Image by Blue Diamond Gallery / Nick Youngson via Alpha Stock Images (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The UK Government has quietly published a long-suppressed intelligence report examining global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and national security. Produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and supported by DEFRA research, the report was originally presented last year at COBRA (the cabinet committee convened to handle matters of national emergency). Despite its gravity, it was withheld from the public - until now.

Its sudden appearance on a government website, without announcement or explanation, strongly suggests an attempt to minimise attention. Released amid the international crisis of Trump's Greenland aggression, the timing appears calculated to bury the story. That must not be allowed to happen.

From environmental issue to security emergency

The report's title, Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security, marks a decisive shift in official framing. Ecological breakdown is no longer treated as a distant, 'merely' environmental, concern, but as a direct and escalating threat to national and international stability.

The report warns that multiple ecosystem collapses are now likely, not merely hypothetical. These failures, it states, will have "dire implications" for national security and will require serious strategic adaptation merely to limit the damage. Such language is measured, but the message is unmistakable: the risk is immediate, systemic and severe.

Just one of the ways British national security is threatened by ecological breakdown as outlined in the report is through migration pressure. As ecosystems degrade, food systems fail, water scarcity increases and livelihoods collapse, "development gains begin to reverse." This restrained phrase points to mass human suffering - entire communities pushed back into poverty and instability. The report makes clear that these dynamics will drive large-scale displacement, creating cascading pressures on regional stability and on countries such as the UK.

Where's the rest?

While the report is significant, it's pretty clearly not the full version and is strikingly thin in key areas. There is little detail on the geo-regional analyses that presumably underpin its conclusions. The links between specific regional ecosystem failures and concrete national security risks to Britain are not clearly explained. Even the report's 'Key Judgements', which are normally the core of any JIC assessment, are presented without adequate justification or depth.

This strongly suggests that what has been released is only part of a larger piece of work. The omissions appear deliberate, consistent with an effort to satisfy Freedom of Information requirements while withholding the most politically sensitive and disturbing findings.

The Government seems to be acknowledging the problem in principle while concealing its true scale and immediacy; in other words, withholding precisely the information citizens need in order to understand how to adapt to a declining global ecosystem.

First suppression, and now silence

That this report was suppressed at all is deeply concerning. Its existence became public last October only through investigative journalism (based probably upon one or more officials taking risks with their own jobs), followed since then by sustained pressure from campaigners including notably Ruth Chambers, whose FOI work has been exemplary here.

Back in October, reporting was necessarily extremely limited; journalists had not been permitted to read the report itself. Now that the document has emerged, it is clear that earlier coverage barely captured its significance. This was not merely a warning about climate damage. It was a strategic assessment of how ecological collapse could destabilise entire regions, intensify conflict, disrupt economies and directly threaten the UK's security.

Its presentation at COBRA underscores this point. COBRA is convened for the most serious national threats. That ecosystem collapse featured there should have triggered urgent public debate. Instead, the report was buried.

Why this moment matters

The quiet publication of this report may nonetheless mark a turning point. Once ecosystem collapse is formally recognised as a national security threat, the implications could be profound. Security threats demand preparation, strategic planning and decisive action. They also demand honesty.

The report exposes a widening gap between the scale of the threat and the inadequacy of current responses. Incremental policy measures and rhetorical commitments are clearly insufficient if multiple ecosystem collapses are likely within the foreseeable future. Strategic, nature-based adaptation will be unavoidable, and delay will only increase the human and economic cost.

This may explain the Government's reluctance to publicise the findings. Once citizens understand that ecological collapse threatens food security, migration stability, economic resilience and peace, pressure for meaningful action becomes unavoidable. This only bolsters the necessity for the Climate Majority Project's campaign calling on the government to fund (with mission-like deep pockets) a National Climate Resilience Plan; with military national security threats, we are always able to find the money to fund a response. It should be no different when the threat to national security is climate/ecological breakdown.

The case for full disclosure

There is now a compelling public interest case for releasing the full report. Democratic societies cannot respond effectively to threats that are only partially disclosed. Nor can citizens prepare for profound disruption if key information is withheld to avoid political discomfort.

