Environmental Audit Committee
Wednesday 2nd September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 15 hours, 56 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:30
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Order, order! Well, welcome, everyone , to the latest meeting of the Environmental Audit Committee. And delighted to have with us for a valedictory session from the from Natural England doctor Tony Juniper and Marianne Spain. Both of you, thank you so much for agreeing to to come along to today's session. Often the sessions as people leave posts are extremely valuable and give an opportunity for people to look back on, on their achievements and, and the things that they wish they might have done or been allowed to do.
So firstly, I think on behalf of the committee, say to both of you, thank you very much for your contribution and commitment to to your role. I mean, Tony, starting with you, obviously, seven glorious years. Are you glad to be going or sad to be going or. It's been an absolute pleasure and a demanding role, but one in which I've been pleased to be able to make some progress on this big job of nature recovery in Britain.
I think it's fair to say that when Marianne and I came to work together in 2019, the organisation wasn't in a great space. It was quite demoralised, quite weak. And during my early months I remember thinking that there are three things that need to happen. Number one is that we need to get a strategy that's fit for purpose, one which is combining all of this diverse work that we do across 500 different powers and duties, which we've been granted by Parliament over decades.
How do we make sense of that for best possible impact for the country? That was a big heading. Second thing was about funding. We had a pretty slender budget compared with now. And the third thing was about restoring morale and confidence in the organisation. And I think Marianne and I, between us did that quite well early on. Our budget today is about three times bigger than it was back then.
We have a very clear strategy, which is not just about species and habitats, but which is about harnessing nature recovery for economic development, for public health and wellbeing, and for national security and resilience. And if we look back over the years, we've been, I think, fair to say, the organisation has been very busy indeed. We've assisted government in making some really quite major changes to agricultural policy and the emergence of the Environmental Land Management Scheme, for instance, which we advised government on and now are helping with the delivery of, including the landscape recovery programme, which is completely new.
A very exciting new front line for nature recovery in Britain. We've assisted with the challenges of how to enable built development at the same time as protecting nature, and so we have assisted with various initiatives like the district Level licensing scheme, which now takes a view of great crested newt populations across a landscape rather than an individual newt stopping a development. We've assisted with the nutrient mitigation scheme, a very complicated but necessary measure to protect rivers from additional pollution, and we're now in the process of taking the nutrient , sorry, the nature restoration scheme, into delivery, including nutrient pollution.
We've done some fantastic work on protected areas, a new series of national nature reserves, and we have done some wonderful work on species recovery, including bringing back species previously extinct in these islands, including the beaver and the white tailed eagle. And we are now looking at ways in which we can further connect people with the natural world. Some fantastic work we did on green social prescribing, on green infrastructure to enable local authorities to do more with nature, and also two major national trails that recently opened the King Charles II of England Coast Path, the longest walking trail around a coastline in the world, and the coast to Coast Path across the north of England, which was achieved with Natural England workers on the ground doing that.
And so I'll stop you for a minute, Tony, because I feel like the next two hours might fly by. We could do another hour. Yeah, I got that impression. I mean, obviously you've been through, you know, an array of different measures there. I mean, when you look back on on what you see as your key achievements, do you think you walk away with nature in a stronger place than when you arrived? Undoubtedly.
And one of the things I would say that is striking is the extent to which a national level we still have debates about whether nature or economic development is the priority, and we have these fruitless clashes about this false choice. If you go to ground level, however, speak to farmers, speak to major infrastructure companies, speak to the NGOs, speak to communities. A lot of really good work is going on, and it's been our privilege to be able to assist in some of those partnerships, building up the momentum they've now got.
And so it's like almost a parallel world. If you look at it at the national level, nature's in decline. Yes. But actually, do we wish to do anything about it? Well, no not really because we need economic development and that doesn't take us very far. But if you get down to ground level, people increasingly get it. And I think it's fair to say that we're in a much better place now compared to where we were 7 or 8 years ago.
Yeah. And I mean, you know, you allude to that sort of nature versus growth discussion. And in fairness, you know, that's something that has, you know, potentially been perpetuated by people in government. Also, this is not not something that's happened absent of of politics. I mean, give us a sense from your perspective as to the extent to which you felt that you, you and, and your agenda was be was being seen as a as an enemy of growth.
Did you did you have that sense at all? Totally, totally. It's been there in different forms over all of the time that we've served together and with various moments where it's become very prominent as a, as a, as a political talking point, certainly in getting into the newspapers, various interest groups behind that, various political reasons to foster a culture war that doesn't really have much reality behind it, because we have a vast body of data that reveals how nature is vital underpinning for economic development in every sector of the economy.
We know it's vital for public health and well-being, and we know it's a source of resilience and security as we lean in to an uncertain future. But for some reasons, there has been seen to be some advantage in presenting this false choice. And it's still there. The idea that we should deregulate to free up the economy, do away with these species protection laws for bats and dormice and newts and snails and whatever else makes it into the media.
It's a groundless argument, however, because we have a vast body of data which reveals how there is every good economic reason for investing in ecological recovery. And just to to sort of pause for a minute at that at that juncture, you know, I think there's been a sense over the years that different people in government have maybe had concerns about that approach, and that the sort of vigor with which you you pursue this argument.
I mean, do you think they'll is your sense that that people were keen for you to move on, or were you did you feel sort of supported in the role? Oh, well, supported is not a word that I feel as though I'd put front at my list of reflections on my time at Natural England, but I'm still here. Many of my local critics I know not for long, but many of my vocal critics are long gone, which maybe says something about the democratic process and the extent to which the public really does want high environmental ambition from the people who are elected.
Yeah. So, I mean, you're speaking in riddles there, but I mean, you're suggesting that those who were sort of hostile to your agenda, the electorate, have had their way with them. Is that what you're saying? It's possibly one interpretation, isn't it? Okay. I mean, turning to this government then. I mean, did you feel supported better in in under this government? Or again, do you feel like there's going to be people raising a glass when you walk out the door? I'm sure there will be a range of of reflections as I depart.
I have now served under the tenure of six prime ministers, and I think it's fair to say that the appetite for nature recovery has varied between them. If I think back to the period when we had the strongest backing, it was when Boris Johnson was prime Minister. And during the period since, we've had changes to the emphasis placed upon this, and as I say, quite a lot, especially over the last few years, there's very strong presentation of that false choice that we should either pursue development of the economy or we should look after nature.
Our very strong evidence based contention all along has been that we need to do both. And and if we do this in an intelligent way, it will help the economy. Yeah. And I'm sorry to sort of press this point. I don't wish to embarrass anyone, but but I think it's important, given that, you know, the respect in which you're held, you know, can you be clear? I mean, were you basically asked to leave or was it a choice that you made? Oh, no, no one's asked me to leave.
They've only asked me to stay. Right. So I've been reappointed twice. Okay. Under different governments. Okay. So you'll go in of your own. Yes, yes, yes. No, I will, I will reach the end of a third term in April and that will be my time done. Excellent. And I mean, you know, you've reflected along the along many of those successes.
I mean, looking back now, what do you feel are the areas that frustrate you in terms of what would you like to think that might have been achieved in the seven years that maybe hasn't? Or what do you see as the the biggest sort of disappointments alongside those triumphs that you've reflected on? So as I began, chair, you know, there's a lot which we we really proudly look back on Marianne and I and the team that we've worked with.
And so I don't think there are many disappointments in terms of the delivery that we've been able to, to achieve on behalf of the country. But there have been some considerable challenges. And one of them, we've already touched on this idea that there's a choice between nature and economy that has been quite frustrating and quite difficult to deal with and has slowed things down, and not just for us, but for many of the customers we work with, including infrastructure providers, who found this quite an unhelpful context for them, making the case for what they need to do to their stakeholders.
Because the impression has been created that government is trying to cut corners, deregulate to harm nature, to favour development. That may not necessarily be true, but it's one of the impressions that has made it quite frustrating and difficult for us. And I think looking forward and to the work that our successors will need to do, this continuing task of seeking to integrate nature and environmental protection across government is an absolutely critical, ongoing job, and we've made some good progress on this.
But it's not just Defra that needs to deliver on environmental security and the rebuilding of the health of nature. It's a job that needs to be embraced right across the piece, which is why it's particularly damaging when, from the centre of government, we hear the idea that there is a there is a choice. It's a false choice, but it's constantly being reinforced. And I mean, on turning to more specifics. You know, 35% of protected sites are actually in good condition now.
The EP target was 75% by 2030. But they suggest in their latest report that we are, you know, predominantly off target to achieve that. And in fact, the numbers in the progress that is declining rather than improving. I mean, what would you say are the main reasons why that key metric is being missed so substantially at the moment? So very often it's big cross-cutting issues that are originating outside the protected area.
So air pollution, water pollution, fragmentation, and the now the effects of climate change on top. All of these things are having a bearing on the state of protected areas. But inside some of them, there are issues linked with grazing or the insufficient management of woodland coppice, for example, or the clearance of of volunteer trees appearing in heathland. So some of these things we can manage on site and we do seek to do that. But quite a lot of this is originating outside the protected areas, which is why actually we've been very pleased to be working with this new provision that we got from the 2021 Environment Act, which enables us now to develop so-called protected site strategies, which go far beyond the boundaries of protected areas, enabling us to get our arms around some of these things that previously we couldn't get to influence because of our powers being limited to within the site of Special Scientific Interest.
So progress is being made there. But I think this really just underlines the need for us to be taking a landscape scale, to be taking an integrated and holistic view, to be drawing together the tools that we've got on water pollution, air pollution, to be reconnecting fragmented sites, and to be doing this in a way whereby we've got some spatial kind of objectives in mind. And this is another thing that's worth mentioning is the local nature recovery strategies, which are also a very important opportunity.
Looking forward in terms of how we can do this work. And I'll let you have a breather for a moment, Tony, and turn to you. Marion. And you joined the Natural England Board in 2019 and have been permanent CEO since 2020. I mean, turning away from from the sort of, if you like, the overarching narrative and to the day to day operations, what do you see? What's your sense as to what the key challenges are that the organisation has faced across that period? And what do you what do you feel are the key strengths and weaknesses that you'll leave, you'll leave them with?
So firstly, I think on behalf of the committee, say to both of you, thank you very much for your contribution and commitment to to your role. I mean, Tony, starting with you, obviously, seven glorious years. Are you glad to be going or sad to be going or. It's been an absolute pleasure and a demanding role, but one in which I've been pleased to be able to make some progress on this big job of nature recovery in Britain.
I think it's fair to say that when Marianne and I came to work together in 2019, the organisation wasn't in a great space. It was quite demoralised, quite weak. And during my early months I remember thinking that there are three things that need to happen. Number one is that we need to get a strategy that's fit for purpose, one which is combining all of this diverse work that we do across 500 different powers and duties, which we've been granted by Parliament over decades.
How do we make sense of that for best possible impact for the country? That was a big heading. Second thing was about funding. We had a pretty slender budget compared with now. And the third thing was about restoring morale and confidence in the organisation. And I think Marianne and I, between us did that quite well early on. Our budget today is about three times bigger than it was back then.
We have a very clear strategy, which is not just about species and habitats, but which is about harnessing nature recovery for economic development, for public health and wellbeing, and for national security and resilience. And if we look back over the years, we've been, I think, fair to say, the organisation has been very busy indeed. We've assisted government in making some really quite major changes to agricultural policy and the emergence of the Environmental Land Management Scheme, for instance, which we advised government on and now are helping with the delivery of, including the landscape recovery programme, which is completely new.
A very exciting new front line for nature recovery in Britain. We've assisted with the challenges of how to enable built development at the same time as protecting nature, and so we have assisted with various initiatives like the district Level licensing scheme, which now takes a view of great crested newt populations across a landscape rather than an individual newt stopping a development. We've assisted with the nutrient mitigation scheme, a very complicated but necessary measure to protect rivers from additional pollution, and we're now in the process of taking the nutrient , sorry, the nature restoration scheme, into delivery, including nutrient pollution.
We've done some fantastic work on protected areas, a new series of national nature reserves, and we have done some wonderful work on species recovery, including bringing back species previously extinct in these islands, including the beaver and the white tailed eagle. And we are now looking at ways in which we can further connect people with the natural world. Some fantastic work we did on green social prescribing, on green infrastructure to enable local authorities to do more with nature, and also two major national trails that recently opened the King Charles II of England Coast Path, the longest walking trail around a coastline in the world, and the coast to Coast Path across the north of England, which was achieved with Natural England workers on the ground doing that.
And so I'll stop you for a minute, Tony, because I feel like the next two hours might fly by. We could do another hour. Yeah, I got that impression. I mean, obviously you've been through, you know, an array of different measures there. I mean, when you look back on on what you see as your key achievements, do you think you walk away with nature in a stronger place than when you arrived? Undoubtedly.
And one of the things I would say that is striking is the extent to which a national level we still have debates about whether nature or economic development is the priority, and we have these fruitless clashes about this false choice. If you go to ground level, however, speak to farmers, speak to major infrastructure companies, speak to the NGOs, speak to communities. A lot of really good work is going on, and it's been our privilege to be able to assist in some of those partnerships, building up the momentum they've now got.
And so it's like almost a parallel world. If you look at it at the national level, nature's in decline. Yes. But actually, do we wish to do anything about it? Well, no not really because we need economic development and that doesn't take us very far. But if you get down to ground level, people increasingly get it. And I think it's fair to say that we're in a much better place now compared to where we were 7 or 8 years ago.
Yeah. And I mean, you know, you allude to that sort of nature versus growth discussion. And in fairness, you know, that's something that has, you know, potentially been perpetuated by people in government. Also, this is not not something that's happened absent of of politics. I mean, give us a sense from your perspective as to the extent to which you felt that you, you and, and your agenda was be was being seen as a as an enemy of growth.
Did you did you have that sense at all? Totally, totally. It's been there in different forms over all of the time that we've served together and with various moments where it's become very prominent as a, as a, as a political talking point, certainly in getting into the newspapers, various interest groups behind that, various political reasons to foster a culture war that doesn't really have much reality behind it, because we have a vast body of data that reveals how nature is vital underpinning for economic development in every sector of the economy.
