Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Justice for Lough Neagh

View campaign

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Category: Blog

Red Tractor Misleads On Environmental Claims

Posted on by Molly Allen

By Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns at River Action UK

Britain’s rivers are in terrible shape, and our biggest supermarkets are up to their necks in it. For years, retailers like Tesco and Asda alongside their agribusiness suppliers have relied on the cosy logo of Red Tractor, telling customers their food is “farmed with care… from field to store all our standards are met”. In late 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) called time on this charade.

The regulator has ruled that Red Tractor, the UK’s largest farm assurance scheme, misled the public by suggesting its logo guarantees environmental protection. It doesn’t. The most recent Environment Agency data shows a staggering 19,000 breaches across 60% of inspected Red Tractor–certified farms between January 2020 and July 2025, exposing a systemic failure behind the label’s “environmentally friendly” claims.

This isn’t a marginal issue. It goes to the heart of how our food system operates, and how some of the biggest companies in Britain shield themselves from responsibility while rivers and lakes collapse under a deluge of pollution caused by intensive agricultural practices.

Take Tesco. Controlling nearly 30% of the supermarket sector, it is the single most powerful buyer of British farm produce. Its chicken and pork supply chains run through industrial-scale operators like Avara Foods and Moy Park. These are not quaint family farms but subsidiaries of US agribusiness giants Cargill and Pilgrim’s Pride. These companies have been linked to ecological crises such as the collapse of the River Wye and the ongoing algal disaster in Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake.

At a recent Sustainable Food Conference in London, River Action’s Head of Engagement asked Tesco CEO Ken Murphy why the company continued to stock Red Tractor products after the ASA upheld a greenwashing complaint against the scheme. His response was: “That’s an issue for Red Tractor.”

For years, supermarkets have pointed to the Red Tractor logo as their environmental shield. But that line has now been shredded. In a landmark ruling, the UK’s ASA concluded that Red Tractor’s environmental claims were misleading, finding that the advertising exaggerated the scheme’s standards and misled consumers. This is no longer just campaigners or scientists raising the alarm; it is an independent regulator confirming that the reassurance offered by the logo does not stack up. Any retailer still presenting Red Tractor as a marker of good environmental outcomes is not reassuring customers, but risking greenwash.

The data underpinning the ruling is stark. Between January 2020 and July 2025, 7,353 Environment Agency inspections of Red Tractor–certified farms found 4,353 breaches, meaning nearly 60% of farms failed to meet environmental rules. These were not trivial lapses.  Inspectors recorded 19,305 instances of non-compliance, including thousands of breaches intended to stop slurry and fertiliser entering rivers – pollution that fuels algal blooms, kills fish, damages ecosystems, and contaminates drinking water.

This is not just a story about dirty rivers. It is about a food system where the biggest players, multinational agribusinesses and the retailers who buy from them, use weak, industry-controlled assurance schemes to insulate themselves from scrutiny. Red Tractor is not a neutral standard-setter. It is designed by the very interests it is supposed to regulate. And guess who controls it? The majority of seats on Red Tractor’s governing council are held by the UK’s various National Farming Union bodies. Yes, the farming lobby actually controls its own product quality scheme.

Red Tractor’s defenders will say that criticising the scheme means attacking farmers. Let’s be clear, it does not. Many farmers care deeply about the land and waterways that sustain them and us all. They are being undercut by a system that rewards scale, intensification and cutting corners, while paying lip service to environmental protection.

As Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, has put it: “Consumers and farmers want real sustainability, not a sticker.”

Farmers who are genuinely improving soils, protecting rivers and reducing chemicals see little reward for their efforts. Supermarkets cannot claim ignorance. They have been told repeatedly about the links between their suppliers and river pollution. The Environment Agency rejected Red Tractor’s bid for “Earned Recognitions” precisely because it fails to meet good environmental standards. Yet retailers still rely on the logo as their shield.

This complicity matters because of their sheer market power. When supermarkets demand Red Tractor chicken, vast supply chains, from feed mills to slaughterhouses to contract farmers, are locked into a destructive model. This legitimises the industrial systems polluting our rivers. And when consumers challenge them, they point to the little tractor logo, as if that settles the matter.

The ASA ruling proves it doesn’t.

We now face a choice. Tesco, Asda, Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons and others can continue to sell food tainted with pollution, hiding behind a logo that regulators have called out as misleading on environmental performance. Or they can do the honest thing: demand genuinely high environmental standards from suppliers, pay farmers properly for producing food in ways that don’t wreck our rivers, and support the farming community’s transition to nature friendly farming.

This isn’t just about protecting wildlife or river users such as this nation’s army of wild swimmers. Though that should be enough. It is also about restoring trust in our food system. Consumers deserve to know that when they buy British, they are supporting farming that safeguards our countryside, not destroy it. Farmers deserve a level playing field that rewards those who do right by the land. And companies that profit from selling us food have a duty to ensure their supply chains comply with legal standards, both under the law and broader social responsibility.

For too long, Red Tractor has allowed agribusiness and retail giants to dodge that duty. Thanks to the ASA, the greenwash is now exposed. The question is whether the supermarket giants will finally face up to reality, or whether they will cling to a broken system until public trust collapses.

Britain’s rivers cannot wait. Neither can the farmers who are trying to do the right thing. The time for excuses is over. We hope that conversations like the one with Tesco’s CEO plant a seed and prompt supermarkets to take real responsibility for the food they choose to stock on their shelves.

The “Make a Nuisance” Campaign: Using the Law to Speak Up for Our Rivers

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Chloe Peck, Senior Engagement Coordinator at River Action

 

When River speaks, what does River say?

When River is harmed, how does a body of water make its cries heard?

And when we step in to speak for River, through our human legal systems, whose voice do we really use?

At River Action, we recently helped amplify a cry for the river through the launch of the ‘Make A Nuisance’ campaign.  The campaign creates a way to speak through the law. Working alongside Friends of the Thames and 15 people from 13 different areas across the Thames catchment, we supported local residents to submit Statutory Nuisance complaints about Thames Water to their local authority. The aim of the campaign is to create a collective noise, which further holds Thames Water to account by enabling community members to take direct action using a powerful legal tool. 

Statutory nuisance law is a long standing area of UK law which requires local councils to investigate harms from pollution or noise. If the pollution is found to be causing a problem, the council enforces the polluter, Thames Water, to seize and desist the action, sewage pollution, through Abatement Notices.