Those who pursued the report's release through Freedom of Information requests deserve credit, as do those who commissioned it in the first place. But partial transparency is not enough. If the state holds detailed assessments of regional collapse, cascading risks and timelines, the substance of that knowledge must be shared. Anything less is a disservice to its citizens.

This is not about inducing panic. It is about enabling resilience, informed decision-making, and collective adaptation.

Facing the reality

Finally, it must be said that the report's implications are emotionally difficult. To confront the likelihood of widespread ecosystem collapse is deeply distressing. That reaction is both rational and human.

When I first learnt what was really in this report, I suffered a serious episode of climate/polycrisis anxiety. Partly perhaps because I live on the edge of the Broads, in East Anglia, and so am intensely aware already of the (figurative and literal) rising tide of threats we now face.

If engaging with this material provokes anxiety or grief in you, it should not be faced alone. Talk with others. Seek support. Take time to process, and where possible, take action.

The attempt to bury this report has failed. The question now is whether we choose to face its warnings honestly, demand the full truth, and act accordingly, or allow one of the most consequential intelligence assessments of our time to slip quietly back into obscurity.

The stakes honestly could not be higher.

Postscript…

Green Party MP for Waveney Valley, Adrian Ramsay, asked in Parliament on Thursday why the critical report was delayed and called for a debate on what the government is doing to prepare for the risks it outlines. The leader of the House responded by committing to making time for the debate (He also claimed that the Government had intended all along to publish the report…).

Crucially, on 23 January The Times also published a major new story about the report, which it observes is not the full version: agreeing with what I have written above. 

The story reads in part: "…a full, internal version of the report, seen by The Times, goes further [than what the Government published last week], suggesting that the degradation of rainforests in the Congo and the drying up of rivers fed by the Himalayas could drive people to flee to Europe, leading to "more polarised and populist politics in the UK" and putting "additional pressure on already strained national infrastructure".

There is much more to come out…

Do pressure YOUR MP to get the full security assessment released.

Thanks to Joe Eastoe for crucial editorial assistance in the writing of this piece.

Rupert Read is Co-Director of the Climate Majority Project.

---

More from East Anglia Bylines Environment Inside MAGA's worldwide campaign to undermine climate science byGeoff Dembicki 5 January 2026 Environment Who should we grow food for? People or animals? byJenny Rhodes 23 April 2025 Climate Nature-friendly farming offers food security and better resilience byMartin Lines 23 May 2025 Environment How new smarter greenhouses could improve the UK's food security byDr Sven Batke 12 February 2025 Friends of Bylines Network

There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn't free.

STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.

BECOME A FRIEND

The post A suppressed warning finally appears: ecosystem collapse as a national security threat first appeared on East Anglia Bylines.

Local elections due to take place this May across large parts of East Anglia will not go ahead. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and parts of Cambridgeshire, voters have been told they will have to wait until at least 2027 before casting a ballot for new councils.

The government insists this is a postponement, not a cancellation, tied to its devolution and local government reorganisation plans. Critics describe it as undemocratic, with some areas now facing a second consecutive year without elections. Both claims contain elements of truth - and it is the tension between them that has made the decision so contentious.

Why the government says elections are being delayed

The postponements are part of a programme to abolish the existing two-tier system of county and district councils and replace it with larger unitary authorities. Ministers argue that running elections while councils are being dismantled and replaced would divert officer time and money away from what they describe as a "once-in-a-generation reform".

Councils were invited to tell the government whether holding elections would stretch capacity or represent poor value for money. Where they made that case, ministers agreed to delay polls.

Steve Reed MP image by Chris. CC BY 3.0

Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, said the changes would "cut through two-tier bureaucracy", delivering "faster decisions on housing, simpler access to services, and more money going to potholes, tackling crime and caring for older people instead of being lost to duplication".

The government also points to precedent. Between 2019 and 2022, elections were postponed in several areas to allow reorganisation to proceed. Ministers insist the same principle applies now.

What postponement actually means in practice

While "postponement" sounds temporary, the practical consequences are more far-reaching. In many cases, existing councillors will never face the electorate again in their current roles.

