Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Hello. Chloe Wenman, Marine Conservation Society, representing Wales Environment Link.

Welcome. Thank you. Annie.

Hi there. Annie Smith, RSPB Cymru. Also here representing Wales Environment Link.

Thank you very much. And finally, Jonathan.

Good morning, everybody. Jonathan Davies, senior ecologist at Bannau Brycheiniog.

Excellent. A very warm welcome to the three of you here today, and thank you for giving of your time. May I start by asking you for your general views and comments on the COP15 global agreement, and whether you can focus your comments on our ability to meet the targets and whether there is sufficient clarity on what's needed at a domestic level? May I turn, first of all, to you, Chloe, perhaps?

Diolch. Well, I'd actually like to start by just wishing everybody a happy World Oceans Day. So, I look forward to discussing the role that the ocean can play in reversing biodiversity decline today.

COP15, well, it was talked about as nature's Paris moment, wasn't it? I think there's a lot to be said there. Could it have gone further? Yes, possibly. That's the nature of international agreements, isn't it? You reach the base level. But, we were really pleased with what was decided. We're talking today, of course, about domestic implementation; it's useless if we can't implement it. Welsh Government's made a really good start here with the biodiversity deep-dive recommendations, and we were really pleased to be involved there.

The key thing that you'll hear us talking about today is our ask for a nature positive Bill, and again we were really pleased to see the commitment to a White Paper this year on that. We can go into this a little bit more later, but essentially we're asking for legally binding nature recovery targets and an independent environmental governance body. The Minister herself has recognised that the main challenge here is finance, and I'd like to refer here to our 'Pathways to 2030' report, which we submitted as written evidence, which goes into habitat level recommendations and ballpark figures on what needs to be invested.

In terms of a summary of my key asks for the ocean—that's mainly what I'm here to talk about—recognition for the ocean is probably No. 1 there. Welsh seas are 35 per cent larger than the land mass. It's huge, and that needs recognition. You'll hear me talk a lot about marine spatial planning today; that's our No. 1 ask for Welsh sea biodiversity. We think it can make a huge difference.

Other things, really quickly, on the marine side: quality not quantity for marine protected areas. We have protected 30 per cent of our seas already, but they're not properly protected, are they? So, there are some actions we can do there. And that's it, really. Targets within the Bill—we'll go on to that later, but really to emphasise that we need these as a way of driving action, not just for their own sake.

And the final thing I'd like to just note is that the COP15 agreement really highlighted the role of communities, and again the Minister has recognised this, and I'd like to really hammer that home, that underneath all of this target setting and everything, we really need societal change, behavioural change—we need to bring the people along with us. So, I'll leave it there.

Thank you. Annie, may I turn to you next?

Diolch. Chloe's covered so much, there's not much for me to add. I agree with the sort of overarching comments about the global agreement. But the important thing, I guess, to stress, is that there's a really ambitious global mission in there to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, so that we see recovery to healthy, thriving ecosystems that benefit people and nature by 2050.

You asked about specificity, and I think that's one of the things that could have been improved on, the kind of detail of some of the targets. But among the critical points for us is that there are specific targets in there on species, so a recognition that we've got to address species recovery as part of the package. So, increasing species abundance and reducing extinction risk are clearly there in the framework. The 30x30 target is obviously one that's been talked about a lot and it was the focus of the deep dive. It sounds quite specific, but there's a lot that comes under that in terms of understanding how to deliver it. So, I think there's plenty of work to do to deliver it.

I would just echo Chloe's comments that what we have learnt over the decades is that these global agreements on their own don't drive the accountability and the action that we need to actually meet the goals. We need those legally binding targets in legislation, so that the Convention on Biological Diversity becomes the business of the whole of Government, across sectors and society, as Chloe said. So, legally binding targets, in a parallel framework to the climate change framework, are critical to make that happen, we believe.

Thank you very much. I'm sure colleagues will be asking more in-depth questions around that as we progress. Jonathan, can I turn to you for some initial comments, please?

Thank you. Yes. We adopted nature positive, actually, as the nature mission target for the recently launched management plan for the national parks, so that's certainly something that we endorse and we want to contribute to. Obviously the one that stands out a lot for us and the designated landscapes is the 30 per cent target—30 per cent of land and seascapes. I won't get it right if I try and remember the exact wording of the target, but Wales is close to 30 per cent of all land protected in designated landscapes. But, of course, we know that there are significant areas of land in the designated landscape and national parks and the areas of outstanding natural beauty that are not significantly better than land outside, and, in some cases, maybe even worse. So, that seems like a really obvious opportunity for Wales to really improve the way nature recovery takes place within the designated landscapes, so that as much of that 30 per cent as possible is recognised as being protected for nature.

There are other targets that seem to get a lot less recognition. There are 23 targets, aren't there, under the whole CBD agreement, the COP15 agreement, and some that I think probably could get more attention and that would really help nature recovery, certainly within the national parks and designated landscapes. The target of 10 on agriculture stands out. We don't talk about the CBD process when we're talking about the sustainable farming scheme, and yet 80 per cent of all the land in the national park is managed by farmers. There's a lot we can do, actually, to leverage the SFS, within the national park, to make sure that designated landscapes are delivering more for nature than anywhere else and really leads the way, a really good exemplar in that area. I'll stop there. There are other things that'll come up later in the meeting, I think. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Can I turn to Joyce Watson to lead us on the next two questions, please?

Thank you, and I'm just going to refer you to my register of interests, because I'm a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. So, I'm going to ask about nature recovery targets and how nature positive should be represented in Welsh legislation.

Thank you. Thank you, Joyce. Nature positive is a kind of description of that global goal that I just described, so we need to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, so bend that curve and then see substantive recovery by 2050. So, we would want to see in legislation those goals—2030, halt and reverse biodiversity loss, 2050, recovery—and then some specific duties to set, through regulations, binding targets based on different measures of biodiversity.