In order to ensure the letters were rooted in real life experiences of pollution, the participants were responsible for gathering stories and data to evidence their complaints. This included photos of sewage smears on rowing boats, data from nutrient and pathogen tests, and testimonies from local people who had become sick from swimming. This was complimented by compelling evidence on failing sewage treatment works gathered by River Action’s Campaigns Analyst  Dr Samir Seddougui. Their letters were accompanied by an attachment outlining the relevant legal procedures, prepared by our Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley, alongside lawyers from Leigh Day. 

Using statutory nuisance as a campaigning tool is powerful, as it uses the law to allow local people to have their voice heard. This is useful where previously the community’s lived experience of the sewage crisis has been dismissed and sidelined. The campaign challenges this by forcing responsibility back into a system where regulation repeatedly stalls and accountability slips. The process creates formal records, duties, and pressure. It is slow, procedural, and intentional — not a protest stunt – however, it has the potential to make substantial change.

Statutory nuisance as a form of protest offers a unique way to demand action, however, when used to speak for nature, we must consider its limits. Statutory nuisance is unapologetically human-centred. The law exists to protect residents from activities that interfere with their health, comfort, or enjoyment of their home or local environment, and it places a duty on local councils to investigate and act when such interference occurs. It fundamentally is concerned with human’s experience of the environment, not the environment’s own experience. The river has no legal standing without humans.

This is not to say this is the perception across the world. The Whanganui river is often cited in nature writing as an example of a river with legal personhood. The river was granted personhood in 2017 after 140 years of negotiations fought by the Māori group of Whanganui, who consider the river as their ancestor. With personhood status, if the Whanganui river is harmed, the law recognises this as a harm to the Maori group. The group and the river are one connected being. In the UK, we do not have the same recognitions in place; in legal standing what harms nature does not harm us. Lawfully, we are not one and the same with the world around us.

Despite these legal limitations, the people who wrote nuisance complaints are deeply connected to the Thames and its tributaries. They are rowers, swimmers, house boat dwellers, kayakers, and citizen scientists. They rely on the river for community, exercise, business, as well as spiritual and mental wellbeing. And despite its limitations, the campaign is genuinely exciting, as a community-led action, with people taking initiative to use law as something real; not a distant inaccessible tool, but something that propels momentum and possibility for change. 

This connection is reflected in the experience of campaigner Blake Ludwig, who took part in the Make A Nuisance campaign on the River Kennet:

“We have to see that water isn’t simply a dead material for us to use at our leisure, or as a waste receptacle… Through collecting evidence and building a nuisance complaint, I’ve come to understand how invisible pollution can be — and how only long-term relationship, observation and care allow us to really see what’s happening to our rivers.”

What the system of nuisance complaints tells us is that we live in a climate which recognises people and nature as separate. We have not retained the historic kinship between human and nature which the Maori people have. In our social system a person is legible through documents, numbers, and certificates. Personhood is administrative. Within this system, the river’s voice is only heard when it passes through us. So we therefore have a duty to nature to ensure that nature’s voice is heard.

And how do we do that authentically? By knowing a river as we might know a family member, and caring for it as we would a friend. And all the while recognising that a river is not human at all. A river is a living system with its own rhythms, flow, and resilience, deserving of respect not because it resembles us, but because it exists in its own right.

When I talk about sewage pollution, I am often asked by wild swimmers if they should stop their beloved sport. The answer is no. Not because the dangers aren’t present, they are, but because connection matters. By spending time and interacting with the river, we are able to create a deep and intimate relationship with the river. 

The power of the Make a Nuisance campaign has come from people who live entwined, not separate, from the river. So the work, for now, is slow, careful and continuous. Keep swimming, keep connecting, keep being with the river. Speak to the river, and the river may well speak through you.

The Government’s Water White Paper: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Posted on by Molly Allen

Written by Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager at River Action

This Government’s focus on reforming the water sector is welcome and timely. Recent failings by South East Water and Thames Water have demonstrated that water companies are defective on multiple fronts. The public is mobilised for change and the Government must go further than minor tweaks to the status quo. The current model of profit-driven privatisation has failed, evidenced by the polluted state of our rivers, exploitative ownership models and inadequate regulatory oversight in the water sector. The water pollution caused by agricultural practices, industrial waste and road run-off must also be urgently recognised and addressed. 

The time for change is now. We need a government that is bold in ambition and willing to implement reforms fast enough to deliver the measurable improvements needed to fulfil its election promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.

So, what is a White Paper?

A White Paper is a government document that precedes legislation. It sets out what to expect in the upcoming King’s Speech when the parliamentary agenda is laid down by the King. This White Paper focuses largely on the recommendations made by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Review of the water sector in 2025. Below, we’ve set out the good, the bad and the ugly of the government’s plans for water reform.

The Good

Tough, independent regulators: For too long, water companies have gotten away unscathed with polluting our rivers. Today’s announcements put some strength into the regulator, including no-notice powers for the regulator to check security and emergency preparedness, Performance Improvement Regimes for failing water companies, and a Chief Engineer to monitor infrastructure.

The government announced a consolidation of water industry regulators into one entity, with oversight of all sectors impacting the water environment. This new regulator will have public health and environmental protection as a key objective, alongside affordable bills, financial resilience of the water sector, and robust oversight of water companies’ infrastructure. This regulator must have enough teeth to hold water companies to account with penalties that stop them polluting. We need a regulatory system that enforces the law and, to do that it must be well-financed.

Democratic decision-making: The government has committed to introducing a regional water planning function by bringing together councils, water companies, farmers and developers, with double the funding for catchment partnerships. The cross-sectoral and target-driven characteristics of the new regional water planning function are welcome. However, while it is important that these actors have a seat at the table, there needs to be an independent authority that makes decisions based on the environmental health of the catchment and the public health of customers.

These authorities need to sit above water companies and other self-interested actors. They need powers to influence local planning authorities decisions over industrial planning applications and permit decisions, based on the ecological health of the river and surrounding habitats. Regional oversight should support a tiered approach to action on water pollution, whereby the most affected areas are prioritised as the focus of rapid action and enforcement (including Scientific Sites of Scientific Interest and chalk streams). This would enable the Secretary of State to enact Water Protection Zones and a potential moratorium on industrial livestock units in areas, such as the River Wye, that are experiencing significant nutrient loading from industrial agriculture.

A long-term water strategy: We are pleased to see the Government taking a long-term view of improving the water sector. However, decisions at local and regional levels must align with and enable the delivery of a national strategy for planning, financing, governing and regulating sewage treatment, water quality and supply to ensure a joined-up approach to securing water and clean rivers, lakes and seas. Measures and targets should be put in place to deliver on commitments within the Environmental Improvement Plan and Water Framework Directive across sectors and regions, to require all actors to contribute towards achieving national targets.