Where elections are delayed, councillors' terms are extended. In Suffolk, where county elections had already been postponed once, councillors elected in 2021 for a four-year term will now remain in post until the council is wound down. In Ipswich, where the borough council explicitly requested cancellation, there will be no further elections to that authority at all unless by-elections are triggered.

Voting for the new unitary "shadow authorities" is expected in May 2027, with the new councils operational by April 2028. For voters, the immediate reality is simpler: no ballot this May, and no opportunity to judge current councils at the polls.

Suffolk: 'appalled' opposition and a democratic dead end

Suffolk provides one of the starkest examples. Elections for both Suffolk County Council and Ipswich Borough Council will not take place. While Ipswich requested outright cancellation, the county council avoided taking a formal position, instead supplying information to ministers.

Cllr Matthew Hicks, the Conservative leader of Suffolk County Council, said: "Alongside delivering local government reorganisation, we will now continue to work hard for Suffolk residents, focusing on priorities like improving our roads, improving SEND services and ensuring vulnerable residents continue to receive the best possible support."

Cllr Andrew Stringer. Image by Suffolk County Council.

Opposition councillors were far less sanguine. Cllr Andrew Stringer, leader of the county's Green, Liberal Democrat and Independent group, said his group was the only one to argue clearly for elections to go ahead. "We are not surprised, just disappointed," he said.

Reform councillor Christopher Hudson was blunter: "I am shocked and appalled that democracy has been cancelled again for the second year."

Essex: patchwork decisions and public anger

In Essex, the picture is uneven. Elections have been postponed in Basildon, Harlow and Thurrock, but will still take place in Colchester, Brentwood and Epping Forest, despite all being involved in reorganisation.

Basildon Borough Council cited capacity pressures and savings of around £250,000. But residents reacted angrily. "As a woman, I am so angry about this," said Maureen King, a 68-year-old grandmother from Basildon. "Historically women had to fight for the right to vote and now it's being taken away so quickly and easily."

Others questioned why elections could go ahead elsewhere in Essex but not locally, adding to a sense that decisions were being made without consultation.

Cambridgeshire and Norfolk: choice, blame and mistrust

Cambridgeshire underlines that postponement is not inevitable. Elections will go ahead in Cambridge City, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, but not in Peterborough, which asked for a delay. Ministers honoured each council's request.

In Norfolk, the fallout has been sharper. Labour MPs accuse the Conservative-led county council of failing to clearly oppose postponement, while Conservative MPs blame Labour ministers for "cancelling democracy".

Terry Jermy. Image by UK Parliament via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

Terry Jermy, Labour MP for South West Norfolk, said: "If Norfolk Conservatives wanted elections to take place, they would have said so. But they didn't."

Conservative MP Jerome Mayhew countered: "Democracy cannot be delayed at the whim of the government. This is Labour's mess and they should own it."

In Norwich, Labour councillors voted to ask for postponement, prompting a Green Party petition demanding elections go ahead. A Green spokesperson said: "Politicians need democratic legitimacy. The people of Norwich deserve a voice."

Political incentives and democratic principle

Reform UK has been among the loudest national critics of the postponements, including launching a legal challenge. The party argues that delaying polls denies voters the right to hold councils to account and protects incumbents from defeat.

That criticism is not politically neutral. Reform made significant gains in the May 2025 local elections and believes it would benefit from elections being held this year. Similar incentives are visible elsewhere: in Norwich, the Greens oppose postponement and also believe they could gain control if elections went ahead.

None of this invalidates the democratic arguments being made. But it does explain why the issue is so combustible. When decisions about postponing elections are taken locally, by councils whose political futures are at stake, suspicion is almost inevitable.

Democracy is a principle, not a party position

Postponing elections during reorganisation is legal, and it is not unprecedented. Nor does criticism of the delays imply alignment with any particular party. Democratic principle does not belong to Reform UK, the Greens, Labour or the Conservatives.

What has been less discussed is cost. Local authorities fund elections from their own budgets, and running a county-wide poll can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. In councils already under severe financial pressure, spending £200,000-£300,000 on an election for bodies that will exist for barely a year is, for many voters, a questionable use of council tax.

