National Assembly for Wales

Janet, do you want to raise anything?

The translation isn't working.

Likewise for Joyce as well, I think. Okay. Shall we just pause for a moment, then, just to see whether that can be remedied? Yes.

It's working now.

Thanks very much, Chair. Just by way of background, the first thing to point out is, actually, this was a group set up to actually stimulate and keep the green flag flying, if you like, in the context of where we were in the pandemic at the start of the pandemic. So, the methodology adopted was actually to try and listen first to what was out there—some ideas. So, the call for ideas was not a usual procurement process in seeking ideas or through more of an evaluation process; it was a way of getting things moving to see what was out there in the way of ideas. So, as the Funding Centre report explains in some detail, a whole series of projects came forward, and as you'll recall and know, there was no funding directly available to the taskforce initially, and so we were looking at how we could stimulate these projects and move forward. Clearly, we need to look at that, and we are currently considering our own future and actually how we carry on, if we do carry on. We need to actually work out some of the procedures we've got in place for looking at these projects again. I suspect that, as we move forward, and if we can find the funding and make it available, not necessarily through the green recovery taskforce, but through other means, that these projects will actually be relooked at through other lenses, rather than a green recovery lens. There are proposals in front of us at the moment to look at that, and how we would put that in place, but I think we are at a bit of a pivotal moment in deciding how we go forward, and I think that's probably the best way to put it at this stage. I'm happy to take any supplementaries.

When you say 'looking at them through other lenses', what do you mean? What kind of lenses would those be, for example?

Well, another lens would be, for example, through a funding programme that wouldn't necessarily be under the auspices of the green recovery group.

Oh, I see.

The point is that the green recovery group has no funding stream associated with it directly. We were there to stimulate, call for ideas, work out what the problems and barriers to progress were, et cetera. So, I suspect some of these projects—quite a few of them—would find their homes in other programmes. But we can come on to, if you like, the learning from all this work, which I think is the more important issue about how we organise better to support these sorts of projects.

So, that is a proactive role that the group is playing in terms of signposting or passing projects on to potential funders, and that kind of thing?

It's partly that. But I think the more important issue that's come of the work is, actually, when you start examining—. When we went out with a call for ideas and we got them back, we discovered a huge issue in relation to how easy it was to get projects moving—barriers to progress. And some of those were process barriers, some of those were structural barriers; some of them were simply about people not knowing where to go. There were, frankly, some bureaucratic obstacles that we discovered that were causing all sorts of confusion to some people with projects. And so, one of the outcomes of our work was—and it's in the Funding Centre report; we've talked to Government ourselves about it—we really need to get this simplified. There's a plethora of funding streams available, and sometimes it's very difficult to navigate, as a voluntary organisation, an environmental non-governmental organisation, to find the right place to go. And when you get there, there is, in some areas, a lack of connectivity between these different programmes.

Okay. So, what we've had, in effect, is some kind of a deep dive then, thinking of some of those processes that the Government have put in place, but with more to it than just that, clearly. But that's clearly one message that's coming through, I think, isn't it, in terms of busting the barriers?

Yes, I think it's—. You could budget a deep dive now, I suspect, in the new nomenclature, but I think the issue really for us is—and we've taken this to heart in NRW in relooking at our grants system—if you're a voluntary NGO with a good scheme, it's quite a crowded landscape to work out where to go, actually what funding to apply for, and then, once you do that, some of the barriers and some of the processes we put in place—and when I say 'we', collectively I mean—are actually quite difficult to overcome. And sometimes there is a lack of connectivity between some of the public bodies involved: local government, Welsh Government, ourselves at NRW, et cetera. All of these things militate against a very clean and easy way of seeking funding.

Okay. Thank you very much. Janet, then.

Thank you. Good morning. Given the absence of a clear funding stream for the priorities for action proposals, what examples can you provide of any green recovery projects here in Wales?

Well, I think we'll come on to the national nature service, which we'll talk about a bit later on. But I think a really good example of this is the green spine in Anglesey, which is actually a scheme on its way to being implemented.

Sorry, to interrupt. What did you say? Green—

Spine, in Anglesey. Perhaps I can get Sarah to talk about this in more detail, as she's close to the detail on it. That might be helpful.

Yes, thank you. Sarah.

Hi, there. So, the green spine is a project proposal that came through from the call for good ideas. The team, the partnership team, worked with the project proposers and looked at the connectivity around that project within the wider public and third sector on Anglesey. So, the essence of the idea was to connect the various active travel routes and old, disused railway routes from the south of Anglesey to the north of Anglesey, creating a really truly accessible cycling and walking path, accessible to disabled people and for pushing pushchairs, and to build that connectivity across the island. It's also to make sure that those routes that were developed were making the benefits for nature, so, making it connected in the landscape for nature, as well as connecting people through the path across the island.

So, the proposal came through and then the funding that was released by Welsh Government through the end-of-year funding. We worked with Welsh Government to identify this project and identify a funding mechanism, which was through the local authority and Menter Môn. So, Menter Môn and the local authority worked together with the proposer, they secured a block of additional money, which they were unable to spend by year end, but they identified a way forward that enabled them, through the remainder of last year, to take forward a series of improvements. And they've identified about 40 sub-projects, which will take that initiative forward.

Thank you. So, how many active travel routes have been connected over this period of time?

Anglesey green spine is one example. In the December report, there were a number of proposals that came through that related to active travel—

But how many have actually been connected as a result of this joint working?

Right. In terms of bringing people together and talking about it, do you mean?

No, no. How many have actually been implemented?

Okay. I think it's important to remember that a number of the proposals that came in in that first summer call for good ideas coincided with a series of Welsh Government funding, through local authorities, for active travel routes and specific investment through the local authorities. So, a number of those good ideas were taken forward through that route, not specifically through the route of the green recovery group.

Right. So, you don't know of any new schemes or new connections—

No, no. The green spine. The green spine is a new scheme, yes.

But has it delivered anything yet?

Yes. Work is going on on the ground to do the infrastructure on the sites.

Yes, and how many sites did you say—?

In fairness, Janet, I think the point is that the green spine is one of a number of projects that are being pursued. Huw, did you want to come in on this?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered, one of the other schemes that I think falls under the work that you're doing—and I know we've got a local interest in this, particularly across the south Wales Valleys—is the Valleys regional park. Does that fall within this as well? And I wonder if you can just give us an update on how that is progressing.

Yes, Sarah, please.

Okay. So, it might be better for Peter to talk about the Valleys regional park aspect, because that is picked up through the national nature service proposal.

Okay, yes. Over to you, Peter. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The Valleys regional park is going to be the demonstration project for the national nature service. So, the wider concept of having a national nature service for Wales will be developed and demonstrated within the context of the Valleys regional park. So, we'll be working closely with the team at Valleys regional park in putting together the initial plans for that. The Minister announced in May some funding that would allow that demonstration work to start, essentially, and we're now at a point where we have an initiation meeting on Monday, in fact, with Valleys regional park to look at how that initial investment for the national nature service will then take place in order to build a business plan for delivery in the Valleys regional park and as a model, thereby, for a national nature service across Wales.

Okay. Thank you, Peter. Given that we've started talking about the national nature service, shall we just pursue this for a moment, then? Delyth, do you want to come in on this now? Then we can come back to Janet

Hi, everyone. Yes, this has already been anticipated. I was going to ask if you could give us a sense of how that work is progressing on the national nature service. And, as well as that, could you tell us—? So, we've heard from stakeholders that—. Before we're looking at the creation of green jobs and making all of those connections, eco-literacy is really important, and increasing this sense of connection, I suppose, from quite a young age, that children feel with nature and the sense of joy, and then that can translate into wanting to go into a green workforce. How do you think those connections are being made or could be made? I appreciate that that's a slightly tangential point, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

I'll start on that point, because I think we have a great foundation in Wales. You know, we've got the forest school network and the eco-schools network, which are really strong. But I think what we fail upon is the transition forward from that, the continuity forward from that, and that's where a national nature service can play a key role. And it is about building eco-literacy across the whole workforce. There's definitely a pathway that is around green jobs and delivering green jobs and skills for green jobs, but, actually, it is about an eco-literate workforce in the whole. So, if I take an example: for me, the inspiration for the national nature service comes from organisations like Cynon Valley Organic Adventures in Abercynon. They've been using the Kickstart programme there to engage young people and build skills and build confidence, and there's a great story of—we're featuring this in the WCVA annual report—an individual who went on their nature-based training programme, built her confidence, and is now actually undertaking car mechanics training. So, it's not about necessarily that one pathway into a green job; it is about ensuring that there is an eco-literate workforce in the round.

Potentially, the national nature service could really be transformative. It's definitely an ambitious concept, and it's one that—. Since we started the green recovery group work and proposals were submitted, and WCVA and the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission submitted the proposal for a national nature service, because it originates—. Well, as with many good ideas, there are many sources of where it originates, but, certainly, one of the key points was included in the food and farming commission report as a recommendation. So, we picked that up and put it into the green recovery process. The engagement of stakeholders over that period has been amazing. We've had about 150 more organisations and individuals involved in Zoom calls to build very much a co-produced concept of a national nature service.

A slight frustration has been that that momentum—. We've had quite a long delay in the momentum, between that process and the announcement of some support funding to develop the idea. Now, in many respects, I understand that, because, actually, this concept has to involve the whole range of Government departments. It is about the economy, it is about skills, it is absolutely about nature, and it's obviously about linking back into the education system as well. So, there's had to be quite a bit of work going on within Government to have those conversations across all of those departments. That's taken a bit of time, but we've now had the announcement, as I say, on 11 May from the Minister of £166,000 for an initial development phase, to work with Valleys Regional Park and, I hope, one other development project, which we're aiming to—. We've had discussions with the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, so we hope to have two development projects—one in Valleys Regional Park and one in north Wales—that will provide the capacity to demonstrate that there is something in this concept that has a national potential to it. So, that's currently where we are—a lot of stakeholder interest across the board, and, yes, a lot of enthusiasm about the concept. So, now it's about making it happen in practice.

Thank you. That's really valuable to know. Thank you.

Excellent. Yes, a lot of enthusiasm and excitement here as well, I'm sure, amongst Members, to see how that goes and, hopefully, it will be extended to north Wales, as you said, and it'll continue to grow from there. Sorry, Janet—right, back to you.

It's all right. Could you provide an update on the scale of jobs and skills training pipelines that are in place through the national nature service, please?