We know it's vital for public health and well-being, and we know it's a source of resilience and security as we lean in to an uncertain future. But for some reasons, there has been seen to be some advantage in presenting this false choice. And it's still there. The idea that we should deregulate to free up the economy, do away with these species protection laws for bats and dormice and newts and snails and whatever else makes it into the media.
It's a groundless argument, however, because we have a vast body of data which reveals how there is every good economic reason for investing in ecological recovery. And just to to sort of pause for a minute at that at that juncture, you know, I think there's been a sense over the years that different people in government have maybe had concerns about that approach, and that the sort of vigor with which you you pursue this argument.
I mean, do you think they'll is your sense that that people were keen for you to move on, or were you did you feel sort of supported in the role? Oh, well, supported is not a word that I feel as though I'd put front at my list of reflections on my time at Natural England, but I'm still here. Many of my local critics I know not for long, but many of my vocal critics are long gone, which maybe says something about the democratic process and the extent to which the public really does want high environmental ambition from the people who are elected.
Yeah. So, I mean, you're speaking in riddles there, but I mean, you're suggesting that those who were sort of hostile to your agenda, the electorate, have had their way with them. Is that what you're saying? It's possibly one interpretation, isn't it? Okay. I mean, turning to this government then. I mean, did you feel supported better in in under this government? Or again, do you feel like there's going to be people raising a glass when you walk out the door? I'm sure there will be a range of of reflections as I depart.
I have now served under the tenure of six prime ministers, and I think it's fair to say that the appetite for nature recovery has varied between them. If I think back to the period when we had the strongest backing, it was when Boris Johnson was prime Minister. And during the period since, we've had changes to the emphasis placed upon this, and as I say, quite a lot, especially over the last few years, there's very strong presentation of that false choice that we should either pursue development of the economy or we should look after nature.
Our very strong evidence based contention all along has been that we need to do both. And and if we do this in an intelligent way, it will help the economy. Yeah. And I'm sorry to sort of press this point. I don't wish to embarrass anyone, but but I think it's important, given that, you know, the respect in which you're held, you know, can you be clear? I mean, were you basically asked to leave or was it a choice that you made? Oh, no, no one's asked me to leave.
They've only asked me to stay. Right. So I've been reappointed twice. Okay. Under different governments. Okay. So you'll go in of your own. Yes, yes, yes. No, I will, I will reach the end of a third term in April and that will be my time done. Excellent. And I mean, you know, you've reflected along the along many of those successes.
I mean, looking back now, what do you feel are the areas that frustrate you in terms of what would you like to think that might have been achieved in the seven years that maybe hasn't? Or what do you see as the the biggest sort of disappointments alongside those triumphs that you've reflected on? So as I began, chair, you know, there's a lot which we we really proudly look back on Marianne and I and the team that we've worked with.
And so I don't think there are many disappointments in terms of the delivery that we've been able to, to achieve on behalf of the country. But there have been some considerable challenges. And one of them, we've already touched on this idea that there's a choice between nature and economy that has been quite frustrating and quite difficult to deal with and has slowed things down, and not just for us, but for many of the customers we work with, including infrastructure providers, who found this quite an unhelpful context for them, making the case for what they need to do to their stakeholders.
Because the impression has been created that government is trying to cut corners, deregulate to harm nature, to favour development. That may not necessarily be true, but it's one of the impressions that has made it quite frustrating and difficult for us. And I think looking forward and to the work that our successors will need to do, this continuing task of seeking to integrate nature and environmental protection across government is an absolutely critical, ongoing job, and we've made some good progress on this.
But it's not just Defra that needs to deliver on environmental security and the rebuilding of the health of nature. It's a job that needs to be embraced right across the piece, which is why it's particularly damaging when, from the centre of government, we hear the idea that there is a there is a choice. It's a false choice, but it's constantly being reinforced. And I mean, on turning to more specifics. You know, 35% of protected sites are actually in good condition now.
The EP target was 75% by 2030. But they suggest in their latest report that we are, you know, predominantly off target to achieve that. And in fact, the numbers in the progress that is declining rather than improving. I mean, what would you say are the main reasons why that key metric is being missed so substantially at the moment? So very often it's big cross-cutting issues that are originating outside the protected area.
So air pollution, water pollution, fragmentation, and the now the effects of climate change on top. All of these things are having a bearing on the state of protected areas. But inside some of them, there are issues linked with grazing or the insufficient management of woodland coppice, for example, or the clearance of of volunteer trees appearing in heathland. So some of these things we can manage on site and we do seek to do that. But quite a lot of this is originating outside the protected areas, which is why actually we've been very pleased to be working with this new provision that we got from the 2021 Environment Act, which enables us now to develop so-called protected site strategies, which go far beyond the boundaries of protected areas, enabling us to get our arms around some of these things that previously we couldn't get to influence because of our powers being limited to within the site of Special Scientific Interest.
So progress is being made there. But I think this really just underlines the need for us to be taking a landscape scale, to be taking an integrated and holistic view, to be drawing together the tools that we've got on water pollution, air pollution, to be reconnecting fragmented sites, and to be doing this in a way whereby we've got some spatial kind of objectives in mind. And this is another thing that's worth mentioning is the local nature recovery strategies, which are also a very important opportunity.
Looking forward in terms of how we can do this work. And I'll let you have a breather for a moment, Tony, and turn to you. Marion. And you joined the Natural England Board in 2019 and have been permanent CEO since 2020. I mean, turning away from from the sort of, if you like, the overarching narrative and to the day to day operations, what do you see? What's your sense as to what the key challenges are that the organisation has faced across that period? And what do you what do you feel are the key strengths and weaknesses that you'll leave, you'll leave them with?
14:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think the first thing I want to talk about answers both of those questions because it's both a an opportunity, but also a risk if we don't get it right. Tony's mentioned our new strategy. It's nearly a year old. It was a year in the making before that. And I think what's significant about the strategy, it brings together two important changes for the way we think about nature. One is that it is firmly in the space of nature is here to give us services.
So it is not just about nature for its own sake. It is about nature as the vital contribution to the nation's growth, health and security. As Tony has touched on, it also puts an even further step forward than the one we made 3 or 4 years ago about being absolutely clear that nature is not just about the legislative protection of places and species, it is about recovering a whole ecosystem, building resilience and an ecosystem. The challenge for us is our strategy is very different, but the way we receive our funding, the powers we have and the legislation framework we work under is not changing as fast as we might want it to.
So we are having to make some quite significant pivots and rethink very carefully how far we can operate within our existing legislation and powers and duties, as well as bringing not just our own staff with us on what can feel quite a significant shift, but some of our traditional allies. I think what's interesting is many others in the sector are now talking that sort of language , and government are increasingly talking that language. So I think that's the first sort of opportunity and challenge.
So it is not just about nature for its own sake. It is about nature as the vital contribution to the nation's growth, health and security. As Tony has touched on, it also puts an even further step forward than the one we made 3 or 4 years ago about being absolutely clear that nature is not just about the legislative protection of places and species, it is about recovering a whole ecosystem, building resilience and an ecosystem. The challenge for us is our strategy is very different, but the way we receive our funding, the powers we have and the legislation framework we work under is not changing as fast as we might want it to.
So we are having to make some quite significant pivots and rethink very carefully how far we can operate within our existing legislation and powers and duties, as well as bringing not just our own staff with us on what can feel quite a significant shift, but some of our traditional allies. I think what's interesting is many others in the sector are now talking that sort of language , and government are increasingly talking that language. So I think that's the first sort of opportunity and challenge.
14:46
14:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think the first thing is this sense that although we have shifted our strategy and we are seeing some change in the narrative, we still too often as a society, think about nature as a nice to have, not as a piece of essential infrastructure. So I think we're hearing that being talked about a little bit more. And it's been quite interesting. The summer we have just had, I think, has upped the public discourse on the fact that nature is a vital service.
So I think that would be my number one advice to my successor is, is keep heading on that strategic direction of thinking about why we need nature. I think the really big challenge that I have faced and my successor, Neil Hornby, will continue to face, is that although we are starting to create that thinking, we are not yet thinking as a government, as a group of of departments and as a group of albs across government.
We don't yet have a fully formed system for how we manage nature. Natural England only owns a small proportion of the levers we need to achieve our mission. We rely on others in government. We rely on what other regulators can do. Tony has already given the example of water quality. That's a very obvious one. We have no powers to affect water quality, but it is one of the top five reasons why nature is in decline.
So I think that's the other thing. Keep working with our colleagues in Defra. Use the IP targets, use the emerging Defra Outcomes Framework to think about how everybody and government needs to contribute to building resilient ecosystems.
So I think that would be my number one advice to my successor is, is keep heading on that strategic direction of thinking about why we need nature. I think the really big challenge that I have faced and my successor, Neil Hornby, will continue to face, is that although we are starting to create that thinking, we are not yet thinking as a government, as a group of of departments and as a group of albs across government.
We don't yet have a fully formed system for how we manage nature. Natural England only owns a small proportion of the levers we need to achieve our mission. We rely on others in government. We rely on what other regulators can do. Tony has already given the example of water quality. That's a very obvious one. We have no powers to affect water quality, but it is one of the top five reasons why nature is in decline.
So I think that's the other thing. Keep working with our colleagues in Defra. Use the IP targets, use the emerging Defra Outcomes Framework to think about how everybody and government needs to contribute to building resilient ecosystems.
14:48
14:48
Sammy Wilson
-
-
Sammy Wilson
I just want to turn to the resources you have available. Back in 2020, you wrote to the committee and saying , saying how the resources have been reduced over spending periods, etc. though in your answer to the chairman, I notice that you said that one of the achievements had been to increase resourcing by 300%, and last year there was an uplift of 5%, which is above the the general level of inflation. So what's your resources situation like at the moment then?
14:48
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Yes. So first of all, thank you to the committee for for carrying some of the messages that we sent to you in that letter, which I do think was influential around the time of that spending review and did lead to us having an increase in resources available. So we have expanded enormously, both in terms of budgets and also the headcount is reduced a bit now, but also expanding the work considerably to now embrace landscape recovery, for example, more work through the planning system, which is intensifying our efforts there.
So, you know, the the budgets expanded, the work has expanded. There's a really, really important thing, though, that lies behind this, which is about the relative allocation of budget. So back in 2019, 2020, most of our budget, I think about 70% at the time, Marion was grant in aid, which basically was at our discretion to spend in ways that we saw would most efficiently advance the strategic goals that we'd adopted. Whereas now the money that we have for the core business is about 30% is it, and 70% is allocated year by year by Defra in in year transfers.
And this not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, we are here to advance the priorities of the government and to reflect the law. So that relationship isn't necessarily wrong, but it does make it quite hard for us to do multiyear planning and to be going back and renegotiating budgets year by year, because nature recovery, obviously by, by its very nature, is a long term project. It's not going to happen one year or even in 2 or 3 years.
It requires an investment of effort over a period of time, which sometimes doesn't reflect the budget cycle. So, so we very much welcome the increase in resources. We very much welcome the extra work that we're able to do and to be able to increase, increase the impact. But there are some constraints around how much money we've got to spend on our statutory duties. And actually, on that side, we're being asked to find more efficiencies.
So as the budget is expanding, the proportion and indeed the absolute number, which is under our direct control, is going down. And this does present some really quite significant challenges, including in relation to the management of the national nature reserves, which are a very important national national asset for the country. And so we're looking at that and we do what we can. We don't want to waste any money. We're always seeking to get the biggest impact from the investment that government makes in all of this.
But there come moments when it becomes quite difficult to see how to do that, when the budgets get so small and so tight.
So, you know, the the budgets expanded, the work has expanded. There's a really, really important thing, though, that lies behind this, which is about the relative allocation of budget. So back in 2019, 2020, most of our budget, I think about 70% at the time, Marion was grant in aid, which basically was at our discretion to spend in ways that we saw would most efficiently advance the strategic goals that we'd adopted. Whereas now the money that we have for the core business is about 30% is it, and 70% is allocated year by year by Defra in in year transfers.
And this not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, we are here to advance the priorities of the government and to reflect the law. So that relationship isn't necessarily wrong, but it does make it quite hard for us to do multiyear planning and to be going back and renegotiating budgets year by year, because nature recovery, obviously by, by its very nature, is a long term project. It's not going to happen one year or even in 2 or 3 years.
It requires an investment of effort over a period of time, which sometimes doesn't reflect the budget cycle. So, so we very much welcome the increase in resources. We very much welcome the extra work that we're able to do and to be able to increase, increase the impact. But there are some constraints around how much money we've got to spend on our statutory duties. And actually, on that side, we're being asked to find more efficiencies.
So as the budget is expanding, the proportion and indeed the absolute number, which is under our direct control, is going down. And this does present some really quite significant challenges, including in relation to the management of the national nature reserves, which are a very important national national asset for the country. And so we're looking at that and we do what we can. We don't want to waste any money. We're always seeking to get the biggest impact from the investment that government makes in all of this.
But there come moments when it becomes quite difficult to see how to do that, when the budgets get so small and so tight.
14:51
14:51
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Yes. And I think it's fair to say we very much back the priorities that are there landscape recovery, investments in the planning side, doing more to be thinking about, you know, the delivery of local nature recovery strategies, but these things are are not under our control . And having more discretion and the ability to plan more in advance would be helpful.
14:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Would it help if I gave you an example of, you know, one that is in my mind at the moment? So our team that advise farmers, the 400 staff whose full time job is to be out working with farmers on a day to day basis, they aren't a fully integrated team of 400. They are a farmer should feel whoever he's talking to could talk about that, could advise them on the breadth of nature issues. But they are funded through four different parts of the Defra budget.
They're funded through the Catchment Sensitive Farming programme, which is mainly about water and air pollution. It's a really important programme, but it has one funding line. There is a funding line for the work we do on advising the RPA on agri environment schemes. There's a funding line for the landscape recovery scheme that we run, and there's a separate funding line for the work we do on protected sites on farmland. So we are effectively blending four budgets into one person.
