Are fish discos really a blocker to growth? It’s time to bust some myths

This post is by Tessa Wardley, director for communications and advocacy at The Rivers Trust.

Last week we had the frustration of a public launch of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra’s) refreshed Environmental Improvement Plan being overshadowed by the prime minister’s speech in support of the recommendations in the Fingleton Review.

John Fingleton is the latest in the growing herd of economists commissioned by the Labour government to undertake reviews, in this case to develop a series of ‘red tape’ cutting measures for the nuclear industry.

So, while in one ear we heard the Defra secretary of state optimistically set out the government’s plan to improve the environment, in the other we had the prime minister announcing his support for a whole range of measures that would undermine Habitats Regulations, challenge the Aarhus Convention, weaken Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and directly contradict his own government’s new Environmental Improvement Plan.

For the environment sector, this is a repeated and concerning pattern. Warm words, reassurances and some hope of positive movement from Defra ministers, immediately undermined by an ill-informed, incorrect narrative from the centre of government, mocking protections for bats and newts, or the deployment of ‘fish discos’, and generally pitting nature as the principal blocker to development and growth.

The case of the ‘fish disco’, first coined by Sir Keir Starmer in relation to the Acoustic Fish Deterrent for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, was again referenced in the recent Fingleton review. The review relied on misleading evidence which was then repeated in blatantly sensational and biased national newspaper articles which failed to employ independent research, critical thinking or fact verification.

The objection to ‘fish discos’ is misinformed Nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point C will rely on the Severn Estuary to keep them cool, drawing a staggering Olympic sized swimming pool volume of water from the estuary every 12 seconds over the plant’s expected 70 year lifespan.

The intake is in a designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The Severn Estuary serves as a vital nursery ground and migratory route for fish species and is crucial to the region’s biodiversity, supporting tens of thousands of overwintering birds. These designations are applied to recognise and protect internationally important and sensitive areas for nature.

In recognition, the discharge consent, approved by the Environment Agency in 2013, included essential mitigation measures to protect the estuary’s fish populations. The following measures were agreed by the energy company EDF and were integral to it receiving a Development Consent Order: an Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD), low velocity side intakes and a fish recovery and return system.

The prime minister’s mocking of the need for the ‘fish disco’ and the news articles demonstrate misinformed and lazy thinking.

Here are a few more relevant facts to bust the myths being perpetuated: the power station will take 3.5 billion gallons of water a day, 24 hours a day, for 70 years, through a pipe the width of three double decker buses. The water will come from the most densely species populated four metres of water, immediately above the seabed. The process will kill millions of endangered fish, such as salmon, eel, shad and sea trout, and other marine creatures, including shrimps, prawns, and crabs, affecting future generations of these species and those of the species that rely on them, as well as local fishermen and the wider economy. English and Welsh government experts estimate fish deaths ranging from 1.89 million to 182 million fish per year for the next 60 years and that does not consider the generational or food chain implications.

The supposition in the article that the deterrents will save just 0.083 salmon, 0.028 sea trout, six river lampreys, 18 Allis shad and 528 twaite shad a year, at a cost of around £280,000 per saved fish over a period of 25 years is patently wrong. EDF signed up to the mitigation measures to get planning consent in 2013. Since 2019 they have battled to drop the requirements for the AFD element of the mitigation measures, but studies consistently show all three measures are required for the mitigation to be effective. The so called ‘fish disco’ costs £50 million in a total project budget of over £45 billion, not the £700 million quoted in the media.

Several things are missing from this discourse, aside from verifiable facts, including the most obvious: the UK government chose to approve a power station on one of the most highly protected ecological sites in the UK and Europe, so this conflict was almost inevitable. Many other countries simply would not have permitted such a development in such a sensitive location.

Nature is also critical infrastructure There are two main take aways from this debate. First, EDF agreed to mitigation measures upfront which they have not delivered. Hinkley Point C must incorporate the fish protection measures originally committed to, including the Acoustic Fish Deterrent. Without these safeguards, millions of migratory and protected fish are at risk, as are their future generations and the wider food chain, which has implications for local communities and the economy.

Second, this case points to a wider problem that the government is failing to grapple with at the highest level. We must change the way we think about critical infrastructure, both built and natural. We cannot afford to choose between development and nature. Yes, there is an urgent need for new energy infrastructure, but there is an equally urgent need to stand by agreed environmental mitigation. Rolling back on commitments undermines both trust and the shared goal of ensuring that progress does not come at the expense of the natural world.

Sir Partha Dasgupta and Nicholas Stern, two eminent economists who respectively wrote government reviews, The Economics of Biodiversity and The Economics of Climate Change, both understood this, but their wisdom is being ignored by a new crop of economists. We can and must deliver essential development while not only protecting nature but encouraging its recovery. We cannot afford to lose one at the expense of the other.

Development and nature can thrive together, but only if the safeguards designed to protect our wildlife and communities are respected and remain in place. We need mature conversations to achieve it, not the derisive soundbites delivered by our current leaders.

For more information, read Bristol Avon Rivers Trust’s position statement on the impact of Hinkley Point C on fish: https://bristolavonriverstrust.org/hpc-impact-to-fish/