Nature and climate: welcome ambition, but policy contradictions threaten delivery

The UK government’s recent statement and new policy paper recognise that nature and climate are inseparable. This is a critical and overdue shift in policy framing. But this welcome vision risks being undermined by legislation that weakens nature protections and prioritises development at the expense of biodiversity. July 15, 2025

The policy paper, Unlocking benefits for people, nature and climate, and the statement on climate and nature delivered in Parliament on July 14th, marks a rare and important shift in tone

In Brief

The UK government’s recent statement and new policy paper recognises that nature and climate are inseparable — a critical and long-overdue shift in policy framing. But this welcome vision risks being undermined by legislation that weakens nature protections and prioritises development at the expense of biodiversity.

The government acknowledges there is “no route to net-zero without nature”
Commitments to align climate and nature policy, and to scale investment in nature-based solutions
But protections are being rolled back under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Estimated funding falls far short of what’s needed to meet UK climate and nature targets
Delivery depends on urgent course-correction across planning, land use and regulation

The policy paper, Unlocking benefits for people, nature and climate, and the statement on climate and nature delivered in Parliament on July 14th, marks a rare and important shift in tone. It recognises that “a stable climate and healthy nature are our life support system” and rightly commits to a more integrated approach to the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change.

It also clearly moves away from recent rhetoric casting nature protection as an obstacle to growth. Instead, it affirms that a thriving natural world is essential to a healthy and prosperous society. The report cites nature’s economic, cultural and health contributions: from £20 billion in nature tourism in 2019 to £47.6 billion in annual ecosystem benefits. Urban green spaces are shown to reduce the cost of heatwaves by over £800 million, while woodlands removed 18 million tonnes of CO₂e in 2022, valued at £5.1 billion.

It is particularly encouraging to see nature-based solutions highlighted as “cost-effective” means of tackling climate change. The paper cites evidence that early investment in adaptation delivers large economic returns, with £1 potentially generating up to £10 in avoided damages.

However, the broader policy landscape tells a different story. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently before Parliament would allow developers to destroy legally protected sites, including those of international importance, in return for offset payments into a Nature Restoration Fund. This approach assumes that biodiversity can be recreated elsewhere, despite ample scientific evidence showing that complex ecosystems cannot simply be replaced.

“The idea that our most valuable and unique protected sites can simply be traded for new habitats elsewhere ignores the reality of how ecosystems function,” said Dr Alison Smith, at the University of Oxford. “Even if a suitable site with the right soil, climate and water conditions can be found, it could take decades or even centuries for new habitats to mature, and most of the wildlife that depends on these sites can’t just move to a new one.”

The policy paper also refers to a review of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), which fails to mention that small and medium developments, comprising most UK construction, could be exempted. Meanwhile, it suggests that the forthcoming Land Use Framework could prioritise delivering 1.5 million homes and new energy infrastructure, a shift in emphasis from the vision of how to balance nature, climate and food objectives in the draft version.

In marine settings, a similar pattern emerges. While commitments to protect 60% of MPAs are welcome, the proposed Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement Package would enable development inside protected areas, relying on future compensation via “marine recovery funds”, an ecologically risky trade-off.

“You cannot protect nature while weakening the very laws designed to conserve it,” said Professor Nathalie Seddon, Director of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative. “If the government is serious about joined-up action on climate and biodiversity, it must align infrastructure, land-use, and energy policy with ecological evidence and justice.”

Elsewhere, the scale of public funding still falls short. The headline figure, £2.7 billion a year for sustainable farming and nature recovery, represents important progress, but independent analysis shows that the UK needs around £6 billion annually to meet statutory nature and climate targets. Meanwhile, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is operating under a reduced budget, limiting the capacity of Natural England and others to deliver new schemes effectively.

If the UK is to credibly advocate for greater synergies under the Rio Conventions at COP30 and showcase how countries can integrate NDCs, NBSAPs and NAPs, it must lead by example by embedding this integrated approach across its own policies, from planning reform to land use and upholding its commitments to international climate and nature finance.

Despite these contradictions, the paper does propose useful mechanisms, including spatial planning tools, integrity guidance for voluntary carbon markets, and early steps toward a UK Nature Investment Standard. These could help mainstream investment and reduce friction between nature recovery and other development goals, but only if underpinned by robust governance, transparency, and accountability.

Pros and Cons at a glance

What the paper gets right

Acknowledges climate and nature crises are interdependent and require joint action
Highlights economic and health benefits of nature
Commits to align NbS with climate targets and carbon budgets
Supports marine protection through new by-laws and HPMAs
Plans to improve spatial planning and unlock private finance

Where policy falls short

Planning Infrastructure Bill undermines key nature protections
Proposes exempting small/medium developments from Biodiversity Net Gain
No clear pathway to meet the £6bn/year funding need for climate and nature
Proposes development and offsetting in Marine Protected Areas
Lacks regulatory safeguards, equity analysis, or delivery capacity

Recommendations to strengthen the approach

Amend or withdraw Planning and Infrastructure Bill clauses that allow development on protected nature sites.
Maintain and strengthen Biodiversity Net Gain rules for all developments, not just large-scale projects.
Fund to scale: bridge the £3–4 billion annual shortfall identified in peer-reviewed costings for nature recovery.
Align the Land Use Framework with climate, nature, and food security goals—prioritising multifunctional landscapes.
Ring-fence funding for delivery capacity, especially for Natural England and Defra to manage ELM and other schemes.
Tighten governance of carbon and biodiversity markets, with transparency, local benefits, and long-term monitoring.
Strengthen marine protections by excluding MPAs from infrastructure development and fully banning bottom trawling.

The new Unlocking benefits policy paper is a welcome sign that government thinking is shifting, and reflects recent calls from researchers across the UK. It recognises nature’s value and the urgent need for integration across policy silos. But unless the surrounding legislative and regulatory frameworks are reformed accordingly, the UK risks undermining the ecosystems it claims to protect. There is still time to correct course, and doing so is essential for a flourishing economy and society.