Rivers need advocates. They also need evidence.

The following is a response from Alan Lovell, Chair of the Environmental Agency, to our feature ‘Before nature has rights, it needs advocates.’

Rivers, wetlands, woods and wildlife need people who care enough to speak for them. We agree.

At the Environment Agency, every day we see how much people value the places around them. Swimmers, anglers, canoeists, walkers, volunteers and local campaigners all have a vital role in protecting rivers. Healthy rivers need public pressure, local knowledge, scientific evidence, strong regulation and long-term investment.

But advocacy also needs accuracy. To drive meaningful change, we must be honest about the challenges, the progress, and the opportunities to protect people and nature together.

The Thames is a good example. Like many English rivers, it faces serious pressure from pollution, historic development, climate change, population growth and ageing infrastructure. The public is right to demand faster action. But the tidal Thames is not devoid of life, and it is not accurate to describe parts of the river as entirely lifeless or dominated only by hard, artificial structures.

Yes, the Thames was considered biologically dead in the 1950s. But since then, regulation, investment, sewage treatment improvements and conservation work have helped bring life back to the river. The Zoological Society of London records 125 species of fish in the Thames, including seabass, Dover sole, flounder, smelt and European eel. The tidal Thames and its estuary also support harbour seals, grey seals, harbour porpoises and other wildlife. That evidence shows real recovery and hope for the future. It means the starting point for debate should be evidence, not despair.

There is limited aquatic vegetation in parts of the tidal Thames. That matters, but the reasons are complex. The Thames through London is tidal, turbid, salty in places, fast moving and heavily modified. High sediment movement, tidal scour and low light levels all affect what can grow. A lack of visible plant life in one reach is not the same as a lack of life in the river.

The river walls also need context. They may look like a barrier between people and nature, but they are also part of one of the most important flood defence systems in the country. The Thames Estuary defence system includes 9 major barriers, 350km of walls and embankments, and around 900 other structures. Together, they help protect around 1.42 million people and an estimated £321 billion of property from tidal flooding.

That is the reality of environmental work in a busy, urban, tidal landscape. We are not choosing between people and nature. We have to protect both.

The article also referred to Thames Water pumping 72 billion litres of sewage into the River Thames over two years. Sewage discharges are unacceptable and must continue to fall. Water companies must deliver the investment needed, and regulators must hold them to account. But the figure quoted relates to the period before the Thames Tideway Tunnel became fully operational. The Thames Tideway Tunnel was fully connected in February 2025. It is a major engineering feat, designed to intercept the vast majority of combined sewer overflows that may have otherwise entered the tidal Thames.

In June 2026, Tideway reported that it had captured more than 20 million tonnes since it began operating. This does not mean the Thames is fixed, but it is a major change and any current account of sewage in the tidal Thames should reflect this.

The article also raised concerns about how the Environment Agency responds when members of the public take practical action to improve rivers. We understand why this matters. Nobody wants people who care about rivers to feel blocked from helping them. We want more community action, not less.

At the same time, work in and around rivers needs to be planned carefully. Even well-intentioned activity can create risks if it affects riverbanks, habitats, sediment, wildlife, invasive species controls, flood defences or hidden infrastructure. Our role is to make sure those risks are understood and managed, so that action to improve rivers protects the environment rather than unintentionally putting it under further pressure.

River restoration is not just about removing what looks wrong. Trees, scrub and bank vegetation can provide habitat. Sediment can carry pollutants. Equipment can spread invasive species. Work near buried pipes, sewers or other infrastructure can create serious environmental and safety risks.

That is why work in and around rivers needs care, evidence and, in some cases, permission before it starts. Permits are not there to block improvement. They help make sure the right questions are asked early: what could be disturbed, what habitats or species could be affected, who could be put at risk, and what safeguards are needed?

Regulation is not a tick-box exercise. Done properly, it sets a shared standard for public bodies, water companies, landowners, volunteers and campaigners. It helps ensure action to improve rivers does not unintentionally damage the places people are trying to protect.

The debate about rights for nature asks an important question: who speaks for a river? It is worth taking seriously. But protecting rivers cannot rely on individual action alone. Local knowledge matters. So does ecology, flood risk, public safety, law, infrastructure, and the rights of people upstream and downstream.

The Environment Agency must listen to people who know their local rivers well. But campaigners, volunteers, councils, landowners, water companies and regulators must also work within safeguards that protect habitats and people. The best river restoration work happens when urgency and evidence pull in the same direction.

Whilst many, many challenges remain, we should not erase progress where it exists. The Thames is not lifeless. The Tideway Tunnel is not irrelevant. Flood walls are not simply concrete scars. Regulation is not the enemy of restoration.

The rights of nature movement makes an important point: rivers should not be treated simply as drains, assets or scenery. They are living systems that sustain communities, wildlife, economies and places. We share that belief. But rights need more than a declaration. They need evidence, funding, maintenance, public involvement, skilled regulation and responsible action.

The Environment Agency will not always get everything right. Our role is to protect homes and habitats together. That means supporting restoration wherever we can, and asking people to pause, check and plan properly where action could cause unintended harm.

The River Thames improved from dead to thriving because citizens saw the evidence and cared enough to demand regulation and investment. We need that advocacy again now. That is how we will move from outrage to improvement, and how guardianship becomes more than a slogan.