So, key measures include species abundance, species extinction risk and also habitat quality and extent, including protected areas, extent and condition, linking back to the 30x30 target. So, we'd expect the detailed targets to sit in secondary legislation, but for the primary legislation to be very clear about what was needed and what those targets needed to do. We'd then expect a regular system for reporting on progress against the targets and, critically, for the primary legislation to require the interim targets be set, so we don't just want to look at 2030 and 2050; we want to look at points between, so that Governments—. The point of having legally binding targets is to lock in commitment, isn't it, so successive Governments are driving in the same direction. And we don't want the option to be there for action to be pushed to the last five years; we need to see progress all the way through. So, a legally binding requirement for interim targets to be set is really critical.

The Environment (Wales) Act 2016 has established a policy setting and an evidence reporting cycle so that—. It might be possible to enhance that through the nature targets framework to make those key vehicles in that cycle, potentially. And I think we also talk about, don't we, the need for independent environmental governance, and the role of an independent watchdog is really critical in helping the Senedd and society as a whole to scrutinise the Government as to its progress, whether it's the actions that it's committed to, to show how it's going to meet those targets, whether it's a natural resources policy or another vehicle, whether that's adequate, likely to be sufficient, and how then both delivery and progress have been at the end of the relevant period. So, I think those roles are all really important.

Can I—? In terms of what is the relevant time period, how do you see that being arrived at—through discussion to set that, or—?

The critical thing, I guess, is having legally binding targets. If you think of the impact of the climate change targets, it's really clear that Government is answerable to that, isn't it? If there's a piece of advice they don't follow, or, as we've seen, the Climate Change Committee says progress has been inadequate, then we need to see a response to that, and that plays out in the Senedd, also in the court of public opinion. So, reporting needs to be regular enough, so that it's not only kept alive as an issue, but also so that progress can be tracked—you can make adjustments, if needed, kind of thing.

So, I think there is discussion to be had around that. I think there's a role—. I would say there's a role for the five-year cycle that's established in the environment Act, where we have evidence updated towards the end of the Senedd and the policy actions set out at the beginning. So, the Westminster Environment Act that was passed in 2021 has a requirement for an annual progress report, and I think we'd need to see a statement of that kind about how progress is going towards the targets. So, I think there's a combination of levels, probably.

Thank you. Chloe.

Jonathan has his hand up to come in, if I may bring him in.

Thanks again. We adopted nature positive by 2030, as I said earlier, as the headline goal for nature recovery for the national park in our management plan. And for us, what we're focusing on is habitats—making sure that we stabilise or improve the extent and particularly the condition of different habitats within the park. To do that, the way we conceptualise that is we say that if we're going to be nature positive by 2030, it means, in 2030, nature should be—and I'll do this with my hands on the camera here—at the same level as it is when we start, which is now, this year, which means that if nature is currently in decline, we have to reverse the decline and be on an upward trajectory in 2030. And then the question about, 'What's the future goal?', well, that's a lovely debate for 2030—'What's the potential when we get beyond neutrality?' But even setting that as a goal is very ambitious.

When we were looking at it and debating whether to adopt that, we looked at target 15.3 under the sustainable development goal, which is for land degradation neutrality, which isn't discussed much in the UK, but it follows essentially the same principle and it was adopted by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, so one of the sister conventions to the CBD. And they've done quite a lot of work to develop a framework for that target, which I think could be worth looking at and seeing if that can inform a similar nature positive target here.

Thank you.

And the lessons from England—have we got any lessons from England in terms of bringing forward domestic biodiversity targets?

Yes. Because the Environment Act 2021 has taken that step of creating legally binding biodiversity targets, that’s definitely a really important model to look at. The model is similar to what I described in terms of having headline commitments to target setting on the face of the Act, with the targets themselves following in legislation. And they do have a flagship species recovery target on the face of the Bill. What’s missing from that Act are legally binding interim targets, so there is no requirement to set targets at a shorter time frame—. I’ve totally lost my thread.

The one other thing—I know you’ve got stuff to say—was that a thing to look at is the time frames within that. So, the Act was passed, I think, in November 2021, with a requirement that regulations setting out the targets be laid in Parliament in October 2022. The UK Government missed that target by a couple of months, but still, within a little more than a year of the Act being passed, the targets had been set in law. So I do have a concern about the potential to build in further protracted time periods between the primary legislation and the regulations. I think we should follow the example of that Westminster Act and stick to short time periods. As Chloe said, it’s great to hear that there’s a White Paper on the way this year, but we really need to know urgently that we will get legislation soon enough that the Senedd can pass it, and pass regulations to set us up going forward. I think a critical bit of that is making sure that we don’t tackle everything in stages, but in developing what the legislation looks like there’s also work going on about what the actual targets look like, so that we’re ahead of the game in terms of the need for regulations.

I agree with a lot of what Annie said. I was going to say some of that, too. I think there are also some lessons in terms of specific targets that we're missing. So, for example, marine—the marine target is that 70 per cent of designated features in the marine protected areas network are in favourable condition by 2042. So, that's very MPA focused. There's nothing about marine species there. Obviously, MPAs are hugely important, but they can't be the be-all and end-all of how we restore biodiversity in the sea, so we would like to see some thinking go into marine-specific targets. I know that the Office for Environmental Protection suggested a target for the achievement of good environmental status more generally for the England targets, and that was dismissed, so potentially some more discussion on that. There was also no overall target on river quality in the English targets. There were targets, I think, on sources of pollution, but no overall river quality targets. So, yes, some suggestions there on something—. I don't know, Annie, if there were some terrestrial—?

I think, actually, it's a really important point that, on the terrestrial side, there’s a legally binding species abundance target, but not one related to terrestrial protected areas. So they’ve sort of done the opposite approach, and actually we want to have a comprehensive approach to this and see the land, freshwater and sea are addressed in target setting, but also that those critical measures of species, abundance and extinction risk, habitat, extent and condition, including the protected sites, which is critical to that 30x30 target, are covered.

Thank you. Happy to move on?

Yes.

Can I bring Huw in, then, please?