But having to report those four budgets separately back into government and report targets against those four budgets. So it's not impossible, but it feels as if, again, that sense of thinking about nature as a system, including with an individual farmer, what are all the things that he could do on his farm that will help his business and contribute to nature? Recovery is not fundamentally built into the.
They're funded through the Catchment Sensitive Farming programme, which is mainly about water and air pollution. It's a really important programme, but it has one funding line. There is a funding line for the work we do on advising the RPA on agri environment schemes. There's a funding line for the landscape recovery scheme that we run, and there's a separate funding line for the work we do on protected sites on farmland. So we are effectively blending four budgets into one person.
But having to report those four budgets separately back into government and report targets against those four budgets. So it's not impossible, but it feels as if, again, that sense of thinking about nature as a system, including with an individual farmer, what are all the things that he could do on his farm that will help his business and contribute to nature? Recovery is not fundamentally built into the.
14:52
Sammy Wilson
-
-
Sammy Wilson
14:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It definitely fluctuates it by it is happy that it tends to go up. So this year we've been asked to increase our catchment sensitive farming advisors because of the new focus for government on water quality and water quality on farms. So it's not it's it has happily fluctuated up. But of course, we can't secure against that for the future.
14:53
Sammy Wilson
-
-
Sammy Wilson
I note that 88% of your budget is made up of where you sell your own services, and there's considerable opportunities for that now because developers will be looking for advice from you. Is there much of an opportunity for you to increasing your resources through the sale of services so you're not dependent upon the grant? Yeah.
14:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So we were given the powers two years ago to now cost recover the services we give to major infrastructure developers, for instance, for nationally significant infrastructure projects. So we can now recover our costs for that. The difference that has made is we are better able then to meet match supply and demand. So it isn't we necessarily have more income, but we can give that developer certainty that we will have the resource. And it's often the same resource.
We can create a team to work on something like the work we're doing with National highways on the Lower Thames Crossing, we've been able to guarantee funding for a stable team, so it doesn't necessarily give us more money. What we are hoping we will be given further powers this year to do the same for town and country planning, so we can more likely match our resources where we're giving a service to housing developers through the work we do with local government.
We can create a team to work on something like the work we're doing with National highways on the Lower Thames Crossing, we've been able to guarantee funding for a stable team, so it doesn't necessarily give us more money. What we are hoping we will be given further powers this year to do the same for town and country planning, so we can more likely match our resources where we're giving a service to housing developers through the work we do with local government.
14:54
Sammy Wilson
-
-
Sammy Wilson
Be useful for the committee to actually push that recommendation for you. Can I just ask in terms of because I think, Tony, you mentioned that you'd had to reduce the number of staff, I think, by 200 this year from 200 full time equivalents. What impact has that had, and what are the practical impacts that has had on your delivery?
14:55
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
So we've looked for efficiencies rather than removing streams of work. And we were able to do most of this work. We through an internal reallocation and a voluntary exit scheme. So we tried to minimise the impact on individuals and to recast the business in ways which basically has absorbing efficiency gains rather than dropping stuff out. And, you know, digital technologies help a little bit with this, getting smarter about how we work. So it hasn't felt to me so far as though that reduction in headcount has led to a diminishing of the organisation's impact.
It hasn't, has it?
It hasn't, has it?
14:55
14:55
14:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We knew we needed some different skills, so it's given us the headroom. So having lost 220 staff last year who were working on the lower priority programmes, this year we're recruiting 100 new staff with different skills to work on different priorities, who allowed us to evolve our workforce in line with our new strategy and government's priorities.
14:56
Sammy Wilson
-
-
Sammy Wilson
14:56
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
kick off on this? So so for our science teams, we have a very strong body of scientific expertise in the organisation, and they're obviously looking at data the whole time to understand changing the changing state of of the natural world. And so the combination of remote sensing satellites and drones linked with the use of AI as enabling us to, to do more and to get better information more quickly, doesn't diminish the need for us to have good ecologists, to be able to design the work and to be able to interpret it.
So we do see big opportunities there. And actually, one famous piece that we did last year, which got on to some TV programmes, was work we did to survey the seal population along the north Norfolk coast using a drone, then giving the footage from the drone to an AI to count the baby seals. And, you know, that would take a lot of time. People walking up and down with binoculars normally very quick and very good piece of evidence we got out of that.
And so those kinds of things, I think we can see huge potential. The place where I hesitate, and I think Marion would agree with me, is the extent to which digitizing some of the customer service and some of the interface we have with people that could not necessarily lead to good outcomes in terms of, you know, the things that society wants us to do, maybe being less efficiently achieved if we start taking out the human factor. So major infrastructure company, we saw very recently remarking on how much they valued the face to face conversations with our officers in trying to solve some of the problems they face.
And you know, that that's just like a human kind of level as well as a technical level, but does make a difference in terms of the trust we have with people who are trying to do big, complicated projects and, you know, understanding what we would ask of them as a regulator. And similarly with the farmers, we've had this repeatedly, haven't we, Mary? And the extent to which people running farm businesses, you know, they really, really value someone coming to their farm and talking to them.
And so, you know, going to a chat bot and a website, it doesn't have the same, it doesn't have the same quality to it. And so protecting some of that trust, building human face to face interaction, I think is quite key for some of this. Recognizing that AI can do a lot for us that will help.
So we do see big opportunities there. And actually, one famous piece that we did last year, which got on to some TV programmes, was work we did to survey the seal population along the north Norfolk coast using a drone, then giving the footage from the drone to an AI to count the baby seals. And, you know, that would take a lot of time. People walking up and down with binoculars normally very quick and very good piece of evidence we got out of that.
And so those kinds of things, I think we can see huge potential. The place where I hesitate, and I think Marion would agree with me, is the extent to which digitizing some of the customer service and some of the interface we have with people that could not necessarily lead to good outcomes in terms of, you know, the things that society wants us to do, maybe being less efficiently achieved if we start taking out the human factor. So major infrastructure company, we saw very recently remarking on how much they valued the face to face conversations with our officers in trying to solve some of the problems they face.
And you know, that that's just like a human kind of level as well as a technical level, but does make a difference in terms of the trust we have with people who are trying to do big, complicated projects and, you know, understanding what we would ask of them as a regulator. And similarly with the farmers, we've had this repeatedly, haven't we, Mary? And the extent to which people running farm businesses, you know, they really, really value someone coming to their farm and talking to them.
And so, you know, going to a chat bot and a website, it doesn't have the same, it doesn't have the same quality to it. And so protecting some of that trust, building human face to face interaction, I think is quite key for some of this. Recognizing that AI can do a lot for us that will help.
14:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So we will use AI, I think, to better deal with things like data processing and speeding up handling. We're trialling it at the moment, whether we can use it to triage a planning applications coming our way to judge the ones that need our attention, and the ones that can be automatically rejected, as it were. But I think we would not expect it. I mean, the other example that Tony's given about doing field work, more and more field work and data monitoring and SSI monitoring could be done remotely, but the value of SSI monitoring is not just what we see on the SSI, but the time we spend with the landowner.
So even if we did the survey work remotely, I would still want an officer to go to a farm and tell the farmer what we'd found and offer him some suggestions on what he could do to improve the state of nature.
So even if we did the survey work remotely, I would still want an officer to go to a farm and tell the farmer what we'd found and offer him some suggestions on what he could do to improve the state of nature.
14:59
14:59
14:59
14:59
Martin Rhodes
-
-
Martin Rhodes
Mr. chairman, in your opening comments, you talked about the relationship between economic growth and nature and that debate. I'm not necessarily asking to go back over that ground, but more just a specific in terms of the current government, in terms of is it getting that right in terms of understanding that relationship? Has it got has it got the balance right between the two?
14:59
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
So I my honest answer would be that it was mixed. And so the Secretary of State, who first came to Defra after the 24 election, was very strong on nature, being a part of the economic plan for the country and seeing the synergies between the two. And I think it's fair to say that some of the messages that came from Treasury and number ten didn't say that . It was much more of a binary. You know, it's nature or development and nature's getting in the way.
Therefore, we need to to downplay the nature side. And I think those two messages being in play at once, I think, was quite concerning for a lot of people who, you know, watch from the outside as to the direction of travel and whether some of these big and important ecological issues are really going to be gripped. And, you know, I think this was not helpful to the government, never mind to the agenda, because actually a lot of the policy that was being crafted at the time is good in the sense of being both and both development and nature recovery being done together.
And, and as that debate was, was raging in the newspapers and in Parliament to an extent, we were helping with the drafting and the thinking behind the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which has done what we would say is a reasonable job of finding that accommodation and actually going from, from where we were to a better place in being able to look at strategic solutions. And so I think it was a failure of, of, of narrative rather than substance, and hopefully one that will be corrected as we go along because there's no need to do this because we know that we've got the tools and the expertise to be able to do both.
And we can develop the economy, we can build houses, and at the same time we can recover nature, but we need to have a big picture view where these two things are in mind at once, rather than being seen as separate things that clash from now, now and again, which is which is what tends to happen.
Therefore, we need to to downplay the nature side. And I think those two messages being in play at once, I think, was quite concerning for a lot of people who, you know, watch from the outside as to the direction of travel and whether some of these big and important ecological issues are really going to be gripped. And, you know, I think this was not helpful to the government, never mind to the agenda, because actually a lot of the policy that was being crafted at the time is good in the sense of being both and both development and nature recovery being done together.
And, and as that debate was, was raging in the newspapers and in Parliament to an extent, we were helping with the drafting and the thinking behind the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which has done what we would say is a reasonable job of finding that accommodation and actually going from, from where we were to a better place in being able to look at strategic solutions. And so I think it was a failure of, of, of narrative rather than substance, and hopefully one that will be corrected as we go along because there's no need to do this because we know that we've got the tools and the expertise to be able to do both.
And we can develop the economy, we can build houses, and at the same time we can recover nature, but we need to have a big picture view where these two things are in mind at once, rather than being seen as separate things that clash from now, now and again, which is which is what tends to happen.
15:01
Martin Rhodes
-
-
Martin Rhodes
And you talk about narrative being the problem, but also, is there a problem about the structure of government in terms of the power of the Treasury at the centre of government, as opposed to a department like Defra? Is that a structural problem in terms of government itself, regardless of which political party or politicians.
15:01
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Structural problem than a framework problem. And one of the things Marion touched on this already is the need for us to have an approach based upon the idea of nature being critical national infrastructure. And I think in the wake of this summer, we might start to see some thinking about how we could do that. Water supply doesn't come only out of taps. It comes out of the natural world and filtered through soils and via aquifers.
And if you want to stop a wildfire, yes, you can clear all the vegetation from a landscape, or you could have some of it wetter with wetlands. You could be having more deciduous woodland to create shade and hold humidity. There are a whole host of ways in which we can improve conditions for people and improve resilience by investing in nature as infrastructure. And I think we're on a journey whereby this may begin to to to get some traction.
We would hope.
And if you want to stop a wildfire, yes, you can clear all the vegetation from a landscape, or you could have some of it wetter with wetlands. You could be having more deciduous woodland to create shade and hold humidity. There are a whole host of ways in which we can improve conditions for people and improve resilience by investing in nature as infrastructure. And I think we're on a journey whereby this may begin to to to get some traction.
We would hope.
15:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And you've got evidence from Natural England into your inquiry in looking at the Treasury as well. And I'm sure in due course my successor and possibly still Tony will be keen to talk to her. But I think it's as Tony says, I think what we see is that sense of we're not necessarily seeing the value of nature being factored into economic decision making. So, for example, we see I was out with the Environment Agency recently looking at a flood defence scheme in Salisbury that is also adding huge social and environmental capital to the city.
But that is not what is easily driven by the current flood economic valuations, which are largely based on the value of property being protected rather than added societal benefits. I think that's the kind of thing that if we could think about finding better ways of valuing nature and recognising the return on investment in nature to things like health budgets, social care budgets and so on, I think that's where Treasury could add real value of valuing nature, recognising it as a service and therefore getting sufficient investment not just from government budgets, but that thinking.
That also would then drive choices made in the private sector and businesses about where they could add value to their own business by investing in nature.
But that is not what is easily driven by the current flood economic valuations, which are largely based on the value of property being protected rather than added societal benefits. I think that's the kind of thing that if we could think about finding better ways of valuing nature and recognising the return on investment in nature to things like health budgets, social care budgets and so on, I think that's where Treasury could add real value of valuing nature, recognising it as a service and therefore getting sufficient investment not just from government budgets, but that thinking.
That also would then drive choices made in the private sector and businesses about where they could add value to their own business by investing in nature.
15:03
15:03
Adrian Ramsay
-
-
Adrian Ramsay
Thank you, chair. And picking up on that same theme, Tony, you mentioned that there's been a failure of narrative in terms of the government pitching, economic success and nature as being at odds with each other. Would you say that there's been any impact on the economy of that false pitting? And indeed, what impact does nature decline have on economic success? Just how badly is this a false narrative?
15:04
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Yeah. So it's hard to draw the line around cause and effect. But if you look at the very big picture and the fact of the climate now visibly changing before our eyes, and then look at the vulnerability of our infrastructure and some of the services that we rely on this summer was really quite instructive, wasn't it? Unprecedented summer pressure on the National Health Service infrastructure, including railways affected by heat, the impact of extreme fire, and what that did in stretching the emergency services, and then an as yet unknown impact on food production.
That's been one of the worst harvests ever. And if you look at all of the factors that lie behind this, you can see that it's a degradation of the environment that's made all of that worse. And so obviously, the climate change is the macro global issue. But behind that, we have spent centuries desiccating our landscapes. We spend millions of pounds removing water and putting it into the sea. Is it any surprise that by the summertime the land is as dry as the bone, and we have no water upon which to draw because we've deliberately got rid of it all? And then if you look at the way in which some landscapes are managed in order to make them very fire prone, more woodlands, more wetlands, more mosaic habitats would help us avoid some of that.
So once you start to look at the the individual events and then look at them in the wider picture, I think we can start to see that investing in nature recovery will be a way of making us more resilient as we go into this rather uncertain future now driven by rapid global heating.
That's been one of the worst harvests ever. And if you look at all of the factors that lie behind this, you can see that it's a degradation of the environment that's made all of that worse. And so obviously, the climate change is the macro global issue. But behind that, we have spent centuries desiccating our landscapes. We spend millions of pounds removing water and putting it into the sea. Is it any surprise that by the summertime the land is as dry as the bone, and we have no water upon which to draw because we've deliberately got rid of it all? And then if you look at the way in which some landscapes are managed in order to make them very fire prone, more woodlands, more wetlands, more mosaic habitats would help us avoid some of that.
So once you start to look at the the individual events and then look at them in the wider picture, I think we can start to see that investing in nature recovery will be a way of making us more resilient as we go into this rather uncertain future now driven by rapid global heating.
15:05
15:06
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Well, yes. That's the flip side, isn't it? Failure to invest in nature's recovery will make us more vulnerable. And at the moment, and this goes back to the idea of nature being seen as critical national infrastructure, because the default at the moment is to see looking after nature as a cost rather than as an investment. And if you invest in infrastructure, like a road or a railway, you get a return for the economy. You can see it's going to be giving a fundamental boost to economic wellbeing.
So it goes with wetlands and woodlands, we would say, and healthy coastal areas. That's the infrastructure that we're going to need in the future. And it will give us a dividend in the sense of avoiding some of those impacts, becoming more serious than they already are.
So it goes with wetlands and woodlands, we would say, and healthy coastal areas. That's the infrastructure that we're going to need in the future. And it will give us a dividend in the sense of avoiding some of those impacts, becoming more serious than they already are.
15:06
Adrian Ramsay
-
-
Adrian Ramsay
Okay. Thank you. And to either of you, the previous Secretary of State issued a strategic policy statement earlier this year, which noted that its foremost priority is delivering economic growth and that you're expected to be part of delivering that. So how have you ensured that nature is front and centre of government priorities, and to what extent is your voice heard as Natural England in the way you'd expect it to be?
15:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, I think Tony said a lot of a lot of things I won't repeat. I think for us, our role, we absolutely have a role to play in growth. We absolutely recognise that society needs infrastructure, needs clean energy, needs housing. Our job is not to stop that development happening, but it's to do it in the most nature friendly way possible. And there's two layers to that. There's making sure that it is compliant with the regulations that we are bound by Parliament to comply with, not just government.
So it is our job as a major infrastructure developer put it to me rather pithily your job is to keep me out of jail. I wouldn't have perhaps put it like that, but our job is to help developers comply with the regulations. But we also, in line with our strategy, think our job is also to make the development as nature friendly as possible. So again, a colleague of mine put it rather nicely it's a yes and is what we should be saying to developers.
So it's about growth also contributing to nature by protecting nature where regulation requires protection, but also looking to build social and environmental capital into major development. We've seen a number of examples of that recently. We've seen the work that Sizewell C have done in their major development. They've already invested in the environmental infrastructure, so they've already met a number of their regulatory obligations because they've built the environment before they've started building bricks and mortar.
We're seeing that with some of the water companies, the reservoir we're talking already about how do we design the reservoir for little or no additional marginal cost to really add in social and environmental benefits, as well as creating the economic water resource we need? So I think that's where we're seeing that win win. And I think in terms of how that has changed us as an organisation, it's the example I gave you. Our staff are now more saying yes and occasionally yes if, but more and more yes.
So it is our job as a major infrastructure developer put it to me rather pithily your job is to keep me out of jail. I wouldn't have perhaps put it like that, but our job is to help developers comply with the regulations. But we also, in line with our strategy, think our job is also to make the development as nature friendly as possible. So again, a colleague of mine put it rather nicely it's a yes and is what we should be saying to developers.
So it's about growth also contributing to nature by protecting nature where regulation requires protection, but also looking to build social and environmental capital into major development. We've seen a number of examples of that recently. We've seen the work that Sizewell C have done in their major development. They've already invested in the environmental infrastructure, so they've already met a number of their regulatory obligations because they've built the environment before they've started building bricks and mortar.
We're seeing that with some of the water companies, the reservoir we're talking already about how do we design the reservoir for little or no additional marginal cost to really add in social and environmental benefits, as well as creating the economic water resource we need? So I think that's where we're seeing that win win. And I think in terms of how that has changed us as an organisation, it's the example I gave you. Our staff are now more saying yes and occasionally yes if, but more and more yes.
15:08
15:09
15:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think I think on the positive side Tony's already referenced the Planning and Infrastructure Act, so perhaps use that as an example of where the relationship worked very well. We had been delivering what we would now call strategic solutions for a number of years. We did the district level licensing that predates either of us, that idea of removal. And we set up the the adoption of I can never say this word sustainable alternative, natural green spaces.
Sangs. So if housing is being built and the people living in those houses might affect nature nearby, we create more green spaces, we spread the load. So that idea of creating the natural infrastructure up front to enable the development, that is something we have been doing for a number of years. And it was that thinking, along with the nutrient mitigation scheme that we established on government direction a few years ago that fed into the Planning and Infrastructure Act.
So we see that as a really positive example of where our delivery experience, not our opinion, our delivery experience and knowing how these things work, had a major influence on government policy and legislation, and we're now poised to consult on the first EDP any day now.
Sangs. So if housing is being built and the people living in those houses might affect nature nearby, we create more green spaces, we spread the load. So that idea of creating the natural infrastructure up front to enable the development, that is something we have been doing for a number of years. And it was that thinking, along with the nutrient mitigation scheme that we established on government direction a few years ago that fed into the Planning and Infrastructure Act.
So we see that as a really positive example of where our delivery experience, not our opinion, our delivery experience and knowing how these things work, had a major influence on government policy and legislation, and we're now poised to consult on the first EDP any day now.
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So one example, I think we've sat in this room with this committee and other committees talking about some of the challenges that size can feel to create to private landowners. It is an imposition on the landowner. I mean that in the technical term, you know, it is restricting their land use rights and it is requiring more of them than we require of other farmers. In terms of delivering for nature. We no longer have the budget or the powers to pay farmers for that, to reward them for their endeavours.
That all comes through the agri environment, budget, and we have been seeking we've been advising Defra to think about not just how we design that scheme, but how we communicate that scheme to farmers , and whether there should be a bonus payment for farmers, for example, who get their their farms in their size into good condition. So that's that's still a work in progress. We're still giving that advice to government as we roll out the next round of the higher tier scheme.
Can we definitely make sure it's. And it also, of course, supports government because it hits that IP target that the chairman referred to earlier, that we are still some way off having our exercise in good condition. And one of the reasons is it's hard. We can give farmers advice, but it's hard for us to directly reward farmers.
That all comes through the agri environment, budget, and we have been seeking we've been advising Defra to think about not just how we design that scheme, but how we communicate that scheme to farmers , and whether there should be a bonus payment for farmers, for example, who get their their farms in their size into good condition. So that's that's still a work in progress. We're still giving that advice to government as we roll out the next round of the higher tier scheme.
Can we definitely make sure it's. And it also, of course, supports government because it hits that IP target that the chairman referred to earlier, that we are still some way off having our exercise in good condition. And one of the reasons is it's hard. We can give farmers advice, but it's hard for us to directly reward farmers.
15:11
15:11
15:11
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, chair. One of the ways in which you assist economic growth and development, of course, is now through the biodiversity net gain and the register of BNG, because the site register, which you run on behalf of Defra, provides that publicly available information on sites and particularly those needing off site credits. But I think for the past 14 months, that register has lacked one very important fact on it, and that is which previously it had.
And that is the designation of the boundaries, the defined boundaries of where the habitat creation improvement would take place. Now, why you said previously publicly that it's a technical hitch, but it's now been 14 months. When will those boundaries be added to to the site mapping? Because all there is at the moment is a point of reference. And if you've got 100 hectare site, a point of reference is no, no use.
You need that boundary. So when will it be set to rights? And will all those that have been added to the register since that lacuna took place automatically be updated with those boundaries?
And that is the designation of the boundaries, the defined boundaries of where the habitat creation improvement would take place. Now, why you said previously publicly that it's a technical hitch, but it's now been 14 months. When will those boundaries be added to to the site mapping? Because all there is at the moment is a point of reference. And if you've got 100 hectare site, a point of reference is no, no use.
You need that boundary. So when will it be set to rights? And will all those that have been added to the register since that lacuna took place automatically be updated with those boundaries?
15:13
15:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
on site isn't published. We have had the brief history of the Register. We had anticipated a very high demand in its early years, staffed up accordingly, the demand then didn't come to fruition, so we. We. It seemed reasonable judgment at the time, moved some of those staff on to other work. Demand has grown a bit in the last few months, and we are slightly behind the times.
May I write to you with an update on the exact dates? Please do. We are aware we're behind. We've had a number of developers contact me to say they're anxious that we might hold up their application. But I'm
May I write to you with an update on the exact dates? Please do. We are aware we're behind. We've had a number of developers contact me to say they're anxious that we might hold up their application. But I'm
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:14
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Authority, but it's an example of one of those to know in order to enforce. Look, there are other things that could be on that register. Yes. Wouldn't it be helpful to to publish who the project provider is? The spatial information on the project layout, the expected biodiversity unit generation on the site and reporting on habitat creation progress. Now then we begin to get a real feel to what's happening with BNG.
And at the moment we don't really have that.
And at the moment we don't really have that.
15:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We don't. And without repeating myself, the other thing, perhaps an example in relation to the future is we didn't take our advice. We were also concerned that that public transparency doesn't apply for on site where developers are doing themselves. I think what we've seen with BNG policy over recent years, we it was rolled out. Those those decisions about individual elements of the system don't necessarily add up to the whole that the public might expect.
What we've also, of course, seen in recent years is a, a slight softening of a perceived softening, perhaps of some of the endeavour on BNG. So when there is talk about making a change, simplifying some of the systems, what we are seeing then is uncertainty is then created in developers in whether or not they want to participate, which is another reason why the demand for our register dropped and we moved staff off. But also what we have seen as well is those who might want to provide the off site units.
The opportunity for this being an income generation of green finance option for farmers. We're seeing farmers reluctant now to perhaps commit and habitat bank. And actually, if I may just widen that point, that's one of the things we have very clearly in our mind as we roll out the environmental delivery plans, we need landowners to have confidence that the policy will be sustained and the income will be guaranteed for them.
What we've also, of course, seen in recent years is a, a slight softening of a perceived softening, perhaps of some of the endeavour on BNG. So when there is talk about making a change, simplifying some of the systems, what we are seeing then is uncertainty is then created in developers in whether or not they want to participate, which is another reason why the demand for our register dropped and we moved staff off. But also what we have seen as well is those who might want to provide the off site units.
The opportunity for this being an income generation of green finance option for farmers. We're seeing farmers reluctant now to perhaps commit and habitat bank. And actually, if I may just widen that point, that's one of the things we have very clearly in our mind as we roll out the environmental delivery plans, we need landowners to have confidence that the policy will be sustained and the income will be guaranteed for them.
15:16
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
On environmental delivery plans, the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery at the University of Oxford has said we have significant concerns whether Natural England are sufficiently resourced to formulate properly evidence based edp's environmental delivery plans alongside their existing remit. The question whether it would lead to trade offs with their other important functions. What assessment has Natural England made of how many edp's it will likely have to produce in the coming years 27, 28, 29 and 30? Alongside the monitoring, enforcement and evaluation of those as they accumulate over time.
Because that is it's a huge demand and we all understand why we want it done. But unless the resources are going to be there to ensure that it is done and done properly, then then this is just sort of saying we're doing something, oh, we've got environmental delivery plans when actually they're worthless. Yeah.
Because that is it's a huge demand and we all understand why we want it done. But unless the resources are going to be there to ensure that it is done and done properly, then then this is just sort of saying we're doing something, oh, we've got environmental delivery plans when actually they're worthless. Yeah.
15:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So we notified Secretary of State just before Christmas that we would be making 23 environmental delivery plans over the first 2 or 3 years. Our board has recently approved the first of those plans, and we're just going through the final processes with Defra to get that ready for consultation. So we have done the first one. Those first few are being resourced by grant in aid from Defra. So we've had a direct transfer of resources to allow us to make a start in future.
The resourcing will come from the cost recovery, so the levy that developers will pay will include the cost. I am as confident as I can be that we have the resources. We have certainly got the resources. This year. We started out building our team before the act was even passed, and I shouldn't say this because it of course would be tested when it goes into consultation, but I'm incredibly proud of the the document we've produced, and I'm also even more confident than I was when the bill was going through that.
These will add value. We have looked hard at the overall improvement test. We've looked hard at the evidence. We've had independent scientific scrutiny. We've had external legal counsel. So I am confident the product is good. But to reflect your point, that needs a high level of resourcing. It needs a broad range of skills, both technical skills and as we move forward, as we were just starting a little bit of dialogue on as well, the product needs to be right so everybody trusts it.
We need developers to trust that it's going to be a better alternative for them faster. But most developers are also concerned about their reputation. They don't want to pay into a scheme that is seen as substandard. They want to believe their money is doing good. We need the NGOs to trust it because they, quite rightly, have held our feet and indeed held parliamentarians feet to the fire. So it went through the act that it is definitely better. We need planners and the local community that planners act on behalf of to believe that nature will be better.
And as we've already said, we need landowners to trust that if they put land forward, they will get fair reward.
The resourcing will come from the cost recovery, so the levy that developers will pay will include the cost. I am as confident as I can be that we have the resources. We have certainly got the resources. This year. We started out building our team before the act was even passed, and I shouldn't say this because it of course would be tested when it goes into consultation, but I'm incredibly proud of the the document we've produced, and I'm also even more confident than I was when the bill was going through that.
These will add value. We have looked hard at the overall improvement test. We've looked hard at the evidence. We've had independent scientific scrutiny. We've had external legal counsel. So I am confident the product is good. But to reflect your point, that needs a high level of resourcing. It needs a broad range of skills, both technical skills and as we move forward, as we were just starting a little bit of dialogue on as well, the product needs to be right so everybody trusts it.
We need developers to trust that it's going to be a better alternative for them faster. But most developers are also concerned about their reputation. They don't want to pay into a scheme that is seen as substandard. They want to believe their money is doing good. We need the NGOs to trust it because they, quite rightly, have held our feet and indeed held parliamentarians feet to the fire. So it went through the act that it is definitely better. We need planners and the local community that planners act on behalf of to believe that nature will be better.
And as we've already said, we need landowners to trust that if they put land forward, they will get fair reward.
15:19
15:19
15:19
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Beautifully green. A couple of bits of amber down there. And basically what that tells me is that you're meeting your KPIs. Then I look at what the Office of Environmental Protection says about the state of nature recovery, and it's red and amber with a tiny little green spot. Now, those two are perfectly reconcilable, of course, and I'm not asking you to reconcile them because you're talking about achieving your KPIs.
And the EP is talking about the wider state of the environment. But doesn't that mean your KPIs are not ambitious enough?
And the EP is talking about the wider state of the environment. But doesn't that mean your KPIs are not ambitious enough?
15:20
15:20
15:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So those key performance indicators are measures of annual activity annual progress both activity and impact. So they are annual. We've designed the vast majority of our KPIs aligned to one of those IIP targets. So you can see the line of sight. Some of them it's a direct correlation like habitat. Hectares of new habitat created some of them. It's a contribution such as state of SS eyes and so on. So your point is absolutely fairly made.
It may may be that our KPIs could be more stretching. That is always a judgement, isn't it? As a manager, as a manager of a business and of a system, do we set KPIs we believe we can reach? Or do we set KPIs that stretch the organisation? And there's a fine judgement between stretching and breaking and always feeling we're failing. So but so us. For me, the KPIs matter for me within Natural England, so I can judge whether we're on track to do what we need to do that year.
But I absolutely take your point. We are tracking an annual activity. What we also what the Oep track through the IP process is, whether the annual activity is not just of Natural England, but of a range of other bodies will add up to those sums. And we can't yet see those. It's a version of the point I was making earlier. We have not yet got an outcome framework driven system that is looking at all of the things that government need to do to.
It may may be that our KPIs could be more stretching. That is always a judgement, isn't it? As a manager, as a manager of a business and of a system, do we set KPIs we believe we can reach? Or do we set KPIs that stretch the organisation? And there's a fine judgement between stretching and breaking and always feeling we're failing. So but so us. For me, the KPIs matter for me within Natural England, so I can judge whether we're on track to do what we need to do that year.
But I absolutely take your point. We are tracking an annual activity. What we also what the Oep track through the IP process is, whether the annual activity is not just of Natural England, but of a range of other bodies will add up to those sums. And we can't yet see those. It's a version of the point I was making earlier. We have not yet got an outcome framework driven system that is looking at all of the things that government need to do to.
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
It's one I've asked Defra. But . But is it not also some advice that you need to be giving to Defra that if they want to meet their biodiversity, global biodiversity framework targets, then they need to actually establish what their baseline is. And Defra historically has been appalling at establishing baselines.
15:23
15:23
15:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Absolutely. I think one I was going to perhaps two things which don't necessarily answer your question, but put some context around them. One potential proxy, as we've already talked about, is if we do know the state of our protected sites, we know more about the state of our protected landscapes and habitats than we do about the rest of our ecosystems. So if that is a proxy for the rest of it, we know there's a significant number of them are still degraded, significant number are not in good condition.
I think the other thing that I always have in mind when we talk about everybody, as you say, tends to talk about the 30 by 30 target we're seeing progress on there. It's not perhaps as fast as many of us would wish, but we are seeing progress. I think the other thing I find myself saying a lot to my own team in Natural England. What about the other 70%? If you remember when the 30 by 30 commitment concept was was developed, that was the minimum we need to protect life on earth, not it's not a target.
It's the minimum viable product for nature. Absolutely. So I think there's something about we shouldn't be so focused on achieving 30 by 30 as a paper exercise, as an adding up hectares on a map we should be thinking about. I think we see our job 30 by 30 is a step in the right direction. But the job for Natural England, if not to do itself out of a job natural England would need to be confident that all of our ecosystems were resilient, functioning and giving us the services we need.
That's what we mean by nature recovery not a necessary condition, not a 30 by 30. But is nature in a resilient state to be exploited for the things we need and to cope with the pressures we're putting on it?
I think the other thing that I always have in mind when we talk about everybody, as you say, tends to talk about the 30 by 30 target we're seeing progress on there. It's not perhaps as fast as many of us would wish, but we are seeing progress. I think the other thing I find myself saying a lot to my own team in Natural England. What about the other 70%? If you remember when the 30 by 30 commitment concept was was developed, that was the minimum we need to protect life on earth, not it's not a target.
It's the minimum viable product for nature. Absolutely. So I think there's something about we shouldn't be so focused on achieving 30 by 30 as a paper exercise, as an adding up hectares on a map we should be thinking about. I think we see our job 30 by 30 is a step in the right direction. But the job for Natural England, if not to do itself out of a job natural England would need to be confident that all of our ecosystems were resilient, functioning and giving us the services we need.
That's what we mean by nature recovery not a necessary condition, not a 30 by 30. But is nature in a resilient state to be exploited for the things we need and to cope with the pressures we're putting on it?
15:25
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
15:25
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Yeah, so, so when, when we wrote the first strategy, Mary and I , back in 2019, 2020, we put the idea of building partnerships for nature's recovery as our overarching mission, recognising that even an organisation like ours with regulatory powers and a great science base, there's no way we could get anywhere near meeting the EIP targets. What have become the EIP targets without there being cross-sector collaboration. And so we've put a lot of effort into seeking to build common cause with some of the big landowners in the NGO sector, for example, some of the big estates and of course, our colleagues in the Albs, especially those with strongly overlapping remits in the form of the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission and also the MMO.
So we have tried to build that sense of common cause, recognising that, you know, we have different duties and powers that were granted to us by Parliament and different priorities that are set by government. But this job of building partnerships is absolutely critical, and it is all about place based delivery. I think we would say in the end, because, you know, in fact, one observation we had was that if you don't do nature recovery in a place, you don't do nature recovery, it happens in particular geographies with particular cultures, local economic circumstances.
And so we do have to devolve this down to ground level, and we need to get out of our policy silos and out of our organisational silos in order to be able to do this. And so this is work in progress, but we have had some great examples of working together with with groups of landowners. And actually some of the progress we've made with the national nature Reserves over the last couple of years have been really quite impressive in drawing together lots of different people in a place to do something bigger than any one of them could do.
And so the Seven Sisters National Nature Reserve, that His Majesty the King came to help us launch back in March. A great example of the South Downs National Park, Eastbourne Council, Seaford Council, the National Trust, the Sussex Wildlife Trust and Natural England local Government, official agencies, NGOs all together in a landscape with a common vision. And that is beginning to yield some dividends. And so I think we're on the journey. But every place is different.
The challenges are varied, variable depending on whether you're in uplands or in the south or the north or coastal or urban. But I do think that there is now some momentum behind some good examples that hopefully can be replicated.
So we have tried to build that sense of common cause, recognising that, you know, we have different duties and powers that were granted to us by Parliament and different priorities that are set by government. But this job of building partnerships is absolutely critical, and it is all about place based delivery. I think we would say in the end, because, you know, in fact, one observation we had was that if you don't do nature recovery in a place, you don't do nature recovery, it happens in particular geographies with particular cultures, local economic circumstances.
And so we do have to devolve this down to ground level, and we need to get out of our policy silos and out of our organisational silos in order to be able to do this. And so this is work in progress, but we have had some great examples of working together with with groups of landowners. And actually some of the progress we've made with the national nature Reserves over the last couple of years have been really quite impressive in drawing together lots of different people in a place to do something bigger than any one of them could do.
And so the Seven Sisters National Nature Reserve, that His Majesty the King came to help us launch back in March. A great example of the South Downs National Park, Eastbourne Council, Seaford Council, the National Trust, the Sussex Wildlife Trust and Natural England local Government, official agencies, NGOs all together in a landscape with a common vision. And that is beginning to yield some dividends. And so I think we're on the journey. But every place is different.
The challenges are varied, variable depending on whether you're in uplands or in the south or the north or coastal or urban. But I do think that there is now some momentum behind some good examples that hopefully can be replicated.
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:28
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
do. That. I think. Yes, because the chair is wanting needs to move on. But could you give us examples of perhaps where it could be improved? Because it's great to know the good examples, but also if there's a bit of Spurs needed on certain government departments, then we need to know where to apply them.
15:28
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So in terms of other albs, it's hard to give you a bad example because there are. We've just by way of examples of things we have done recently. You and I spent a day last week with the MMO looking at whether we are doing everything we can, where our interests coincide in coast and sea. We spend a lot of time with Environment Agency and Forestry Commission. I've just signed a new statement of intent with the chief executive of Homes England, so we can make sure nature is being built into accelerated housing.
Those are the good examples. I think one of the challenges we face, it goes back to something we said at the beginning of this conversation that we don't yet necessarily have a systemic approach to nature. So we sometimes find that we and the Forestry Commission, for example, or the Environment Agency, can be doing our job as Parliament intended, but we don't always coincide , and we will sometimes clash, and we will sometimes have necessary differences of opinion, for example, about whether the appropriate form of land use is peat restoration or tree planting.
So there are areas where we don't always coincide, not because either of us is doing anything wrong. I think that comes back to the point we made, that Defra have recently established a series of departmental wide outcomes that my optimism tells me will help us address some of those things being clear. What is the outcome we really need now, and therefore, how do we flex our statutory powers to hit that coincide, that shared outcome?
Those are the good examples. I think one of the challenges we face, it goes back to something we said at the beginning of this conversation that we don't yet necessarily have a systemic approach to nature. So we sometimes find that we and the Forestry Commission, for example, or the Environment Agency, can be doing our job as Parliament intended, but we don't always coincide , and we will sometimes clash, and we will sometimes have necessary differences of opinion, for example, about whether the appropriate form of land use is peat restoration or tree planting.
So there are areas where we don't always coincide, not because either of us is doing anything wrong. I think that comes back to the point we made, that Defra have recently established a series of departmental wide outcomes that my optimism tells me will help us address some of those things being clear. What is the outcome we really need now, and therefore, how do we flex our statutory powers to hit that coincide, that shared outcome?
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
Thank you . Chair. I'm just thinking about regulations, some of the regulations that have come through the Planning and Infrastructure Act and the what that means in terms of how these levies could be paid. So just starting and with regulation 33, which sets out that some of the Nature Restoration Fund could be spent on administration, yet the regulations do not specify the amount or whether that should be published. So how can Parliament be confident that the levy income is being spent primarily on environmental delivery rather than administration?
15:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So the secondary legislation that's going through Parliament at the moment will define that to tomorrow, tomorrow, this week, when we publish the first EDP, that will be clear how we've arrived at the levy, and that will be within those constraints. So the levy allows us to cover for conservation measures, for ongoing monitoring and evaluation, for set up costs and administrative costs. So that is defined by the secondary legislation and that will be transparent in the EDP.
15:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes. The vast majority will be conservation measures necessarily. I can't tell you what's in the draft EDP, I'm afraid because it isn't there. But yes, I am confident that the vast majority will go on either creation of those measures, maintenance of those measures for the hundred years for which some of them will need to be maintained, and the monitoring and evaluation that Natural England will need to do during the life of the EDP to be able to assure ministers that it has worked, that we have done enough to more than recover nature to meet the overall improvement test.
15:31
15:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think the principle here, it's the polluter pays principle , and the fact that the developer is choosing to develop on a site that will have an impact on a protected site or species, they already have those obligations to put that harm right. If I can use a sort of slightly simplistic definition of what we're talking about here, the difference here. So at the moment they will be obliged to pay for all of their own administration costs of survey work and so on, and also for their delivery costs.
What the EDP does is make that quicker, probably cheaper, and hopefully with more impact. So I don't think it is an unreasonable decision of government to say that developers should pay the administrative costs because they are paying. They are the polluter, if you like, in the term in the polluter pays jargon.
What the EDP does is make that quicker, probably cheaper, and hopefully with more impact. So I don't think it is an unreasonable decision of government to say that developers should pay the administrative costs because they are paying. They are the polluter, if you like, in the term in the polluter pays jargon.
15:32
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
It's a quite an effective way to approach it. So while we're talking about polluter pays, if we can also have a think about what's happening under regulation 232, where if there's a happy alignment with a site which would require nature fund, that it aligns with interventions or funding from other government funds, then that reduces the requirement. So how how can we show that developers won't be using this to offset and to reduce their requirement, which will effectively mean that state funding taxpayers are subsidising developers?
15:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You. Again, you will see that when the this will be tested. This is why we will consult on the EDP to check. We have got that right. But again, to sort of use the current draft EDP as an example, that has looked at the impact that the volume of houses we expect to be built will have. It has then looked at what is already in hand to offset that impact, for example, investment in sewage grades, upgrades, and then the EDP deals with the residual harm.
So nobody's paying twice, but neither. So we're not expecting the developer to pay for the pay for the sewage upgrade, as it were. They're paying for the additional impact that they will have.
So nobody's paying twice, but neither. So we're not expecting the developer to pay for the pay for the sewage upgrade, as it were. They're paying for the additional impact that they will have.
15:33
15:33
15:34
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
An SFI project. So a landowner could say, well, I'm already getting money. So if I put housing on the rest of this land, I will have less to pay on my nature fund. So how do we stop people playing the system? By submitting applications where taxpayers are already funding some of the nature recovery.
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
is the system we rent outcomes basically. So we do. So, you know, we own relatively small amounts of land as a as a public body. And most of the rest of government has relatively small amounts of land that it it has decisions over. And so instead of owning land, we rent outcomes from those who do. And so we pay them for a period. And they'll do some good work.
And after the scheme is ended, this one's actually longer. The Nature Restoration Fund requires 100 years worth of of guaranteed improvement. But if you're in a SFI or a countryside stewardship, then it's a shorter term. Five years. Yeah. And after that you can.
And after the scheme is ended, this one's actually longer. The Nature Restoration Fund requires 100 years worth of of guaranteed improvement. But if you're in a SFI or a countryside stewardship, then it's a shorter term. Five years. Yeah. And after that you can.
