politically driven, high-profile but economically questionable^[4] infrastructure projects have simultaneously failed to deliver domestic economic growth or social confidence, while creating fertile ground for deregulatory groups to ridicule^[5] and undermine nature laws. Instead of recognising strong nature laws as a vital component of any thriving economy, they are cast as the cause of economic stagnation.

Decades of underinvestment in public (green and grey) infrastructure is, arguably, the leading cause of our sluggish economy^[6]. The growth groups agree^[7] significant investment in infrastructure is desperately needed. The Resolution Foundation reports^[8] that over the past two decades, the UK has consistently ranked in the bottom third of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations for public investment. By not channelling investment where we needed it over recent decades, we have failed to establish the workforce, skills, and economies of scale for infrastructure development that many other countries enjoy. Isolated projects, lacking corporate governance (for example, HS2, as highlighted in the Stewart Review^[9]) have led to excessive waste. Nature laws, in the context of poor mega-project discipline, become a convenient scapegoat.

“Instead of recognising strong nature laws as a vital component of any thriving economy, they are cast as the cause of economic stagnation”

Strong laws enable better development

This can all be turned around. In fact, this needs to turn around if the Government wishes to deliver on its industrial strategy^[10]. Without tangible and reliable protections for nature, political consensus will continue to disintegrate, and the public rejection of impactful schemes – for example, data centres and nuclear power stations – will force even more political churn, stymying any meaningful hope of a stable renewal programme for Britain.

The way for the Government to enable delivery of critical infrastructure is to stand by and in fact, strengthen existing environmental laws, while investing in our legal, planning, and regulatory infrastructure. When the public raises legitimate concerns and objections, regulatory decisions should be firm, fair, scientifically informed, and swift. When developments are permitted, they should be legitimatised through an established legal process that brings confidence to communities that measurable ecological resilience has been designed into development from the outset.

The Habitats Regulations and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) laws already create a robust framework that enables ecologically sound development while attracting public and private investment at scale into nature and innovation. Instead of being weakened, these laws should be recognised as the economic enablers that they are, refreshed through conspicuous political endorsement and investment in the institutions that implement and enforce them^[11].

Investing in landscape recovery
Local community and farmer-led landscape recovery projects^[12] already demonstrate what this approach can achieve. They promise to ‘slow the flow’ of rivers and floodwaters, clean up pollution, restore soils, lock up carbon, and enhance species and biodiversity. These schemes crucially blend public and private finance at the significant scales needed to make a meaningful and rapid positive impact on our otherwise degraded landscapes. Enabling schemes at this scale then unlocks more land for development in other places, as flood vulnerability subsides, and species populations recover from the brink of collapse. Landscapes and watercourses can cope with much more pressure when we time our interventions appropriately, and calibrate the laws, incentives, and funding structures intelligently.

Weakening and removing the legal frameworks that support nature markets undermines confidence and disrupts those projects that are already under way. The unintended effect of this interference is to replace large, decentralised, locally led landscape recovery schemes with low-integrity ‘command and control’ levy systems, designed to deliver slow-to-no environmental impact, as has recently been introduced^[13]. This brings cost, mistrust, and friction (for example: enforced landowner participation under threat of compulsory purchase powers granted to Natural England) to a system where previously local pride, knowledge and economic autonomy had incentivised early and effective project participation.

Environmental deregulatory efforts over the past three years have undermined confidence in the natural capital sector, collapsed public confidence in the Government^[14], and failed to bring forward development or growth as hoped, because much bigger economic forces (understandably) dictate how the private sector moves. Had the Government conspicuously backed our strong laws, which are applied across Europe successfully, and invested in their improved implementation, we would be seeing ecologically sound development enabled at significant scale. Rapid ecological interventions already in progress now, underpinned by those laws, would continue to bolster the landscape’s ability to cope with the significant development and industrial pressures that the Government wishes to attract.

Conclusion

We have an opportunity now to course-correct. During the post-war settlement, it was possible to find cross-party consensus on the biggest challenges we faced. We can harness that same ambition today, delivering resilient green and grey infrastructure at scale, working with, rather than against, ecological science to confidently invest in a thriving future.

With our new Prime Minister and administration in place, we can move beyond the Government’s previous mistakes of blaming nature for Britain’s economic problems. Nature and infrastructure can’t be treated as competing priorities: both are essential foundations of a resilient and prosperous economy and country. Britain’s history shows that periods of political and economic upheaval can produce enduring settlements for nature. The task now is to build the next one.

^References:

^{1. Hickling, J. (2021) The Vera Causa of Endangered Species Legislation: Alfred Newton and the Wild Bird Preservation Acts 1869 – 1894. Journal of the History of Biology}

^{2. The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin), (HC Deb 31 March 1949 vol 463 cc1461)}

^{3. https://globalchallenges.org/gcr-2026/ecological-collapse/, https://www.corporateleadersgroup.com/news/net-zero-world-has-changed-and-we-must-change-it-acting-now, https://www.europinion.uk/post/from-consensus-to-culture-war-forty-years-of-uk-climate-policy}

^{4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/major-transport-projects-governance-and-assurance-review}

^{5. https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-14054619/HS2-100million-shed-protect-bats-no-evidence.html}

^{6. https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/blog/what-role-infrastructure-relation-levelling/ and https://www.productivity.ac.uk/news/mind-the-capital-gap/}

^{7. https://www.britainremade.co.uk/britain_remade_responds_to_the_budget}

^{8. https://economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org/reports/cutting-the-cuts/}

^{9. Stewart Review (June 2025) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/major-transport-projects-governance-and-assurance-review}

^{10. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-strategy}

^{11. https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/energy-and-infra-consenting/2025-posts/project-nutcracker-the-secret-ecologists-speak}

^{12. For example, at Evenlode: https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2026/02/11/evenlode-landscape-recovery-project-begins-work-on-the-ground/}

^{13. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-nature-restoration-levy}

^{14. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/24/labour-nature-england-ecosystems-planning-bill-keir-starmer}

^{Photo credit: Michael Hogg}