At the minute, obviously, the service doesn't exist, and we're at the development stage, but if I could just refer to some of the research work that provides the evidence base for the national nature service, RSPB Cymru's research highlighted there could be almost 7,000 new direct full-time equivalent jobs in Wales as a result of an investment of a national nature service in this way. The future generations office research has highlighted there's a significant skills gap in fulfilling the potential for nature restoration-based green job creation, set out in a detailed report. So, we've had quite a lot of research in terms of the evidence base in terms of the skills gap that we need to fill and the potential for green jobs in habitat restoration and creation that there is. So, the evidence base is strong; we now need to make that investment in order to translate that evidence base into practical skills.

Thank you. I think we'd all agree that there is a clear skills shortage in the green sector here in Wales. I suppose my question is: what more can the Welsh Government be doing to build on this, and is there a big enough gap in the market for green jobs in Wales to be internationally competitive against other countries who might actually progress rather more quickly than we have?

I would say that if we can make the national nature service work, it would be of international significance, because while there are examples of conservation core developments in different parts of the world, the focus that we've got in terms of a national nature service would be transformational in terms of green skills and green jobs, and, as I've been stressing, this would be about eco-literacy across the whole workforce as well as providing a route way into jobs in nature and skills in nature.

I think one of the pieces of evidence that we're most concerned about, really, is that, particularly in the environmental sector, the diversity and equality aspect of opportunities in that sector is not good, basically. There needs to be a much more diverse workforce engaged in environmental, conservation and development work, and that will definitely be one of the core objectives of a national nature service, to ensure that an inclusive, diverse workforce is developed in terms of meeting that agenda.

I take your points. We have got a clear skills shortage, and I take your point about diversity and equality, but if you had to say one single thing that needs to be done by Welsh Government to deal with this clear green skills shortage, what would it be?

From my perspective, it would be the cross-connecting between departments on this and reducing the silo focus of funding streams and making sure that you have that cross-connectivity. One of the encouraging aspects of this process so far has been that it has generated that internal discussion across departments much more effectively, I think, than I've experienced in the past.

Thank you.

I don't know whether I can come in here, Chair—

Yes, please do.

If you step back a bit and you look at the climate and environment challenge, there are a number of major pillars. There's obviously, if you like, what Governments of all types can do. If you want scaling up, you've got to get the market moving in a way that actually supports the whole green agenda and recovery. The other pillar—not exclusive; there are others—is actually engagement with people; they've got to own this. One of the themes that came out of the work we did in green recovery was, actually, there are a number of ideas, including the national nature service, that were about engaging people at the ground level, but, secondly, some of the barriers and how people sometimes don't see the issue, and, if you like, the frame moves here. Yesterday, I was speaking at a seminar with landscape architects, and I was hearing a story that was done through NRW in a partnership with a council in north Wales where an allotment was being very well tended by a group of people in that local area, but it had a wire fence all around it, and, as part of the work with that community, the suggestion was made of creating a hedge, and that was a way of getting them onto the green agenda. The comment they made in the community was, 'We never thought about that. We didn't see that hedge in the context of actually what it can contribute to nature conservation and nature recovery.' So, connecting with people on the ground actually is one of the key themes that we need and are pursuing.

So, you come back to this point about barriers, and it keeps coming back to how you get people connected to the agenda. So, you need to find ways of getting them into this agenda, maybe not through the way we would see it as professionals or in our different roles, but in ways that locally connect them, and the green jobs point is a classic example of that. There are many green jobs, if you think about it, and we just need to find ways to stimulate them, and that's how Wales could actually make its own mark in the world on this whole green agenda. 

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for that. Before we move on to Jenny Rathbone, then, I just wanted to ask—. You've outlined a couple of the projects that are progressing and seemingly moving in the right direction. Clearly, there are some that haven't progressed, and I'm just wondering whether you could maybe outline some of the reasons for that.

Well, I'll make a start and perhaps Sarah can come in on some of the detail, if necessary. I think there are myriad reasons. One is that some of the projects, if you like, were not very well thought through. Two, there was an absence of a funding programme to go with our work, and we were opportunistic in terms of picking up some underspending that was going on inside Welsh Government that we could deal with towards the end of the financial year. The third thing—and it's one that I think is now being picked up by Steve Ormerod in the group that we've set up with the environmental non-governmental organisations—is that, actually, there sometimes can be some considerable overlap and confusion with ENGOs about what the project is, what scope they're covering, et cetera. And I come back to the main continuing theme about this—and Peter has picked it up—which is some of the silo approaches that we have in grants, in pockets that don't cross-connect. Now, in NRW, we're changing the way we deal with projects in the sense that we're now identifying the multiple gains, the multiple, if you like, outcomes across the different silos, which is enabling a bigger conversation with Welsh Government and the different parts of Welsh Government, which I think is very encouraging. 

Now, I think that's one big route for the future. Certainly, with the ENGOs—and I think Steve is with you this afternoon—one of the big issues will be to start having a bit of a grown-up conversation about, 'Can we work out how we work more closely together as ENGOs in partnership?', because sometimes you do see some conflicts in different NGOs operating in the same space.

Okay, thank you for that. That's really interesting, and I know we can pursue that with Professor Ormerod later on, I'm sure, in our session this afternoon.

Okay, we'll move on, then, and Jenny Rathbone. 

Thank you very much. You've shortened your title, blessedly, to the 'green recovery group', eliminating confusion for the public. Could you just describe to us how many of the original green recovery task and finish group have transitioned into the green recovery group? Has the membership changed? Sarah Williams doesn't appear on the original list, so presumably there's been some change.

Sarah's been key as an NRW colleague working on the green—. We were hosting, if you like, the group. We're in transition, and we are looking at the moment at the whole issue of the membership. I think it's very important—. We never saw ourselves as representative; we didn't go down that route of being a representative group, one, because there are a lot of those, and, two, our aim was actually to react, to get people who would get things done, move things forward, stimulate challenge, progress things, and that mantra stayed with us.

We are in conversation with Ministers at the moment about—and I had a meeting with the Minister Julie James a week or so ago about this—what our role is in the future, and I think we both agreed that, actually, we didn't want to be connected into the firmament of the Welsh Government architecture of groups, because that would defeat the very object of what we're trying to do here, which is stimulate, cut through. And I think she was anxious to say—[Inaudible.]—truth to power, what the barriers are here to actually making, if you like, on the ground, people get connected with this agenda. I think that's one of the big themes for us, to carry on pointing out where there are big problems here. Actually, I'll use NRW: we have reformed our grant approach now on the basis and the experience we found. We were making it far too complicated; we were asking for too much feedback and evidencing about what had been done. The cost overheads we were asking people to put on their projects in terms of auditing and all the rest of it were huge. Now, we're still doing that to protect public money and spend public money wisely, but we have eased up and we're taking some of these grant things forward in far more of a partnership approach rather than, if you like, an owner giving something to someone as a supplicant; it's more of a partnership relationship.

So, the answer to your question is we're still in transition on this. I think we'll be adding people to the group to make sure we're connected to the environment in which we're operating. Steve's group is actually helping enormously in having ENGOs working there as a group—helping us, pointing us in the right direction. So, I think I'd answer by saying, 'Watch this space'. We will adapt and change, and, I think, redefine what we think our role will be as we go forward in the coming months.

Some people would say, 'Why do you need two groups?'

Well, I think the two groups are very different. Steve's is about working with ENGOs to listen to them, work out a programme, what their role is, and, I think, have some of those bigger and perhaps more difficult conversations amongst ENGOs. Our role has a wider remit about actually looking at the whole landscape and actually how we can make things work better, not just for the ENGOs, but for Government departments, ourselves in NRW, and other organisations that are now involved. And, indeed, the national nature service is great evidence of actually stimulating something, helping it to get a push, getting funding available, and we'll be staying alongside it as we go forward.

Okay. Just on funding, Peter Davies already mentioned the £166,000 that was announced by the Minister, Julie James, to enable you to take forward some of the projects you thought were viable. What other funding, if any, do you get?

We don't get any funding for the green recovery group per se—it doesn't exist. We were being opportunistic. We had a group of people who were seconded in to help us from Welsh Water et cetera, and we pointed people to where there might be funding routes. I have to say, I often think that, actually, we're a bit narrowly focused on some of this funding. We perhaps should be looking at a wider range, particularly with the private sector, for example, who are increasingly wanting to get into this space. I've been having some really interesting conversations with the Development Bank of Wales about actually how you might blend grant and loan to actually stimulate change as opposed to just simply all the time relying on public sector funding, which we know is under huge pressure. And one of the things we are looking at in the current reconstituted group is bringing more of the private sector into it, through the CBI or Institute of Directors et cetera.  

Okay. All the people on the original group were all being paid for by the organisations they were fundamentally members of. So, you're not seeking to pay the people who serve on the green recovery group—this is done in a voluntary capacity, is it?

Yes, absolutely. And, in fact, the officials who worked for us—. NRW put some people in, Welsh Water, et cetera, and so they all contributed to that, if you like, office effort to make things happen.

Great. That's really clear. What discussions have you held with the Welsh Government about how you're going to stimulate adequate funding for the group? Because there's something in that Funding Centre report about mining innovative pathways to funding, which—

I think that's one of the areas we've got to look at more seriously. I see, if you like, beacons of innovation in other sectors. I'm not sure we've got a beacon of innovation in this green area in Wales in the way we should have. So, one of the things we are looking at at the moment is having some very informal conversations with universities about how we might come together and create an innovation hub for the green agenda, which would involve thinking very differently about how you go for funding, how you go into partnership et cetera, et cetera. I think that could be one way forward. There have been some very big conversations happening about the sort of things you could do, but I think we shouldn't always default to thinking that public sector funding is the first place we should go to. Actually, I think, often, in a funny sort of way, it's perhaps the last place we should go to sometimes.

I wouldn't disagree with you there. Obviously, there are a lot of corporates who would like to contribute to the green agenda, or appear to be contributing to the green agenda. Is this something you're actively pursuing?

Yes. As I said, we've had some early conversations with the CBI and we had support from the private sector in various forms through the delivery mechanism. We're going to progress those, and that will mean, I suspect, getting into a more detailed conversation with individual companies to see how they might actually support the work we're trying to do. Peter might have a perspective on this that I think is very important, because it's from his area of the business.