Thank you, Chair. Can I just do a quick follow-up on the questioning there? Do you see this as being one piece of legislation coming forward that encompasses the governance and the targets and the biodiversity and nature recovery, or two separate pieces? What are you thoughts at the moment?

One piece, I think, because they are closely related, in that the governance body will have a key role in scrutiny of the Government over nature recovery targets. It will need to have an equivalent role in terms of scrutiny around air quality targets and water quality as well, which do currently sit in different pieces of legislation, don't they?

But your preference would be one, though, even it were to amend other pieces of legislation, such as the environment Act, such as the current air quality and soundscapes Bill going through: one piece of legislation that dealt with nature recovery and environmental governance.

Yes.

Brilliant. The second thing is, as a short follow-up: have you given any thought at all to—I know this seems a flip question—the question of the title of such a Bill? The reason that I ask this is because you can set it out in principles on the face of the Bill and so on, but if you call another Bill 'the environmental governance Bill', or this that and the other—. But if you call a Bill 'nature recovery', 'nature positive' or something of that ilk, it sets that out very clearly from the word go. So, have you—? Okay, sorry. If you haven't thought about that, maybe you would want to think about that in advocating how the Bill should be entitled. Right. Okay.

Can I turn to the issue of the biodiversity deep dive? How do you see your involvement in the implementation of the biodiversity deep dive recommendations? You have put some praise on the honesty and the analysis that came out of that deep dive. What about the implementation? Chloe.

Wales Environment Link is grateful to actually have been invited to sit on two expert groups to implement. So, we have been invited to sit on the nature recovery areas and other effective conservation measures group, and the monitoring group. So, we are grateful for that and look forward to being involved.

Aside from that, there are various streams of work that are going to be happening to implement this. On the marine side, we have the Wales Coasts and Seas Partnership, which used to be WMAAG, and there is some important work happening through there, for example through the sustainable investment group, which is currently looking at a potential environmental enhancement fund. So, that sits neatly within the implementation. Do you have any thoughts on that?

We really welcome the deep dive as a process and the recommendations that have been clearly committed to. Lots of those were not brand new things. Some of them were more new, but some of them are really things that the Welsh Government and the nature conservation sector had acknowledged and highlighted as priorities—like making our protected sites network better, bigger and more joined up, and supporting the national parks to deliver more for nature.

As Chloe said, we have got those high-level recommendations, which need to be translated into detailed action plans. Those expert groups that Chloe mentioned, as well as existing groups, like the coasts and seas partnership and the nature recovery action plan implementation group, are also involved in that. WEL is part of those processes. I think that there is an emphasis in the deep dive commitments around this team Wales approach. I think that it's important that, across the sectors, we are contributing our expertise and wherewithal, and looking at where we can collaborate on actions.

The deep dive is focused on 30x30. A lot of it goes kind of more broad than that, doesn't it? It looks at land management, marine management more broadly, and the need for nature targets and so on. The point of saying that is that it's going be close to what Wales's nature recovery action plan is. It's going to be a really key element of that.

Going back to the pathways report that WEL published and that we shared ahead of this session, a critical thing, I think, about the nature recovery action plan is having a costed action plan. In our pathways report, we've identified what we think are really key actions across habitats, and tried to think about what that means, what do you need to be able to do those, and there's room for discussion and debate around some of the figures, or even the 'how', but that's the sort of conversation we need. Because a lot of the deep dive commitments highlighted the need to properly resource NRW to do these functions of enforcement and of SSSI management and monitoring, for example. That's absolutely critical. Those are examples of actions in our report where part of the answer is increasing the workforce available to do that.

Just reflecting on NRW, I know they're shortly to launch—. No. I've missed it. In fact, it was yesterday, wasn't it, that they launched their corporate strategy. And the emphasis in that corporate strategy is 'come back to nature' in a way that's really welcome. There's a strong emphasis on protected areas and species and tackling pollution. But we identified that they need a boost in investment and a boost in teams to be able to enforce pollution regs and to be able to be on the ground providing monitoring of national parks—sorry, protected areas—and stuff. I was going to say the same applies to the national parks. I'm sure Jonathan will say more, but having the tools and means to deliver these ambitions is really critical.

We've discussed our pathways report with the Welsh Government, who have welcomed it, but said, 'You're looking at £160 million a year beyond—', even assuming the rural budget is transferred into these nature-positive actions. We haven't got that, but unless we've got a costed plan, which is a cross-Government plan—.That's the whole point of the CBD. It can't be seen as the biodiversity team, or the climate change department or even the climate change and rural affairs department. It's the whole of Government. What's the discussion there? How do we resource this? Some of it will have to come from private finance. Some of it, if we've got a costed plan, that helps us as charities to go and raise money against, but unless we're honest about what the need is we're not going to deliver it. So, that's a real critical message, I would say.

Thank you. If I can bring Jonathan in, please.

Thanks. We were well involved, as designated landscapes, in the deep dive and we're active in most of the working groups. I'm really looking forward to seeing the results of those groups. I think they could be really informative. It's definitely influenced our current management plan. So, we're starting to see how it translates into action now through the delivery of the management plan. I'd say it's particularly helping us to scale up our ambition towards both larger-scale and longer term impacts for nature recovery, helping us develop plans really at the scale of the park, and work with a wider range of partners, and particularly engage more strongly with the main landowners—land managers—who are the farmers and the farming community.

Just two quick things to highlight, two challenges that we're facing: one is harnessing existing data to improve decision making. So, it's not really about generating new data, although people are always saying, 'We need more data'. But, actually, the truth is there's a lot of data already available. We need to make better use of it. We need to make better use of earth observation data, such as that that's developed by Living Wales in Aberystwyth. There are systems like ERAP. I was at an ERAP conference in Cardiff a couple of weeks ago. They've got great data sets, great survey systems. Maybe with a little bit of tweaking—. We don't need to reinvent the wheel there, but we need to deploy it to help inform nature recovery, because there's a really big evidence gap there that we're facing.