Abolition of self-monitoring: The government has committed to abolishing the self-monitoring of water companies. The White Paper has set out plans for the new regulator to have a Chief Engineer to monitor infrastructure, and for water companies to proactively report on infrastructure conditions. The test will be how regularly the regulators independently test the infrastructural quality and environmental impacts of water company operations.

The Bad

Limited scope on sewage sludge: While we welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on reforms on how sewage sludge use in agriculture is regulated and whether sludge should be included in the Environmental Permitting Regulations, meaningful action is needed that goes beyond end-of-pipe solutions. The Government should investigate whether legislation is needed to stop water companies from selling contaminated sludge to farmers, and as recommended by the Independent Water Commission, the Government must consider Extended Producer Responsibility for all of the contaminant producers across the supply chain.

Nothing new on agricultural water pollution: Agricultural water pollution is on a similar scale to water company pollution and the White Paper recognises this, estimating around 40% of river and groundwater pollution is due to agricultural practices. Yet agriculture has not had equivalent dedicated resources to identify and implement solutions to reduce environmental harm as the water sector. Consolidating agricultural water regulations is welcome, but we also need to see more funding for regulators, greater support for farmers to implement much-needed infrastructure, and a planning system that is empowered to decide when catchments have enough industrial farms. It is critical that environmental permitting is extended to industrial cattle and moves to do this must be swift.

The Ugly

Essential requirements instead of incentives: Today’s announcements start to embed public health and environmental protection in the water system with targets and objectives. Reform of the incentive framework to reward companies for delivering outcomes like public health, the environment and long-term resilience means these outcomes will continue to be seen as optional when they should be essential requirements of operating. 

Continued prioritisation of private interests: Regulation alone cannot fix a deeply privatised system that is designed to put profit first. The White Paper recognises some owners have prioritised “short-term profits over long-term resilience and the environment”. That is exactly why the ownership model must change. However, the White Paper still treats the profit-driven model as the default and focuses on constraining its worst excesses. The approach to ownership change is optional and company-led, which means it is very unlikely to happen. Most critically, the White Paper makes no commitment to a thorough, evidence-led review of alternative ownership models. We want to see a clear move toward public benefit models for water companies, not a slightly better managed private monopoly. A public benefit model would mean that water companies have legal duties to put public health and the environment first, profits and shareholder dividends are secondary, and short-term extraction is ruled out.

And what if water companies continue to fail financial and legal obligations?

New legal powers may be valuable, but the Government and regulator must use the extensive and powerful ones they already have. Performance Improvement Regimes are a step in the right direction, but the Special Administrative Regime has existed under the Water Industry Act 1991 for decades and must now be used by the Government and regulator. When a water company fails to meet its financial or legal obligations, as is unfortunately the case with more than one water company and with Thames Water being the clearest case for such an intervention. The commitment in the White Paper for water companies to establish plans for special administration is welcome, but transparency on when the regime will be triggered by the regulator and the Environment Secretary remains lacking.

Reforming the water environment requires bold and urgent action. We need to see the Government follow through on its reforms with greater ambition.

Meet Christian Fuller, River Action’s new Legal Coordinator

Posted on by Molly Allen

Q1. Tell us about yourself

Hi, I’m Christian, and I’ve recently joined River Action as Legal Coordinator.

I grew up in Conwy, where the Eryri National Park was a constant part of my life. Those early experiences shaped my relationship with nature: not something to dominate, but something we live alongside and have responsibilities towards.

Before joining River Action, I worked across environmental law, political monitoring, and campaigning, most recently at Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. Alongside this, I’ve been involved in political and environmental campaigning through SERA, Labour’s environment campaign. I’ve just moved back to the UK, and I’m really excited to be putting my skills to use protecting rivers and supporting the communities that depend on them.

Q2. What first sparked your interest in protecting rivers and freshwater ecosystems?

I am lucky to have spent a lot of time kayaking and swimming in rivers and lakes. As I got older, seeing those same rivers increasingly affected by pollution, sewage discharges, the climate crisis and ecological decline made the crisis feel both urgent and personal. Historically, geographically, and politically, rivers are meeting points in the British Isles. Rivers are the places where the climate and biodiversity crisis, corporate exploitation and weak enforcement meet, but they are also the space where we can come together to write something new.

Q3. You have just spent 6 months at Greenpeace International. Can you describe the work you did there, the campaigns you were involved with, and what you learned from that experience?

After completing a Masters in International Environmental Law at Utrecht University, I joined the Greenpeace International Legal Unit in Amsterdam for a six-month internship. What stayed with me most was seeing how powerful the law can be when it’s used alongside campaigning and political pressure. I supported strategic litigation across several campaigns: challenging unlawful deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction; pursuing accountability for forced labour at sea in corporate supply chains; and using European law to resist a multi-million-dollar SLAPP suit brought by a US oil company against Greenpeace. I was also lucky enough to attend the International Court of Justice’s historic Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and to scope future climate litigation to build on 2025’s historic legal victories.

Q4. You serve as an executive committee member at the Socialist Environment and Resources Association (SERA). Could you tell us more about that role, what the organisation does, and how that experience shaped your approach to environmental advocacy?

SERA is Labour’s environment and climate organisation, working to strengthen ambition across the movement by connecting grassroots members, trade unions, NGOs and parliamentarians, and putting climate, nature and environmental justice at the centre of political power. As an executive committee member, I contribute to strategy, governance, fundraising and campaign development. I also founded and led Our Earth in 2050, a youth-led initiative amplifying young people’s voices within Labour’s environmental agenda – defining its purpose, securing resources, coordinating volunteers and building partnerships. This experience has shaped my approach to environmental advocacy by highlighting the importance of coalition-building, clear strategy, and political judgement – an approach I now bring to my work at River Action, where legal accountability, community mobilisation, and political engagement are combined to protect rivers and the communities that depend on them.

Q5. Looking ahead to your new role as River Action’s Legal Coordinator, what will you be focusing on, and what can people expect to see from you in 2026?

My role focuses on using the law as a lever for change. That includes supporting River Action’s strategic litigation, producing legal research and briefings, monitoring legal and policy developments, and working closely with colleagues and communities to ensure legal action feeds into wider campaigns.

A key part of the role is helping connect legal expertise with grassroots action – ensuring communities have the tools, information, and confidence to challenge pollution and hold decision-makers to account.

I’m particularly excited to contribute to legal strategies that are scalable and catalytic, such as catchment-based approaches that stops pollution at source, strengthens enforcement, and supports community-led action. There’s huge potential to use the law creatively and collaboratively, and I’m looking forward to helping develop that work.

