Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Welcome back to the committee. We're moving to the second panel that we're going to hear evidence from this morning, and these are environmental organisations. It's my pleasure to welcome Annie Smith, head of policy and advocacy for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru; Alex Phillips, policy and advocacy manager with WWF Cymru; and Chloe Wenman, who is the policy and advocacy manager with the Marine Conservation Society. Welcome to the three of you. We have about an hour and 10 minutes to ask you questions and to look at the issue, so I will start. Wales, as you know, has committed to the global biodiversity framework, and there are multiple targets in that to be reached by 2030. To what extent do you believe the Welsh Government has responded to the challenge in that framework? Who would like to start? Annie.

Thank you, Llyr. Good morning, all.

Thanks for the session today. It's great to be here. So, we've seen a really positive—. Sorry, I can hear myself; I haven't got that right.

We've seen a really positive response to the new framework in as much as the Welsh Government has been quick to endorse the framework and commit Wales to the delivery of the targets, and we see that in the commitment to the environmental principles and biodiversity Bill, and also the biodiversity deep-dive, which has looked in particular at the 30x30 target, which was one of the ones that got big headlines in the lead-up to the Conference of the Parties and in the time since. So, that's really positive.

I know we're going to talk about those things in a bit more detail. I think the challenge comes in getting the action moving to see progress and to see change, and that's where, I think—. We're developing frameworks, developing approaches and not necessarily seeing the actions being driven yet in the way that they need to be. And there are worrying signals with, for example, the change programme that NRW is going through at the moment that that remains a challenge. I'm sure the others have other things to add.

Alex.

Yes, I'd say something very similar. I think Welsh Government have always been very good at the ambition and the high-level commitment to things; it's where it touches ground, that's when we tend to run into problems. And that's been due to resources, but it's also been due to the structure of some of the legislation that we've had. I know you touched on this in the last session, but obviously we are responding to 2030 with the old Environment (Wales) Act 2016 structures, which at the time were seen to be problematic, and the best part of 10 years on really haven't bedded in in a very positive way. So, we've been pressuring Government to say, 'Well, can we spend some time looking at what we've got, which bits are working and which bits are not really working very well, and how can we use this opportunity to improve some of those bits that aren’t there and also convert those high-level plans to delivery?' So, we have examples of the deep-dive in biodiversity and also the one in woodland, and obviously they come up with good solutions to things and good proposals, but then, when that works its way through policy development and you end up with programmes like the sustainable farming scheme, are they really there at the level that they need to be there? And that’s when it becomes quite a difficult political balancing act that the Government has to do, which proves controversial or may not end up delivering what the initial ambition was to start with.

I'll come to you, Chloe. I mean, the academics in the previous session told us that much of what's happening now is, frankly, based on goodwill and teamwork. Is that a fair reflection, do you think? What does the trajectory look like?

I mean, I'd echo exactly what my colleagues have said in that intention and words are good. Yes, there might be some areas where Welsh Government, to be honest, does have to take more ownership of this. NGOs and others are taking on a lot of the work, which is okay—we have a team Wales approach; we have a lot of good structures in place, such as the Wales coasts and seas partnership, which facilitates that joint working—but, at the end of the day, yes, I would agree that there are issues where Welsh Government has the responsibility to take ownership of more of this.

I’d also echo on the capacity. We always say it, but it’s continually true, particularly in marine, that it’s chronically underfunded and under-resourced. This is a global problem and when we think about sustainable development goals, it’s SDG14, the marine one, that is the least funded out of all of them. So, nature as a whole is, but marine, I have to say, is particularly—. It needs vastly more capacity. We need an army of civil servants working on this; we don’t have enough. It needs to happen more quickly. When you think about the speed at which things like offshore wind are being pushed forward, nature recovery is not happening at anywhere near the speed. And I know we’re also going to come on to things like mainstreaming—this needs to happen across Government; it can’t just be environmental teams, it needs to be everywhere.

Sure. And we'll come on to some specifics in a minute. I'm just trying to get a picture of whether you think the Government are pretty clear in their minds in terms of where they’re at in terms of those global targets. Or are we still in a bit of a floundering stage at the minute, trying to work out what we’re looking at and what we’re trying to achieve and how we measure that? Because the targets are there and the Government need to be accountable, but how do we hold them to account if they don’t know whether they’re on track?

So, we're going to come on and talk more, I think, about the biodiversity targets in the forthcoming Bill. That's obviously a key way to articulate the outcomes we want to see, but also some of the changes we need to see to get there, and I think there is still—

Sure. Sorry to interrupt, but maybe what I should ask is: do you think there's a clear picture of progress against the global targets at the minute?

To a large extent, there are indicators in place against lots of elements of the global targets, but, no, I think a lot of them are poorly reported against and some of them are underdeveloped, so I think we have got a way to go.

Sure. But bringing those into statutory targets, et cetera, you think is a way of trying to capture that, I suppose, yes?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

I would add that I think the confusion that we’ve ended up with in some areas in Wales is that we have this global framework, which is relatively clear as to what needs to be achieved and how you would measure getting towards that, and the exercise that Welsh Government has now gone on in the last couple of years is, 'How do you integrate that into the Welsh unique framework?' And that’s the framework that’s trying to do everything all at once. When you end up in those discussions, it becomes overly complicated, very academic very quickly, and suddenly the connection to reality disappears. And when I look at proposals for the Bill or the wider statutory legislation, I kind of go, 'Well, there are some simple things that we have here that we are measuring that give an indication to condition, but we end up talking about these weird concepts that no-one really understands, and how it applies everywhere, and that soaks up all the time and distracts from delivery.' Because there aren't actually that many people doing the delivery work at the moment, and that’s what needs resources.

If you take the example of, I think, target 7 in the GBF, which is about pollution—there are so many targets, but I'm pretty sure carbon target 7 is pollution—that's quite clear when you talk about water quality and things like that. It's like, 'Okay, well, there are indications of what that is; it's about nutrient application, it's about load in the rivers, that kind of thing.' We can get towards that; we could set targets around those things, but instead, if we're talking about SMNR goals and definitions and all this kind of stuff, then suddenly it all becomes really fuzzy and nobody really understands it. So, it's like, 'How do we build the GBF into our framework? Do we change the framework to some extent, or do we focus our time more on what is actually deliverable by 2030 and beyond?' And I think that's the bit where all the time disappears.

Yes. [Laughter.] Yes, I feel your pain. [Laughter.] Okay, well, look, we'll come back to these issues from different perspectives as we go along, so I'll invite Delyth now to take us into the next area of questioning.

Diolch. It's lovely to see you all, and I'm sorry that I'm seeing you from a screen. I wanted to ask you about the biodiversity deep-dive. Firstly, please, how do you think the Welsh Government is doing in terms of implementing the recommendations? And do you think that is being hampered by—Chloe has indicated already that it's hampered by a lack of personnel, maybe, in Government—is it by a lack of resource, particularly within NRW? And how—? No, I'm not going to overcomplicate the question. That one first, please. [Laughter.]

I'll just go first because RSPB Cymru—not me personally—has been involved in the core group of the deep-dive and in some of the work that's gone on since the recommendations. So, just to reflect, since those recommendations were published, there have been a number of expert groups working on quite detailed reports. So, we saw on the tv next door Professor Ormerod mentioning other effective area-based conservation measures. There's a lot of work being done on that, and a lot on the monitoring framework, and also a look at designated landscapes, and then there's been a process of trying to bring those things together, and identify where the recommendations of those groups interact, and to use that to identify actions for next steps. And then we've reached a bit of a hiatus in terms of solidifying those actions, I think partly because it's summer, but I would say it's also possibly because, as alluded to, it's the same people trying to drive the deep-dive within the Welsh Government as doing the work on the biodiversity Bill, and various people are involved in the SFS as well, so there are a lot of big things and a small number of individuals.

So, they've brought thinking together and given us a bit of direction, and now we really need to start testing and piloting things under those work streams. But there are a suite of other recommendations that have had much less either scrutiny by that group or progress to report on. A key element that RSPB Cymru focused on in our evidence was the SSSIs in terms of condition and management challenges, and addressing that was one of the key recommendations of the deep-dive. Because if you think, the 30x30 target is about having 30 per cent of land and sea—some of that's summarising—effectively protected and managed for nature by 2030, well we have sites that are protected in our SSSIs, but many of them don't have management in place, don't have a condition assessment in place to inform that management, et cetera, so as things are, they can't be claimed as areas that count towards that 30 per cent. There's a journey to go on for them to contribute to that. And that is an area that hasn't moved forward tremendously. Natural Resources Wales is undertaking work as per the recommendations to look at where further designations of SSSIs are needed, which is a really important part of this. We're sort of encouraging them to make sure that review is sharp, focused and leads quickly to delivery. But those are elements that haven't demonstrably moved forward and that are really critical to delivering on what the purpose of the exercise has been.

I have one quick bit to add on the SSSI example. I think it's about what we're actually trying to achieve, by when and how that flows through Government policy. To give the example around that and other protected sites, when the Welsh Government consulted on the SFS last winter, there was an action in there that every SSSI had to have a plan as a universal action. My understanding is that's continuing through this discussion process. But if there is just the requirement to have a plan and then there is no requirement for the owners of that plan to deliver any change or improvement, then that's a fairly low ambition that won't actually change anything. It's about Government having the confidence of not just recognising that we need to assess and plan for these areas, but also we have to invest in improving these areas as well, working with landowners to do that. That's a massive change in ambition that will soak up a lot of resources, and given that this space has never had resources, and the capacity of NRW and the Welsh Government to assess these sites has never been sufficient, then we're in danger that we could be in 2030 and all that's really happened is that some of these designated areas in Wales, like SSSIs, have a plan, but nobody is actually doing anything about it. Has that really restored anything or improved the situation? No, but we have spent a lot of money doing it.

I was just going to mention a couple of marine examples as well, to echo, I think, with what Annie said about some recommendations perhaps being given slight priority over the others and some slipping. Marine planning you've heard us talk about a lot. We're seeing some good progress there now. The Welsh Government have commissioned an independent review of marine planning, they've got a new staff member on board. There's still more to be done, but it's going in the right direction, whereas the marine conservation zone process is still very slow, still not happening. We were still promised consultation, it did not happen. I know that this is partly to do with resource. I think the most recent hold-up was the team couldn't recruit a contractor to do the socioeconomic assessments. But, again, this is a core element of the deep-dive that is, again, being held up.

Another point is going back to what we talked about at the beginning, and the ownership, that the Welsh Government needs to take over some of this. There are a couple of examples here. One is seagrass, which Alex and I mentioned before we came in, and I know is on your agenda for later today. This is obviously in the programme for government, seagrass restoration. It's got to the stage where WWF, I believe, are leading an action plan and are having to go to the nature networks fund in order to get money to fund what's actually in the programme for government. Hopefully, they're going to get money, but it needs that ownership and buy-in from the Welsh Government to own this and give the kick-start to support it.

Another example is the ocean literacy strategy, which I'm not sure you're aware of, being led through the coast and seas partnership by NRW. We're inputting into it. These are really exciting developments. Ocean literacy is a really exciting development. We're seeing works through our Hiraeth yn y Môr project up in north-east Wales, which I know some staff members have been involved in. It's a really exciting concept that, essentially, shows connecting to the marine environment equals sustainable management. There's a strategy that is being developed that is potentially the first in the UK, but it's gone by the wayside. Again, we need the Welsh Government to really take this forward, own it and push it forward.

Thank you, all, for that—. Oh, sorry.

Carolyn, very quickly.

You keep saying that you want the Welsh Government to lead on it, but I don't understand what you mean by leading on it, because WWF and all these organisations, you're the experts in the field, and if you can get the funding in place to do the work and to drive it, as long as you've got the legislation from the Welsh Government—. Is that not right? How do you want them to lead on it?

It's very welcome to get the funding. I think it's more that it makes it less of an uphill battle if we get Government buy-in—

It's the buy-in you need, not the—. Okay.

It's more the support and the buy-in in order to support the work rather than the actual funding.

And Richard Unsworth made the point earlier in the previous session that an element of the programme of government around seagrass is needing to apply from a competitive pot of funding to be implemented, which is hardly the best approach, really.

It was all very confusing, actually. As you say, it was there as a Government commitment. I remember shortly after the last election, we then enquired as to, 'Okay, what's your plan?' and the response that came back was, 'Well, the seagrass network has all these programmes'. It's like, 'Oh, that's our project, is it? That's what you're counting as your delivery?' So, we went through this process of trying to develop a national plan with civil servants and with a network of organisations, and we submitted that to Government to say, 'Okay, this is how you need to lead this, this is what regulations need to do and what the permitting system needs to do to make this possible', and then the pushback from that was, 'Well, we can't fund this'. And it's like, 'Okay', then we find another plan to go, 'Well, actually, this isn't a lot of money that we're asking for here, it's more about getting the conditions correct and having something to co-ordinate this and adopting it as a Government ambition, which would then attract money that isn't necessarily us', I think, effectively.

Okay. Which suggests that the programme for government was not budgeted for, but there we are. That's not for you to answer.

I couldn't possibly comment on that.

That's a question that we can ask others. I'm just mindful that we've only asked two questions. Delyth, back to you.

This will be my final question. Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm fascinated and troubled by the point that Alex was making earlier about how there's a danger that the connection to reality is lost because we have so much focus on targets, on frameworks and things, which, to the public, will not really be something that's easy to grasp. And we were talking in the last session about the danger that there is so much laudable focus on the climate emergency and the danger that biodiversity loss could creep up on us and people will only realise the extent of the loss when it's too late. So, in order to stop that happening and in order to make sure that we don't lose the connection to reality in a way that the public will immediately grasp, if there's one thing that you would like upcoming legislation or upcoming focuses from the Government to be that would bridge that gap, what would it be, please?

It is my concern, and it is one of the hardest things to answer, I suppose, in a lot of ways. What we've seen as a good example where public understanding has focused itself in on this topic is around water quality. You've seen that that's a passionate issue. We know the two main sources of that are sewerage and agriculture. And we know what needs to happen in order to improve those situations. So, how do we use Welsh Government policy and legislation to actually make an impact there? That's talking to the water companies to invest in prevention of leaks and pollution and that kind of thing, but also in agriculture to go, 'How are we reducing the amount of nutrients that are going onto the soils and then leach into the rivers? How are we addressing this problem?' That seems very concrete and deliverable. What is happening at the global biodiversity framework on an international level is quite strict around those kinds of things. There are targets that are suggested, there are ways of investing in that, and that would involve requiring the SFS to do certain things, but also wider policy to support it. And that would be a much more useful application of our time than spending four years worrying about whether or not the sustainable management of natural resources is understood, or how to expand the definitions of it and having these multitargeted approaches, which, as far as I know, nobody understands. I mean, I speak to a lot of people in Government and NRW and I've never met anybody who actually understands what SMNR is and how to apply it, and we've been doing this nearly 10 years. So, it's that kind of focus on actual delivery levels and concrete improvements that we could make that touch with people's needs, and I think water is a key bit around that.

That's a good example.

I would just add that having measurable outcomes in terms of species, protected areas—. What does good look like? What do we need to do, by when? The reason why we have this ongoing conversation about statutory targets is that we've had a global framework for biodiversity for decades, but it hasn't resulted in that sort of change in delivery. We need a step change in action if we're going to achieve this and it's too easy not to grapple with that, or it has been so far. We're losing decades by not having this front and centre in Welsh legislation in the same way as net zero is there. We do need those outcomes and actions to deliver those being delivered quickly. I know we’re going to come on and talk about the Bill, but getting some of this stuff settled and being actioned swiftly, rather than allowed to drift, as sometimes requirements under legislation can, is absolutely critical.

You're right, we are going to come on to talk about the Bill—

Can I just add one point?

Yes, after you.

That's exactly the point I was making in the last question, which was probably misplaced and is more appropriate here, around connection. None of this will work if the population continues to be disconnected from nature. Ocean literacy is a good example in the marine environment. It’s a funny phrase for essentially ocean connection, understanding of your influence on the ocean and what the ocean can do for you. I firmly believe we need statutory targets and we need them effective and implemented, but there is no point if this disconnection continues. We need to have attitude change, we need to mainstream all of this into education. But it’s not just knowledge, it’s also about care and an appreciation that you can make a difference and want to make a difference. And as I mentioned before, in our Hiraeth yn y Môr project, we are seeing that this works, we are doing connection programmes and our data is already showing that the communities up there want to engage more in sustainable management, want to volunteer, want to upskill themselves, want to have careers in environmental jobs. So, I think, although we need this high-level statutory framework, we also must underpin it with community work.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. We will come on to the Bill now. Diolch, Delyth. I'll invite Janet to lead us in a few questions.

Thank you, Chair. Do you have any comments on the proposed new biodiversity recovery framework in the recent White Paper and the Welsh Government’s response following the consultation? The reason I ask that is we just hear so much now, don’t we, of strategies, papers coming forward and things, and we’ve had legislation, as has been rightly pointed out, since 2016. What are your views on the proposed new biodiversity recovery framework in the recent White Paper?