The second thing is that we still need resources, really, for developing these nature recovery plans at the scale that's needed, and plans that fit within the current legislation, because there's an awful lot of navigating the legislative landscape to get things done, and to start working with larger groupings of land managers within the designated landscapes to deliver nature recovery. That needs human resources, a lot of time. A lot of it is negotiation. We think of conservation as a science-driven endeavour, but the truth is it's a negotiation. You end up doing conservation where you can and where landowners and land managers are willing to do it with you. The evidence is useful, but you have to spend an awful a lot of time on that negotiation with land managers and stakeholders. I think that's where resources are really scarce, but it's that long-term process that underpins conservation.

Thank you, Jonathan. Can I bring Janet in, please?

Thank you, Chair. In terms of progress made by the national park authorities in implementing the deep dive, what do you think are the fundamental barriers for you to be able to progress on this?

I mentioned the two that were already in my mind. One of them is the data—not the data, the information, the analysis. We say, 'We need nature recovery'; we've set that as a target—nature recovery. What exactly is nature recovery? No two people are going to agree on that. We still need much stronger evidence to say, 'Well, where are we right now, and what are we actually going to fix first?' We've got really scarce resources, so we need to be really judicious in the way we use those resources and make smart decisions to use them where they can have the biggest impact. That definitely requires an injection of effort to use the data that's available. We can't wait to gather new data. We'll need to set up monitoring systems to track progress, that's what we were talking about in the previous question. But, right now, we need to understand more clearly what our starting point is.

And then, yes, I think the other one that I mentioned earlier in this consultation was the need to work with the primary land managers in the designated landscapes, so that's farmers, right? The reason I'm not there in person today, and I apologise for that, is that I was up until very late last night at a meeting with our farming stars in the national park, and it's really inspiring what farmers are doing right now. But they're still the minority, and there are things like the sustainable farming scheme looming on the horizon, but we're not quite sure when it's going to come and we're not quite sure how the designated landscapes can benefit from that, and yet, that seems to be such a huge opportunity. It'll be a really missed opportunity if we don't make sure that we've got the mechanisms and the resources in place to ensure that farmers within designated landscapes are facilitated to participate in that scheme, and also, that we identify the options in there that make the biggest contribution to nature recovery, because there's a very wide range of options that are going to be available. We know that from Glastir. You can identify those that will really contribute to the goals of the national park and then actively promote them to farmers and other land managers.

Do you believe that, since the announcement of the nature recovery emergency, Welsh Government are fundamentally increasing the—? Would you say we've got more data now than we had when it was announced? And, No. 2, are we, as a committee or Members of the Senedd, pulling out, 'Come on, what is this nature recovery?' Should we be scrutinising Government more for them to present to us exactly what they mean, as you rightly pointed out?

I can't really answer the first one well enough—. I'd say that data—. The obvious one is remote sensing data, satellite data, which is obviously improving all the time. Satellite technology is improving, and, obviously, the longer you have data, the better time series you have to look at. I don't think data is the barrier, if I'm honest. That's what I'm seeing right now. Actually, we're swamped with data, and if you add more data, you add more to what you're drowning in. What we need is analysis of data, and that's what I think is lacking.

There are universities doing this, but it's always very innovative, very cutting-edge. We need tried and tested analyses that we can deploy regularly to inform decision making. That's where I see there's a significant gap. We can spend a lot of time arguing and debating over what indicators or what methodologies, but, at a certain point in time, we've got to draw a line in the sand, saying, 'Well, we're going to go with this. It's the best we've got now, and we need to use it regularly, so that we can really track progress and inform decision making'.

Thank you. And then, Chloe, similar questions to you: what progress do you think has been made in terms of strategic planning for marine biodiversity—and hello, Chloe, by the way, the last time I saw you, we were on a beach doing a clean—in the context of the deep dive, and what are your barriers, Chloe?

Thanks, Janet. As you know, we see marine spatial planning in a strategic way as, really, the bedrock of effective marine management—forgive the pun. [Laughter.] And it was great to see it given prominence in the deep-dive recommendations. The sea has a carrying capacity, and as we develop more and it gets busier, there is a real risk that nature is going to be squeezed. And it is worth noting that, at the current rate of MCZ designation, compared to the rate and pace of development, that makes that risk of nature-squeeze even more of a risk.

So, we need marine planning to step in and safeguard some areas for nature. So, we're asking for marine planning to be more spatial, strategic and holistic. Spatial in terms of directing development to the least ecologically sensitive areas from the start, before we get into consenting issues down the line. It can benefit developers in that way, too. Holistic in terms of looking at cumulative impacts right from the start across sectors. And strategic in terms of giving different users of the sea planning weight, rather than the first-come, first served development-heavy system that we have right now. So, having that hierarchy of decision making to give different biodiversity targets as well as development targets prominence.

So, as you know, we've been calling this ask for a marine development plan, using the language that's used on land. Obviously, we don't want to copy the planning system on land, but there are some things there that we argue should be implemented in the marine realm, like development control policies.

Progress: so, we really welcomed the ministerial statement back in March to progress strategic spatial marine planning, and since then, Welsh Government have commenced a two-year mapping for sustainable development programme, so we really welcome this again. We've been involved in—. It's in very early stages, and we are involved in it through the marine planning stakeholder reference group. And I believe the idea is to build on the strategic resource and sector locational guidance work that's already happened, but to really look at that sort of issue of the carrying capacity of the sea and how we can weigh up and balance biodiversity with development. So, we really welcome that.

The key challenge and barrier, as you asked, Janet, in my view, is resource. It always comes back to resource, doesn't it? The marine planning team in Welsh Government is small compared to the enormity of what they have to do, so I would argue that it needs significant resourcing and investment. If we agree that the marine environment has a huge role to play in restoring Wales's biodiversity, and marine planning is the best way to get there, then, surely it makes sense that this needs a huge amount more resource. And also to be a shared priority across departments; this isn't just nature, this needs to cover fishing, development—so, more cohesion across Government as well, I would argue.

Thank you.

Just to—

No, Janet. Sorry, I'm afraid that Huw's indicated he has a supplementary.

Okay. I can't see that, you see.

No, no. If I can bring Huw in, please.

Very briefly. And don't give me a full answer; it would be good if you could write to us on it. But linked to do what you're saying, I think the committee would be interested in knowing from bolting down these issues on biodiversity, in marine mapping, what is the baseline that you start from, in terms of this classic conundrum of, 'Do we actually define what is good in terms of nature, as opposed to what it currently is?'

Secondly, on the mapping, I'm really interested in the quality of these areas and the diversity of the mapped areas, so as well as the balance of mapping for where development is appropriate, or where mixed uses can take place—fishing alongside conservation—are we going to see highly protected areas, and should we see them, and if so, where are they? We've only got one in Wales at the moment around Skomer, and that's not like a no-take zone around there. So, the management of those areas, but finally, the issue you mentioned, if you can write to us on, which is the issue of funding of the management plans for those areas, and whether you have some emerging ideas on how that could work, and whether there should be—we'll touch on this a bit later, Chair, but issues of contributions from developers, fisheries, et cetera, et cetera, in order to help fund the conservation of the assets that they rely on for sustainable exploitation. So, rather than answer it, I'm putting those to you.

Noted. Thanks.

Thank you. I'm also conscious that we have half an hour. If we can move on just to the next question, and then I'll return to you, Janet. If I can just bring Jenny in and then we'll return to Janet.

Thank you. I just want to move us on to regenerative land management, and obviously, we've got to align all our policies. So, in your paper, you say that all the aspirations and priorities for the natural environment can be met through the existing £300 million—and thank you for your detailed budget, if you like, of £273 million for environmental land management. Could you just say a little bit about the cost and scope of pilots that you want to promote at this stage?

I think the cost estimated for pilots is low because they're very focused, but the point is about developing, understanding ahead of the full uptake of the scheme about the role it can play, for example, in species recovery where you need a landscape-scale collaborative approach—how's that going to work? Those are still things I think that need to be developed. So, I think we would see those as landscape-scale projects that help to build evidence and build confidence in the scheme when it's rolled out.

Okay, but the land is exhausted. We're chucking more and more phosphorus on it in order to try and maintain productivity. What are the sort of pilots we need to do to demonstrate that there are alternative ways of producing food without wrecking the environment?

So, I think that's a really good point. I think that needs to be explored. I don't have a full answer, but I—

Okay, fine. I'm happy to receive that in writing. Can I just ask Jonathan though—? Obviously, the national parks have considerably more levers than outside national parks. Eighty per cent of your parks are managed by farmers. What are the reasons for why you already don't have all those farmers doing exemplary regenerative land management?

[Inaudible.]—respond to your previous question—

His microphone is—

Sorry, if I can just stop you for a moment. We've got a bit of distortion on your mike. Can you just please try and restart so that we can see—?

Yes. How am I now? Still the same?

It's a bit better, but there is a problem with the mike.

It's a bit better, but can you just try once more just to see and if not, we'll take a short technical break.

All right. This is me trying again. Any better?

Yes, it seems to be working, thank you. It was obviously a small glitch.

Keep going. So, you talked earlier about all these exemplary farmers you've just given awards to. How come it's not travelling to the rest of your farmers?

We had a very interesting discussion with farmers yesterday. We didn't give awards to them, but we had a consultation with our, if you like, farming stars yesterday—farmers who are doing interesting work and collaborating with the park.

In response to your first question, I think there's more and more understanding of the kinds of farming practices that are relatively more sympathetic to nature, more compatible with nature recovery: field management that requires less application of phosphate, for example; management practices that stabilise soil and avoid loss of soil and run-off into rivers; practices that are less harmful to biodiversity. I'm not an expert. We haven't discussed this as part of our consultation on designated landscapes for this particular piece of work, but it is something that we look at frequently.

And I think the sustainable farming scheme—. And even Glastir now, there are plenty of options in there that—you look at that long range of options in 'Glastir Advanced', and think, 'Well, there's a whole bunch of things that we should've really promoted within the parks, and that would have had quite a big impact.' You say we have more levers than most places—I don't know if that's true, to be honest. We have the national park authority—that's the lever; that's the only real mechanism that we have. And each park does things slightly differently. I know Eryri and Pembrokeshire, for example, have done more with farmers than we have historically, and that's something that we're catching up on in Bannau Brycheiniog. But I think that's something that we have to take very seriously.

We have to have farm advisers as part of the team whose job is to liaise constantly with farmers. I think the innovative farmers that are right now really showing the way forward, doing the most innovative stuff, doing the stuff that you can see that it works—we have a job to generate evidence to show that that is making a meaningful contribution to nature recovery, which means different metrics from the usual conservation metrics, because it's a different kind of contribution to biodiversity, and then we have to do more to give confidence to the maybe quite large number of farmers that are maybe sitting on the fence, waiting to see if it works. Because every farmer we speak to, even our stars yesterday, they're like, 'The bottom line is we're businesses. We can't take practices on board, we can't do things, that are going to risk the future of our business.' And so, we have to show that those innovators are being successful and then we have to provide support, advice, incentives, to other farmers to follow in their footsteps. I think that we're in a good place now to do that, but I'm not sure that the national parks do, or the designated landscapes do, actually have the levers, and I think we need to get those levers. I think if we got them, that would be really transformative.

Thank you.

We do urgently need this evidence, because the sustainable farming scheme—we've just got to make sure we get it right in terms of biodiversity. So, if there's anything more that you're able to provide us with in written evidence subsequently, that would be useful.

Thank you very much. If I can move on, Janet, we're back to you, please.

Thank you, Chair. How do you think—? This is to everybody. How do you feel the momentum can be kept, following the deep-dive work, in terms of its implementation, and how would the panel like to see the nature recovery action plan revised following the COP15 agreements?

Thank you. Who would like to go first, here? Annie.

I'm happy to. Thank you. I'm just going to be cheeky and say I completely agree, Jenny, that there's a long way to go in developing the SFS. There's a sort of verbal commitment and an undertaking to develop the explanatory notes to emphasise that nature restoration is one of the objectives embedded in this, so the 10 per cent proposal for semi-natural habitats on farms is a really positive contribution at the landscape scale, to helping those common species remain common and increase—you know, bend that curve. But looking at the role of the scheme in supporting farmers to deliver species recovery, protected areas, objectives, et cetera, is still to be done.

Chair, can I just ask Annie—? I just want to be frank and clear on this. The SFS, following the commitments that the Minister has given about what will follow in regulations and the explanatory memorandum, would you describe this as—and I am putting the words in your mouth, but you can rephrase it anyway—it's make or break; if we get the SFS wrong, we are screwed on biodiversity?

Absolutely. It's the biggest—. If the Welsh Government is going to commit, as it has, by signing up to COP15 to turn around biodiversity decline, it's the biggest land use in Wales, the main driver of biodiversity loss over the decades.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The NRAP—thank you, Janet, for the question. Obviously, there's a new framework of targets and a mission, so there will be a need to update the NRAP, because that's our formal plan under the COP. I think the critical difference we need to see from last time is that, as I said before, it needs to be a costed plan that is seen as a plan for the whole Government. I don't think that—. In spite of having, in previous iterations, recognised that different departments need to act to integrate biodiversity into different things, I don't think it has previously been embraced as a plan for Government and, 'How can we afford this? How are we going to do this?' If you look—. Going back to our pathways report, it's clear from all of those actions that there are multiple benefits to doing this. Restoring nature means we've got nature-based solutions to help us adapt to climate change, to help reduce our emissions, to make our communities healthier et cetera, et cetera. There are multiple benefits, so it needs to be a cross-Government discussion, and there have been really exciting discussions in recent months about the concept of a nature service for Wales, linking the need to restore nature, which needs a workforce to do it, right, with developing jobs and skills in the sector. So, I think there are really exciting discussions to be had there. So, that would be my main—. That would be my main plug.

Thank you very much. Can I bring in Jonathan, and then Chloe?

Thanks again. Just in response to the question I think Mark raised then, regarding biodiversity, nature recovery and the sustainable farming scheme, you've got to remember that there are two distinct ways that farming contributes to nature recovery. Habitat protection on farms, essentially taking land out of farming, is really important—there's no doubt about that. But there's also a contribution to be made through sustainable farming practices that protect biodiversity through farming, on the farm, in the fields, in the soil. I think that allows us to have quite a significant impact on nature recovery at a really substantial scale. If you think of farming practices that stabilise soil or protect water quality, store carbon, they're significant and they're achievable on a big scale, but I think they're also important—. I was really struck last night with how distressed the farming community is at the way they're being portrayed, as people become more environmentally conscious—you know, 'Farmers are really the bad guys here.' And farmers are doing fantastic things and are more in tune with nature, often, than anybody else, and there's a real risk of losing them, the way conversations are going right now, and I think that that focus on biodiversity that is protected through sustainable farming is the entry point to the conversation with farmers. They know this. They know this better than anybody. They also know when they're adopting practices that are undermining the resilience of farming by destroying nature on farms, and I think if we can really get that into the conversation and show how things like regenerative farming contribute to our environmental goals, then we unlock that partnership.

Thank you. Chloe.

I'll be concise, because I know we're getting short on time. NRAP—the big thing here is costed, and our pathways report gives a start to how to do that. I'd also add it's quite light on marine detail, and I know this has been discussed before, but it's increasingly important that we look particularly at the coastal zone, and the overlap there.

Momentum—obviously, the key thing here is the targets. In the paper, we'd urge that that's brought forward as soon as possible in the bit with the Bill. But I'd also say there are things that we don't have to wait for to do. We can do some things right now, and, in the marine realm, I've talked about planning, but I'd also mention the marine conservation zone designation. That's ready to go. We're in the pre-consultation phase at the moment, which we're involved in. So, we'd urge that that progresses quickly.

I'd also here mention the assessing Welsh fisheries activities work, which I know the committee is aware of. I know that we're waiting for the assessments to be completed there, but I'd argue that, actually, the high-risk assessments have been completed already, and we could have a consultation on that straight away without waiting for all the assessments to be completed. I'll leave it there, so we can continue.

Thank you very much. I'm very keen that we do get to Delyth Jewell's questions. Can I ask that the next few questions are brief, and also if I can also ask for brevity with responses? Can I turn now, please, to Huw?

Yes, thanks, Chair. So, could I ask to what extent the nature networks fund is delivering towards the resilience of the national site network, and whether that national site network looks similar in strength to the Natura 2000 network?

So, I think there might be two questions in that. So, the success of the nature networks fund in helping to build that resilience—I think it's early days. We've seen some big projects funded, which is great. I think commitments to multi-year funding and to targeting funding around strengthening those networks and addressing issues with management of protected areas as kind of key to those networks are positive, and I know that part of the allocation of that has been for NRW to actually set up management agreements, which is badly needed. So, I'd say that's positive, but I don't think we've had long enough to see results or to see how it's working.

On the national sites network, I don't have any evidence of weakening of approach. I would say that what we specifically don't have is a kind of independent environmental governance that actually is there to provide challenge or to address concerns if there were to be cases where that approach did seem to be weakening or the legislation were not being robustly applied. But Welsh Government has repeatedly stated its commitment to upholding standards, so I have no impression that that has changed.

Thank you. Jenny, is it okay if we move on?

Yes. I wanted to pursue how public and private investment can be refocused following the COP15 agreement. On the one hand, Jonathan, you're arguing that more money should be spent around designated landscapes, because you argue that they're better able to contribute to nature recovery, but on the other hand there are social justice issues that most of the population doesn't live in areas around national parks, and they too need to see nature recovery. So, I think there's a tension there around that. So, perhaps I could come to you first, Jonathan.

Yes. I appreciate that this is a massive question, and that we are quite short on time as well—

Okay, all right. But I want to challenge you on this idea that designated landscape areas should get more money than other areas.