That does not make democratic concerns illegitimate. But it does explain why the issue is more finely balanced than some of the louder rhetoric suggests. Many of the strongest objections have come from parties that believe they would gain from an election being held now, while many residents may reasonably ask whether running two full elections in quick succession represents good value.

Local government reorganisation may yet deliver benefits, or it may not. But if elections are to be postponed on practical and financial grounds, governments and councils owe the public a clear, transparent explanation of the trade-off being made - not just appeals to precedent or principle, but an honest account of costs, capacity and consequence.

This article is based on several reports by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, compiled by ChatGPT and edited by East Anglia Bylines.

---

More from East Anglia Bylines Democracy Another county election delay - and democracy takes a hit byEast Anglia Bylines 19 December 2025 Democracy Transforming local government: what next in the East? byStephen McNair 8 October 2025 Letters Letter to the editor: Britain should learn from France on local government byEast Anglia Bylines 2 September 2025 Democracy Is Labour finally ready for real electoral reform ? byStephen McNair 18 July 2025 Friends of Bylines Network

There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn't free.

STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.

BECOME A FRIEND

The post Why East Anglia voters are denied a say this year first appeared on East Anglia Bylines.

As the world teeters on the brink, your weekly oracle paradoxically feels the unmistakable fizz of optimism. For the world we knew, this is apparently the end game. Time to find the courage to be honest with ourselves. (On this subject, any reader who has not read the Mark Carney speech to Davos should do so.)

So we begin with optimism, not with the moral cirrhosis of Donald Trump and his grisly mise en scene of world events. It is with regard to Labour's tangled relations with the EU. For literally years, Pecksniff has been insisting their present position cannot hold till the next election. Current world events only serve to highlight that.

Till now, Keir Starmer has been dishonest about closer EU links and has effectively forbidden his MPs to mention Brexit. But this week, the New Statesman told how Labour MPs had been casually invited to "drop-in" sessions with Nick Thomas-Symonds, minister for European union relations. It was so popular that somebody likened it to "political speed dating".

Gleeful MPs were told they now have permission to talk up the EU. Is this as a result of cataclysmic international affairs, and being Billy No-Mates in the cold new reality? Perhaps. Anyway, there is no going back to omertà. As far as Labour is concerned, the EU is now back on the menu and the government's claimed position to date won't hold water.

*

We find more cause for optimism in the present world chaos. If you need it spelled out, dear reader, then Mark Carney in his Davos speech does so. We have been living in pretence, a dishonesty in which we all colluded. But Donald Trump has forced us to face a brutal reality - only not the reality he thinks it is.

Mr Carney sets out the new reality, and your diarist challenges readers not to admit to a frisson of excitement that, at last, a world leader has spoken honestly and courageously. To be fair, Keir Starmer tries to be honest and even courageous. His speech at PMQs has rightly been praised. But we have discussed before how he is a man who believes fervently that all we need is a bit of invisible mending and everything will be well. He is a gradualist, at a time when we need radical change.

*

Unfortunately, after that speech we were introduced to the usual hubris. The PM tells us:

Image by UK Parliament via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

"We've got through the last few days with a mix of British pragmatism, common sense, but also that British sense of sticking to our values and our principles." Nowhere does he even mention our EU or NATO allies, who were perhaps there just to make the tea. His comments might reasonably have been seasoned with a little humility. In its absence, the omens for the PM to grasp the need to move closer to the rest of Europe are not compelling.

So far, Mark Carney's historic speech appears to have been ignored by the British government, presumably because the PM would see Mr Carney's argument as burning our boats.

*

We will know we are becoming a more civilised country when our politicians no longer feel the need to boast constantly that we are world leaders in whatever comes to hand. Really, the British people will not succumb to the vapours without it. We used to be known for our British understatement, and we can only assume the hubris is a vulgar habit picked up from our constant obeisance to American philistinism.

*

Mark Carney's speech is already being hailed as historic because here was a world leader being honest and admitting that things have to change fundamentally. It was a call to arms. In a part of his speech which could well have been specifically aimed at Britain, he said: "There is a strong tendency for countries to go along, to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won't."