15:35
15:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I think again, it's a question of thinking about the system. So I think one of the other issues that we came up against when we had to deal with the problems that led to the nutrient mitigation scheme, what we Irrigation scheme. What we were seeing there is the developer was not necessarily the root cause of that watercourse being in poor condition. They were almost the marginal additional impact. We didn't ask Natural England.
We didn't have regulatory levers on the water companies and their impact on water. We didn't have regulatory levers on the . So the only lever we could say is to say that development should be held until, you know, to create enough environmental headroom. And I think that is an ongoing conversation for government. I think it's a slightly different one from whether or not a developer should fund the impact, putting right the impact of their development on nature. Because again, that's the long established principle of planning law.
But I think there is, again, a systemic question which will be a judgment for. government about how much. environmental improvement should be funded through the public purse, through things like Elms, whether there should be more. regulatory levers to require the right thing to be done, or whether it should be that the private sector through, for example, developers or others that need that service should pay. But that's a matter of government policy.
But there was a strange irony with nutrient mitigation that we were using one source of government funding to stop land being farmed where it was contributing to water. But we but elsewhere, farmers were still . Being
We didn't have regulatory levers on the water companies and their impact on water. We didn't have regulatory levers on the . So the only lever we could say is to say that development should be held until, you know, to create enough environmental headroom. And I think that is an ongoing conversation for government. I think it's a slightly different one from whether or not a developer should fund the impact, putting right the impact of their development on nature. Because again, that's the long established principle of planning law.
But I think there is, again, a systemic question which will be a judgment for. government about how much. environmental improvement should be funded through the public purse, through things like Elms, whether there should be more. regulatory levers to require the right thing to be done, or whether it should be that the private sector through, for example, developers or others that need that service should pay. But that's a matter of government policy.
But there was a strange irony with nutrient mitigation that we were using one source of government funding to stop land being farmed where it was contributing to water. But we but elsewhere, farmers were still . Being
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
ultimately, it's a political matter for government. Okay. This might be one of the things you'd want to reflect on as a committee. The only other thing to, to add to, to that part of the conversation might be around another government. policy objective, which is to get more finance from the private sector for nature, so-called green finance. And, you know, this is going slower than most of us would like to see. But I think it's important to say that where the money is flowing, it's because there's a regulatory requirement lying beneath it.
And so, you know, money going into nature, recovery from biodiversity, net gain, nutrient.
And so, you know, money going into nature, recovery from biodiversity, net gain, nutrient.
15:38
15:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
District level licensing, I mean, all of these things. In the end, there is private sector money going for nature recovery, but it's a legal requirement that's driving it rather than a voluntary market. And that's not to say voluntary markets aren't helpful. They could be really very important. But at the moment we're seeing quite slow. progress and where we are seeing . Progress, it's
15:38
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
the law that's driving it, which might be something to reflect on for the future that we could underline in our recommendations. Back to the ministers. So just to move on to a different topic then. So the committee does have some. concerns about how. independent Natural England can remain because of the different roles that you have in terms of.
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
attractive, wouldn't it, to? No. Definitely not. I assure us that these are separate roles. I suppose three versions of reassurance. One is we are required to hold an account for the Nature Recovery Fund completely separately. So we will have to do that in our in our in-year reporting to. government as to how we are holding and using those funds. And it will also be a new section in our annual report and accounts which are laid before Parliament, of course.
So there will be a very clear ring fence on how that money is used and spent, so we can't use it to cross-subsidise any other part of Government of Natural England's work. I think the second part of your.
So there will be a very clear ring fence on how that money is used and spent, so we can't use it to cross-subsidise any other part of Government of Natural England's work. I think the second part of your.
15:39
15:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We don't we the way the fund will work, we will establish the EDP, we will administer the fund. If a developer signs up for the fund, he effectively gets a certificate from us that he uses with the planning authority to show he has met his environmental obligations. The planning authority are still the ultimate decision maker as to whether or not that planning application goes ahead. It is highly. If Natural England had a view on that planning application, it would not be on whether or not it was compliant with the EDP.
There may be another issue in which we got involved, but it's a scenario. I'm finding it hard to think of an example where that could happen, but I think it is a very. Our roles are quite separate. I think there has been some fear that we might. It might be tempting for us to let development go ahead because we . Can see
There may be another issue in which we got involved, but it's a scenario. I'm finding it hard to think of an example where that could happen, but I think it is a very. Our roles are quite separate. I think there has been some fear that we might. It might be tempting for us to let development go ahead because we . Can see
15:40
15:40
15:40
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
in retaining an independent voice and reflecting the law. Okay, so just the final question on that, then these regulations would allow Natural England to depart from the mitigation. hierarchy where that's considered appropriate and value for money. So where should that line be drawn between . Adhering
15:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
to or diverting from the mitigation hierarchy? So again the. regulations define this for us. We aren't departing. I tend to think we're not departing from the mitigation hierarchy. We are. conflating it. So we are being we are able under the EDP to look at compensation and. mitigation in the round. And as a whole, it is not always the best outcome for nature to hold to the mitigation hierarchy on a single site.
So one of the reasons we favour strategic solutions, and why we supported the principle of EDP is for a number of developments. The impact that development is having is.
So one of the reasons we favour strategic solutions, and why we supported the principle of EDP is for a number of developments. The impact that development is having is.
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We can then have a range of measures which both. compensate and mitigate and are additive as well. So I understand why people are concerned, because those of us who've worked in nature conservation, as long as Tony and I have had, we grew up with the mitigation hierarchy. And it is a logical, sensible thing. The final. But but this doesn't depart from it. It is a different way of applying it. And it's a principle we've used .
A number
A number
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
think we truly believe this is a better solution for nature. What we see at the moment is piecemeal. compensation and mitigation. That doesn't necessarily add up to the sum of its parts. And I think the other safeguard for the EDP is the overall improvement test. The improvement word is really significant. So we're both. mitigating and.
15:43
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
Compensating and. recovering across the area of EDP. There's sometimes well-intentioned things which could in theory be better overall. We always have to, as legislators, think about what is the worst. possible thing that could go wrong, you know, in your successors, come along. What's the worst decision that they could make with this new freedom that they've been given? How do we protect against that? And how do we make sure that the wording is tight enough that this .
15:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well-intentioned stuff can go on, but there is some kind of backstop for that? And I think. ultimately it is exactly, as Tony says, a, there are legislative backstops of the. definition and the legal. interpretation of that definition and the role of the Secretary of State in ultimately deciding. But there is also the backstop that we and our successors first need to satisfy ourselves. So our board have been satisfied with this, and they will make that decision on a case by case.
As Tony said, there are situations where we cannot conceive the needy people to be workable. Yes.
As Tony said, there are situations where we cannot conceive the needy people to be workable. Yes.
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It's given developers a different way of discharging their obligations easier and quicker. Yeah. So I think that's why we're confident we haven't lost the fundamental protection. And of course, if a developer chose not to participate in the EDP but still want to develop, he would still have to do . His
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The Planning and Infrastructure Act, or more generally, the planning and infrastructure? I think that is continuing to keep testing the overall improvement test. That is the ultimate bar, which we have to meet to create an EDP. So you will also be aware that one of the commitments that was made during the passage of the bill is we wouldn't proceed with the species EDP until we had first been satisfied. They worked for the habitat level ones, the water quality ones, because it is.
It is easier to see the concept of a habitat level EDP where you're talking about, as I've said already, a catchment and the cumulative impact. It will be harder for species. It will be harder for some species where they are less mobile, less adaptable. It was relatively easy for newts because, putting it bluntly, a newt just needs a pond, and it doesn't even have to be particularly big or particularly nice pond, but more specialist species.
The test will be harder, and that's why Parliament asks that ministers went back and gave Parliament confidence. We had tested the concept, so I think that will be an important point. I would imagine this committee might want to look at that, that that review point for the Edps. And the other thing, as I've mentioned already, we need to give the Secretary of State notice of Edps we intend to make. We've so far given notice on nutrients and newts because we are confident that the concept will work there.
You may want to ask us or ask our. successors . What would be
It is easier to see the concept of a habitat level EDP where you're talking about, as I've said already, a catchment and the cumulative impact. It will be harder for species. It will be harder for some species where they are less mobile, less adaptable. It was relatively easy for newts because, putting it bluntly, a newt just needs a pond, and it doesn't even have to be particularly big or particularly nice pond, but more specialist species.
The test will be harder, and that's why Parliament asks that ministers went back and gave Parliament confidence. We had tested the concept, so I think that will be an important point. I would imagine this committee might want to look at that, that that review point for the Edps. And the other thing, as I've mentioned already, we need to give the Secretary of State notice of Edps we intend to make. We've so far given notice on nutrients and newts because we are confident that the concept will work there.
You may want to ask us or ask our. successors . What would be
15:47
15:47
15:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The first round of edps? I would have thought at least a year. We are about to consult on the first one. We are conscious that. consultation will be that we will get a lot of reaction to the consultation, because we're testing both the concept and the specific. So we are not yet giving a definite date about when the first EDP will be ready, but I would imagine it would be next calendar year at the earliest.
You know, that's simply that's that's my best estimate we're not yet committing. And then it'll be another six months or so as we write the next round of EDP. So I would have thought a year or so from now, but that is me just thinking . Ahead
You know, that's simply that's that's my best estimate we're not yet committing. And then it'll be another six months or so as we write the next round of EDP. So I would have thought a year or so from now, but that is me just thinking . Ahead
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
we've said already, where it's so we've used it in the past for. recreational impacts. We've used it for water quality. We're hoping to use it for air quality. So definitely where there are. cumulative diffuse pollution that an individual developer couldn't deal with. And as I've said already for mobile, relatively mobile, relatively generalist species. Yeah. But we would certainly not want. I think the only the other thing I say without confusing us all completely, even without an EDP, we.
And a developer and a planner can still come up with a form of strategic solution. We've already been using the concept that is allowable under planning law. Anyway, we gave an example earlier about Sizewell C. That's exactly what Sizewell C have done. They have looked at the overall impact that their major development have had, and they have looked at both restoring and mitigating and. compensating nature across their red line and beyond their current land ownership, they've gone so far as to buy new land that they didn't need for operational reasons, to discharge their environmental obligations.
So that's an example of the concept that's behind an EDP working with that Natural England and government having to EDP, the developer has done that. We were satisfied it met . Their
And a developer and a planner can still come up with a form of strategic solution. We've already been using the concept that is allowable under planning law. Anyway, we gave an example earlier about Sizewell C. That's exactly what Sizewell C have done. They have looked at the overall impact that their major development have had, and they have looked at both restoring and mitigating and. compensating nature across their red line and beyond their current land ownership, they've gone so far as to buy new land that they didn't need for operational reasons, to discharge their environmental obligations.
So that's an example of the concept that's behind an EDP working with that Natural England and government having to EDP, the developer has done that. We were satisfied it met . Their
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:50
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
to the the sort of injustice or the difference. If a developer was trying to develop a site and in effect, they would be stopped in the planning process because that was putting it in. It was the straw that broke the ecological back. If you the camel's back. But you you said and perhaps, you know, the water company had failed earlier in the process so that this additional development meant it shouldn't go ahead, should then the developer .
Have a
Have a
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Said should. The other the other scenario where this example comes up is water resources. So we have seen examples in Cambridgeshire. We've seen examples in Sussex where either we or the Environment Agency had to say there is not the economic. There is not the environmental headroom. I think that's the point we're talking about. We we know that government is seriously looking at water reform and looking at forward programme of water investment and whether or not how quickly we can accelerate the environmental headroom that water companies are obliged to deliver.
Water companies, as you know, you know, have an agreed programme that is agreed with Off.what on behalf of the government. So I think the concept of saying that they have failed would be stretching the reality a little bit. They have done what they were obliged to do by the.
Water companies, as you know, you know, have an agreed programme that is agreed with Off.what on behalf of the government. So I think the concept of saying that they have failed would be stretching the reality a little bit. They have done what they were obliged to do by the.
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The level of investment they will make in both water quality and water quantity. There is a different. question about whether that is has been fast enough and quickly enough to deal with the economic headroom. The example we've seen in the media this week about data centres and their water demand, we couldn't have envisaged that ten years ago, when many of the current water company plans were being written. But I should say, as I'm commenting on that, these are my comments, because Natural England doesn't have that .
Regulatory role
Regulatory role
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
When in fact, what you might have done is stand back and say, look, this catchments got too much coming in, sums coming from farming, sums coming off the roads. Some is coming out of a factory, some is coming out of the sewage works. What's going to be the way of bringing that down to a level which is. ecologically sensible? And we don't have that system at the . Moment,
15:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
but we, you know, we, we we may get there. Yeah. And that's one of the reasons why in the government's current thinking on water reform, we have certainly been supportive of their thinking about a regional level of water planning and a level of water planning that integrates all of the different impacts on a catchment. Yeah. And also looks at quantity as well as quantity, looks at supply of water, flood risk management and water.
Because if we manage the catchment and understand the different debates, it's back to the point we were saying if the ecosystem is.
Because if we manage the catchment and understand the different debates, it's back to the point we were saying if the ecosystem is.
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Catchment and budgets. And I think it was entirely coincidental. But the the committee has. recommended that catchment based planning should become the default approach to flood resilience. Funny that and that nature based solutions should play a much greater role. So I wonder if you'd take this. opportunity to walk us . Through
15:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
what Natural England's role is in actually making that happen? Yes. So we have. experts embedded in our. organisation who look at natural flood management as nature based flood management as one of the things that we advise on. And that, of course, is but one aspect of what nature can do in terms of building climate change resilience. So the Climate Change.
15:55
15:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
told us that we face four big. challenges in the United Kingdom. One of them is flood, one of them is heat waves. And we've just seen a taste of that. Another one is drought. We've still got one, and then the other one is fire. So those four things are the headings where, you know, we can see that we've got vulnerability and we're beginning to experience it now. So I think the big exam question for us is to work out where we can most effectively insert nature based solutions to be able to reduce the risk of all of that and to increase the resilience of the.
country through doing so. And from our point of view, at the same time as lifting up prospects for nature's recovery in terms of biodiversity. And so you could imagine a river catchment with some headwater rivers, which are pretty sporty, where the water's running down steep hills into the top of the river and then downstream, and then hitting a town. And you could then begin to think through, how can we delay the progress of that water? How can we recreate wetlands that are going to hold it for longer? And in so doing, you reduce the severity of a flood spike.