Pete Perry, as chief executive of Welsh Water, has been on the group, and he chairs Business in the Community, so there's a strong link into the work of Business in the Community as a key agency in Wales for engaging business on the green agenda. But, certainly, as far as the national nature service is concerned, the involvement of the private sector will be important, because we want to make sure that those skills that we're developing are relevant to the needs of the private sector and that the private sector recognises the role of the national nature service in building employability, skills and confidence for employment for the future. So, engagement with the private sector will be important in the national nature service. 

Thank you. Do you see the group as a permanent fixture and part of the landscape now, or is it being considered as something that will probably exist for a few years and then this new way of working and this culture of people pulling in the same direction will be embedded?

From my own perspective, I wouldn't want to say it's going to be there forever; it's as long as it adds value, frankly. I think the point I made earlier about not being part of that formal architecture of Welsh Government is a really important point—that actually, to fulfil our role properly, we should in one way be outside that architecture and actually be a group that stands alone. How long we carry on for, I don't know—as long as, I hope, we're adding value and making things happen. 

Okay. That's clear enough, and that makes perfect sense, as far as I'm concerned. Excellent. Thank you so much. We'll move on now to Huw. 

Thanks, Chair. I wonder if we can turn to the enabling the environment sector—EES—group. If you could tell us a little bit about the evolving remit of that group, how you see that developing and how it's fulfilling its remit. 

Perhaps I can ask Sarah to come in on this one. I've talked a little bit too much, I think, so far. 

Thank you, Sir David; thank you, Huw. As Sir David has already indicated, Steve Ormerod chairs that group. It has been running since March. We've got Wales Environment Link representatives there, we've got a combination of big and small environment organisations. The focus has been very much on taking forward the recommendations of the Funding Centre report from December 2020. We've also got on the group funders. We've got Welsh Government and the National Lottery heritage and community funds. So, we've got those there as well, and a WCVA funding expert as well.

The focus is very much on understanding where the sector currently is and where they want to go to. There's been a lot of work over the last six weeks or so in building an understanding of the work plan for the group. There has been a series of workshops. There'll be a focus on understanding, getting greater clarity on what we mean or what is meant by the term 'core funding', what does core funding actually enable third sector environment sector groups to fulfil. We've seen a shift in Welsh Government funding over the course of the last couple of years, from annual grant programmes to a multi-year approach, and there is a clear welcome from the sector for that. But there is still real concern about the funding of their core activities. But, there is a multiplicity of views on what core funding actually means, so the group has committed to really exploring that in a great deal of detail. 

There is then recognising what the sector can do more broadly. They do a lot of really positive stuff about lobbying, but they also build real connections with communities and with people in those communities. They also deliver practical stuff on the ground. So, we need to recognise that, across the whole range of environment sector organisations in Wales, their emphasis is in different spaces. Some of them are very deeply technical, around a specific set of habitats or species, whereas some of them take a broader role. So, it's recognising that and then building some of the connections and recognising their strengths and, when they're putting in proposals to funding bodies, that they build more collaborative projects, like the 'Natur am Byth!' programme that they are working on collaboratively at the moment through the National Lottery heritage fund.

So, they're looking at that, building a more consistent communication narrative that's there as a central tenet for everybody, looking at identifying barriers and the link there, as Sir David has said, and then understanding what the broader funding opportunities actually are. There's been quite a lot of work in WWF that you might hear about this afternoon around bringing in the private sector and innovative funding. They've been working together with Welsh Government to build an understanding of that opportunity as well. 

Sarah, that's really helpful; you've covered a lot of ground in that. If I could just pick up on a couple of areas, because colleagues might want to go into other specifics. On the core funding, the discussions that are currently going on, looking at what that means, interpretations of it, do we have an idea of when we might see some outcomes of that exploration of what core funding means?  

I think it's a priority for the group, and I think we'll have something—. I sit on the group, I don't drive the group, so you may want to ask Steve that question. But, I would suggest that the ambition is to work that through over the summer to have something clearer by the early part of September or October time. 

That's really helpful. And just one other question from me. Coming back to the remit, some of the evidence that we've heard from RSPB Cymru, for example, is that this group shouldn't only be focused on resilience per se, but actually having that capacity and resource to tackle the nature and climate emergency. So, it's not simply a survivability resilience thing; it's a resilience to do stuff and to tackle those big policy things. Again, I can't put words in your mouth for Steve Ormerod, but would your understanding be that that is exactly what this group is seeking to do, to give it that quantum of resilience that will allow the sector to do the things it wants it to do? 

Absolutely. We're facing a climate and nature emergency; everybody's got to play their part. These organisations have got great depths of understanding and technical expertise. We need them to be able to step into that space to really help us all—and that's us in NRW, in Welsh Government and in other places—to actually actively engage with people, with communities, because they're really good at that, and take forward some of the technical work as well. We want to do nature recovery. They need to be there ready to step up and take it forward with us, really. 

If I may add to that, Chair, that is a core point there—that, actually, we've got a huge resource, potentially, here, in terms of the ENGOs and all those who support them. And in NRW's example, we talk about now instead of us as NRW having to do it all, we should actually get others to help us do the lifting. So, when we talk about water quality, we talk about involving all the stakeholders around a particular catchment to help us improve the water quality, rather than just relying on a methodology that is NRW inspecting, and then warning notices and prosecutions. And the same is true of nature recovery and restoration. We should engage and use these ENGOs in helping, if you like, do the lifting. That means moving away from funding as a funder to a supplicant, and moving more to a partnership model that, actually, is about shared outcomes. I think that's crucially important in the way we go forward. 

Sorry, Chair, just one short supplementary on that, because Sir David Henshaw raises a really important point. It just strikes me, Sir David, this far down the line on something like water quality and using catchment management approaches, quite why we haven't got there yet. It still surprises me, a decade or more down the line, why this partnership around catchments—and we could apply it to other areas of nature recovery as well—just why we haven't done it. 

To be fair, we haven't just started it now; we have been doing it for about two or three years now—we've been getting into those conversations. But, I think it's a function of many things. It's a function of actually how we see regulation. We've got a group at the moment with the chairs of the two water companies, myself and the chair of Ofwat working together very closely on a plan on a whole series of issues. One core plank of that plan is public engagement, and, actually, a campaign to get people to stop putting things into the system that actually create the problem, because everybody assumes that NRW can sort it out, or the water companies can sort it out—sorry, the public have got a big role to play here in not putting the stuff into the system. I think partnership working like this, in some areas, on this nature and environment agenda, is a bit late into the game actually, frankly. I look at other things in my previous career, where partnership was a modus operandi from many years ago. This is perhaps a later development, and it needs to be accelerated. 

Joyce.

Thank you. I agree with you about partnership, and I'm as frustrated as you about water quality, because I've been, for 15 years, trying to highlight that we need to do something about it. But partnership has to be an equal recognition of what the other is bringing to the table. So, my question is on that equality of your voice around the table, and my observation, from the time that I've been in politics, which is a long time, that the non-governmental organisations haven't always been treated as equal partners, but more like a nuisance in the room, niggling away, reminding Government and other public bodies, and private bodies in some cases, of their duty. So, are you telling me now, and I hope you are, that all voices in that partnership are equal?

Well, I hope by what we've done and the way the group has worked from the start—. I mean, the ENGO grouping was a crucial bit of the firmament when we set the green recovery group up. And, absolutely, equal voices listened to, et cetera. I think we sometimes confuse recognition as equal partnership, meaning that you should be represented. That isn't necessarily the same thing. Actually, it's about what's the best vehicle, what's the best, if you like, fit for getting something done. And so I can do nothing but agree with you in terms of listening. I look at NRW—since my time there, we have changed dramatically in terms of our consultation with the public, for example, on flood schemes. We now have a completely different playbook, which is about consultation, listening to the public. Equally, we've changed our approach. We don't go in with a solution; we listen, and listen to nature-based solutions that are being articulated by members of the public in those areas. So, listening to the people, listening to the stakeholders, listening to the ENGOs, is a crucial part of your weaponry now; it has to be.

Peter wants to come in on this as well. 

Yes, I couldn't let it go without coming in, as chair of the WCVA, because, absolutely, I would agree with the point about the role of the voluntary and community sector and the third sector, and the way in which that is often viewed. I think we have seen it change, though. I think the pandemic saw a significant change in terms of the critical role that the sector played in response to the pandemic, and the partnership with the public and private sector that was developed through the response to the pandemic. And I think what is now key is that that change is hardwired back into the system and the engagement of the community and voluntary sector is part of how the public sector operates. It is in some areas, and it's very good in some areas in terms of public sector engagement with the voluntary sector. In others, there's still a lot we've got to do, and that's obviously at the heart of the WCVA's work. 

I would also say, just going back on a couple of points that Sir David made, that there is a responsibility in the sector itself, particularly as we can be as siloed as Government in terms of how the voluntary sector works as a sector. So, it's really important that the environmental NGO sector is engaged across the voluntary sector in terms of working with community groups and different interest groups, so that there is a more integrated approach. We're fortunate in Wales—we've got the third sector partnership council structure that is about making sure that we have that connectivity across the sector and with Government, but we've got to make sure that that works, because we can be pretty siloed in terms of how the sector itself operates. 

Thank you, Peter. I think that's an important and fair point. I was going to ask whether, objectively, you think that the sector is now more stable and resilient, or at least showing those signs, given the work that's been happening, but, clearly, I suppose it's unfair, given that COVID has moved the goalposts, I imagine. 

Peter might be best placed to first answer this question, I think, Chair. 

Yes. It's an unfair question as well, in fairness. But, Peter, I don't know if you want to just give us your take.

Yes, I think, for the sector, we're undoubtedly facing a significant change in terms of the European funding, which the sector benefited from significantly. There is definitely going to be a gap, which is going to impact upon the sector, and probably particularly on the role of the sector in supporting employability areas, which was a significant area of investment from those European funds that WCVA was able to channel into supporting the sector in working with those people furthest away from the labour market. So, there's no question that that, the issue around the transition from European funding into new systems of funding, and new systems of funding that are directed through local authorities—. And that goes back to my previous point; some local authorities are good in that engagement to make sure that that funding is directed in a way that meets community needs and the community is involved with, others probably are less able to do that, partly because of resources, partly because of the timetable they have to respond to under the new funding regime. So, actually, if you take the view across the sector as a whole, not just the ENGO sector, there is definitely a concern around funding transition over this period in terms of public sector funding going into the sector.

But would that primarily relate to project funding, as opposed to core funding? Because, from my previous experience, European money and those kinds of funds wouldn't fund core funding, so you've still got that fundamental problem of securing the core funding. So, who is there, other than Welsh Government, I suppose, left to fill that gap?

Although that, again, misinterprets—. Well, not misinterprets, but the way in which the sector works generally is through projects, which then contribute to core funding.

Yes, well, that's the problem, isn't it?

So, if I look simply at WCVA, some of our core funding has come from our management of European funding, and so over this next 12 months we will lose some staff because of the fact that we will be losing that element of funding that was contributing to our core costs through the management of projects, and that would be the same for organisations across the sector.

Okay. Okay, thank you so much for that. Right. We'll move on, then. Oh, Huw, yes, go on then.

Yes, apologies, Chair. Peter, can I just come back to that phrase you used of new sources of funding? I wonder if you can elaborate on that just a little bit, and I wonder if you could just explain whether that includes some areas of funding that traditionally have been difficult to access, including things that might come through regional partnerships, through health board funding, et cetera, et cetera. It's always been a problem for third sector members to not simply have a seat but, as Sir David said earlier on, have a strong voice at that strategic level of regional funding. Is the work that's going on—? Are you anticipating getting more into that framework of funding as well? And, frankly, are you going to be listened to?

You definitely highlight another area of concern, and this is sector wide, not just the ENGO sector, in the sense that, when funding becomes regionalised then the sector is again disadvantaged in being able to access that funding, quite often, and not well structured in being able to secure the routes into funding from those sources. Yes, we have a great network of county voluntary councils around Wales, but, if you talk to a lot of their chief executives, a lot of their time is spent trying to represent the sector at a range of different levels to secure different funding streams. So, the importance of making funding accessible to local communities is really critical, and it's quite often not about large funding pots; it's about making sure that there are smaller funding pots available for local communities to do what they need to do. So, we have to structure ourselves in order to secure that partnership arrangement, and it's a point I'm going to be making to the partnership council, chaired by the Minister, next week—that we have to make sure that the voluntary sector is part of that structure.

If I can add to that, if you step back, and picking Peter's theme up, one of the critical areas here is looking at the public services boards, where actually what you need is some coherence with the ENGO sector to be able to sit there at the table, rather than three rows back, and actually be a full partner in working out methodologies that you can actually put funding behind local activity on—[Inaudible.]—you've got to mobilise the community, mobilise the—[Inaudible.]—as well as big work by Government and also scaling up the private sector example. And I think, at the moment, we've some work to do in that latter regard, in terms of getting the ENGOs, as Peter says, sitting at that table, at the front row, but with a coherent voice and a coherent plan, and being recognised as that they can deliver. At the moment, it's very, very fragmented, I think, at a PSB level, as Peter indicated. I think we need to look—. We need to build some new models here, and get away from perhaps some of the traditional models of funding that we're talking about.

Sorry, Chair, I don't want to labour this, because I know we're up against time, but, when you say there's work to be done, does that imply we are in the foothills of doing this? Because the public services boards and others are up and running, they are dominated by key players, understandably, in the set up of them originally. How far off are we from getting that strong voice that is part of the partnership on those boards, as opposed to tier No. 3, sitting in the back of the room?

Well, they vary, where they are at the moment, where they are in terms of development and maturity. My point is that, actually, if you simply rely on the existing methodologies around funding—and Peter's made the point very powerfully about how that whole funding structure has changed; I've made the point about getting others to help do the lifting, and, both from agencies like NRW, local government, we have to rethink how we do this. And at the moment—Peter made the point about chief executives, at that local level, of voluntary sector organisations—we need to rethink this. And I think we are, in some areas, in the foothills. But there are some good examples of where it's really worked very well, and so you learn. That's the point.

So, if I just take the case of Pembrokeshire here, the chief exec of the voluntary services council has been the deputy chair of the PSB, so has been really significantly engaged in the structure. And I think Pembrokeshire actually holds itself up as a pretty good example in terms of engagement in that way. But one point I would want to make, though: we've got to learn from the pandemic. It was about very localised responses. It wasn't about a regional response; it was about very localised responses. And I worry slightly that everything is being pulled to a regional level, which will not support the very localised response. It is critical that we focus on enabling the localised response and the localised action. And that's one lesson—the key lesson, from the pandemic, in my respect—that we must take on board.

Okay. Lovely. Thank you for that message. Right, Janet.

Thank you. Just pursuing this a little bit further, the one thing that I was very heartened about when I became a Member of the Senedd was the number of voluntary bodies and ENGOs working in Wales. And I know, certainly in the environment and climate and nature emergency that's facing us, just to name three, the RSPB, Wales Environment Link and the Marine Conservation Society—they're just three that I'm just going to mention there—these are people who engage with us as Members, they really care about what they're doing, but, quite often, when meeting with them—and they really hold Government to account—there is a lack of environmental governance in Wales. We're falling behind Northern Ireland, Scotland and England now in terms of legislation, putting into law how we want to bring protections in for our environment, the climate and nature recovery. So, in terms of the ENGOs, just today now we're talking about, you know, the IEPAW and green recovery, and a national nature service for Wales—to me, those are a lot of groups there that do a lot—. With all due respect, we're trying to find a solution, where the solution—. We've already put the solution in place; we've got these groups working very busily away. But they are underfunded. And so how do you think, or do you think, that the Welsh Government should actually be listening more to our ENGOs, working more closely with them, and all these other bodies that set up? And certainly, how engaged do you think the Welsh Government are in terms of actually funding these organisations and groups to do what they want to do, and that is they actually want to get on with doing this? They write up many policy documents, we get lots of briefings, but I do feel that—I think it goes back to Joyce's point—they're largely ignored. 

I wouldn't agree with the comment about 'ignored' at all. From the point of view of the green recovery group's work, they have been central to listening to what's actually happening out there in the ENGO sector, being responsive to it, and actually out of that came some support funding during the pandemic. I do think, though, and it goes back to one of my earlier points, that actually we've got to provide a different frame here and actually move away from what, often, are quite often complicated grant structures that actually hinder the progress you're talking about. And to just speak to Peter's point, there is a responsibility on the ENGOs here as well, because there can be elements of competition between some of these ENGOs for survival and so looking for grants. So, it's getting more coherence, and it's going to be, considering the group that Steve's chairing, trying to find a more, if you like, aligned way of approaching some of these agenda items, which are big items, as we move forward.

But the biggest thing, and I think we can contribute—. One of the biggest things we can contribute in the green recovery group is to say, 'We really have to change the nature of the relationships.' Applying for the grant and having to go through numerous, numerous hoops, and I think, through no fault of anybody's, it's just the nature of the way public money sometimes is viewed and actually protected. We perhaps put in—and NRW is as guilty of this as many of us—over-elaborate mechanisms to actually try and make sure everything is done properly, and we have to look at that, constantly look at it, constantly adapt and see people more as partners, not people who will perhaps be intent on ill-doing. There is always going to be a bit of that. It happens in life, doesn't it? But, generally, we have to think about it more progressively. And if you build structures to actually manage partnership and promote partnership, if something goes wrong, you're bound together. Rather than reaching for the lawyers, you're bound together in solving the problem.

Thank you. I think the point you made earlier, Sir David, about easing off a little bit around the bureaucracy and the administration around the some of the funding is to be welcomed, obviously without compromising the integrity of the use of public funding. I think it is a message that we've been hearing over the years, and anything that could be done to ease off somewhat on that in a responsible way would obviously be welcome. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to Delyth, then. Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. One of the themes that's coming up throughout this session is the importance of making connections and the need to publicise the really great work that's being done to make sure that those connections are made. Sir David, you made the point earlier on a microcosmic level about that community where they decided, instead of using a wire fence, they'd use a hedge. Looking at how that can be replicated far, far, far more widely, could you talk us through, please—again, I appreciate that this has come up time and again throughout this session—what actions are being put in to publicise and communicate green recovery project development, with partners across the sector but also with the public?

Well, I think the report makes clear that we could have done better here, but this was a pandemic. We were all scrambling around, and the green recovery group was set up, if you like, to stimulate and keep the green flag flying, as we call it. We spent an awful lot of time trying to make stuff happen. I think we could have been better at communicating what we were doing and, actually, how we were trying. But, candidly, I think, where resources were available, you did what you could do.

I think, going forward, that point about, 'Always follow somebody's example; don't worry about making it up yourself', is actually how innovation happens, and I think we've got to put more work into that, no question about it. And that just isn't in the green recovery group; it's in the whole sector, really, about learning. We need to be more accepting of, actually, 'Oh, there's one over there—I'll improve on that,' et cetera, et cetera. One of my own passions around this is innovation, and I do think, particularly when you talk about funding, that if we can connect some projects with individual companies, for example, who survive on innovation and actually building business, you might see different methodologies coming out about how you use transformative work like this and spread it around. We've all got a role to play in this, but I openly accept we could have done more about this as we went along. But we are where we are. What did happen was that—and I keep going back to this core point—the projects we discovered when we went out on this very unorganised call for schemes just show you the scale of ideas that are available in Wales that people wanted to get hold of. The barriers they were facing was one of the biggest problems, but the scale of ideas was extraordinary.

Cadeirydd, if I could come back in—if that's okay, Delyth?

Yes, please do.

I wanted to get this into the session at some point, and this may be a good point to get it into the session, which is the work that we've done on blue recovery. The Wales marine action and advisory group—a horrible title, WMAAG—has taken us on a sort of blue recovery lead linked to the green recovery process, and I just wanted to make the point that one of the priorities there that we see is the fact that the engagement of communities with the marine environment is so poor, and we really have to work hard to build the capacity and invest in the capacity of coastal communities to own more of the marine conservation and development issues, and that's a really key theme for the blue recovery focus around how we engage communities around the coast, increase the ownership of communities around the coast of their marine environment. It's all too complicated with a whole range of different initiatives or acronyms about different aspects of coastal and marine conservation. We need to make that much more accessible and owned by coastal communities, and that has to be a real priority for the marine environment.

Thank you for that. Okay, yes, there's still a lot of work to do, but that answer means that there is a real opportunity as well. We've heard, as a committee, time and again that with anything to do with marine, the tendency would be, 'Oh, it's out of sight, out of mind'; because people can't see it, people just won't feel that connection. But, gosh, it's still so important that those connections are made. So, I appreciate what you both said there. Thank you.

Okay. We're nearing the end of our session now, but I have Joyce to come in, and I think Jenny has also asked to come in before we finish. Joyce first of all.

I'm not going to labour it, but I'm really glad to hear that we've got blue recovery—or a 'teal recovery' I call it—marrying up the two together. I'm not going to labour that. What I'm going to say is that the review did find that the green recovery work undertaken was imperfect yet invaluable, and I suppose that's what we've been saying throughout this morning. So, what are the next steps in developing the green and just recovery model?

If I start, I think, as I tried to stay at the start, we're in the midst of a bit of a scrum down at the moment to work out where we go next. I had a very encouraging conversation with the Minister about where she saw us adding most value. We've now one meeting of the group to talk that through, having another meeting to put forward the propositions as we fine it down. We don't want to become part of the overall architecture of Government; we should be outside of all that, stimulating, promoting, speaking the truth, et cetera, et cetera. So, I know we're in that space.

I think on the 'just' stuff, we've covered it in some ways in respect of the job opportunities and the training and the rest of it. The point Peter made is that it isn't, actually, necessarily an enduring experience in the green agenda, meaning you have to stay in that sector; it's actually building confidence, and we've seen a lot of examples in the projects we saw coming forward where that theme could be followed.

The skills issue is a really big issue. I've had conversations with the commissioner for future generations, and that whole skills agenda and actually how we're organised on that and how we need to get more focused on that, particularly around the green agenda, is a big issue. So, I can see our agenda emerging.

Perhaps it might be helpful for you if, when we've got this a bit more nailed down, in, say, six months, we come back and tell you about where we're up to and what we're doing, and actually how we're approaching it and when we've got more of a plan in our minds. But that's where we are at the moment, and the various sessions have been helpful to hear your views about where we should be.

Are we also recognising the skills that are already on the ground, because I think a lot of those skills were never packaged as green skills—they were just things that people did, and there are an awful lot of them out there? I cover most of, as you well know, the rural parts of Wales and the coastal parts of Wales, where people did things rather than packaging them in a certain way. So, are we looking at that as well? And building on that knowledge, we talk about lost skills, don't we? And if we look at the lost skills, they're mostly, I would argue, in the environmental sector—the way things were done. And we're actually trying to go back somewhat to the way things were done, but with an added twist, and quite rightly, of innovation, so that we can take what is there, but move it forward.

Again, we could open up another two-hour conversation here, I think, on this. One example we haven't touched on is the Wales coastal path, which was a major scheme that came through, where, actually, there was thinking about the coastal path perhaps in a different way. So, we talked about, for example, making it more accessible, we talked about greening it, we talked about giving grants to help those who provide accommodation, plug-in for electric cars—a whole set of issues—and also including trails for visiting chapels. And now, I think, in Pembrokeshire, particularly—Peter may know more about this—we've actually got a programme there about involving chapel pilgrimages alongside the coastal path walking as well. So, there's a whole set of issues here. But, as I said, perhaps we can come back in six months and tell you more about where we're up to.

Yes, indeed. Yes, we're keen as a committee to be revisiting the work that you do on a regular basis. Jenny, you want to conclude this session.

I just wanted to come in on the just recovery model aspect of this, because Coed Cadw mentions that, in the interim environmental protection assessor's report, there's no discussion of social justice. And given that it's the poorer members of the community who fund the lottery, I just wondered what discussions your group has had on how we ensure that the poorest part of the community is going to be having a greener environment. 

I can assure you that the issue of social justice has been, actually, always on our agenda. A couple of members always make sure it's picked up on, and I tried to refer to it on the skills issue. But perhaps Sarah can talk in more detail about some of the projects that came forward on that. Sarah.

I don't see Sarah on my screen actually, Sir David.

Oh.

I was hoping she was there in the background, but maybe not.

She's there, but not in vision.

Not visible. Okay. Right, we'll have to skip over that, then, I'm afraid.

Anyway, I can assure you that—

Sarah, as if by magic, did appear. Okay, Sarah. Sorry.

Thank you. I'm in Plas Tan y Bwlch today for a workshop, which is great, but the Wi-Fi drops, so I'm running around—

We're very, very jealous.

—but now I'm back. So, I'm really sorry, I missed a chunk of time.

That's fine.

Social justice, as Sir David has said, is at the heart of the approach of the group. So, when we had the call for good ideas, it was very clearly part of the requirements of people, and when we assessed the proposals that came in, looking at those proposals through the lens of social justice was really important. For those original 168 proposals, there were some that had a social justice perspective. I think, though, given the time that we asked for those proposals, they weren't as strong as they could have been. The environment sector recognises that thinking about social justice, and thinking about how the most deprived communities more often than not also have the most deprived environments, and how we need to go in and work with those communities in a different way to work through those opportunities, has to be on the agenda, moving forward. And we need, through the grant funding that Welsh Government provided—. There was a specific grant in January 2021, and a number of them, including WEL, had some specific training and focus on social justice and how the sector can engage with that agenda. So, I think we all need to move into that space and think about the environment through the lens of social justice. And I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but it's not just about giving people a park; it is really fundamentally thinking about social justice and environmental justice. Very often, those communities have the most deprived environments as well, and how we address that and engage with those communities is vital, really, not just for the environment sector, but it's equally important for NRW as well.

Thank you for that reassurance, and we look forward to hearing more about it.

Indeed, and I think there's a whole other session for us there, isn't there, potentially. But we will have to leave it there, because we have come to the end of our allocated time. So, can I say thank you to Sarah, to Peter and to Sir David for joining us this morning and, as always, giving us valuable evidence for us to take on board as part of our deliberations? We look forward, of course, to revisiting some of these themes later on today when we will be discussing this with some of the environmental non-governmental organisations. But with that, can I thank you for your presence and can I, therefore, announce that we will now break for 15 minutes, and ask Members to reconvene slightly before 11 o'clock, when we will, again, be going live as a committee? Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

What is the IEPAW's—? We're still good morning, aren't we? Good morning.

We are indeed. 

What is the IEPAW's view on the suitability and effectiveness of the current interim measures?

Diolch yn fawr. Janet. 

Thank you. So, what involvement has the IEPAW had on the development of a permanent governance arrangement, and what have you learnt from other countries and bodies? Can you also outline the risks associated with not having permanent governance arrangements in place for the foreseeable future? I have to say 'for the foreseeable future' because, when questioning the Minister, the responses coming back don't fill me with any confidence that there's any urgency in this. So, how have you driven that initiative forward, please?

Thank you, Chair, and we have started to go into this territory already, but I wonder if you could nail down a little bit more for us the criteria that you use to decide whether a submission should be subject to a report for Welsh Ministers.

That's really helpful as an answer, but, if I look at two of the areas that you haven't mentioned yet, although you've just touched on it a little bit with one of them, the issue of wildlife and nature protection, you're looking at the issue of forestry, you're looking at the issue of water quality, you're going to move on to the issue of hedgerows, and the other big one that you've had inquiries on is that of wildlife and nature protection. So, how would that fall within it? And how do some of the smaller ranges of issues that you've had inquiries on that are equally important, things like management of sites of special scientific interest or access to environmental information—how can you, within the remit that you have and the resource you have, respond to those in a meaningful way?

Thank you very much. Your annual report in draft explains clearly those submissions that were outside the scope of your role. I note that two submissions related to air quality, and that sort of links in with how well you've publicised your role and what you can do about things like air quality, because I'm sure that Mr and Mrs Jones on Newport Road have never heard of you, even though they live with illegal levels of pollution. So, for example, what role would you have in advising the Government on how quickly they need to introduce a clean air Bill?

Yes, I appreciate you've only been in post for a very short time, but I just wondered whether you've had any opportunity yet to reach out to those who provide independent advice to people who've got concerns, for example, citizens advice bureaux or legal bodies, because local authorities are unlikely to be promoting your office, given that the organisation that they're unlikely to be happy with is likely to be the local authority.

Thank you. 

It's just some more clarity around your role, actually. How do you feel that we're moving more towards Wales having those governance measures in place? And why do you think Wales has fallen behind England, Scotland and Northern Ireland in having these permanent arrangements? Because the reason for my question is the background to it. Every time I ask the Minister about, 'Where's our environmental governance?' we're told that you're filling that space, and I'm not, really, at this point, assured that we're actually moving towards the environmental governance side, and how you're able to fill in that space, if you know what I mean.

No, it's a question for you, because obviously you're one of our witnesses today. Can you explain your role? Because it's classed as 'interim', we're hoping that we're not losing out too much—the environment, the climate, the nature recovery—as a result of not having the environmental governance in place. So, you technically have stepped up to fill in this interim position. So, can you just explain a little bit more to me how you feel you're doing that? 

—and the functions that I have, I look at the functioning of environmental law. That's what I'm tasked with doing. So, that means that I'm looking at the environmental law that we have in Wales at the moment, how that achieves the objectives that it was set out to do, but also, maybe, whether or not those objectives are still the right ones, and whether there's been a change in terms of the objectives that are desired from that legislation and that there need to be changes, therefore, to the legislation to enable that to happen. I'm also able to look at issues where there are practical problems with the functioning of that environmental law. What I don't have the power to do is to look at breaches of environmental law. So, those breaches of environmental law, I cannot look at. So, for example, if there was an alleged breach by a public body of environmental law, I am not able to consider that. So, I think, that is, if you want, the fundamental difference in terms of my role and that of the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland. That is one of the fundamental differences, isn't it, in terms of my role? And I also don't have—. I provide advice. I don't have powers to require action to take place as a result of any recommendations that I make or to require public bodies to undertake certain actions as a result of recommendations that I've made either. 

So, you'd agree with me then we've still got this massive void of not having this environmental governance that needs to be filled, and currently your role, as such, or remit doesn't actually place that into proper environmental governance, like in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England. Am I correct? 

It's an interim measure that doesn't equate to exactly what was in place before.

Yes, okay. Diolch. So, hynny yw, what we're saying is that void, created as a consequence of Brexit, hasn't properly been filled until, hopefully, we have those longer term arrangements in place. Of—. 

I thought I was, but there you go. Anyway, I was saying 'good morning'. We've heard a lot this morning about the actions that you've taken. What we're interested in is whether there are any generic actions that stem from the submissions that you've had that we could draw the attention of the Welsh Government to address.

Can I just ask, would it help, then, that, regardless of whatever law is coming through, in every single case it is seen through an environmental lens? I thought that that was the case already. Just to fully understand what you're saying, and I understand, with forestry, that's been well rehearsed.

Thank you. In your annual report, you highlight that the hedgerows regulations are clearly insufficient and inadequate in the context of a nature emergency, and you're a little bit hesitant about what you're actually going to do about that. Clearly, we can pick that up, but you haven't ruled out considering this area of legislation in the future. What would you do if you actually did something on this?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Could I ask, within the remit that you have, which is limited, but, within that remit, is there anything you want to add to our discussions today as a committee in terms of the satisfaction feedback from people who've been submitting inquiries to you, not to do with dissatisfaction that you can't take up something for them because it falls outwith your remit, but within the remit that you have? Is there anything you want to add about that?

Thanks very much for that. Let me turn to something else, and it's been a theme of the discussion today. This is not a criticism of you within the post that you're holding or what's been set up and so on, but it is an issue, as we've said so many times: this isn't a substitute for what was there before or what may come in future. There's an issue here of filling a void that might otherwise leave environmental governance open. But let me put this question in this way: what is the added value that you and your office brings to the role that goes beyond, for example, what a Senedd committee like ours can do, or what the future generations committee can do, in this interim period, with your limited remit as well? What value do you add beyond what we do and what other accountability bodies do? How do you sum that up?

I wonder if I could just ask, then, finally, do you think that, if you were in front of us in six months, 12 months' time, and we were putting the same questions to you, there'd be something within your report that you've talked about today, something about the analysis of different areas that you're going to focus on, that you could actually point to and say, 'In this area, we've clearly said this, which has led to Government making adjustments in this area, or other environmental bodies making adjustments in this area'—that there would be something more meaty that you could point to?

Thank you. I suppose, really, because there are lots of new groups being established in terms of moving us towards better environmental governance—. I don't know if you've watched the earlier sessions, but the roles of ENGOs have come into play in this, and, for my part, I think all the ENGOs that we have in Wales are excellent. But could you set out what you determine to be your role in terms of delivering a green recovery? For me, that's the climate change agenda and emergency, it's nature recovery and environmental aspects.

Steve, would you like to go first?

I can give you some assessment to start us off; it might be better to hear from the NGOs directly.

It would, yes.

I think some of the critical things—. I have to say I have some background with the ENGO sector; I was chairman of RSPB, I'm vice-president of RSPB, I've been chairman of Buglife. The sector is absolutely critical to delivering work around the nature and climate emergency. That is, in part, through the utility of what environmental goods and services mean for life support; it's partly delivering the business of Welsh Government and a whole range of public bodies in Wales. It's about technical expertise, which the ENGOs come with in very substantial amounts. I guess there is one comment you could make that there are a lot of ENGOs that cover a whole spectrum of different activities, and one of the things I think we've probably got to be better at doing is unifying the work that they do for the common purpose of the environment, nature, climate emergency agenda, and if we do that, and it is on behalf of Wales plc, then we've got to look for appropriate mechanisms to fund and enable the sector to bring its skills to bear on the very, very substantial nature and climate change problems we have. But perhaps the people representing ENGOs can tell us more.

Yes. Annie, do you want to go first, then?

Sure. Thank you. Steve has framed the answer brilliantly. Responding to the nature and climate emergency is a core objective now for the Welsh Government, and that's our raison d'être as organisations. We deliver, through our activities on the ground, on nature reserves, for example, but also in our activities with communities and so on, improving that accessibility and so on. I think the work that has gone on, which might come up later in the session, around a national nature service, for example, is a really good example of where NGOs have helped to drive thinking and give real energy to an initiative. I don't think there's a lot to add at this point apart from, as Steve said, that we're here to deliver on those objectives that are central to Government and to NRW, and how we resource that appropriately is a critical question.

We'll come on to resources, I'm sure, in a minute. Gareth, did you want to add anything at this point?

Briefly, I think one of the main benefits we have—Annie's touched on it there—is that we can engage with communities, perhaps, in a different way to Welsh Government. We've obviously got a network of individuals who are either members or interested in the activities we do, and that's either in person at a grass-roots level or directly through our membership magazines and websites. I suppose the other thing we can bring to the table is thinking outside of the silos. Often, Government works within departmental-level thinking, but being smaller organisations, we tend to work across those silos, and that's not just within Wales as well, we work pan UK, so it's an opportunity to share some of the learning from experiences in Scotland and England and vice versa with Wales.

Janet, did you want to come back on this?

I'm not saying it to people who are sat around any tables, but Wales Environment Link, RSPB, the Marine Conservation Society, the wildlife trusts, there are so many organisations that are doing a really good job, but sometimes even they feel they're not working their way through. I know they really do feel hamstrung in their activities because of a lack of funding, and I just think they have a vital role to play. How well do you think Welsh Government recognises the really important work that you do? I've seen your policy documents and briefings. They work well with Members, they're very good at lobbying both us and Welsh Government, and I just see that they have a place, particularly, actually, whilst we've got an interim environmental protection assessor in place and groups. Am I right or am I wrong?

I think you're right, Janet. I think it's very kind of you to recognise the value of the way we can use our experience to give our advice to influence policy and Government activities. The biodiversity deep dive that's going on at the moment, I think, is a good example where a number of NGOs have been included to bring those perspectives, and it's actually a great opportunity to translate some of the on-the-ground experience into some of the solutions that we need. As Gareth said, I think that, as organisations, some of us have a wider remit than Wales, so we have the opportunity to learn from things that are going on in other places and to bring in that learning and experience too.

Steve, you wanted to add something.

There are two threads here now. One is around the role of the ENGO sector in green recovery and, at the same time, the question that we just had about recognition. I think those two things are linked, in that the sector, probably, through its collaborative activities, has got to do a slightly better job of articulating and selling what its core purposes are, how it can help the Government agenda and therefore seek direct funding.

The second is around the way that the sector could interact, for example, with private funders in helping to grow green business in the round in Wales, because when we think about solutions to the biodiversity, nature and climate emergencies, we're thinking about the protection of nature for its own sake, because we have an ethical responsibility, but we're also thinking about the services that nature delivers for us: carbon sequestration, high-quality water, natural flood management, which are all business opportunities. I think the ENGO sector can be absolutely pivotal in helping to grow economic activities around those things. We've got to find the right ways to regulate those activities, build them, make them acceptable in all kinds of ways, but they are major opportunities.

That point was being made to this committee 10 years ago, when I first joined, so why hasn't more happened in the meantime, do you think?

I can offer a view. So, 10 years ago, we were on the back end of the national ecosystem assessment, which was starting to lay the case for the utilitarian purposes of nature. I think it's taken us probably too long to find ways of building the appropriate markets, ensuring that they're properly governed and regulated, but also attracting funding of the right persuasion from the right kind of organisations to do the right kinds of things. There are some ideas we have, things like the Brecon Beacons mega catchment, where farmers, water companies, potentially retail, interact together in various ways. But we have too few exemplars, and I think we haven't yet found the right system to make that happen.

Okay, thank you. Huw wants to come in.

Yes, thanks, Llyr. This theme of the environmental organisations working together more effectively, not just with Government but on spatial areas as well, is something that's come up in our earlier sessions today. I'm wondering if you can tell us, on the back of where we've been with the pandemic, on the back of this approach of a green recovery, a nature-led recovery, have we seen significant changes in this in the last couple of years? I'd be interested in your views on this, because what I'm picking up is that there's a bit of a sea change going on, and I've seen it myself with some of the working. There's always been collaboration, to some extent, on a project basis, between green organisations, but is there something more significant going on here both at a national, strategic level and a local level about groups coming together and seeing where they overlap and where they can add greater value by working together on a systemic basis more often, partly because of funding constraints as well, but partly because they're working a bit smarter? Is there something happening that this committee should be aware of?

Anybody? Who wants to respond to that? Annie.

I would—. Sorry, Gareth. 

No, go on.

I would offer just a thought that collaboration is really critical, and we see some really important collaborative projects looking at restoring our Celtic rainforests, saving our critically endangered curlews, but in order to collaborate effectively you need capacity, and you can't just throw a bunch of people together. For that to happen, you need dedicated support to do that, and we see in funding streams like the old EU LIFE nature fund, that that project development through collaboration, with capacity to actually co-ordinate and enable that collaboration, was well supported. That's one of the challenges, I think, with current approaches and something that, hopefully, the work that's ongoing on enabling the sector will address.

Gareth was nodding. I don't know if you want to add anything.

Yes. I think there are good examples of where it's working well. One of the caveats, I suppose, is that often our funding streams are short lived. So, we've had the future fisheries alliance come before the Senedd in the past—that's a collaboration of WWF, RSPB and MCS. But the funding for that and the posts it's occupying are only for two years. So, it's difficult when we look at things like the implementation of, say, the Fisheries Act 2020—that's going to take years. So, how do we resource that in the long term to meaningfully contribute to those conversations? And the comment there about working with businesses—ideally, we'd do that. One of the frustrations for both us and businesses is, often, Government funding is capital spend only, which means it'll buy physical things but it won't pay towards staff costs, and obviously you need people in place to help deliver those things to be used in the right way.

But, on the flip side, projects like 'Natur am Byth!', that's working across the whole sector of different NGOs with NRW, and it's working quite well, although, again, it's subject to funding, and this time it's through HLF. So, there's always questions about how long that funding will last and then what do we do afterwards. 'Natur am Byth!', if it is successful, will get an extra four years' worth of funding, but it needs to have a 10-year legacy. So, how we will resource that is always a question we need to answer.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, Steve, you wanted to say—.

Just, I think, to add to all of those points, 'Natur am Byth!' is a really interesting example of joint working across the sector. But, to go back to the original question around how the last two years have changed us, quite clearly the extent to which people, under the challenges of the pandemic, isolation, homeworking, access to nature for well-being, for health, for the sheer joy and renewal that comes out of exposure to green space, I think has very dramatically changed our orientation to the way we think about nature. And as we move forward, capturing, ensuring we sustain the health benefits that result from that, the mental well-being benefits that result—they actually make the case for the work that the environmental NGO sector actually delivers. I guess we should also consider that the challenges we've been through and are going through are evolving. So, we've come out of the pandemic. We're now going through a cost-of-living crisis, we have the challenge of climate change coming down the road at us extremely rapidly, so ensuring that we futureproof ourselves against those challenges, I think, becomes really critical. The sector delivers on all of those areas.

Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. So, just to focus in more specifically then on your experience of the green recovery priority for action process and the subsequent green recovery delivery partnership, tell us a bit about how you felt about the whole process around that.

Shall I start us off?

Yes, please.

Well, I think we'd say we haven't been directly involved in the work of that group, and I think it's fair to say that we haven't found it very accessible or transparent or been able to see what's coming out of it in an open way. I think—. You know, it didn't have a budget attached, so there were a lot of concepts submitted and prioritised, but then no budgeted delivery plan bit—that we were aware of, certainly.

I think one of the priorities that came through that was a national nature service, very strongly, and that has been a concept that has been taken outside of that process into a much wider stakeholder group, chaired by the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. More than 100 stakeholders engaged, with some real core ones—the FFCC, the WCVA, RSPB and others—involved in some of the finer detail work. But that has got now to a place where Government has put some funding into the development, and hopefully we'll see a real focus projected to further develop the work around the benefits of that. But that happened separately, do you know what I mean? So, as an organisation, certainly, we just haven't had that access into that group or the process involved in that.

That's interesting. Okay, Gareth, does that chime with your experience?

So, I confess that, the green recovery side of it, we're not massively engaged in. We're in the blue green recovery, if that makes sense. So, there's a separate blue recovery group set up, which is beginning to work really well. It's cross sector, the Government's in there, and there's finance for the chair. The only thing, of course, is it's got targets that we're working on—ocean literacy, innovative finance, that kind of thing, but it's not always entirely clear how that fits into the wider green recovery agenda. So, often we're hoping that we're feeding into the right direction, and making suggestions, but not actually having the full picture of what it is the Government wants to deliver through these programmes. And I think that's parallel as well to the nature networks recovery programme, which is about our protected areas. But what happens in the—? You know, this is for 30x30. What happens in the rest, the 70 per cent, of Wales? How do those two things talk to each other and, ultimately, how are we going finance and resource that?

Okay. Sir David Henshaw, in a previous session this morning, told us that he felt it was a real strength and advantage for the green recovery group to be sat outside of more formal Government structures. What I'm hearing from you a little bit is that that might not be a strength, and that that's a bit of a weakness in that nobody's quite sure whether it's in or out or what its specific role is.

I—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry.

Go on, Annie. 

Annie first.

I would say that it's been fairly opaque to us as an organisation and, I think, to many of the partners that we work with. We haven't seen it driving action, but there may be—. Obviously, I can't speak for its work, having not had access to it, really. But I think perhaps at the outset there was a feeling that there would be priorities identified and delivered through this process, but we haven't seen any specific budget attached as part of that process, as far as I'm aware. So, I'm sure perspectives just are different, depending on whether you're part of it or not part of it, do you know what I mean? I don't know the answers. 

Okay. Gareth.

I agree with Annie. I think there are advantages of it being slightly outside of Government; it might give some more freedom. But, with any stakeholder group, it needs to see that its work is actually delivering towards Government targets, and if, as Annie says, that's slightly opaque, it becomes difficult for people to understand what's the value of their work and how is it actually going to effect the change that they hope to see happen.

Okay. Well, this is interesting to us, because the narrative that was being presented to us this morning was that it was bringing significant added value to the sector. That might not necessarily be in terms of budgets and cash, but certainly in terms of this strengthening of collaborative culture, bringing organisations together, leaning on each other, sharing expertise, that kind of thing. Are you saying that you don't really recognise that?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I can very well believe that is the case for the members of that group, but we're not part of it, and don't find it easy to engage with it.

Because for some of us, I think, for RSPB Cymru, as one of the main players in this landscape, to not feel engaged and involved, I think is a bit concerning, really. Steve.

As part of another role, I chair a group that is enabling the environmental sector, which I think we'll come to—

We will, yes.

—but I think that group essentially answers some of the concerns around the core work of the green recovery group, because it is, I think, reprioritising some of the ideas that were captured through the priority for actions process. I think what this group that is now convened is showing us, in conjunction with things like the biodiversity deep dive, is that the priorities that were initially identified have changed, and that was just a snapshot. The biodiversity deep dive is still going on, it's still a process that is happening, but it's likely that resourcing, enabling new ideas to actually rescue and restore nature, will emerge from that process, which will require new kinds of action. So, I think there is a reprioritisation going on, and there is an additional process that's developed that is including the NGO sector beyond what initially happened.

And you're right, we will be coming to that in a minute, so, before we come to that, I'll invite Janet maybe to just come in on another area before we move on.

I lost my papers there, sorry. So, what action has been taken to support the ENGOs, then, since the initial report? And also—. Well, yes, that's it, really—what action has been taken to support the ENGO sector, would you say? Since the initial report.

Gareth or Annie? Annie.

I think the critical thing is Steve's previous answer about the enabling the sector group, which has been part of the same thing.

Okay, fine. Well, if there's no more to say about the other stuff, I think that message is coming through loud and clear, so let's focus—. Oh, sorry, Jenny—you wanted to come in before we focus on the EES group.

I'm just a bit confused, because we just heard in the earlier session that the Welsh Government gave a considerable sum of money back in 2021 to help the delivery group fund various projects that had been put to them by the environmental sector. So, I find it a bit difficult to understand how this is not having any results at all. 

I can only answer from our experience as an organisation, and probably don't have the full picture of that, Jenny, I guess. 

Okay. Fine. Okay, let's move on then, and, Joyce, I think you're taking us in another direction. 

Good afternoon, everybody. I just want to record my membership of the RSPB at this stage, because I didn't do it earlier. I would like to know the views on the role of the enabling the environment sector group. So, if you can share those with us, that would be great. 

Do we ask the chair first, or do we ask the others first? Go on then, Steve, you make the first pitch. 

Actually, I think hearing from the others first might be better.

Yes, okay, let's do that, then. Gareth, do you want to kick off on this one? 

Yes. So, I sit on that group alongside Steve and others. I think probably the answer here is it's working but it's slow progress, and that's not a criticism of the actual function of the group. There is open dialogue, but I think what we're looking at, with the scale of the challenge we're facing, is that there needs to be a bit more momentum behind actually getting things done. We've got a lot of process and talking about how things can work and how we might be able to come across some of the funding barriers, or whether that's going back to the old model that we used to have under Countryside Council for Wales strategic-level partnerships, which would be very welcome, or whether that's multi-annual funding streams through different mechanisms. That's one option, but it's also recognising the role of what ENGOs can do. To be fair, it differs massively across the ENGO networks. Some have different functions to others, and we also need to bear in mind that there are other non-environmental sectors that could work in terms of health benefits—how we're working with Action on Smoking and Health Cymru; those sorts of things that we're talking about—smoking, health, and that kind of thing. 

So, it's the environment sector we're talking to, but, obviously, that's only a snapshot of part of society, so we need to think about how that fits into the bigger picture, and how we actually bring that together in a way that delivers whatever it is that Government is trying to get to. I think enabling the environment sector is one thing, but enabling us to deliver a clear strategy would be another.  

Okay. Annie. 

I agree with that. It's not just about the resilience of the sector; it's about capacity to meet the challenges that Wales is facing, and, indeed, meet the Government's objectives on that. But, just to support what Gareth has said, I think it's fairly early days for this new group, but discussions—I understand I'm not in it—I understand, are positive and going in the right direction. So, high hopes, but I think it's fair to say it's early days, Steve.  

Yes. We've met, I think, three times now, plus one workshop, so it is fairly recently formed. So, very clearly, some of the advantages of the fact that the group exists surround its strategic imperative, the fact that it's taking an overview, the fact that it's taking stock of just what skills there are in the ENGO sector. It's actually linking together funders outside Government, as well as parts of Government, actually, in the same group of people who sit alongside ENGOs. So, it is doing quite appropriate things, I think, to enable the sector and take it forward.

We have, I think, focused quite a lot on one particular issue, which is the extent to which the ENGO sector could or should be core funded by Government, and we've debated quite a lot around what barriers there may be to that, what opportunities there are, and how it could be achieved. I think that's taken quite a lot of our agenda time up to this point, which, again, I'm sure we'll come on to to talk a little bit about. My perspective is that we are talking quite energetically. We are talking about ways of reporting on what the sector brings, how it could also reach the private sector in various ways if that were deemed appropriate. But this debate about core funding, I think, has concentrated a lot of our time. 

If I can, Chair—

Yes. 

We heard a lot this morning about funding, as you would expect, and it's right that we did. But we also heard about making it more accessible, more understandable, removing some of the barriers to getting funding—I know we're not talking about core funding specifically—and also, of course, about the coming to the end of the European funds and what replaces those, because large swathes of European funding were in your sector. So, I just want to know how engaged the organisations feel—and I'm assuming both of you would have had European funding—in that dialogue, going forward. 

Gareth.

Yes, obviously, we've had European funding, to some extent, over the years. And I think the bridge now is: what are the funding mechanisms we've got? We're having conversations with the Welsh Government fisheries department versus the previous European maritime fisheries fund—how does that work. And that's not just ENGOs; that's the fishing industry as well. So, it's how do we co-design that and take forward opportunities, which is great, and that should hopefully link across the work on WMAAG. That's useful. But I think one of the big challenges is that a lot of the funding is often competitive, so instead of enabling collaboration, it enables competition, which is a zero-sum game, isn't it—you end up with people trying to outbid each other or competing for the same resource, and that isn't really going to give us a really useful way of actually driving forward changes in biodiversity across Wales.

That's all, really, I've got to say on that. Government funding is one thing; European funding, in some respects, was more useful because it allowed a day rate, so not just NGOs, but other sectors that wanted to engage could actually take a day out of work to attend workshops and things like that. Currently, that doesn't exist. So, particularly for some sectors, that's a barrier to engagement, which obviously means we lose their voice in that, and their considerations as well. 

Yes, that's an important point. Thank you. Annie, anything to add?

Yes, just to emphasise that the loss of EU LIFE funding, which funded some really big, exciting nature projects, is a really big loss when you consider the scale of the projects that you could deliver. We don't have many routes to multimillion pound collaborative projects, and, as Gareth said, collaboration was resourced as part of that, and that's a big miss as far as we're concerned. 

And I can speak from experience, having visited a few LIFE projects, that that work is immensely valuable, and if we were to lose that kind of funding stream, as you say, that allows so much to happen at such scale, then it would be serious, wouldn't it. Jenny, you wanted to come in. 

Thank you. I just want to address the equity issue, because Coed Cadw raised the concern that social justice hadn't been discussed in the IEP group. That surprises me, given that you've got two lottery organisations represented there, and the lottery is mainly funded by people on lower incomes, and they do worse on having a decent environment. So, I just wondered if you could explain why Coed Cadw have raised that concern in their paper, and what you might be prepared to do about it. 

Steve.

I think it's probably an accident if we haven't covered it, because, very clearly, the whole ways of working, intergenerational equity, is absolutely a critical part of environmental degradation. And if we don't hand on an appropriately managed, well-resourced environment to future generations, there is an intergeneration justice issue, as well as a social justice issue. So, I'm sure it's accidental, and I will put that on the agenda for the next meeting. 

One of the other things that I think is coming out of the biodiversity deep-dive discussions is also this same point that, quite often, the poorest communities in Wales, and elsewhere, are the ones who actually live under the worst environmental circumstances. So, whatever action we do take, going forward, around enabling climate, nature activities, ensuring that people who are in difficult circumstances benefit is an absolutely critical part of our mission. So, if we haven't covered that, we should have, and I apologise. 

Okay, thank you for that reassurance, because you will be aware that people who live in super-output areas of deprivation are the least likely to visit and enjoy the wonders of our Welsh countryside. 

Thank you, Jenny. Okay. Janet. 

Mine have just been asked, before, so—. 

Okay, fine. Well, I'll pick up then on the comments made earlier about core funding, which was one area, I think, that you're keen to come back to. What can you tell us about, fundamentally, whose job it is to provide that? 

This is clearly something that the ENGOs feel strongly about, and their argument is that they are delivering a core mission of Government action and activity, in the same way, for example, that the health service might be delivering core aspects of the way we need to live our lives. So, that is a large part of the argument. There is also a historical past, in which the predecessor organisations of NRW did core fund some organisations through partnership for certain activities. Some of the challenges are in the fact that, clearly, Government procurement rules have changed. I think there's another interesting challenge in that we have a large number of ENGOs who have different sizes and do different things, and, actually, finding an appropriate formula to fund each of them in a core way is quite a challenging thing to think through. I don't know what the algorithm might look like. And it almost takes us to the point that core funding could only be delivered if it were in some collaborative venture through, for example, Wales Environment Link. And, if that's the case, then all we're doing is passing on a challenging algorithm for distributing core funding, but, also, it begins to sound more like project funding if that's the case. So, I hear the arguments at this stage from the sector. At the moment, I don't actually envision a clear way to making the case for core funding, other than the importance of the work the sector delivers, but I think this is a live debate, actually, within the group. 

It is. And I'm going to invite the organisations who are here to make the case, really, and to tell us what they would like to see—so, Gareth or Annie. Gareth, first of all.  

I think, looking at some of the things we can do, speaking for the Marine Conservation Society, obviously, we do quite a bit of research and monitoring. Some of this is actually in the reporting to OSPAR for the whole UK, in terms of things like beach litter. It's expensive to do. We do that through a voluntary mechanism—our Seasearch volunteers—but it needs coordinators and we need to think about health and safety costs. So, it's not a zero-sum cost for us, and we're now being asked to look at kelp monitoring across the UK. So, there needs to be a mechanism for us to do that.

And I think that brings me to my main point, which is that often it's about the intervention rates as well. It's not 100 per cent funding, so we need to match that, and, of course, to match that, we need to have service staff behind us. And I apologise for calling them 'services', but human resources, our finance staff, all of these kinds of things need to be there. We need to have capital to match that funding, and we're trying to deliver things on a shoestring. Often, that's quite challenging. It means we need to stop doing other work in order to deliver something to get funding in, which often means that our priorities can change, depending on funding streams. And it makes it quite difficult to retain staff in some cases, based on that, because, let's be honest, it's a competitive market out there. If someone's only going to get an 18-month post, they'll probably spend the last three months of that looking for another job. So, the lack of security means we can often have high turnover in these public-facing jobs and some of the survey work. I'm sure Annie's got some other comments to add. 

Annie. 

I am aware that Wales Environment Link is developing some work on this, which, I think, will be probably valuable to share, because there are people who are much more expert in this than I am, certainly. But, if we are thinking about the scale of the emergency that we're facing and the scale of uplift we're looking for in terms of delivery, we have to acknowledge that we're talking about major programmes of work and we have to acknowledge the challenges of going from project to project. So, we can't just ask for collaboration and expect it to happen; it needs to be resourced. I think I'll leave it there, because I'm going beyond the edges of my expertise and hopefully, as Steve's described, there's quite a long way to go with this, with our contributions.

Just one other thing to add as well, we've almost heard very different perspectives on what core funding actually consists of, from actually delivering projects around environmental monitoring, which very clearly is a potential Government activity, right the way through to providing the back-room services through which what our donation-funded organisations actually carry out. So, I think, until we bottom out what core funding really means, and the diversity of core funding activities that ENGOs need to be funded through, it is quite difficult to make the case. But these are some of the next steps for what our committee will be going through.

I was going to ask whether that was on your list of things to do. Jenny, did you want to come in again, or is your hand still up from previously? Yes.

Please. I'm keen to follow this up. I appreciate it's very difficult to get core funding from charitable trusts; they like to fund projects. But when the Marine Conservation Society is monitoring beach litter on behalf of the Welsh Government, surely they're adding in some oncosts for the back-room things, which are essential to any organisation, as part of what that project is going to cost. Because if you start having—. Do you agree that if you start having core funding provided by the Welsh Government, you've lost your independence, because you will not feel able to challenge, where we obviously need organisations to challenge if the environmental issues are not being taken forward appropriately?

Gareth.

I think this is what Steve's coming back to. Targeted monitoring work is quite easily—it's just projects. It has a clear mandate on what it does and doesn't do. We do factor in annual costs, but there are maximum inflation costs that can be put forward in bids. And, obviously, it's a very live issue at the moment with inflation massively changing month on month, and fuel costs and things like that changing as well. So, what you may have committed to, say in a two-year project, the end costs have to come from somewhere, and you still need to deliver that work in order to draw down the funding. So, there needs to be some flexibility there as well. It's a very live discussion through 'Natur am Byth!' as well, where the whole range of sectors that are involved in that, including NRW, are having to think about how do we deal with the inflation costs when we've locked ourselves into a funding stream. There are options.

But on the point of independence, I think that's where we need to be clear on what it is that Welsh Government intends to fund, and then also recognising what it doesn't. And I think that having those clear boundaries are very important. It allows us to be the critical friend, which is one of our important roles, and also allows Welsh Government to use our services for targeted actions as well. But there's never going to be one answer for everyone.

Okay. This isn't unique, of course, to the environmental NGOs, is it? It's a common theme across the whole of the voluntary sector, I'd imagine, or the wider third sector. But are there any particular aspects that are unique or more relevant to this particular sector?

Two things. From my perspective, operating in a research organisation, we raise very substantial overhead costs on any project that we run, which then do pay for the operation of a university. And I think that is quite different in the ENGO sector, who are perceived as being charitable and therefore should be more charitable and more cost-effective in the way they run. That's an interesting contrast. Having been given the responsibility in the past of having to defend, for example, the salaries of chief executives of RSPB organisations being scrutinised externally for being too expensive, I think this is an interesting area of debate. However, the quality of work delivered by ENGOs very often is incredibly powerful and extremely effective, so there is no reason why there shouldn't be an argument for core funding costs being added as part of overheads and operating benefit.

Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. I think that's a clear message for us there just to conclude this particular aspect of our scrutiny. I think we'll move on now to a different area, and I'll invite Huw Irranca-Davies to lead us on that.

Thanks, Llyr. We're going to go on the area now of the interim environmental governance processes. We'll try to go into this in a bit of depth here. I guess the first thing is—it's a broad question: what's your experience been so far of engaging with the interim assessor? Now, don't go into the issues of, 'Well, we'd like to see it being something very different' or 'We'd like a stronger remit, this, that and the other.' But, just in terms of your engagement, how has that been? Have you been engaged with the interim assessor in any way, either with submissions or an a day-to-day basis? Who'd like to kick off?

Annie.

I can kick off, if you like, yes. There are a few problems. RSPB was part of the stakeholder group that the Welsh Government convened to work on environmental governance, and that's been dormant since last September, but before that group stopped meeting, Dr Llewelyn Jones did come and join one or two of our sessions, and in one of them, actually, we had a discussion on one of the live issues that she was working on, which was a really valuable process. And I think, obviously, that's fallen away as a kind of standard piece of process, but one of the things I really welcome is that that stakeholder contact has been re-established as a regular thing for the assessor, so that's great.

As the RSPB, we have made one submission and had a discussion about it and about where to go with it, which has been a really positive process. We're at the early stages in that, but I absolutely commend the approach being taken by the assessor in terms of her approach to issues that are coming up with her. I know that I'm not to stray into other issues, but we haven't seen much come out into the public domain so far, so I think that that establishment of stakeholder meetings is really positive. I think, otherwise—. You have to know how everything works, but the offer is absolutely there, and, as I say, there's not much in front of us to make wider comment.

Annie, before we go to the other panellists for any of their thoughts on this, that engagement that you've had on the one submission that you've put forward, practically, can you inform the committee how that works? Does the interim assessor come back to you and say, 'Let's have a discussion on this; we think we can help with shaping this submission' or give any feedback on it? Is that, practically, the way it works?

Yes. So, we put in a paper and there's a—. We just wrote a paper and put it in. There is now a form that people can use to submit issues—that's quite a recent development—and then you get an automatic message that says, 'Thank you. We'll get back to you in a few weeks', which you'll all be accustomed to, obviously. And then, yes, we had an approach to set up a meeting to discuss our issue and how to take it forward. I think one of the things that is clear is that this isn't a process with a one-size-fits-all approach; the submissions are different in nature, the submitters are different in nature in terms of how they might be able to work, to collaborate on taking something forward, potentially. So, I think, in our case, we can work together further to help the assessor to explore the issue and make some recommendations.

Thanks, Annie. I wonder whether we could extend the same question to the other panellists, but again focusing on your experience of engaging with the interim assessor.

Shall we go to Gareth first, then? Yes.

Yes. My answer will be quite short. We haven't actually engaged with the interim assessor at the moment, so I can't really give any reflection on that at all. It's one for Steve, really.