Q6. Finally, in your opinion, what needs to change to rescue Britain’s rivers?

We need to move from a system that tolerates pollution and decline to one that actively prevents it. That means deliberate decision-making, stronger enforcement, real consequences for polluters, and communities having access to information, tools, and legal leverage. It also means recognising rivers as living systems that deserve protection in the public interest.

We have to shift legal and governance systems, move the markets, and empower communities. I’m excited to join River Action, whose approach, combining law, campaigning, and community action, gives me a lot of hope.

Construction Site Pollution: The Silent Threat Smothering Our Rivers

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Simon Hunter, CEO – Bristol Avon Rivers Trust

A Hidden Crisis With Very Visible Harm

If you’ve ever stood beside a river and watched it flow clear and vibrant, you’ll know the feeling of peace and connection that our waterways bring. Now imagine that same river turned murky and lifeless, its gravel beds choked with silt, its life below the surface silenced. This is not a distant problem – it’s happening right here in the Bristol Avon catchment, and it’s largely preventable.

Pollution from construction sites might not make the headlines like oil spills or chemical disasters, but make no mistake: it’s a silent killer of river health. Every time heavy rainfall washes sediment, concrete washout, fuels, lubricants, and other contaminants off poorly managed sites and into watercourses, our rivers suffer.

This isn’t just about aesthetics. Fine sediment literally smothers river beds, filling the gaps between gravels that invertebrates and fish eggs need to survive. It alters channel shape, reduces habitat diversity, and disrupts the very processes that keep rivers healthy. What’s more, with climate change driving more intense storms, the volume of runoff and potential for damage is increasing.

One of several outfalls within 100m, discharging from construction sites in North West Bristol in November 2025.

Communities Give Everything – Only to See It Washed Away

Across the Bristol Avon catchment, community groups pour heart and soul into river restoration. They clear invasive plants, remove rubbish, monitor water quality, and plant trees to stabilise banks. But when sediment-laden runoff from nearby development buries the habitats, they’re working to improve, it’s not just disheartening – it’s counterproductive.

We’ve seen this again and again: volunteers offer thousands of hours of effort, only to have their work undermined by pollution that should have been prevented at source.

River restoration volunteers in the Bristol catchment

Houses, Infrastructure – Yes. But Not at Nature’s Expense

We agree that new homes, schools, roads, and other infrastructure are necessary. Growth and development are part of a thriving society. But it’s not a choice between development and healthy rivers – we can deliver both. With proper planning, investment in pollution control measures, and rigorous enforcement, it’s entirely possible to build responsibly while maintaining thriving freshwater ecosystems.

The point at which the Hazel Brook joins with the River Trym at Combe Dingle. Notice the colouration of the Hazel Brook – summer 2025. Credit: Trout in the Trym.

The Problem Isn’t Ignorance – It’s a Failure to Act

The tools and guidance to prevent pollution on construction sites already exist. Best practice measures like sediment traps, wheel wash stations, appropriate stockpile management, and controlled drainage are well understood. What’s missing is consistent implementation and enforcement. When developers cut corners, or when regulators fail to act decisively, it’s our rivers that pay the price – and that cost isn’t abstract. It shows up in lost biodiversity, diminished recreation opportunities, and weakened climate resilience.

Another outfall discharging from a construction site. Credit: Peter Coleman-Smith (Trout in the Trym), November 2025

We Can and Must Do Better

At Bristol Avon Rivers Trust, we believe that healthy rivers are non-negotiable. They’re essential to climate adaptation, community wellbeing, and the natural capital that supports life in our region. Our rivers should not be collateral damage to development.

Here’s what needs to happen:

  • Developers must embed pollution prevention into day-to-day site practice, not as an afterthought but as standard operating procedure.
  • Regulators must act swiftly and transparently when prevention fails, applying the polluter pays principle without delay.
  • Communities and charities should be supported, not left to pick up the pieces after harm has occurred.

A Call to Action

Our rivers deserve more than well-meaning words. They deserve meaningful protection and robust action. The solutions are not beyond us – what’s needed is the collective will to implement them. Development and nature don’t have to be at odds. With commitment, collaboration, and accountability, we can secure thriving rivers alongside vibrant communities.

If you care about clean water, thriving wildlife, safe spaces for recreation, and resilient landscapes in a changing climate, then this issue matters. Let’s stop pollution at the source. Let’s defend our rivers before it’s too late.

Meet Ellie Roxburgh, River Action’s new Policy and Advocacy Manager

Posted on by Molly Allen

Q1. Tell us about yourself

My name is Ellie, and I am the new Policy and Advocacy Manager at River Action! I am really excited to join such a dynamic and impactful organisation at such a critical time for water policy.

I have worked on environmental issues ranging from marine conservation, sustainable rice, nitrogen policy, and now rivers! This broad range of topics has equipped me with an understanding of how different sectors and practices impact water quality and the wider environment.

Q2.  What first sparked your interest in protecting rivers and freshwater ecosystems?

I grew up in Kent, which is a very green environment yet we had little access to rivers for swimming. Now that I live in Bristol, I am spoiled for choice and cherish swimming in my local river throughout the summer.

Having worked previously for the Soil Association on nitrogen, I became increasingly aware of the impact of agriculture on rivers, lakes and seas. I learned about the appalling water crisis unfolding in this country, and the dirty money trail leading straight to the companies in charge of keeping our rivers running and our tap water clean.

Q3:  You spent nearly three years at the Soil Association. What did your role there involve, and what did it teach you about the connection between soil health and the state of our rivers?  

During my time at the Soil Association, I convened a coalition of eNGOs to advocate for greater ambition and more integrated government action on nitrogen. The group of farming, climate, health and nature organisations came together after learning about the pollution swapping risks from taking a siloed approach to nitrogen policy. We hosted the coalition at the Soil Association to ensure that farmers were always considered in any solutions that we put forward.

Nitrogen is used as a fertiliser for crops, either in synthetic form manufactured using fossil fuels, as livestock manure, or supplied through nitrogen-fixing crops like legumes. In the UK, fertiliser application rates are high, with only about half of fertilisers being taken up by the plant.

The rest is lost to the environment, either as air pollution, a greenhouse gas or leached through surface and groundwater to the rivers. Too much nitrogen in rivers leads to eutrophication, whereby the nitrogen (and phosphorus) spur growth of algae to the point that it blocks light out of the river, killing wildlife and plants under water.

Ways to reduce nitrogen leaching into rivers starts with the soil. Building soil health will mean more nitrogen is held in the soil and it won’t wash away in heavy rainfall. Applying the right fertilisers at the right time, in the right amount and in the right place will reduce losses and – importantly – massively increase farm profitability.

