Letter: Protecting wetlands
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Yesterday, three new Ramsar sites - internationally important wetlands - were announced, to mark the occasion of World Wetlands Day (report, 2 February) and, no doubt, to demonstrate the Government's commitment to protecting wetlands.
This commitment will soon be tested over plans to develop part of the Thames Marshes. Rainham Marsh is the largest remaining fragment of grazing marsh in London and is vitally important for a wide range of wildlife. It is subject to a planning application from English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, for 90 hectares of unspecified commercial development. If the application is successful, it will be the largest single loss of a protected site in England since the wildlife law that should protect it was passed in 1981.
The proposed development would be a scandalous misuse of public money with, we understand, at least pounds 16m being spent to put a nationally valuable wildlife site under concrete. It would completely overturn the Government's commitment to enhance and re-create grazing marsh as part of the UK's Biodiversity Action Plan and is opposed by the Government's own statutory advisers, English Nature and the Environment Agency.
The decision as to whether or not this national wildlife treasure will be lost for ever will be the Deputy Prime Minister's. Allowing it to be lost would destroy our government's environmental credibility. To allow the development to proceed with government money would compound the error. We call upon the Deputy Prime Minister to remain true to the manifesto promise to bring the environment to the heart of all policy.
BARBARA YOUNG
Chief Executive, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
CHARLES SECRETT
Executive Director, Friends of the Earth
SIMON LYSTER
Director General, The Wildlife Trust
Sandy, Bedfordshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments