Quick summary

• The Habitats Regulations are a set of laws that protect our most important natural landscapes and most vulnerable wildlife habitats.
• A review of the nuclear energy sector says the Habitats Regulations shouldn't apply to them, and the Prime Minister agrees.
• The Prime Minister is also considering extending the exemption across the Government's industrial strategy, calling the nature protections "unnecessary red tape" and "pointless gold-plating".
• The Wildlife Trusts have launched a campaign to prevent this from happening: No more nature damaging policy
   

The full story

You might not have heard of the Habitats Regulations (sometimes called the Habs Regs) but you will have heard of some of the places they protect, like the National Trust’s Dunwich Heath, RSPB's Minsmere nature reserve, Thetford Heath in west Suffolk, The Broads National Park, and Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserves across the county.

These sites support a huge diversity and abundance of wildlife and are home to some of the rarest and most threatened species in the UK – from nightjars and Dartford warblers to natterjack toads and fen raft spiders.

These places aren't just important for wildlife, they're important to communities and businesses living in the county too. Suffolk’s natural beauty and wildlife-rich landscapes are a major source of local pride, employment and income – with 15% of Suffolk’s jobs in the visitor economy and nature one of the big draws for holidaymakers and day-trippers alike.

Everyone benefits from the Habitats Regulations, which have been the most effective legal protections for nature in the UK for more than three decades.

But that could change if the Government follows through on its stated intention to change the law to make it easier for development to harm protected sites.

The Habs Regs require development schemes to assess their impact on habitats and wildlife, and avoid causing significant damage or harm wherever possible. If damage can't be prevented, developers must prove that the public benefit of a scheme outweighs the harm it would do, and deliver compensatory measures for the affected wildlife, such as creating or restoring habitats.

In Suffolk, all the major energy infrastructure schemes we're seeing – Sizewell C nuclear power station, East Anglia ONE offshore wind farms, Sea Link and Norwich to Tilbury power lines, Sunnica Energy Farm etc – must comply with these requirements. Whatever your views on these big infrastructure projects, the Habs Regs play a vital role in reducing their harmful impacts on wildlife and securing local compensation for the impacts they do have.

But now, in response to cost-cutting recommendations in the Nuclear Regulatory Review of the nuclear energy sector (sometimes called the Fingleton Review) the Prime Minister is threatening to dismantle the Habs Regs, which he has described as ‘pointless gold-plating’ and ‘unnecessary red tape’. 

This report argues the regulations should not apply to nuclear energy projects, which it says instead of preventing harm to wildlife sites like Carlton Marshes, Minsmere, Dunwich Heath, or The Boards, and that they should be able to pay money to an unspecified body that would use the funds to deliver unidentified measures with the vague aim of "maintaining the integrity of the network of wildlife sites around the country".

Most worryingly, the Prime Minister has said he wants these recommendations to be applied not only to the nuclear sector but across the Government’s industrial strategy. Future projects might not even have to assess their impacts on wildlife or the environment, let alone deliver measures locally to mitigate or compensate for those impacts.

To put this into local context, Sizewell C has followed the Habs Regs by carrying out extensive impact assessments and environmental mitigation to avoid, minimise, and compensate for damage to important wildlife sites. If the Prime Minister follows through with his plans, a future project like Sizewell C would have no requirement to compensate for its damage or harm to nature locally.

For the people who cherish Suffolk’s special wildlife and nature-rich landscapes, it could mean loss of local habitats and species with no requirement to compensate for that loss locally – or even in this part of the country.

Scrapping, or at the very least drastically curtailing, the Habs Regs in the way the Nuclear Regulatory Review requests - and the Prime Minister has enthusiastically supported - would be a disaster for Suffolk’s wildlife and everyone who loves and depends on it. And polling shows it would be deeply unpopular with Labour voters, 19% of whom said they would be less likely to vote for Labour again following the PM’s speech deriding the laws that protect nature as "unnecessary red-tape". 
 

Fighting back for nature

In response to the Nuclear Regulartory Review and the Prime Minister’s instruction to Energy & Net Zero Secretary of State Ed Miliband to report on how its recommendations can be implemented, more than 15,000 people have emailed Mr Miliband to call on the Government to think again and not to weaken vital nature protections.

To add your name to the campaign