That biodiversity framework is part of the wider Bill that's doing governance as well. At the risk of sounding too negative about some parts of it, I should also say that the governance side of things is looking quite positive. Most of our concerns are around that framework bit of it. I think they've got to learn from what works and what hasn't worked from previous attempts. You mentioned the environment Act. The bit of the environment Act that works quite well is Part 1, which is the bit that deals with climate budgets and all that kind of stuff around carbon. That actually has delivered a change in Wales in most sectors. We've had ideas of where we're heading and how to measure it and everyone trying to pull in the right direction. The bit that hasn't is this SMNR nature bit, which was a bit of a collection of fuzzy ambitions and reporting structures that haven't really delivered much change. What I worry about with the biodiversity framework is that we end up doing more of that, rather than doing more of what actually works, which is counting stuff, working out what we're going to do about, it and achieving it by a set time.

One of the major concerns we have is about whether there’s some walking away from headline targets that were time bound. I think initially they were trying to have a 2030 target for stopping the loss and starting recovery, and then having some restoration by 2050. Our understanding is that there is a desire to make the wording around that weaker and lose some of the times. I find this incredibly frustrating, because the reason we’ve been given in part is because this has taken so long it might be 2028 by the time we get the actual targets in secondary legislation, and there isn’t enough time between then and 2030 to deliver change. This is frustrating, because Annie and myself were sat in meetings with the Welsh Government in 2017, 2018, 2019 saying, ‘You need to do this otherwise you will run out of time’, and the Welsh Government saying, ‘No, no, it's fine, don’t worry, that definitely won’t happen’, and now we’ve got to this point where they have just sat on it for five years and that’s being used as a reason why they can’t deliver things. It’s also being used as a reason to limit the scope of the Bill because it’s being squeezed in right at the end. So, if 2030 isn’t practically achievable at this point, why is 2050 going as well? That's surely achievable. Can we talk about 2035 as a next stage in the target? Obviously, if there's no problem with it, if it's just time, then we'll just slip that. We'll have to say to the world, 'Sorry, guys, we're a bit late; the rest of you are ahead of us', but at least we would have a target in place.

But I what I would like to see more of is this recognition that we need more black letter—to use the legal phrase of it, as they use in England—of actually going, 'We need to measure x, y and z, we want to improve it by x per cent over this time period—what policies do we need in place to make that happen?' And hopefully we can get towards that structure, and I'd like to see, as part of that, going back into that bit of the environment Act and go, 'How can we sort this out, because bits of it are not working?' Bits of it are quite good. SoNaRR works quite well. It's the bit Welsh Government don't do; I don't know if that's a coincidence or not, but that works relatively well. NRW do a good job with it, with very little resources. But the bit of it that doesn't work at all is the 'Natural Resources Policy', which I'll be honest and say that I think it's one of the worst documents I've ever encountered from Welsh Government, and when it, effectively, lapsed, because it was supposed to be renewed after the election, nobody really cared. No-one really knows if it is policy still, if it isn't; there have been conflicting responses about it. It needs to be updated. But it needs to be made more real, so people know how it is driving change.

Okay. You've answered 4 and 5, actually. Was there someone else who wanted to come in? Sorry, you don't always see—

Yes, Annie wants to come in, and I'm sure Chloe—

I thought I'd just try and introduce an element of hope into the proceedings again. [Laughter.] I don't disagree with what Alex said there about the 'Natural Resources Policy', but I think the fact that Welsh Government is now proposing that that will be the vehicle for setting out the targets and the action plans towards them—. I'm fine with that, as long as, as Alex says, it gets revamped into the shape where it can do that. So, it needs to be clearly tied to those targets, and it needs to be very clear—and this is something, actually, from Part 2 of the Act on the climate change framework where there's a specific duty—that all the Ministers have to have a plan under this policy, and what they're going to deliver. So, I think there are definitely ways of beefing it up. And we've discussed, over the years, the kind of challenges around maintaining and enhancing the resilience of ecosystems and not being clear where we're getting to, by when, and the need to bring robust targets and things that you're going to measure by a certain date into that framework, and that policy becomes much more, then, of an implementation plan, or at least a route to clear implementation plans.

And on the headline target, I just want to say I think it's a massive missed opportunity. I think, as we've reflected, this is going to be one of the last things that you do as a Senedd to pass this Bill, and it seems to me to be imperative on all of you, having been pushing for this for so many years, to make sure that day one of the next Senedd we're getting moving on this. I think, without having a clear target with dates, and the primary legislation to force that action to happen—. Regulations as a vehicle for detailed targets, for example on species abundance or protected sites or whatever, is fine, but what we can't do is, as Alex says, not see them till 2028. There needs to be something in the Bill that requires those to be brought forward within a short time frame so that action can be put into place and reported on in a reasonable time frame. Without that hook on the front of the Bill, there's just a risk of drift, I think. A mission statement is not a good—

Would you like the regulations on the front of the Bill?

No, a headline target that makes clear, and a provision making clear, when the first lot of regulations have to be brought in. I think you recognise we will probably want more targets to measure success over the coming decades than can be brought forward within six months. But we need the first tranche, say, to be brought forward quickly, and a continual programme of sort of reviewing and building on those.

Just going back, Chair, to something—thank you for that—just going back to, I think it was Chloe, and it was raised earlier about the growing of seagrass and our salt marshes and things. But only four years ago, we were all reminded just how much biodiversity, nature recovery and being out in a beautiful environment—how it helped us all during COVID. If that wasn't enough of a reminder, health and well-being—. I know what cheers me up, if you like—being out in nature and a natural environment, and a natural environment where we're not seeing nature decline and species decline. It really baffles me that we're talking now about them bringing in another Bill. I suppose, for me, in the 13 years I've been a Member, it has frustrated me the amount of money we put into policy, all the—. I think Dr Richard Unsworth made the point earlier: I think the time for talk and writing documents is done. We need now to get on with the implementation. Do you not believe, or does anybody on the panel not believe, there’s a health and well-being aspect to making sure that our environment, our natural environment, is replenished, restored, supported, and that that in itself, the funding needed to bring those measures forward, would be a darn sight less than what we spend now in trying to repair certain health conditions? Is there a correlation there?

One word answers are acceptable, but you're more than—[Interruption.] Yes.

We have a question later, maybe, on multiple benefits, and, yes, I completely agree. This is part of how we mainstream everything, yes.

Yes, okay. Thank you, Janet. I think we'll move on in the interests of time.

Yes, fine. Everything has been covered that I was going to raise.

Yes, you're right. That was a good session there. Right, okay—we'll move to Carolyn.

There was a statement saying you need to capture social benefit of conservation and retention activities, community work and connecting people—that was what Chloe said. We went to the seagrass project, didn't we, in Porthdinllaen, and it's really good. So, things like that do make a difference.

Right, regarding—I think we mentioned SSSIs already, so besides more resources and funding definitely needed, is there anything else we can do to ensure that SSSIs achieve what they need to do or they get the right protection by 2030 and we have more sites?

Yes, I think this is going into possibly a bit of detail about what we would want to be seeing through those kinds of statutory targets, but we think 2030 is already pretty close, and we know that a lot of our sites are not in good condition, or we haven't been able to assess, NRW hasn't been able to assess, their condition. So, it's not realistic to set a target that says, by 2030, all of our SSSIs are going to be in a favourable condition. But I think if you start looking at the building blocks of those things—so, have a clear target that by 2030, all SSSIs have got a management plan in place, and action on track to move them into favourable condition—. Also, in order for that to be possible, they also need to have a condition assessment available so that you can measure whether those actions are improving things over time. So, I think that those are the nuts and bolts. The English framework, actually, is taking a similar approach, around looking at actions on track first, but then set a condition target a bit further on, for 2042, for a proportion—75 per cent, I think—of sites being in favourable condition. So, those are the sorts of steps that I think we need to look at building in.

You also mentioned designation. There isn't any clarity in terms of the 30x30 target, how much of that 30 per cent we would want to see on land delivered by protected sites, like SSSIs, and how much by other area-based conservation measures, which Professor Ormerod talked about in the previous session. But at the moment, it's about 11 per cent of the land and freshwater area covered by SSSIs. We would definitely expect that to increase, because NRW has undertaken a review, it's done quite a lot of work on the network, so there will be sites that there would be real benefit to designating—there has to be a benefit for the owner of the sites, in terms of the way Alex discussed, the support available through the SFS et cetera. But in terms of nature conservation, critical sites to designate, whether that's under evidence from the SPA review, which is a process that looks at where the adequacy of the network under, originally, the birds directive of SPAs, to secure the conservation of bird species, for example—. That's an example of where evidence is going to come from, to say, 'We need more of these areas protected.' But there are other processes, and some urgency in understanding what that's telling us, and getting those designations in train. But I think that is—. I don't know what the target should be yet in terms of that designated element.

Alex, you said earlier about making sure that legislation and everything is supported for the environment and biodiversity when we look at other policies such as the SFS, going forward, and there has been push back, hasn't there? I said earlier, to the earlier panel, about this balance between economy and the environment, and everything. So, how can we ensure that it's given enough importance, the biodiversity, when we're looking at the SFS, and other legislation as well?

I think that has always been a challenge. It's very hard to put a monetary value on biodiversity, even though that's what the system of government requires you to do. So, we can talk all day about changing the system of Government, which is one approach, but, ultimately, it's about trying to work out how do you work within the confines of what we've got. So, the stuff that Janet mentioned about the value of preventative spend, the potential for job creation in recreation and tourism, those kinds of areas, that's something that Government has been desperately trying to grapple with. And data on that is relatively weak. We have tried ourselves, with a pathways report we launched a few months ago that tried to explore different ways of quantifying this. And we did what we could, and we could find things that basically said, 'Oh, well, actually, you can create jobs in these sectors, and that might offset some of the losses of jobs elsewhere.' We're feeding that into Government—a lot of it went into the 2035 net-zero review that was published this week—but we're still packaging it in the way it's most useful. And I know that, as Welsh Government goes into the winter, when they're hoping to do an impact analysis on the latest version of the SFS, that will start to include some of these wider things.

But I would say, just adding to Annie's point, we've got to recognise the value of actions in train, and if the SFS doesn't have that, if it just has, 'We'll give you a bit more money because you've got these designated sites on your land—because, in theory, the fact that they're there means that you have to do a bit more; we haven't quantified that, but, in theory, you have to do a bit more—but you don't actually have to deliver any of the actions to make them better', then that isn't a good use of money. But I think the very last key thing, to build on what Annie said as well, is that we need to have more awareness of how things need to be managed at a catchment level. A lot of what we've looked at in the past has always pointed to this catchment approach as being a much more efficient use of the limited resources we have, to identify need and priorities, but we've never really got there; we've attempted to get there. I think area statements were starting to head in that direction but sort of fell flat on their face. There are bits coming out of the Welsh Government at the moment, be it at the collaborative layer of the SFS, but also the national natural resources scheme—the new big collaborative scheme. It's got a terrible name—NNRS, or something like that. But that's actually pushing us in that direction, to start considering things at this scale. I think if we were to do that more, look at what the needs of the Taff valley are, or what the needs of the Wye and Usk are, that might actually help us prioritise what we're supporting where, and hopefully improve outcomes, because that's been the missing link, I think.