Q4:  Tell us more about your position as secretary for the Society of Conservation Biology’s Impact Evaluation Working Group.

I am responsible for managing Volunteers and convening the Working Group. I joined the group after writing a paper on the impact of conservation organisations’ support for community governance of marine resources with the Journal (Society of Conservation Biology), and becoming interested in the use of impact evaluation in increasing effectiveness of conservation initiatives. With few resources to go round, and the biodiversity crisis deepening, it’s important that conservation projects and the communities they work with get the most bang for their buck.

Q5.  Looking ahead to your new role as River Action’s Policy and Advocacy Manager, what will you be focusing on, and what can people expect to see from you in 2026?

Given my experience in agricultural water pollution, I will be steering the policy work in this direction. The government’s shown appetite to clean up England’s rivers, but so far, is falling short of any immediate impact on agricultural pollution. I see better agricultural management of nutrients as integral not only to cleaning up rivers, but also to restoring biodiversity, air quality and reducing contributions to climate change. I will be kicking off 2026 by sharing our agricultural water pollution strategy with key decision makers in government.

The other area that I see as needing more attention from the government is the issue of water scarcity. Demand for water is only going up, with much drier and heatwave-ridden summers and the sudden appearance of data centres, the government needs a plan to ensure there is enough water to go around. That must include managing water for public interest to ensure corporations cannot guzzle it all on infrastructure.

Q6. Finally, in your opinion, what is further needed/what needs to change to rescue Britain’s rivers?

Holding polluters to account, re-structuring water companies to be for public interest. There’s a really interesting example of the Eau in France, where the water company is a charity and they invested in supporting farmers in the catchment to convert to Organic farming in a bid to clean up the river before the Olympics. These farmers produce healthy and nutritious food without the use of synthetic fertilisers or pesticides, which is then supplied to schools in the local area.

Walking for Water: Inside a 100-Day Pilgrimage for River Rights

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Emmeline Hardisty, Founder of the Voice of Water

What is the Voices of Water Foundation (VoW)?

The Voices of Water Foundation (VoW) is a soon to be CIO focused on river system restoration and healing through advocating for, acting on behalf of, and protecting the river’s voice and rights. Following the Rights of Nature movement, we believe rivers should have a say in how they are treated, and river rights should be protected and respected. Therefore, with the river’s natural and inherent rights at the core of our ethos and focus, such as the right to be free from pollution, or the right to regeneration and restoration, we are:

1. Campaigning for a law change in the UK whereby rivers and drowned river valleys (Ria) are recognised as the ‘entities’, the life forces they truly are and granted rights, following the Universal Declaration of River Rights (UDRR).

and

2. Connecting with many to develop river guardianship projects and groups, through combining science and policy, with art and spiritual practice.

Just as the natural world works best connected, so do we. We want our guardianship projects and practice to be where both community voice and river voice can meet, be heard and understood.

How and why did I become a River campaigner?

I have made a VoW to the river, to do whatever I can to protect and act on behalf of ‘her’. 

I have had a special, personal connection to river environments since I was a little girl. Then and now, the way the river flows has always inspired me, the water through, under, around and over stone. To me, this echoes hope that there is always a way.

Fast forward to my early adolescence in 2021, nearing the end of my research master’s in marine biology, sat by the river again, I asked – “Where did it all go wrong?” A question that sparked my now almost 5-year investigative research journey into river issues, environmentally and systemically, in the UK. This led me to delve into environmental law, which then led me to the ‘words’ that I believe are a root in some of the issues – rivers being seen as ‘objects’ under law, instead of ‘entities’ with rights that give them a say in how they are treated.

 

Why did I go on a 100-day pilgrimage?

From this, I founded the Voices of Water Foundation (VoW) and launched a petition – calling the UK Government to grant Rivers and Rias Legal Personhood (legal recognition) in England, and for a system to be created whereby River Guardians in many forms can come together to act on behalf of the rights of rivers.  To share the word about the petition and this overall movement, I embarked on a 100-day, 1000+ mile pilgrimage from Cornwall to Wales, back to and across England, ending at the mouth of the River Thames.

This was a journey for the river, I followed and met many rivers at differing points along the way – the River Camel, River Tamar, River Dart, River Exe, River Otter, River Frome, River Severn, River Neath, River Thames and many more. I posted daily updates on the VoW Instagram, through which I was able to grow a wonderful social media campaign and community, and I met so many wonderful, kind people on the quest, sharing their water stories of adventure and healing. From this, it became ever more apparent that journeying for River, water connection, this was also a journey of human connection.

What did I learn during the pilgrimage?

I truly believe a huge part of reversing the disease of disconnect is about us coming together, so many beautiful things can happen when we listen and communicate. This, I feel, can resonate and re-root beautifully in River Guardianship practice. But undoubtedly the element that shone through the brightest during my pilgrimage was the wonder of water, and this existence we get to live because of ‘her’. This I was reminded of daily, every morning waking up to my first thought/question being – “Do I have enough water for the day?”.

Why are River Rights important?

We truly cannot live without water. Therefore, it makes zero sense to me that river voice and right are not already a key part in river conservation practice and decision-making related to these precious environments and all connected to them.

I believe the Rights of Nature movement is imperative for the healing and regeneration of Mother Earth’s vital interconnected habitats, and our relationship to and with ‘her’. Based on the indigenous perspective, river rights, specifically environmental personhood, is eco-centric, whereby people – River Guardians, act on behalf of the river’s voice and rights. But giving rivers a say in how they are treated and protected is not just about developing physical acts, conservation practice and projects within/of nature guardianship; this is a paradigm shift, a re-awakening, a vital shift in perspective, reminding us of how interconnected we truly are to this Earth.

I hear the word ‘radical’ mentioned a lot in this space, but I don’t actually agree with associating river rights and guardianship with this word. Remembering that rivers, woodlands, and mountains are truly alive is not something new; it is re-awakening an ancient perspective, knowing, and understanding of the remarkable world we are all a part of.  I believe this is key to fixing the mess.

 

Vision for legal Guardians and Guardian groups for Rivers? 

Following a law change, granting rivers legal personhood (recognition) will give rivers legal standing. Lead guardian and guardian groups for protection and enforcement of the river’s rights could be assigned/designated to each river. However, there is a lot to consider when developing a system for River Guardianship legal protection and practice, and it would also need to be both specific and broad enough to align with every river’s collective and unique pollution issues and ecology. There are now many movements based on and leading to the formation of river guardian groups and projects in the UK, the momentum is flowing! At VoW we are trying to connect with as many as possible in the rights of nature, law, policy and conservation space and in the development of a River Guardianship, which we will be sharing a lot more about over the next year.

For now, please head over to voicesofwaterfoundation.org and sign the petition if you too believe Rivers are alive.

Flea treatment – The silent river killer

Posted on by Molly Allen

Silent Rivers

By Jeff Gill
Jeff’s dog, Bonny

In 1962, Rachel Carson published her seminal book A Silent Spring. In it, she exposed the devastating environmental damage caused by the pesticide DDT and challenged the misinformation from industry, together with the lack of questioning by public bodies.  In 2025, it appears we still haven’t learnt to stop the damage caused to the environment by pesticides, as our rivers fall ever more silent under this continuing chemical assault. As a pet owner, I have a dog, it’s the black one in the photo. I was shocked to realise that I was part of the problem when I discovered the pollution of our rivers by the pesticides in the popular Spot-On pet medicines that are used to treat fleas and ticks.

This is what I found out. The pesticides fipronil and imidacloprid are still authorised for use in pet medicines in spite of them being banned for agricultural use nearly ten years ago. This is largely because barely any environmental risk assessment takes place by our regulators, as it is assumed that the pesticides are unlikely to enter the environment in any quantity. But assumptions can be dangerous, especially when you consider there are over 10 million dogs and over 10 million cats in the UK. The dodgy assumptions are weakened further when, on top of the vast number of pets, an aggressive pet med marketing strategy is designed to entice and often frighten pet owners to use as many of these products as often as possible and for as long as possible.

“Driven by innovation and profit, the pharmaceutical and chemical industry require marketing authorisation to get their products onto the market as quickly as possible. The regulatory authorities rely on industry to ensure that their products are safe and effective, in other words, to mark their own homework. Technology today is far more reliable and predictive of human health and environmental impact than ever before. The challenge facing society today is government inertia to amend regulatory requirements in line with 21st-century evidence-based test methods”.

Dr Andre Menache MRCVS  PVA – Progressive Veterinary Association

Industry misinformation exposed all those years ago by Rachel Carson still exists today and is evidenced by the strategies to boost sales. Marketing claims fly in the face of the advice coming from responsible vets and ignore the science. For example, organisations like Vet Sustain and the PVA champion a ‘One Health’ approach (see below) and disagree with the practice of applying routine monthly prophylactic use of these Spot-On treatments regardless of need. Instead, like many others, they advocate a risk/need-based approach, contextualised is the phrase often used, as well as the use of environmentally safer or better still safe alternatives.

So, given all this, just how wrong have those assumptions made by our regulator proved to be? For our aquatic life, the answer is disastrous because this is what we now know and why it matters. To start with, there is the question of how do pesticides in Spot-On pet treatments which are applied in the household get into our rivers in the first place? The image below drawn from extensive research, shows how this happens. Since this was published in 2021, the suggested but at that stage unconfirmed additional pathways have also been confirmed. {Thanks to Dr Rose Perkins and Sussex University for the image)

A demonstration of how flea treatment pollution enters our rivers. Thank you to Dr Rose Perkins and Sussex University for the image.

So that’s how pet product pesticides get into our rivers but to what extent is this a problem for aquatic life? Just how many rivers are affected and what concentrations are being found? Environment Agency data from 2018 found extensive contamination of many English Rivers with fipronil and imidacloprid being found in at least two-thirds of the samples (99% in the case of Fipronil). Further monitoring in 2024 concluded that the levels of these two chemicals was now way above the PNEC, this being the predicted no effect concentration. As a result, the Environment Agency has identified these two pesticides as top of their list of priority concerns as well as confirming the source from pet medicines, all of which is supported by independent research. Other published studies have ranked fipronil as the organic pollutant posing the greatest threat to English waterways and ranked imidacloprid (a neonicotinoid) as the highest-risk organic contaminant in London’s waterways.  So online retailers like, for example, Amazon and Pet Drugs Online have a lot to answer for, and yet in spite of these levels of pollution, they still continue to drive booming sales of products like Itch Flea©, Frontline©, Advantage©, Bob Martin Plus© to name a few.

Are pet owners aware of this problem? A study by Imperial College London of ponds on Hampstead Heath, see the image below, confirmed not only pet pesticide levels at way above risk thresholds but also that most dog owners were not aware of the problem. It did, however, find that many dog owners would choose safer alternatives if they knew what was going on.

Thanks to the Imperial College PREPP group for the image.

Taking a deeper dive into our increasingly silent rivers we know that Mayfly nymphs are amongst some of the aquatic invertebrates most vulnerable to these two chemicals. You only need to speak with trout anglers in national parks like Exmoor to find out what they think about this pollution.  One resident on Exmoor told me that “These pet medicines containing pesticides are poisoning the pristine waters of the rivers Barle and Exe and killing off the insects and water life that used to sustain the migratory fish like Atlantic salmon, native trout and local bird life”.

Mayfly Nymph – Thank you to Dr. Cyril Bennett MBE for the image.

You might expect rivers in our National Parks to do better than most but not so. As it turns out they are the most heavily polluted compared with urban rivers when it comes to human pharmaceuticals. Add the pet medicines to this, and yes fipronil and imidacloprid are being found at alarming levels in the small rivers on Exmoor, then this is an eco-toxic timebomb poisoning our rivers and risks silencing them for good.

As well as invertebrates and the knock effect on fish stocks and river-dwelling birds like dippers and kingfishers, there is increasing concern for my personal favourites, the otters that rely on a healthy ecosystem to survive and thrive. As apex predators, they can be a keystone indicator of river health.

But our rivers can’t speak up for themselves, so what can we do about all this? One thing is for pet owners like me who love their pets and who love nature to explore alternative approaches. For example, consider environmentally safe tick repellents like Cedarcide© (made from all-natural cedar oil and smells great!). Talk to your vet and ask about some of the oral medicines that are potentially safer, as well as assess the level of risk your pet might be exposed to, for instance are ticks an all-year-round issue where you walk your dog or very seasonal?

“Risk-based parasite control in pets means tailoring parasite prevention to each animal’s lifestyle and infection risk, instead of giving routine treatments to every pet. This approach balances animal, human and environmental considerations, reducing unnecessary drug use, limiting side-effects, slowing resistance development, and helping protect the environment.”

Dr Rosemary Perkins BVSc CertSAOpth PhD MRCVS

We can also challenge the industry to clean up their act. For example, put feedback about environmental damage into reviews, talk to store managers in supermarkets and other retail outlets (The Co-op and Waitrose have stopped selling these products) and write to the mighty Amazon and the like. If your vet happens to be part of the IVC Evidensia chain, then ask them about the environmentally irresponsible marketing practice of Pet Drugs Online which is owned by this global vet group.

At the government level, there is increasing awareness of the problem and of public concerns. As a result, there are small signs that DEFRA ministers are beginning to listen and the regulatory bodies like the VMD that are accountable to DEFRA are taking tiny steps although handicapped by the powerful lobby from the vet medicines industry. Talk to your MP and let them know not enough is being done nor at a pace in keeping with the data and research. We can collectively start to drown out the big pharma lobby with noise of our own. Taking action, which surely is what River Action is all about.

 

The March for Clean Water: What’s Changed a Year On?

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns, River Action

A profound silence swept across Parliament Square as over fifteen thousand people stood still. On the giant screens, scenes of glistening waters, darting kingfishers, and emerald riverbanks shimmered into life while Robert Macfarlane’s voice carried through the air:

“Riversong is ebb and flow, flow and ebb, deep pools and shallow beds.”

It was 3 November 2024, and a wave of blue had descended upon London. From river source to seashore, people from every corner of the country came together to demand action from a newly elected government — action to rescue our dying rivers and polluted seas.

That day, the heart of Westminster became a confluence of voices and waters: Robert’s moving poem, Charles Watson’s impassioned river roll call, the symbolic mingling of over a hundred river samples, and the rallying cries of young river warriors, seasoned campaigners, union representatives, and community groups. It wasn’t just a protest — it was a movement in full flow, a moment that galvanised a nation determined to turn the tide.

I left Parliament Square that afternoon buoyed by the energy of the day — the powerful sense that years of hard work, heartbreak, and hope had finally gathered into one unstoppable current.

But one year on, what’s changed? Has the government listened? Are our rivers and seas rebounding from decades of neglect and abuse?

Author and writer of ‘Ebb and Flow’, Rob Macfarlane, alongside our CEO, James Wallace.

A Year of Scrutiny: The Independent Water Commission

Political attention on our rivers has continued to intensify. Clean water was one of the defining issues of the general election, and the new Secretary of State quickly made it a top priority.

Following the calls of many campaigners, including those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Parliament Square, the government launched the Independent Water Commission — a long-awaited review of the water sector.

Hope rippled across the movement. Could this be the start of the systemic overhaul we’d been fighting for — the beginning of the end for a failed privatisation experiment that had siphoned billions from public hands into private profits?

As the details emerged, optimism gave way to frustration.

The Commission’s scope was tightly ring-fenced,  to “making the current system work better”. It was forbidden from considering public ownership or alternative models — effectively excluding the kind of bold, structural reform the water industry desperately needs.

Even more concerning, agricultural pollution, which remains the single largest source of contamination in our rivers, was entirely outside its remit. This omission spoke volumes about how narrow and politically cautious the review was.

That’s not to say nothing of value emerged. The Commission made several important recommendations: reforms to a regulator long viewed as toothless; new rules to tackle toxic sewage sludge; improved transparency of water company data; and greater enforcement powers. These asks were central to the joint evidence provided by River Action and Surfers Against Sewage to the commission, as well as the response submitted by many other organisations that took part in the march for clean water.

But you can’t fix a broken system by tightening its bolts.

The privatised water model, with its vulture-like investors extracting dividends while infrastructure crumbles, remains fundamentally unfit for purpose. Bill payers are being squeezed to cover the cost of failure, while rivers bear the burden of a system designed for profit, not for people or nature.

Our call to action for the public’s submission to the Independent Water Commission, voiced by Deborah Meaden

The People’s Commission: A Blueprint for Change

While the government’s commission tinkered around the edges, others were busy reimagining the system.

The People’s Commission, a collaboration of grassroots groups, academics, and policy thinkers, have been determined to prove that another way is possible.

Drawing lessons from models in Europe and beyond, the People’s Commission laid out a roadmap for a publicly owned, democratically accountable water system. One that puts environmental protection and community well-being above shareholder returns.

Their recommendations included decentralised governance structures, citizen representation on regional water boards, ring-fenced reinvestment of profits, and clear mechanisms for environmental accountability.

The People’s Commission is a reminder that imagination is as vital as indignation. It shows what could happen if we truly placed the public interest — and the health of our rivers — at the centre of water management.

The Thames Water Saga: A Cautionary Tale

If ever there was a symbol of the failure of privatisation, it’s Thames Water.

Over the past year, its decline has become a national drama — a slow-motion car crash of mismanagement, financial engineering, and moral bankruptcy.

In the spring, investors began to pull out, with major backers like RRK retreating while new ones, such as CRK, stepped in under dubious terms. Meanwhile, news reports revealed that the company was seeking exemptions from environmental fines — arguing that such penalties would deter investors.

Let that sink in: a company responsible for repeated pollution incidents effectively asking for immunity so that it could attract more capital.

As the financial situation worsened, rumours of a government bailout swirled. Ministers insisted there would be “no blank cheques,” yet also failed to clarify when or how they might trigger special administration, the mechanism designed to temporarily control failing utilities. A  mechanism that could be used to fundamentally rethink how to restructure the company to work in the interests of people and nature, not purely boardroom shareholders.

In the absence of a clear policy, uncertainty reigned. Thames Water has continued to limp on, its debts deepening, while the rivers it was meant to protect remained choked by sewage spills.

Those who took to the streets last November are now gracing courtrooms. Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP) and Charlie Maynard MP challenged the terms of the rescue package and demanded transparency. And at River Action, we are challenging Defra for their failure to have a policy in place for taking failing water companies into special administration.

Thames Water’s saga is not an anomaly; it’s a symptom. A warning of what happens when vital public goods are treated as commodities, and when regulation bends to the interests of those it’s meant to restrain.

The Regulator’s Verdict: A System Still Polluting

If anyone still needed proof that our rivers remain under attack, the latest performance reports from Ofwat and the Environment Agency delivered it in black and white.

In 2022, the water companies committed to cutting serious pollution incidents by 30 per cent. But the data now shows the opposite: serious pollution has risen by almost 30 per cent. It’s outrageous.

Let’s be clear.. After all the pledges, the speeches, and the glossy PR campaigns, the companies responsible for protecting our most precious natural resources are not just failing — they’re going backwards.

The Environment Agency described the performance of several major utilities as “unacceptable,” noting that some have slipped further behind their legal duties. Ofwat’s own report echoed the same frustration: repeated rule-breaking, inadequate investment, and a culture of denial at the top.

How can it be that in 2025, after decades of evidence and billions in profits, our water companies are still treating pollution fines as the cost of doing business?