Full Davos speech

Sir Keir does not have the luxury of the dramatic gesture, nor is it in his character to know quite which gesture to make. (Answers on a postcard, please…) But he seems under the delusion that ambiguity is the safest place to be. Mr Carney's speech is not yet holy writ. But the PM faces a choice: between the old way which under President Trump is guaranteed to fail, or the adventure into a new world where there is no guarantee of success.

*

On the subject of the Labour leadership, this diary has reported moves afoot to find Andy Burnham a seat in the Commons, and this week the proposed seat has come up for grabs. Andrew Gwynne (Gorton and Denton) is to retire, which will mean a by-election, and it is in Greater Manchester where of course Mr Burnham is already the popular mayor.

Mainstream supporter and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham © tfgm.com (PR)

There are many precarious steps before Mr Burnham could have his name on the ballot paper - let alone actually be elected - not least of which is having his nomination confirmed by Labour's national executive: rigorously disciplined by Morgan McSweeney and stuffed with Starmer loyalists.

But for them to refuse Mr Burnham's nomination, as a potential threat to their hegemony, might well bring civil war to the parliamentary party, as well as destroying the remaining integrity of the PM.

*

Kemi Badenoch. Image by London Assembly (CC BY 3.0)

We learn that the Trump spat over the Chagos Isles may have been promoted by none other than the present leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Kemi Badenoch (NW Essex). She met Mike Johnson, Republican speaker of the House of Representatives and, it is alleged, put him up to suggesting the Trump outburst. (It is also alleged Nigel Farage did the same, but we will let them fight it out between themselves.) It must be galling to have to appear to back your political opponent at dangerous times like these, but effectively acting as a fifth column takes Ms Badenoch's lack of judgement to a whole new dimension.

*

More optimism. We learn that the Conservatives' own polling shows Reform's vulnerability lies in voters' fear of their economic policies. At the same time comes the realisation that they can't beat them on immigration.

This might introduce a potentially dramatic change to our domestic politics. If it is the economy and not migration on which the Tories will concentrate, that ought to mean immigration and thus small boats occupies less news space.

It would also leave only Reform and (checks notes) the Labour Party fighting it out over who can be most brutal to immigrants.

*

The manner of Robert Jenrick's dismissal from the Conservatives and subsequent jump to Reform seems to have been an embarrassment for all involved. Mr Jenrick faced the excruciating realisation that he had been betrayed by leaving his plans behind in a photocopier. Kemi Badenoch (NW Essex) made the best of a bad job by exposing her erstwhile colleague's conceit.

For a while, Honest Bob had no answer to the charges. He had hoped triumphantly to seal his acceptance within Reform and then march in with hosannnas, and palm leaves strewn before his feet. "A new sheriff in town" was how he described himself. It is difficult to imagine anything better designed to offend Nigel Farage's amour propre. But as it was, Mr Jenrick had merely been caught avec le pantalon descendu.

When Nigel Farage was asked whether Mr Jenrick would be joining Reform, he claimed (apparently truthfully) that there had been no such agreement. But in the circumstances, neither Mr Jenrick nor Reform had much option but to go ahead.

Even then, the intended celebratory press conference went off half-cocked when Mr Jenrick failed to appear. Was he lost in the corridors of the media centre, as one version had it, or did he deliberately keep Mr Farage and the hacks waiting?

*

Robert Jenrick. Image by UK Parliament via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

We must wonder what Mr Jenrick hoped to gain by jumping ship. Only a couple of months ago he had hopes of becoming party leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Now, he has been forced into joining a party wholly owned by its leader, so it is hardly likely that job will become vacant.

Mr Jenrick plainly feels a philosophic detachment from the woes of the country and the principles and demands of public life. He is out to capture such spoils as may be available. If only he grew his sideburns into piccadilly weepers, he would go the full ravioli and look like a Dickensian villain out to cheat his nephew out of his inheritance and throw some random paupers into the gutter.