I saw a very good scheme of tree planting along a river's edge, which I think was the wildlife trust working with the landowner, and it was fenced off, as well, to protect it from livestock, from the cattle, which was—

Yes, riparian habitats, and that is there in the programme, but it's all optional, so you don't really have to do it, and is there really going to be any money there to pay for it, if we did, is the question, I think.

Have you any experience of the Nature Networks fund, and if so, what are your experiences of round 4?

We looked at applying to round 4, found that the timescales for applying were too short. We couldn't get anything together in time and, actually, on a broader level, although very welcome, as always the length of these funds are just too short to get anything really effective done. Ecosystem restoration takes years, especially if you want to get the communities involved. So, it's welcome and, obviously, we're not going to turn our noses up, but, yes, we need more than that if we're able to do a really effective restoration, which takes a long, long time.

Just to—sorry, Carolyn—quickly say it's also a small fund. So, it's really important, but it's the Welsh Government's only real grant pot that's there for protected sites, et cetera. I think there's £6 million in the large grants pot, which is for projects over £1 million. It's regularly massively oversubscribed. And also, there's a practical point about timings in the year. So, I think processes happen so that decisions are made around summer time, or applications are made around summer time, but in order to actually get spades in the ground, you need to be able to be working over the autumn and winter, and the way the timetable of the grants process works, it doesn't support that.

Yes, of course. The biodiversity deep-dive highlights that the first stage of the Nature Networks map has been completed. How far does this go towards co-ordinating data on protected sites and assessing the 30x30 target?

So, that Nature Networks map is really a useful tool and it looks at where opportunities—. Sites of special scientific interest come from older legislation; they're not focused in the legislation on being part of a network. They're a series—they're supposed to be representative of different types of wildlife, and bitter experience has shown that you can try and protect those representative examples, but unless you're actually looking outwards from those boundaries, and there's influence over nature positive management in the rest of the countryside and the rest of the seas, then they can't do the job that they were meant to do, but also they're not supporting nature across our land and seascapes. The focus on changing that series of sites into a resilient network is really important, and that's what the mapping exercise does is look at where there are clusters that could be built on or buffered, where sites might be connected, areas of habitat that form connections. So, it's a really positive step, and I think it will feature prominently in NRW's work, looking at where we need new sites to be designated. And also, in the ongoing work, thinking about the other element of the 30x30 target, the other affected area-based conservation measures, there's a potential role for deploying those kinds of measures in looking at how you can join up sites and create bigger areas that are under positive management for nature. So, I think it's definitely got a valuable role to play. I think there are other issues, like understanding where the rare and threatened species that really need protection through a site-based mechanism are, and we’re beyond the stage of representation now. Probably everything that remains that depends on that needs protecting. So, it's one of the things, I'm sure, that NRW are basing their review on, but hopefully not the only thing. There's probably a bunch of them.

There's the local places for nature fund as well, isn't there, for local authorities. I think that's under scrutiny as well, creating nature corridors.

I'm just conscious that we have less than 20 minutes. Carry on, it's fine, but just for us to be mindful of that. But I'm not panicking yet, don't worry.

I know. Sorry.

No, it's okay. It's okay.

So, DEFRA has developed criteria to provide clarity on which areas could credibly count towards 30x30, and have mapped the areas. Do you think this is needed for Wales, to have that mapping?

I think the networks map would probably move us along towards that. I think the criteria is a useful step, and DEFRA were clear and presented some quite positive criteria around purpose, protection and management of areas that contribute. But I think, in explaining then what that meant, they suggested that, for example, all SSSIs in England were already contributing to the 30x30 target, which can't be the case because they haven't got the right management in place. So, they have to be applied appropriately. I think the most critical thing about the target is that it changes things—it's not just a way of drawing lines around what there is, but it's a way of looking at where we need to do more and how to improve delivery. But I think, yes, criteria are helpful, and then, hopefully, those mapping exercises will develop and can support that.

Okay, thank you very much. We're going to move now to focusing a bit more on marine, and I'll invite Joyce to lead us on this one.

We are, yes. We've heard lots of evidence. You've given lots of evidence over the years that more than half of Wales's inshore area is within a designation, but less than 50 per cent of the site features are in favourable condition. That's almost a given now, sadly. So, what's not happening in terms of managing them?

That's a good question and, as you've noted, the sea is in a completely different state because we have designated, but it's not in good condition. I think the short answer is we don't actually know exactly what's wrong yet. A bit of hope: we're really looking forwards to NRW publishing full condition assessments for all SACs and special protection areas in Welsh waters, which are pretty much all within the inshore, as you note, because, up until now, our knowledge has only been indicative. We've only had indicative condition assessments. So, these full condition assessments, we're told, will be published in November, and they are, hopefully, going to give us a much clearer idea of really what's wrong. So, if it's water quality, what kind of pollution are we talking about here? Is it point-source pollution? Is it diffuse pollution? Is land-based pollution? I'm really hoping that, on the back of it, some detailed mapping can be done to show exactly which features are in poor condition and what needs to happen to bring them into good condition. We've been told that water quality is the biggest problem. Again, we don't know exactly what and why yet, but I'm hoping we'll get that clarity soon. I strongly suspect it's going to be land-based pollution. It's going to be agricultural run-off. A lot of these problems are going to have to be solved upstream on land. Again, Alex talked about the catchment-based approach. That's going to be really crucial here.

Of course, the other pressure is fishing. This has been addressed through—talking about impacts on marine protected areas—the Assessing Welsh Fishing Activities project, which looks at the impacts of certain types of fishing gear on marine protected area features. As far as I'm aware, the latest assessments were completed by NRW back in March this year. What we’re trying to find out is what’s going to happen to those assessments. So, we’ve got the assessments, but, then, what’s going to happen in terms of management practices? We wrote to the previous Minister on this issue and were told that they would be assimilated into fisheries management plans because the project was set up before the Fisheries Act 2020. So, we’re hoping—we’ve been told—that this will then happen through FMPs. And I know that’s not in the remit of this committee, but we’re still seeking clarity that those assessments will be taken forward through the fisheries management plans.