This isn’t about a few bad actors — it’s a systemic failure. The regulators’ findings lay bare the fundamental truth that the current model is broken beyond repair. We cannot rely on the same companies that caused the crisis to be the ones who fix it.

Power to the People

If the year since the March for Clean Water has taught me anything, it’s that real change doesn’t just flow from Westminster — it springs from the ground up.

Across the country, the organisations, communities, and individuals who marched that day haven’t stopped moving. They’ve channelled the energy of that moment into ongoing, determined action.

Communities across the country are standing up to factory farms polluting our rivers. In the Wye Valley, Alison Caffyn (part of the Save the Wye community) and River Action won a landmark legal case forcing planners to assess the cumulative impact of intensive farms. In Norfolk, residents prevented new factory farm developments for failing to consider climate impacts, and in Hertfordshire, campaigners secured a ruling that manure taken off farms must be treated as waste, not dumped on land.

Individuals and local groups across the county picked up their pens to share their views on the Water Commission – over 2,000 people made use of River Actions guidance to respond, and many other communities of other organisations like Surfers Against Sewage did the same.

The Riverscape Partnership has launched its Making Space for Water initiative, calling for support for farmers and landowners to restore nature-rich river corridors.

The Women’s Institute, whose members turned out in force at the march, organised a Week of River Action — bringing thousands of women together to monitor water quality, campaign for tougher regulation, and celebrate the rivers that sustain their towns and villages.

The Angling Trust, alongside many community groups, have doubled down on the fight to protect England’s precious chalk streams, demanding that these globally rare habitats receive the same level of legal protection as rainforests.

And in an extraordinary act of citizen empowerment, the Citizens Arrest Network has continued its creative campaign of symbolic “boardroom arrests” — calling out pollution-for-profit executives and holding them to account through using the power of citizen arrests.

This is where I find hope:  in the compassionate energy of people who refuse to look away.

CEO of Surfers Against Sewage, Giles Bristow, at the March for Clean Water

What Needs to Happen Next

A year after that extraordinary march, we stand at a crossroads.

The government’s upcoming White Paper on Water Reform offers another opportunity to show genuine leadership. But if it merely repackages the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission, it will fail to meet the scale of the crisis affecting our rivers.

We need a framework that addresses the whole system, not just the symptoms. That means:

  • Clear timelines for bringing failing water companies back into temporary public ownership through the special administration regime, or introducing hybrid community models.
  • A 25-Year Agricultural Roadmap that tackles diffuse pollution at its source.
  • Stronger, independent regulators free from political and corporate interference.
  • And a second Water Bill, one that enshrines the right to clean water and healthy rivers in law.

Without these, the “blue wave” that filled Parliament Square will, as Chris Packham said on stage, “be back…..in brown”.

Chris Packham on stage at the March for Clean Water

A River Still Rising

As I reflect on that November day, I can still feel the rhythm of the drums echoing through Westminster, the collective heartbeat of thousands who refused to accept that our rivers should be sacrificed for profit.

One year on, that heartbeat hasn’t faded. It’s grown stronger.

Every petition signed, every water test taken, every letter written to an MP is another ripple pushing against the current of complacency.

We may not yet have turned the tide, but the direction of flow has shifted. Awareness has deepened. Accountability is rising. Along the riverbanks, people’s voices rise, demanding change.

The March for Clean Water was never meant to be a single day. It was a major moment along a journey. The galvanising of a movement of communities reclaiming the lifeblood of this country.

And as long as our rivers run — however polluted, however wounded — so too will our determination to see them restored, replenished, and free.

Because rivers are not just waterways. They are the veins of our land, the pulse of our planet, and the mirror in which we see the health of our democracy.

The tide is turning. Let’s keep it moving.

By Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns, River Action

TIMMMBBEEERRRRRR….will the Government ever let Thames Water fall?

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Dr Samir Seddougui, Campaign Researcher at River Action

I have recently been wading deep into the details of our legal action against the Government for failing to have a policy for when it will place Thames Water into special administration. Every now and then I would come across the phrase ‘Project Timber’ which piqued my curiosity. What could the Government be referring to when they use ‘Project Timber’ in internal documents? Digging around the Government website and several search engines yielded scant results. So I decided to conduct my own investigation.

It turns out that for over a year now, rumours have been circulating through the corridors of power (Parliament & the press) about the Government’s codename for its plan to put Thames Water out of its misery and into a special administration regime. This mysterious plan is called Project Timber. It was developed by the previous Government and was first mentioned in Parliament in March 2024. During a Parliamentary debate on Thames Water contingency plans, Richmond Park MP Sarah Olney said “what is currently a secret is Project Timber, which I understand is a contingency plan should Thames Water be unable to operate.” 18 months later and Project Timber is still a mystery.

The first thing that needs to be asked is why is there so much secrecy around this? What is the Government trying to hide? These questions are outside of the parameters of Freedom of Information (FOI) or Environment Information Regulation (EIR) requests, so instead I requested a copy of the Project Timber document or any internal documents that reference Project Timber. Defra came back to us with a rather confusing response.

It turns out Project Timber is so secret, Defra can ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ its existence. They also argued that releasing information on Project Timber would threaten international relations and national security. What is so secretive about a contingency plan for a failing water company, that this Government won’t even admit whether it exists or not. With the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ a betting person would put money on Project Timber’s existence, which then leads to the question why doesn’t Defra want to make it public? But here’s the catch: how can something simultaneously not exist and pose a security risk if disclosed? It can’t be both.

Without transparency from the Government, we are left to scratch our heads and try to speculatemake some informed guesses about what Project Timber, is and why the Government is being so secretive about it. The metaphor of a falling tree having implications for the surrounding environment is not lost on me but rather ironic, given the current environmental impact from allowing Thames Water to continue to fail and pollute our rivers. “Timber” is usually a warning, but special administration would be a positive step for the water industry, which for decades has been getting rewarded for systemic failure across all metrics.

Special administration allows for a more sustainable ownership, financing and governance model guided by public benefit, not private profits. Transparency from the Government regarding their contingency plans for Thames Water would let the public understand and properly scrutinise their (in)action so far. This is why we are appealing the Government’s ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response, due to the weight of public interest on the matter. Afterall, it is the public who are most affected by this. Timber, the material, is solid, dependable and the backbone of many structures. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Thames Water.

River Action is now urging the Government to provide much-needed transparency on when it will act. Yes, these documents might contain market-sensitive information but Defra could redact those sections while still making contingency plans and policies public. That would allow proper scrutiny and help to rebuild public trust in the water sector.

What do you think is in Project Timber? And why do you think the Government is holding back?….

Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.