Jonathan.

Yes. Well, I think the designated landscapes are just ideally placed to really be the exemplars; I don't think the long-term goal is to abandon other areas outside of designated landscapes. But they have an immensely high amenity value. We have 5 million visitors a year to Bannau Brycheiniog alone; we have many of the most deprived areas of Wales on our doorstep, and provide really important access to nature, and we know the mental health benefits that provides. So, I think there are many reasons. Like you say, it's a really big discussion; I can't really do justice to it here.

Okay. Fair enough.

But I would like—. Could I answer the first part of your question? Very briefly, I think that an important thing related to this is using public finance to unlock the private finance, and one way we can do that is to get better cost-benefit analysis and a better understanding of the investment pathways that link sustainable management of land and water with all of this multitude of benefits—climate benefits, biodiversity benefits, benefits to water quality and water supply, reduction in drought and flood risk. These all come from the same set of interventions with the same set of land managers, and that creates a complexity in connecting private investors who might be interested in one or other of those services with groupings of land managers that can provide those services. So, you need these aggregators. So, I think that's where public money could be really well used, to facilitate that private investment.

Okay. Clearly, corporate Britain probably wants to be seen to be doing the right thing by nature—this is a cuddly thing these days. So, how do we ensure that—? Whether it's for restitution for damaging things they're doing elsewhere, how do we get better at getting private investment into nature recovery?

I don't think that offset is the only solution here. An obvious starting point is looking at a public service like water supply. So, we already have the megacatchment project with Dŵr Cymru. Dŵr Cymru recognises that it gets more than 50 per cent of all of its water from rain that falls in y Bannau. The provision of water, the quality of the water, is hugely important, and I think that there are all sorts of ways that we could look at connecting beneficiaries and investors with the protection of those services. But my point is that the individual services don't always sell it. The value—the contribution to climate change mitigation or the contribution to water on its own might not stand up, but when you stack up all these services, which come as a suite from the same package of intervention with the landscape, they start to become more attractive.

Okay. Thank you. And Annie, briefly.

I agree with that. I think that water companies have a really key role. And the peatland code and other carbon-based codes, where you can deliver those with built-in biodiversity standards—and that's where the Government could intervene and help to create standards and expectations—and where companies might meet corporate responsibility goals and things by providing biodiversity-rich peatland, rather than only doing the minimum to store the carbon, if you see what I mean. And the RSPB has experience, through projects, which I'll share in a briefing after the session.

But you mentioned offsets, and I agree, that's not what it's all about. We have recently had a planning policy consultation, looking at the issue of net benefit for biodiversity through planning, through development and, just very briefly, our feedback to that was positive—that that should be part of the system. We feel there is a need for clarity in approach, so some sort of metric, something that makes it understandable and manageable for developers. But also, probably, legislation that underpins it, because it feels like placing all the weight on planning policy and planning officers to implement is challenging and it's not necessarily going to drive the same consistency.

Thank you. Chloe, do you have any brief comments?

Yes. Annie's said a lot of what I was going to say, but, just very briefly, Jenny, you alluded to the danger of greenwashing there, and I think that's something we really need to keep in mind. I mentioned it earlier, but I'd point, as an example of the way we need to look at this, to the work that the Wales Coasts and Seas Partnership are doing on setting up an environmental enhancement fund to enable, for example, developers to pay into a fund that would then independently administer grants, for example, through the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, to then direct funds through an evidence hierarchy into evidence collection or other needs for the environment. Scotland has an equivalent—the Scottish marine environmental enhancement fund.

I'd then, really quickly as well, just bring this back to marine planning, predictably. It's things like this that will provide certainty for investors, which is needed, and that's an example of the public investment, then, triggering private investment.

Thank you.

Thank you. May I ask, would the panellists—are you able to stay an additional five minutes, just since we were a little late starting? Is that okay, just so we can try and get through the rest of the questions? Thank you very much. Can I just turn briefly to Joyce for your question and then I'll bring in Delyth?

Okay. Do you think that the environment and rural affairs monitoring and modelling programme is fit for purpose in terms of monitoring biodiversity and also understanding the drivers?

I think, to be as brief as possible, it's a good programme, but there are gaps. So, just thinking of monitoring Glastir as an example, the focus for biodiversity made use of data collected from standard species surveys like the breeding bird survey, which are reliably carried out by thousands of volunteers, and are a reliable data source. They tell us about common species in the countryside, whereas Glastir, some of the options that farmers could take up were about specific species that were rare and vulnerable, like lapwing on farms, for example, and the monitoring and reporting didn't address whether those species particularly were being helped by the scheme. So, I think that there's a really important point that monitoring in terms of species recovery needs to be built into where the sustainable farming scheme is going—sort of into the collaborative landscape-scale levels, and looking at key issues like species recovery. Monitoring needs to be built into that, because it doesn't happen automatically. These species are too rare to be addressed through those widespread schemes. Also, it doesn't do the protected sites monitoring—that's what NRW does, and that's very under-resourced. We've seen the first report in 15 years recently with a lot of gaps in knowledge, so that needs to be better resourced and delivered.

And also, just to reflect, one of the groups under the deep dive is on monitoring and how we do it. We're looking at understanding what's going on in bigger areas. We've got about 10 per cent protected areas on land at the moment. Thirty per cent is a massive change, however that's—. Some more designated sites, some other effective area-based measures that could come from this nature-based solutions angle. But we need to understand how to monitor how habitats are improving on a bigger scale over time—at what point do you need to monitor species versus water table depth, that sort of thing. There are lots of different elements to that. So, that's an important area that's developing.

Thank you. I can see Jonathan has indicated. If I can bring you in.

Thanks. Yes, I'm there. I endorse everything that Annie said there, and the only other addition would be to say that what the environment and rural affairs monitoring and modelling programme is currently producing isn't tailored for designated landscapes, but it could be. We just need to make sure that we get whatever tweaks in the necessary methodology, and a willingness to do the analyses that are required for us. So, it was set up to monitor Glastir. It produces and generates a lot of data, but it's the way that data is interpreted and analysed that helps us to make decisions. So, since it's there, as I said earlier, I wouldn't necessarily reinvent the wheel, but it's certainly a platform that could be built on.