You can smooth it off. You will keep the river flowing during hot, dry spells in the summer, because the landscape is still shedding water because it's been retained there, you will probably catch more carbon if there's peatlands in that landscape. And of course, by being more wet and more humid, you will reduce fire risk. But you have to take a catchment view to be able to do this, because water, of course, doesn't know any boundaries.
Hydrology needs to be looked at in, in, in the context of a catchment. So this is not only about ecology, it's also about planning and land use planning, and then about how we line up all the incentives and the tools that we've got to be . Able to
country through doing so. And from our point of view, at the same time as lifting up prospects for nature's recovery in terms of biodiversity. And so you could imagine a river catchment with some headwater rivers, which are pretty sporty, where the water's running down steep hills into the top of the river and then downstream, and then hitting a town. And you could then begin to think through, how can we delay the progress of that water? How can we recreate wetlands that are going to hold it for longer? And in so doing, you reduce the severity of a flood spike.
You can smooth it off. You will keep the river flowing during hot, dry spells in the summer, because the landscape is still shedding water because it's been retained there, you will probably catch more carbon if there's peatlands in that landscape. And of course, by being more wet and more humid, you will reduce fire risk. But you have to take a catchment view to be able to do this, because water, of course, doesn't know any boundaries.
Hydrology needs to be looked at in, in, in the context of a catchment. So this is not only about ecology, it's also about planning and land use planning, and then about how we line up all the incentives and the tools that we've got to be . Able to
15:57
15:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
which is why we have the recommendations. What are you practically thinking of doing that can. So this is one of the areas where our advisory role is at the front. We aren't the regulator. We have a small delivery, which I'll come to in a moment. So in our conversations in the Defra water reform and looking ahead to the next price review, the one that is about to start very soon. So our role there is to advise on the investment that is needed, the actions that are needed by water companies to further nature recovery.
A few years ago. Our conversations, though, would mainly have been about the impact of water on protected sites where there was no actual harm being done, for example, and an overflow an outflow needed upgrading, for example, in the last two rounds, and especially for the next one, we will be looking at that much broader question of where do nature based solutions help and where do they not work? Because they aren't they don't work for everything.
Where are they the most appropriate and cost effective measure, but also how we're looking at that wider water resilience. So we have an advisory role to the water. regulator and to the Environment Agency about when nature based solutions work best. Best. We have a small direct delivery role in the role we do with farmers on catchment, sensitive farming and supporting farmers to change land management . Practices and
A few years ago. Our conversations, though, would mainly have been about the impact of water on protected sites where there was no actual harm being done, for example, and an overflow an outflow needed upgrading, for example, in the last two rounds, and especially for the next one, we will be looking at that much broader question of where do nature based solutions help and where do they not work? Because they aren't they don't work for everything.
Where are they the most appropriate and cost effective measure, but also how we're looking at that wider water resilience. So we have an advisory role to the water. regulator and to the Environment Agency about when nature based solutions work best. Best. We have a small direct delivery role in the role we do with farmers on catchment, sensitive farming and supporting farmers to change land management . Practices and
15:58
15:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
funding for that, with things like the higher tier scheme and capital grants. And as I've just mentioned, that farming thing, I think that's the other thing. While we're talking about water, I think the other thing we are increasingly looking at, and we're just kicking off a piece of research with C to really test that, we've got enough knowledge on this. I think the other side of water quality is , what are the practices that could change on farms, on both flooding and water quality? We all know that better quality soil holds more water and therefore creates flood resilience.
It holds water stores water rather than the water washing off. We've seen that, especially this summer. The drier soils are the more likely to have flash floods. So that's a piece of evidence we're now starting to really test. We've got sufficient robustness in to make sure that is factored into the next round of the price review.
It holds water stores water rather than the water washing off. We've seen that, especially this summer. The drier soils are the more likely to have flash floods. So that's a piece of evidence we're now starting to really test. We've got sufficient robustness in to make sure that is factored into the next round of the price review.
15:59
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
So it isn't just what the companies do. It's other land management in the catchment. I've got a question on farming in a second. But before we move on from the catchment, and I think you reflected on this earlier, the challenge of doing it at scale, what can you do to overcome those challenges of implementing this at scale? And by the way, if you need any pilots, I'm more than happy to host you in Mid Bedfordshire because, you know, there is an appetite for nature based solutions and to consider the catchment.
And with huge amounts of.
And with huge amounts of.
15:59
15:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
there's real opportunities. Yeah, yeah. I think we we I'm not sure we necessarily call them pilots, but over the years we've gathered that knowledge through projects we've been involved in. And some of those projects might not have been labelled a water project. They might have been a nature recovery project. But we've learnt from that which solutions work and which don't. We've learnt it through the work we've done with the water companies and as we said, we're learning it more through the work we're doing with farmers.
I think the the other thing that was just going through my mind when you mentioned Mid Bedfordshire and forgive me, I'm not suggesting that. I think the other aspect we mustn't forget is the urban side of this and the use of sustainable urban drainage and things like that, and resilient water resilience in built development, as well as . Water
I think the the other thing that was just going through my mind when you mentioned Mid Bedfordshire and forgive me, I'm not suggesting that. I think the other aspect we mustn't forget is the urban side of this and the use of sustainable urban drainage and things like that, and resilient water resilience in built development, as well as . Water
16:00
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
resilience on farmland, will need to become part of that catchment planning. Yeah, 100%. And considering development. holistically because at the moment, unfortunately, development is considered on a case by case basis. And we have classic. examples where cumulative. impacts of. development have catastrophic effects. But I'm I'm digressing on the on the farmer side. So the, the NFU have raised. concerns with us that.
environmental permitting can give too much weight to the immediate ecological effect of.
environmental permitting can give too much weight to the immediate ecological effect of.
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
think what we are seeing in our. conversations with all of the farming bodies and with individual farmers is indeed is a growing recognition, again, of some of the things our strategy talks about, that a. environmentally resilient farm is also an economically resilient farm and therefore contributes to food quality. So I think we're seeing more and more food, food security, I should say. We're seeing more and more farmers. understanding that it isn't about nature because they .
Want more
Want more
16:01
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
nature on their farms. It is about nature being a business solution. My final question then, because at the end of the day, everything's about money. So I've got a sort of a budget kind of question. The minister has told this committee that the new fund, the flood funding formula, should make it easier for natural flood. management schemes to secure funding. Have you seen any. evidence of this, and are there any.
16:02
16:02
16:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. But definitely that commitment is being seen through and we're part of it. Just would say one thing though about about. regulation and. sometimes things that look like they're ecologically a good idea not being that easy to do. And it in some ways arises from, you know, the regulations that have been put in place there about stopping bad things happening to nature rather than fostering good things happening. And so an example of this I saw.
recently in East Anglia with Anglian Water, seeking to put. naturalistic wetlands. downstream from some of the headwaters. Sewage works in quite remote, remote rural areas, maybe 600 houses. So quite small. Sewage works quite expensive to upgrade them and yet causing quite a lot of harm to the rivers. So putting a wetland downstream of the sewage works makes a lot of sense ecologically. But the regulatory regime doesn't make it easy because the E needs to regulate the water flowing out of the pipe at the end of the sewage works, rather than the Perrier quality that's coming out of the bottom of the wetland.
And so there are issues still that we probably could work through that would make it. easier to deploy nature based solutions. And so that regulatory piece is one barrier. Another barrier, I would say, is the extent to which, you know, we're not so able to judge risk in relation to a nature based solution because nature is. unpredictable compared with concrete and steel, which we can engineer, and we can be much more.
confident about the. effectiveness thereof.
recently in East Anglia with Anglian Water, seeking to put. naturalistic wetlands. downstream from some of the headwaters. Sewage works in quite remote, remote rural areas, maybe 600 houses. So quite small. Sewage works quite expensive to upgrade them and yet causing quite a lot of harm to the rivers. So putting a wetland downstream of the sewage works makes a lot of sense ecologically. But the regulatory regime doesn't make it easy because the E needs to regulate the water flowing out of the pipe at the end of the sewage works, rather than the Perrier quality that's coming out of the bottom of the wetland.
And so there are issues still that we probably could work through that would make it. easier to deploy nature based solutions. And so that regulatory piece is one barrier. Another barrier, I would say, is the extent to which, you know, we're not so able to judge risk in relation to a nature based solution because nature is. unpredictable compared with concrete and steel, which we can engineer, and we can be much more.
confident about the. effectiveness thereof.
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Improvements to those regulations, would you share them with us? I think we possibly have done and we will continue to do. I think you've heard some of it today. It is about thinking about the health of a catchment and the combined impacts on the catchment, not, as Tony has just described, solving a point source pollution does not necessarily create a healthy ecosystem. And I think a lot of that regulation has been based on human health impact, human health thresholds, not necessarily environmental thresholds.
So I think that's, again, part of the advice we're giving to government as they think about a water bill. Do we need to . Change
So I think that's, again, part of the advice we're giving to government as they think about a water bill. Do we need to . Change
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
not so much on drought, but on wildfire risk. But of course they're related. So we are doing an immediate, rapid assessment of the fire risk assessments on our nature reserves. And they will also they will not just be the kind of, if I might call it, the health and safety version of that. We are also working together. We've pulled together a group of. practitioners ourselves, other NGOs, other parts of government, to see what we can learn quickly from this summer.
Because putting it.
Because putting it.
16:05
16:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You and I, well, we were due to visit Minsmere with the RSPB anyway, weren't we? Before the fire happened, we visited and used the opportunity to learn a lot more. What we saw then was fire risk assessments that were good enough a year ago were not. This summer, because of the heat and the speed at which the fires were moving. So many of us have worked to those same principles. We have firebreaks we thought were good enough and they simply aren't.
I think the second learning we had from this summer is that we need to make the sites themselves more resilient by building in more water, by having more variety of vegetation and so on. So there are more natural firebreaks, more wetland, more, more not a single.
I think the second learning we had from this summer is that we need to make the sites themselves more resilient by building in more water, by having more variety of vegetation and so on. So there are more natural firebreaks, more wetland, more, more not a single.
16:06
16:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
if it's a heathland site. Heather alone is not what we need. I think the second thing we learned from the time we spent with the fire service there, and when there's been fires on our reserves, we also need to think about the ability to respond to a fire. We have to. assume more will happen, however resilient the sites are. So can we get the rapid response in? And the third piece of learning is what do we learn about how best to recover sites? After a fire, our chief scientist led a piece of work for the cabinet, for the Government Office for science on the impact of fire on biodiversity.
And of course, it's the loss of the habitat itself is.
And of course, it's the loss of the habitat itself is.
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
flooding off land, the carbon release in the first place. And the fact that we've then got dry, bare ground, it's more likely to be flooding. So I think some of the places where we've had fires this year, the problems are not yet over. So that was a very long answer. But I think we have to look at the whole piece, don't we? How do we prevent fires? How do we deal with them better? And that doesn't just apply to us.
That applies to our partners with private land as well. Both upland and lowland farmers have had the same problems that we've seen on the nature sites. So we want to be able to share that learning is what . Makes
That applies to our partners with private land as well. Both upland and lowland farmers have had the same problems that we've seen on the nature sites. So we want to be able to share that learning is what . Makes
16:07
Sarah Gibson
-
-
Sarah Gibson
land more. resilient and what makes responses better. I'm just thinking a little bit about the areas that are not actually. necessarily been subject to fires, but just the heat itself. And what impact of that have you seen on the sort of biological. diversity and, and what are you going to try and do in order to try and protect .
16:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Areas from that? Because even without fire, you must have seen this, this well, this goes back to, to the kind of very big picture to, to which our. strategy is pointing, which is about creating resilience for nature as well as for the human world. And one of the things that we know from previous reports presented to government some years ago, especially the Making Space for nature report from Sir John Lawton, is that if we wish to have nature flourishing into the future, we need more areas of natural habitat.
They need to be bigger, they need to be better quality, and they need to be connected. And so that's really behind quite a lot of what we try to do at Natural England. And so that's the big picture. And you know this is work in progress. Some progress is being made here and there. But I think it's fair to say that the impact of this summer on our wildlife will be profound. You know, the.
1976 summer, which wasn't as bad as this one. Some butterfly populations were knocked back for decades after that. particular extreme event. And this summer.
They need to be bigger, they need to be better quality, and they need to be connected. And so that's really behind quite a lot of what we try to do at Natural England. And so that's the big picture. And you know this is work in progress. Some progress is being made here and there. But I think it's fair to say that the impact of this summer on our wildlife will be profound. You know, the.
1976 summer, which wasn't as bad as this one. Some butterfly populations were knocked back for decades after that. particular extreme event. And this summer.
16:09
16:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Data will emerge in due course. Far fewer insects around. Obviously, some aquatic habitats have been completely wrecked. Quite a lot of ponds and shallow lakes have completely dried up fish populations. Insect populations in those will have been wiped out. When we saw the fire at Dunwich Heath, we were told that one place was the location of a population of silver studded blue butterflies. And those insects don't move very far at the best of times, and the entire population was wiped out by that fire.
How is it going to recolonize? Well, the next colony may be some distance away, and so on and so forth. So this is now going to drive even more pressure onto our beleaguered natural environment. And so we do have to really start thinking now, not only about individual sites and making places hold more water. We've got to start thinking about. landscapes more bigger, better connected natural. habitats is what we must invest in as a country.
And we've got quite a lot of tools to do this, and we've got quite a lot of extra reasons now why to do it, including this climate change impact, which is not only affecting the natural world, but people, bigger areas of natural habitat, holding more water . At
How is it going to recolonize? Well, the next colony may be some distance away, and so on and so forth. So this is now going to drive even more pressure onto our beleaguered natural environment. And so we do have to really start thinking now, not only about individual sites and making places hold more water. We've got to start thinking about. landscapes more bigger, better connected natural. habitats is what we must invest in as a country.
