Devon Wildlife Trust pioneered the reintroduction of wild beavers in England through our role in leading the River Otter Beaver Trial, which concluded successfully in 2020. After years of procrastination by previous governments, action was finally taken in February when it was announced that further licences for wild beaver releases in England would be issued, with a wild reintroduction in Dorset swiftly following. Beavers are truly amazing creatures: hunted to extinction centuries ago, we are once again seeing how these ‘ecosystem engineers’ create incredible wetland habitats which prevent flooding, relieve drought and improve water quality, simply through the act of their being. We are thankfully back on course to see wild beavers return to every county.  

However, on their pledge to end the badger cull, we have seen quite the opposite. In the face of legal challenge, public opposition and against the advice of Natural England’s Director of Science, ‘supplementary licences’ to continue the cull in England were reauthorised this summer. The government certainly has some explaining to do on this one.  

Despite giving little mention to the marine environment during the election campaign, government did respond admirably when Sir David Attenborough’s latest film Ocean hit our screens. The film shines a spotlight on the hitherto unseen horrors of bottom trawling – a hugely destructive fishing process that drags heavy chains across the seabed, bulldozing fragile marine habitats, releasing carbon from the seabed and indiscriminately capturing and killing marine life in its path. What will we do when Sir David is gone? 

Catalysed by the release of Ocean and campaigning by The Wildlife Trusts and Oceana UK, government launched a consultation on banning bottom towed gear in 41 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), including 4 in Devon. If implemented, we estimate the ban will have economic benefits of £3bn over 20 years, thanks to restored fish populations and climate regulation. It is, however, just a consultation, just covering MPAs. And it is rather deflating to be reminded that such damaging activities are currently allowed in our MPAs. Marine protection, in many respects, is sadly still little more than a paper exercise. With the consultation closing on 29 September 2025, there’s still time to make your voice heard by urging the government to introduce the ban.  

No environmental issue has grabbed the headlines more in recent years than water quality, in particular the impact of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and what the water industry is doing to limit discharge of sewage into the natural environment.  

Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, has be strident in his intention to reform the water sector, insisting that he will cut sewage pollution in half by the end of this decade. And, having commissioned an independent review by Sir Jon Cunliffe, some bold moves are afoot to shake up water industry regulation (creating one “super-regulator”) and boost investment in aging wastewater infrastructure.  

This is all welcome, but whilst the public’s ire is focused on FTSE100 polluters (the largest 100 UK companies listed on the London Stock Exchange), we risk quietly ignoring the larger and more insidious polluter of our waterways: land use. The Rivers Trust’s excellent State of Our Rivers report makes clear that 62% of river stretches in England failed their ecological health tests because of activities attributed to agriculture & rural land management (pollution from fertiliser or livestock), as compared to activities attributed to the water industry (54%) and the urban & transport sector (26%).*

Some steps have been taken to up the ante on pollution from land management, such as doubling the Environment Agency’s funding for farm inspectors and advisors. But as a society, we need to be demanding the same high standards in land use as we are for the water industry. We also need to be better supporting the majority of farmers who are doing the right thing for the environment. On which note…

With three quarters of Devon under farmland, farming plays a critical role in dictating the fortunes of nature in our county. Since exiting the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, government in England has set upon a welcome policy of ‘public money for public good’, rewarding farmers for the multiple benefits they can provide society (like nature, clean water and storing carbon in soils) which cannot be sold on the market, unlike their crops and livestock. 

Underpinning the delivery of this policy are the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS), which pay farmers for nature-friendly farming practices. ELMS has however taken a long time to come into focus, with farmers desperately reaching for some degree of certainty to aid long-term business planning. Unfortunately, in this regard, government have offered little by way of comfort.  

For instance, applications for capital grants and to the Sustainable Farm Incentive (SFI) were suspended at short notice, while the government develops a “reformed and more targeted” offer. And applications to the Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier scheme – which promotes a higher standard of environmental management – are currently by invitation only, excluding many farmers interested in doing more for nature.  

Whilst in isolation there is sense in Defra taking the time to iron out issues with the schemes and ensure they offer good value for nature, farmers desperately need a boost in confidence and an end to governments pulling the rug from under their feet. Without which, we may see farmers forced out of business, or intensifying their production, potentially undoing decades of good work for wildlife.  

Government can, though, be commended for having recently protected the agricultural-environment budget, amidst wider public spending cuts. Hopefully this financial commitment offers enough of a positive signal to farmers, with government perhaps having recognised nature-friendly farming as one of the most cost effective and efficient ways to reach nature recovery and climate targets.  

On a final positive note, this government can be thanked for hammering the final nail in the coffin of toxic bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides. Despite all the evidence of its grave harm to pollinators and the aquatic environment – and a ban in the EU – previous governments have repeatedly granted exemptions for its use on sugar beet. So after years of campaigning, it was a great relief to see the government implement its manifesto commitment to a full ban of neonics.   

I’m going to finish though by describing the overwhelming taste that this government has left in the mouth this last year, and I have to say it is not a pleasant one. Labour made no secret of the priority they would give to housebuilding and economic growth. We indisputably need more homes and in itself that need offer no concern for the environment, as we know well how to build houses and restore nature together.  

However, what we have instead heard repeatedly from the most senior leaders in government is a false divisive narrative, pitching nature as a blocker to critical infrastructure. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have repeatedly positioned protected species as fundamental blockers to growth (despite bats and newts factoring in just 3% of planning appeals last year).  

Rachel Reeves says she “cares more about the young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails”. What troubles me most – especially from a government which has made such strong commitments to recovering nature – is that it’s perfectly possible to do both. We can build new homes whilst making space for snails, newts & bats. And better homes at that: where communities have access to quality green space, underpinning our mental and physical wellbeing. What is an economy that depletes and pollutes its natural resources? A failing one, of course, destined for collapse.  

At the sharp edge of government lawmaking, all this is playing out through the Planning & Infrastructure Bill. With our partners and supporters, The Wildlife Trusts have been working hard to secure improvements to this landmark legislation. When originally tabled, even the government’s own Office for Environmental Protection stated that the Bill could lead to a significant regression in environmental protections.  

Thanks to the pressure we have applied through making your voices heard, there have finally been some improvements to the Bill over the summer. We are though still holding out for further reassurances around the protection of rare habitats and ensuring that the law continues to apply the principle that all development seeks to avoid harm to nature in the first place.   

Most developers would agree with us – that environmental protections are not the problem – as too would many MPs. They see great potential for restoring nature alongside development. Why senior politicians continue to peddle a false ‘either/or’ anti-nature rhetoric baffles me. So my hope for this next year of government is that they leave the misleading narratives in the past and focus instead the exciting prospect of achieving genuine win-wins for nature & the economy. Indeed, they should feel compelled to do no less.  

*These figures represent the percentage of all Water Framework Directive waterbodies with at least one Reasons for Not Achieving Good Status attributed to a sector/activity. That is, if a waterbody has one or more RNAG from a sector/activity it will be counted once for that sector/activity.