Thank you very much.

Can we turn now to Delyth Jewell, please?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I wanted to ask you about how the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 is being implemented, and specifically first, please, section 6 of that, which requires public authorities to maintain and enhance biodiversity to promote ecosystem resilience. Do you think that that is being done sufficiently? If not, how could that be improved, please?

Diolch, Delyth. Shall I start with that? I can't comment on how many reports have been filed or how effective the individual actions are. I think the main thing I wanted to say, really, was that section 6 is an important duty, but it's the context it sits within that is limiting. I think Welsh Government is trying to make people think of that as a bigger duty than, 'Oh, we'll put up some bird boxes here, or whatever', you know, 'How do we integrate biodiversity and build resilience in our functions?' But it's not a massively strong or exacting duty.

So, just a reflection on the—. The Welsh Government's section 6 report, for example, does report on a load of positive actions that are important for biodiversity, but it doesn't give a measure of how they're tackling the drivers of loss, what state things are in, or whether they are the absolute priorities. So, I think the biggest thing, again, comes back to the need to think about what 'good' looks like, what do we need to do by when, and that target framework that will give a critical lens then for Government to think about whether it's doing enough, but also whether it’s pulling all the levers to support, require and enable other bodies to deliver all that’s needed.

Thank you. Chloe, did you want to come in?

A lot of what Annie’s said, to be honest. The one thing I’d add is, as far as I’m aware, the Environment (Wales) Act hasn’t been subject to post-legislative scrutiny, and that could potentially be something to look at here in terms of the implementation of section 6. I’ll leave it there.

Always helpful to have a recommendation for the committee as well. Thank you. Delyth, do you have a short question?

I think that Jonathan—

Oh, sorry—Jonathan's raised his hand. Apologies. Jonathan.

Yes, I raised it belatedly. But, only very briefly, several points were raised in the consultations with the designated landscapes about this conversation today around policy alignment, and simplifying processes, NRW's role in consenting work, having more of a collegiate relationship where organisations that have a shared goal can fast-track actions, and also look at national and local level policy clashes. There are a whole bunch that were brought to my attention. I won't go into them here, but it's really worth having a review nationally of legislation, where they actually conflict, because that throws up many barriers to progress.

Thank you. And the—

Delyth, apologies—Annie has indicated that she wants to come back in.

I'm so sorry, Delyth. I wanted to really endorse that point. Actually, that’s something I’ve been desperate to make sure I get in. These conflicts do exist. We talk about obvious ones between development and nature protection, but in other sorts of land management, like woodland planting, which is driven by targets, woodland management, the way we deploy nature-based solutions, et cetera—there are risks to biodiversity delivery inherent in these things as well, and a lack of join-up, really. If these are all priorities, how do we do it all effectively rather than just always prioritising the one we’re most interested in? I think that is a really critical thing that this whole process—talking about the nature recovery action plan and the deep dive, et cetera—needs to wrestle with.

Thank you very much. I'm afraid, Delyth, we're into our final two minutes here now. Would you be happy, if we do have remaining questions—I know you've also submitted evidence—if we were to write to you for some additional information? Could I just ask—? Annie, you mentioned you were keen to mention that. I'm just going to give each of you, perhaps, an opportunity if there's anything you want to emphasise to us very briefly at the end now. If I start with you, Chloe—if there are any thoughts you want to leave us with this morning.

Unsurprisingly, my main ask is more resource for marine planning. That's the No. 1 thing we need to do for the marine environment, in our view, at the moment. As I said, quality not quantity for marine protected areas. I mentioned assessing Welsh fishing activities. I think we can get a consultation out on the high-risk assessments before finishing all the assessments. New marine conservation zones—I'm pleased that that's happening, and would emphasise that we need to get that done. And management measures, effective management measures, off the bat with those. There's no point designating new ones without getting the management measures in place from the beginning.

And aside from that, a nature-positive Bill—urgent legislation needed, please. A costed NRAP, which Annie mentioned. Let's look at different financial models. We're looking at this in marine, and that can potentially be replicated elsewhere. And as I said at the beginning, which we haven't really talked about, but I think it's really important: let's remember people. They're the people who are going to be implementing all this. I know there has been discussion about farmers, there are also fishers, and I think that's extremely important. I'll leave it there.

Thank you. Jonathan.

Yes, I assume you'll have received the note that we put together.

Yes.

We made 11 recommendations in it. I don't want to repeat those. I do hope you'll get a chance to read it. But yes, one headline message from us would be, really, don't miss this opportunity with the sustainable farming scheme. Use the designated landscapes as an opportunity, almost like a—everyone hates the word 'laboratory'—as a laboratory where we can really go above and beyond, both with delivering the sustainable farming scheme and, in parallel with that, implementing measures that are even more ambitious, because that will pave the way for whatever comes after the sustainable farming scheme.

Thank you. Annie.

Thank you. So, trying not to repeat what people have said and just extending on my original point, a strategic approach around land use and how we are dealing with those priorities—peatland, woodland, species recovery, et cetera—is really important. A costed cross-Government nature recovery action plan and it has to be owned by the whole of Government, not only the environment department. Then, yes, it's urgent that we get progress on legislation and legally binding targets and don't extend the process over more years. We have to act swiftly and leave a really strong legacy from this Senedd, which declared a nature emergency, to make sure that we are delivering on that global agreement.

Thank you very much. A very good point to conclude with. May I thank you as witnesses for joining us today? We have had a wealth of evidence for us to consider today. A draft transcript will be sent to you to check for accuracy. So, just a note for you to keep an eye out for that. To my fellow members of the committee, we will take a short break now until 11 a.m., and we will recommence at 11 a.m. for another evidence session. Thank you very much. We will wait to hear that we are in private session.