So did he really join Reform just to become one of Mr Farage's loyal courtiers? Not on your nelly, my dears. However he calculated it, the move was a bid for power. Mr Farage recognises that too, never fear. So… Might it have been a cunning plan deliberately to upset whatever Reform apple carts might be available, encourage antagonism among an already restive membership, cause a schism, and then rely on all his thus-far thwarted ambition to out-do the Farage faithful? Unlikely? Perhaps. But we are looking at a practice well known on the radical left of politics. It is called entryism.

*

Image by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Nigel Farage is coming under increasing stress: including from his party's faltering in the opinion polls - this week Kemi Badenoch beats him for popularity - his financial affairs, and the collapse of his political investment in Donald Trump. Now comes the Jenrick dilemma.

It was no surprise that the devoted Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg wanted to put him on our screens again, but it was a surprise that he declined, claiming a convenient illness. It was perhaps also a surprise - or at least the cause of raised eyebrows - that he was later known to have attended a lunch instead (which involved money, of course) and then was well enough to swan off to Davos the next day.

Mr Farage has never enjoyed having to face questions and explain himself in public, though Ms Kuenssberg is hardly the most intimidating interviewer. For reasons best known to themselves, the BBC also decided to give Robert Jenrick half an hour's publicity, during which La Kuenssberg pointed out he had previously claimed Reform could only split the right. But a volte face comes easily to Newark's finest. His line now is it can only strengthen it. (His seat is an anagram of what people call him.) Ms Kuenssberg of course let it go.

*

Image by Alex Catt.

We mention 'entryism' above in musing on Robert Jenrick and Reform. But its traditional home is among Trotskyists, and it is there that it appears this week too. There have been stories over the past few years of frustrated ex-Corbyn supporters leaving Labour for the Greens, and that would naturally include Trotskyists. But now we have confirmation that indeed the Greens are in danger of being blown off course as a serious party by Trotskyist infiltration: entryism.

The Alliance for Workers' Liberty have published (at inordinate length, of course) a project for its members to conduct "reconnaissance" within the Green Party (i.e. infiltration), in the hope of turning it into yet another self-indulgent and deluded group of lefties - something in which historically at least the Greens should need no further tuition.

*

Rupert Lowe. Image by UK Parliament via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

President Trump's excesses have put all kinds of stresses on his UK supporters, including Rupert Lowe (Gt Yarmouth), who like everybody else takes exception to his suggestion that British troops "stayed a little back," in the Afghanistan fighting, "a little off the front lines".

He still supports Mr Trump though.

*

Clive Lewis MP. Image by UK Parliament via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The government's plans for excusing water companies' excesses regulating the water industry are about to be launched. They do not consider a return to public ownership (supported by 82% of the public). Clive Lewis (Norwich S) is a leading campaigner on water, and he and a group of campaigners wanted to meet the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds. It is fair to say that she was somewhat reluctant to agree.

*

Readers will not be astounded to find Your Party has already split, again, with its latest schism (apparently led by Jeremy Corbyn) being The Many.

This diary began with such optimism, but really, my dears, what can one do? Except of course bugger off to the pub, which is where your diarist is headed. Every week it's the same. Friday night at the Muckrakers, halfway through the second pint and there is an urgent call from the esteemed editor: "You can't say that!"

*

With thanks this week to: Mary Marshall, James Porter, Malcolm Lynn, Liz Crosbie, Celina Błędowska, Karl Whiteman, Mark Popay, David Patey and Helen Forte.

<<< Previous Pecksniff's Diary

---

More from East Anglia Bylines Health Should seven people be able to block a popular law? byStephen McNair 15 January 2026 Technology Price of a bot army revealed across hundreds of online platforms byFred Lewsey 16 January 2026 Economics Where did the money go - we offer some answers byAndrew Curry 11 January 2026 Environment Inside MAGA's worldwide campaign to undermine climate science byGeoff Dembicki 5 January 2026 Friends of Bylines Network

There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn't free.

STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.

BECOME A FRIEND

The post Pecksniff: The end of the world is nigh. So what's next? first appeared on East Anglia Bylines.

I have to admit when I first went away with Cromer's Twinning Association, I thought I had a pretty good understanding of what town twinning involved. I was impressed by the idea of communities standing together and also the chance to discover more about other cultures.

But it wasn't until I was there myself, staying with families, sharing meals and being part of day to day life, that I realised just how personal those relationships are.

The town of Crest in southern France, on the river Drome image by Pline. via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0) Fostering cultural and commercial links

Town twinning can sound so institutional when you read about it. On paper, it can sound structured and official. In reality, it works in a much quieter way. It grows through friendships, through people opening their homes, through a simple willingness to share time and ordinary routines. That people-led spirit still shapes Cromer's twinning relationships today.

Cromer is officially twinned with Crest in France and Nidda in Germany. Longstanding links have also been established with Ponte San Nicolò in Italy and other towns in Europe. These relationships are not merely ceremonial or symbolic. They're active, modest in scale, and sustained through regular exchanges that place understanding above display.

Groups originating from Cromer have made consistent trips to their twin towns throughout Europe during recent years. Local hosts welcome small groups during cultural and civic weekends in Nidda and Ponte San Nicolò, which the groups finance themselves through self-funded travel and accommodation. The emphasis is always on everyday experience. Attending local events, visiting museums, meeting community groups, sitting around a table and talking.

Building trust

In Nidda, representatives from several twin towns came together for a cultural weekend that blended local history, music, and shared celebration.

The Cromer party received an invitation to a civic dinner at Ponte San Nicolò and they explored both Padua and Venice afterward. Local government and regional history details emerged at these events while creating openings for meaningful conversation and forming friendships.

What stays with you is how grounded these exchanges feel. Trust builds slowly, visit by visit, in ways no single event ever could.

Nidda old town, viewed vrom across the river image by Sven Teschke. via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE) Greater understanding

Twinning is not an occasion for declarations, nor a tool for furthering agendas. It is a matter of taking time to see how people in other communities live, and how they are organised, and what matters to them. People freely discuss the shared difficulties of small-town life through community traditions and education, all while acknowledging the social bonds that sustain their communities.

Mike Bossingham, Chair of Cromer Twinning Association © The author. Used with permission

The earliest twinning arrangement occurred after the First World War. Soldiers from Keighley, West Yorkshire who had witnessed the devastation in northern France encouraged their local compatriots to raise funds towards the rebuilding of Poix-du-Nord's community centre. That sense of promoting reconciliation and reconstruction led to more town twinning after the Second World War.

Back in Cromer, we're still very firmly twinned in the town. The Association attends local events throughout the year, unloads stalls, sets out displays and of course chats to passers-by. It's often in these informal chance conversations that we're most likely to explain the purpose of twinning to someone discovering it for the first time. Through these actions we secure our international friendships within our local home life.

Looking ahead

Planning for the future, the Twinning Association is looking at possible future exchanges. Our vision is for a reciprocal arrangement where our 'twin friends' can visit Cromer, and young people are given opportunities through schools and projects. This requires agreement with our partner towns, and planning of cultural and arts-based collaboration. As always, these ideas are approached carefully and realistically, shaped by goodwill rather than expectation.

In a Europe that has shifted in recent years, town twinning offers something quietly steady. It gives communities a way to stay connected, to learn from one another, to remain friends beyond headlines or policy debates. Sustained by volunteers, by ordinary acts of hospitality, these relationships endure because people choose to invest in them.

That choice, to visit, to listen, to welcome, is at the heart of twinning. The joy of these partnerships, and the friendships forged, is that they continue to hold significance well after their initial creation. If you would like to know more about Cromer Twinning Association and how to participate, details are on our website. New members are always welcome.

---

More from East Anglia Bylines Brexit The best of twinning: talented young musicians perform in France bySarah Patey 6 August 2025 Community The fun and opportunities of twinning byJulia Seiber Boyd 18 April 2025 Community A tale of two mayors and some tall ships bySarah Patey 28 June 2023 Anglia Forty(-one) years of European friendship bySarah Patey 22 September 2021 Friends of Bylines Network

There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn't free.

STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.

BECOME A FRIEND

The post The truth about twin towns - enduring connections and friendships first appeared on East Anglia Bylines.