I think, as well, it’s also important to note that, of course, the inshore is extremely important, and that’s where virtually all of our MPAs are. The offshore is a really untapped resource in fighting climate change and nature loss, and is largely undesignated, and yet is also going to be where a lot of development happens. There’s already fishing pressure happening there. So, I think it’s important to think about that, and think, through a marine planning lens, what we need to do as we look to the future and this area becomes more busy. Do we need to think about fisheries management? Although the Welsh fleet doesn’t fish so much there, it’s still within the Welsh Government’s jurisdiction to manage fisheries offshore. Do we need to think about a just transition to more sustainable fishing practices whilst retaining jobs? Do we need to discuss more with the Crown Estate, who are doing really exciting work through their Whole of Seabed project to map the sea bed and look at different scenarios? Do we need to work more with them to really make sure that some areas are safeguarded as this area becomes more busy? So, yes, I think inshore is incredibly important, and, hopefully, we’re going to have some more clarity soon, but let’s not forget the offshore as well.

Okay. And, of course, we’ve got the deep-dive—you’ve heard lots about it—and you also are fully aware that the update states the Government has worked with NRW to develop maps; you’ve just mentioned maps. But did you have any input—that’s the real question—into it, and if you did, what were your views on that process?

Yes, we did. I think you’re referring to the environmental constraints maps that have fed into the strategic resource areas, the first of which has just been consulted on for tidal stream. So, yes, NRW led on the environmental mapping work, to look at the constraints around different technologies and activities that will be deployed at sea. We did input into this through the marine planning stakeholder reference group, which is Welsh Government convened; a lot of stakeholders sit on it. It’s proven to be quite a good group for collaboration. I think the real point here is that, although the constraints mapping that NRW did, and the strategic resource areas that they will lead into, are a good step in adding greater spatial prescription to marine planning, they’re not enough. We still need to think about not only where activity goes, but how much activity—difficult questions like that—and the carrrying capacity of marine ecosystems, so not only where should activity happen, but how much of it should we be allowing, thinking about cumulative impacts across activities, not just projects, which isn’t currently happening. Thinking about displacement, for example, of the fishing sector when more floating offshore wind comes in. So, it’s those bigger strategic questions that we still need answering.

I mentioned earlier that the Welsh Government have commissioned an independent review of marine planning, which is great. We’re also commissioning our own report to look at how marine planning can develop in order to help the Welsh Government meet its environmental responsibilities and commitments. So, we’re hoping that that could feed into the Welsh Government report.

So, really, in answer to your question, yes, we have inputted. It was NRW-led work. We’re making progress on marine planning in terms of collaboration. We’re meeting regularly with the Welsh Government on the matter, which is really good, but, yes, still a way to go.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll have to move on because we've got 10 minutes left. I just wanted to pick up on—. There have been numerous references to funding, clearly. I just want to be clear about what your ask of the Government is in terms of funding as ENGOs, because you’ve mentioned funds that are hugely oversubscribed, et cetera. We can all ask for more money. Is it that simple or naïve, or what is the ask, basically, as organisations, of the Government?

As part of our evidence, through Wales Environment Link, we flagged the 'Pathways' report, which we've just had updated, actually. It now reflects the revised 'Scale of Need' report, looking at the cost of environmentally sustainable land management. And from that, there's a lot of work on what the rural budget needs in order to support farmers to deliver these changes, but also where are the changes needed in environmental delivery, and a lot of that does actually look at needing more people to deliver jobs, like to do monitoring or get management in place or whatever, so I think that gives an indication. I think it's fair to say that part of the driver behind what we see as a desperate need for a statutory framework of targets is the need for this to be recognised as an area that does need investment. I think it is—. These targets are to create change, so that, by committing to delivering the global biodiversity framework, you are committing to do more to turn around the decline of biodiversity, and that needs to be resourced. I know there are obviously challenges there. There's a massive focus on the SFS, for example, and new focuses coming all the time on private finance, which is a really important area, but we—. You know, investing properly so that NRW is backed to do the job of delivery, for example, is a really critical piece of what Government needs to do to make this stuff actually have a difference on the ground.

Sure, so it's using existing funds in a different way, essentially, because if there are no additional funds, then—.

That's a big part of it. There is a need for additional people, and I think you hope that, by having statutory requirements and accountability in that framework, you make it harder to continue to under-resource these areas.

Yes. So, Wales Environment Link has told us in written evidence that marine Cymru could be a good example of leveraging private investment. Could you just briefly expand on what that means or looks like?

Yes. I think this is where we need to get to. I can only speak from a marine perspective, and the context on land is perhaps different, but this is a really exciting development. There's not enough money, and we need to leverage blended finance here, because that's the only way we're going to pay for these huge funding gaps. So, marine fund Cymru is a way to leverage blended finance, to channel it into ecosystem restoration and enhancement. It's being developed through the Wales coasts and seas partnership. It's going to be administered by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, so independently administered. We're grateful that Welsh Government has recently given funds to recruit a co-ordinator to co-ordinate the fund. I know it was mentioned in the previous session that this type of fund has a precedent in Scotland; SMEEF, the Scottish marine environmental enhancement fund, already is doing this. So, it's leveraging donations, essentially—private investment, anybody can pay into it—and it will then be channelled into projects, evidence gathering, monitoring. It will be different to other things like net benefit; it will be voluntary donations only. But, personally, from an NGO perspective, not long ago I think all of our organisations were being offered money by offshore renewable energy companies, for example, and we couldn't take it, so we had to develop something in order to channel this investment. So, it's not set up yet. The co-ordinator will be recruited, I think, over the next month or so. I think interviews are happening soon. Once it's up and running, we'd be really happy to come back and talk to the committee about how it's working and whether it could be replicated.

