Treasury rumoured to be considering dropping precautionary principle

Reports in The Times and elsewhere suggesting that the Treasury is planning  to ‘up the ante’ in its war on nature by scrapping the precautionary principle, reducing the list of protected species, and curbing judicial review powers are potentially devastating to nature recovery, if true. No decisions have been announced, and we should not treat rumours as fact, but the absence of strong denials from No. 11 is of grave concern. If such proposals were ever brought forward, they would amount to one of the most serious regressions in environmental protections for a generation – at odds with both the law and the evidence.

The precautionary principle is written into the UK’s own Environment Act 2021 and is essential for preventing irreversible environmental harm in the face of uncertainty. Removing it would leave our natural environment, communities and economy exposed to unacceptable risk.

Suggestions of a “smaller, UK-only list” of protected species are similarly reckless. The UK has an international obligation under the Global Biodiversity Framework to safeguard species of global and regional concern. Weakening protections would jeopardise those commitments and the Government’s own legally binding target to halt species decline by 2030.

Furthermore, claims that wildlife protections are a barrier to growth are simply not borne out by the evidence. Newts and bats – often held up as scapegoats – appear in only around 3% of planning appeals. Meanwhile, the Green Finance Institute estimates that flooding, wildfires, drought and crop failures linked to climate and nature breakdown will cost the UK economy £70bn this decade. Rolling back basic safeguards would not only undermine nature but also weaken economic resilience.

The rumoured reforms would also make it harder for communities and NGOs to hold government to account through judicial review – a vital democratic safeguard.

Following swiftly on the heels of the still regressive Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, this is further demonstration that, despite weak attempts to claim otherwise, this Government has declared its own war on nature.

For what? Despite all the evidence to the contrary, senior figures in Government have convinced themselves that nature is a problem, a barrier, a blocker to development – something we don’t need getting in the way of economic growth.

How shortsighted can this Government be? How long until the catastrophic decline of species and habitats leads to less food production, devastating floods, poorer health and quality of life? How long until the Government realises it has made a terrible mistake?

Because you can’t just put it all back.

We will fight for nature. We will hold the Government to account on delivery of all its international and domestic environmental commitments. Any attempt to weaken environmental protections must, and will, be vigorously opposed.