And we've got quite a lot of tools to do this, and we've got quite a lot of extra reasons now why to do it, including this climate change impact, which is not only affecting the natural world, but people, bigger areas of natural habitat, holding more water . At
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Major towns and cities can we talk about we haven't talked so much about urban. We haven't talked so much about people during this hearing so far. So I think we've just talked in that helpful exchange about what we might do to protect nature on more natural sites. I think the other area we've invested a lot more in over recent years is what we can do to make urban areas more resilient to nature. You know, Covid was a bit of an eye opener for that, wasn't it? For many of us.
We've also seen that, you know, for people who people who had least access to green space suffer the most, we've seen quite a lot of data about the inequality of access to green space. And I think those same that that evidence correlates as well to the people that are most likely to suffer for heat impacts, the communities that are less likely to have green space. So the Nature Towns and Cities project that Tony mentioned, it's a partnership between us and .
The
We've also seen that, you know, for people who people who had least access to green space suffer the most, we've seen quite a lot of data about the inequality of access to green space. And I think those same that that evidence correlates as well to the people that are most likely to suffer for heat impacts, the communities that are less likely to have green space. So the Nature Towns and Cities project that Tony mentioned, it's a partnership between us and .
The
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
National heritage, National Heritage and yes. No. You mean and and the National Trust. And that is about supporting local authorities to invest in nature resilience in their towns. So more green space, more street trees, more rain gardens, which then help contribute to the flood risk sort of thing. So it's enabling and supporting capacity and capability in local authorities. The reason that matters is what we're seeing is we know that water, green space and shade or mitigate heat directly and indirectly.
But what we also are seeing through that programme and the research that's being done around that program, the. evaluation is it's also a beneficiary to economic growth, because you are more likely to visit a city centre which has pleasant green spaces. You are likely to stay longer, therefore, you're . Likely to
But what we also are seeing through that programme and the research that's being done around that program, the. evaluation is it's also a beneficiary to economic growth, because you are more likely to visit a city centre which has pleasant green spaces. You are likely to stay longer, therefore, you're . Likely to
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Network programme as well. This is part of what that green. infrastructure piece of evidence. That's a piece of Natural England evidence that local authorities can. use to understand where best to target their effort. And that effort may be the obligations they put on developers for alternative green space. It may be their own investment. So Greater Manchester Combined Authority, one of the first authorities to use it and it led it was used to target where the mayor's own .
Green
Green
16:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
fund would fund community projects to create green spaces and nature. So what that revealed actually is quite an important point here in terms of the the social wellbeing agenda, because that work revealed how the. people with least access to green space within a short walk of their home were people who would benefit from it. Most people on low incomes, people suffering from indices of social deprivation. And we know that access to nature does help with some of those challenges faced by some communities in terms of health and.
16:13
16:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And the benefits gotten from green space make a material difference on that. But the people who've got least of it are the ones who need it most. And so there's a quite a big social question in there about how we expand access to green areas, including in ways which are going to reduce heat, heat extremes and also help to mitigate flooding in towns. But it all kind of comes together in the end around the use of green infrastructure in towns and cities in a way which is pleasantly not .
Very,
Very,
16:13
John Whitby
-
-
John Whitby
not very strategic in some cases, but could be more so. Yeah. And those, those larger spaces you mentioned previously, well connected. I mean, I've got half of my constituency is national Park. Obviously with all the heat, people are going there probably in even greater numbers than previously because it's a bit cooler. Yeah. But then that creates other threats. I mean, we've had fires from wild camping and the barbecues and all those sort of things.
So I mean,
So I mean,
16:14
16:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
of threats? Yeah, I think it's a version of the bigger, better, more joined up, isn't it? Bigger, better, more joined up and a bit wetter. That makes it less less likely to burn. I do think actually, in the wake of this summer, I think probably there is a major public. awareness piece about all of this because, you know, the vast well, I think pretty much all of the fires the fire brigades would tell us were started by people, most of them accidentally, probably some of them.
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:15
16:15
Adrian Ramsay
-
-
Adrian Ramsay
That's central to national security. And of course, we've had the Joint Intelligence Committee report on the. National Security. assessment this year, which this committee's. investigated and. scrutinised with the Defra Minister. What's your assessment of the government's response to that national security assessment, and has it reacted adequately and comprehensively . Enough to
16:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
the threats to national security from nature decline? I'm not sure I've seen a response to it. Obviously, it was a cross-government endeavour to to reach those conclusions. And from what we know at Natural England, and certainly from what I've seen from other work I've done over the years, there is a very strong set of aligning factors between national security and the state of ecosystems. And that report did a good job in looking at issues of mass.
16:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The rise of bad actors, impact on supply chains. All of those things were brought out very well. But I, I, I'm not sure I've seen yet a response that would set out the reaction to all of that, certainly from what we're doing in the UK, one of the ways in which we can take some of those risks down in terms of damage to ecosystems in different parts of the world, is to look after our own and to repair our own.
ecosystems so that we can rely on them for more of the things that presently we get from overseas. Food being the obvious one soil health, water.
ecosystems so that we can rely on them for more of the things that presently we get from overseas. Food being the obvious one soil health, water.
16:16
16:16
16:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Comprehensive piece yet that says, this is what we're going to do with you. I think so I think our particular contribution there is the one we've been talking about during this committee. How can we both, as a delivery body and advisor to government, build that resilience? So an example of that is the work we do in delivering governments, people and restoration grants. They're a major part of delivering that resilience in upland areas.
So helping deal with fire risk, helping deal with flood resilience and water quality. I think what we do know is our the new Secretary of State in Defra, our first meeting with them with Dame Angela Eagle, that was particularly what she was focused on. How could Natural England. contribute more to building that . Resilience,
So helping deal with fire risk, helping deal with flood resilience and water quality. I think what we do know is our the new Secretary of State in Defra, our first meeting with them with Dame Angela Eagle, that was particularly what she was focused on. How could Natural England. contribute more to building that . Resilience,
16:17
Adrian Ramsay
-
-
Adrian Ramsay
that security, that climate adaptation? Yes. Well, I'm glad you've had that discussion with the new secretary of State when we had our discussion, albeit with the now former minister. Certainly my view was that the minister's reply did not. constitute a full response to the gravity and scale of what the National Security Assessment said. She referred to specific actions being taken in particular areas and some good work. But like yourself, I didn't feel that it was a really thorough reply.
So that's . Perhaps
So that's . Perhaps
16:18
16:18
16:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Indeed. What would you like to see in such a response? Well, so our participation on the global stage, global efforts to halt and reduce deforestation. The UK was a global leader in that field 15, 20 years ago. We could return there and be working with partner countries. I remember us having a very good relationship with the Norwegian and German governments in being able to take forward plans, which then turned into really quite big ambition on the global stage.
We could re-engage with some of that. Obviously, there is the global biodiversity framework and what we can do to support other countries in the implementation of that. But as is the case on climate change, always big. questions about what are we doing at home? What's our. leadership example that we're setting in, being able to show that you can restore. ecosystems and that you can do it in ways which are good for growth, good for public health and wellbeing, and good for national security.
And I think actually, that's where we might be able to really blaze a trail in, in helping countries to see that that false choice is, is really a false choice. And you can restore your habitats and you can do it in ways which help your country as 1 or 2 good examples around the world. Costa Rica is a great example. It has more than tripled its forest cover in 40 years, and it's doubled its GDP at the same time per capita GDP.
And so it's restored its ecosystems in a way which has helped the. country to reduce poverty and develop. And they did that through taking an approach which, you know, is very much reflected in the evidence. But they turned it into policy. They recognised if they wanted to have secure. hydroelectric power, it would have to keep raining, and it would only keep raining if they kept the rain forest. They worked out that these two were connected.
And so they did that. And that then turned into not only a source of electricity, but clean water that didn't need to go through a water treatment works because it was coming. absolutely pure from the forest. And then on top of that, they've developed a world leading eco tourism industry. And at the same time, they've increased their food exports. And so is there an opportunity for the UK to be showing that kind of leadership in how we take nature as an.
opportunity for national security and development, rather than seeing it as an. imposition or a . Distraction,
We could re-engage with some of that. Obviously, there is the global biodiversity framework and what we can do to support other countries in the implementation of that. But as is the case on climate change, always big. questions about what are we doing at home? What's our. leadership example that we're setting in, being able to show that you can restore. ecosystems and that you can do it in ways which are good for growth, good for public health and wellbeing, and good for national security.
And I think actually, that's where we might be able to really blaze a trail in, in helping countries to see that that false choice is, is really a false choice. And you can restore your habitats and you can do it in ways which help your country as 1 or 2 good examples around the world. Costa Rica is a great example. It has more than tripled its forest cover in 40 years, and it's doubled its GDP at the same time per capita GDP.
And so it's restored its ecosystems in a way which has helped the. country to reduce poverty and develop. And they did that through taking an approach which, you know, is very much reflected in the evidence. But they turned it into policy. They recognised if they wanted to have secure. hydroelectric power, it would have to keep raining, and it would only keep raining if they kept the rain forest. They worked out that these two were connected.
And so they did that. And that then turned into not only a source of electricity, but clean water that didn't need to go through a water treatment works because it was coming. absolutely pure from the forest. And then on top of that, they've developed a world leading eco tourism industry. And at the same time, they've increased their food exports. And so is there an opportunity for the UK to be showing that kind of leadership in how we take nature as an.
opportunity for national security and development, rather than seeing it as an. imposition or a . Distraction,
16:20
16:20
16:20
16:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Vulnerabilities of international supply chains that the report highlights? Well, in the end, probably it's the it's the soil which in the end is sustaining our food supply and focusing there in, as Marianne said, in ways which not only give us. greater ability to to sustain food into the future, but also to store water in the ground, helping to reduce flood risk. And, you know, there are plenty of farmers now across the country who have embarked on this regenerative agriculture journey.
Actually, if any of you have the time next summer, I'd strongly encourage a visit to the. Groundswell Farming Festival in.
Actually, if any of you have the time next summer, I'd strongly encourage a visit to the. Groundswell Farming Festival in.
16:21
16:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Where there is the most. incredible level of knowledge and expertise amongst. practitioners who are now putting into real effect these ideas about focusing on soil as a means of achieving so many other things. And, you know, one thing that you can get by improving natural soil fertility, of course, is to reduce reliance on long distance supply. chains for fertilisers. And, you know, this is now gone from being a theoretical thing ten years ago to now being a real thing in terms of access to to ammonium nitrate coming from global markets.
It's, it's now something which is a material factor for farmers. In fact, I think I heard a one farmer this year who made more money out of selling some spare. fertiliser he had than he did from growing crops. I mean, this is such as the volatility in those markets now. And there are farmers who are doing this. If you were to conduct a. investigation into regenerative farming, you could get a great deal of expertise from people who are already doing this.
You know, we're advisers on nature, and I think you'd get much . More
It's, it's now something which is a material factor for farmers. In fact, I think I heard a one farmer this year who made more money out of selling some spare. fertiliser he had than he did from growing crops. I mean, this is such as the volatility in those markets now. And there are farmers who are doing this. If you were to conduct a. investigation into regenerative farming, you could get a great deal of expertise from people who are already doing this.
You know, we're advisers on nature, and I think you'd get much . More
16:22
Adrian Ramsay
-
-
Adrian Ramsay
16:23
16:23
16:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Recovering Nature for growth, health and Security. And I, I think some people were they were slightly quizzical. I think things have moved on in the short 18 months since we published the first draft of that. And I think people can now see the connections. But I think there's work to do, isn't there, in embedding this across the piece. And, you know, again, that piece about nature being.
16:23
16:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That that is where some of this would ultimately logically land, if it is about restoring nature for these for these big. national objectives, we're going to have to put it into a different box than where it currently is, which is a little bit of Defra, and it seems quite distant from the NHS. It seems quite distant from what we're doing in terms of defence reviews and everything else, when in fact, if you put it in those contexts, it can be of great.
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Assistance in enabling us to navigate some really quite big, big subjects. And our work does transcend a number of departments you might not expect us to be working with. So just as a small example of that, we're doing some work with DWP at the moment with job centres in the North East, about whether almost I shouldn't call it green social prescribing, but whether using nature. Your point about having more green space that helps keep people fit and well, and therefore more likely to be able to find work.
So it's partly about people's health and wellbeing. It's also about their confidence. You know, we did some work with the charity recently and they were using nature volunteering to give young people the confidence to take their first step into the workplace, particularly those who had been isolated during Covid in the last part of their schooling years. So that idea that nature can also help people's personal prosperity and.
So it's partly about people's health and wellbeing. It's also about their confidence. You know, we did some work with the charity recently and they were using nature volunteering to give young people the confidence to take their first step into the workplace, particularly those who had been isolated during Covid in the last part of their schooling years. So that idea that nature can also help people's personal prosperity and.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
think, is an increasing part of the narrative. I mean, forgive me, I'm trying not to go back 70 years, but, you know, having worked in this world for 40 years, I am and about to finish. I am reflecting back on what's changed in my working life. And I made a comment about this at the beginning. If and I might just return to that.
16:25
16:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We work to still. assumes that the job is to protect certain places and certain species. You know, it is very much a stopping bad happening because that's what we needed a couple of generations ago. And I think that's the other thing that if I dare, this committee might want to turn its mind to, what do we need in the future? Where do we need to continue to evolve our regulation and our. legislation to drive good .
Things and
Things and
16:25
16:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
drive recovery and to drive positive rather than just stop harm? We've seen a few bits of that. You know, the Planning and Infrastructure Act takes us that way. Tony mentioned the protected sites strategies, work that came from the Environment Act, but I think we, I, we would certainly welcome a conversation about what next to get to a place where nature. regulation is driving nature recovery . And
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:25
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, thank you indeed, Tony and Marianne, so much for both your. contribution today. Very fulsome answers. And also, of course, as I said at the start , to the contribution that you've made over the course of the last seven years, and Natural England and of course, through your careers prior to that. So as we bring this session to a close, and thank you very much for your.
16:26
16:26