Yes, okay, and I'm sure we can find out a bit more about the Scottish fund as well. Thank you. Joyce.

Final question, on green skills: are you able to provide any insight on the national nature service project?

I can say a bit, because RSPB has been one of the partners that has developed that over the last few years. We're in a situation now, which is really positive, where Gwasanaeth Natur Cymru, Nature Service Wales, has a small, funded team to spearhead next steps, but it’s still a case of—. You know, we’ve been talking about mainstreaming, and getting this approach embedded and part of Government strategies is really key. But there are massive opportunities. If you look at what needs to happen for nature restoration, there’s real work that needs to be done on the ground. Restoring peatlands means blocking up drainage grips and that sort of thing. There are lots of skills to be learned in that. At the other end, I suppose, of the spectrum, there are the field skills that we need when we’re thinking about monitoring and developing plans for rare and threatened species and habitats, for example, just being able to identify nature, for example. So, lots of different types of need. We’d identified through a previous report the potential for about 7,000 jobs over the next 10 years in delivering nature recovery.

I think the other end of the spectrum that the Nature Service Wales partnership is coming from are the opportunities and the accessibility of those opportunities. So, we found in our work that lots of people have no idea that nature is an area that you can go into to work or that this is an area where you can develop skills et cetera. And I think that’s one of the really important roles that this partnership is playing at the moment, and our organisation and the Prince’s Trust and others are looking at how to develop and promote those kinds of opportunities. But it was really positive that, yesterday, I think, the First Minister did talk about green jobs in nature recovery and nature restoration, which is a signal that, hopefully, that will be considered more in the context of green skills and green jobs, which are generally dominated by the climate change net zero focus. Restoring nature has a massive part to play in that.

The whole idea of it, of course, was to directly let people understand that they can work in these areas. So, if we’re talking about outcomes—and that’s really what we are wanting to talk about—are there good outcomes? There was a pilot in 2022, and, since climate change is progressing at pace, surely there’s a need for the skills that are needed to understand that as well. So, is it making a difference? That’s really what we want to know.

I think there’s also something that we talked about earlier, which is the connection agenda as well, which kind of needs to happen before this, because I don’t think we’re going to get people signing up to these programmes and jobs in the numbers that we need and would like unless they want to and unless that care and connection and aspiration to do something for the environment is there at the beginning. So, I think that’s almost a prerequisite to this.

I would say, though, actually, that it’s a way of helping to develop that—

It happens together, yes.

—and there have been numerous schemes that have fed in, with the nature services, where people having access to volunteering opportunities, even, in nature jobs has actually just helped people to build employability in a much wider sense. I think it’s all part of the process, to be honest. I think that it’s got a long way to go, but it’s a really promising partnership and focus.

What we found in the early days was that, regardless of people’s interest in nature, there just was no obvious pathway for them to come in and work for an organisation like the RSPB, for example, no awareness that that might be an option or whatever. And that’s part of what the work of the partnership now is focused on. And I think getting that approach embedded in the Welsh Government’s work on green jobs and skills is a really critical step in supporting that further development.

Okay.

Can I—?

Very, very briefly, then, because we are out of time.

Just to say that, from a just transition perspective, this gets really important. I think when we were talking about the rural economy and agriculture, there was a lot said about that the SFS might result in 5,000 jobs lost. I mean, that leaves out the fact that, since 2012, we’ve lost 8,000 farmers in Wales already. So, when we look at the potential here—RSPB found 7,000 jobs; you can find these new jobs you didn’t know existed—how do you develop these in a way that allows those people who might be at risk from wider nature and climate-friendly transitions to have more sustainable jobs in the future? Because, a lot of the time, these people are probably the best qualified to be doing these jobs anyway—they just don’t know the opportunities are there. So, there’s a great potential here to help and look at that wider picture; rather than focusing on something very narrow, it’s looking at the whole economy in general.

Finish on a positive.

There we are, yes, let's finish on a positive. Thank you so much for the evidence that you've shared with us this morning. As you know, we will send you a copy of the draft transcript to check for accuracy, and, obviously, this is the start of an inquiry that we're undertaking as a committee, so, hopefully, in its own right, it'll contribute to the discourse around reversing loss of biodiversity, but also, of course, it'll prepare the ground somewhat, I hope, for the legislation that we're all awaiting some time, hopefully not in the too distant future. So, diolch yn fawr iawn; thank you so much for being with us. We'll continue as you leave the room.

Can I just ask this, just quickly? Are any of them on the—? There's an SFS working group or panel, isn't there? So, is WEL on that or—?

So, there's a multitude of panels. So, there's the officials group, which I'm on. That's meeting now. I've missed—. They're having the big trees discussion, so, I'll have to find out when I go home what's going on—

Oh no. [Laughter.]

So, that's basically becoming two full days a week over the next couple of weeks. So, that's at—[Inaudible.] There's also then the ministerial roundtable, on which WEL has three slots, director level. So, we discuss stuff in the officials group. Welsh Government present their proposals, we comment on them—it's not decision making—it then goes off to roundtable. And then there's also a carbon group, which one WEL member is on, which I've heard reports about but don't know the details.

Thank you for that clarity.

There we are. Okay, and we're all holding our breath to see what comes out of this process.

It's probably on my phone now. [Laughter.]

Well, not just today, generally. But thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

Okay, so, we'll move on now to the next item on our agenda, which is item 4, and, as you see, there are 10 papers to note—a legacy of the fact that we’re coming out of recess, of course, and we need to catch up somewhat. So, are you happy to note those collectively and then we can pick up on them later if we need to? Okay, those are noted then.

And therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix), I propose that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content?

Are you content to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting? Yes.

Thank you very much. There we are, we'll wait for the meeting to move to private session.