National Assembly for Wales

Diolch yn fawr, Chair. Good morning. Bore da. Are you involved in any of the biodiversity deep-dive working groups, and, if so, how are they progressing in terms of implementation?

Shall I kick off? Dŵr Cymru are a member of the biodiversity deep-dive; we were there from the inception. We find them a really useful body to get together, bringing experts, specialists, to really be able to get behind the evidence of where we are on biodiversity and how climate change is affecting that. We welcome the exercise and working in partnership. The next stage for us, I think, is to start to turn this into some hard targets. We’re understanding the state of the nation; now what we need to do is decide what we’re going to do and by when.  

Thank you. How often do they meet? And also, in written evidence, you say there is a need to generate national ownership of the deep-dive recommendations. How might this be done? The reason I ask those questions is that we know of many groups that meet together; it’s seeing targets, it’s seeing outcomes and delivery that we want to see as people very keen on nature recovery and biodiversity. 

So, I think the frequency is fine at the moment, but it is—

How often is that?

Well, there are different sub-groups meeting.

Oh dear.

Yes. But I think, in terms of the quarterly process that's been going on, we're quite comfortable at the pace at which those things are happening, if we can then turn this into an action plan. As we've said, for us, I think it's now time—. A lot of us are delivery agencies. It's about what we are going to do by when. And so that national plan, that point about—. Everybody who is involved in managing the landscape of Wales has a part to play, not just two or three willing organisations who are turning up to those groups.

So, on that point, too often we hear, and it almost sounds like buck passing, that these groups are open to certain people, but only the same few people turn up each time. Would I be right in assuming that?

Yes. We're not aware that, actually, that many local authorities attend. I certainly have never been invited, so—

And these are minuted groups, are they? Are the minutes or notes publicised?

I don't get anything—

In fairness, if you haven't attended then you wouldn't know, would you? I presume there is a public record.

Yes.

Thank you.

Gwyn, what's your experience?

Yes, I think I would agree with that. Local authorities aren't represented on the groups. We're aware of what goes on in them through ordinary reporting structures, but in terms of being involved in them, then—

So, are you invited to attend, or local authorities don't have a place on that group?

As far as I'm aware, I don't think we're on the group.

Can I just ask a question on local nature partnerships? Are there any representatives from them on the group, would you know, and wildlife trusts?

I wouldn't know about the wildlife trusts, but, from a local nature partnership point of view, I'm not aware that our nature partnership is represented at all, so I'm not sure that there are that many that represent the partnership. Individual organisations that form a part of the partnership might be invited separately.

We can enquire about that.

We'll enquire about that further. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Well, I'm coming to you next, Carolyn.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have any comments on the proposed new biodiversity recovery framework in the recent White Paper, and the Welsh Government's response following the consultation? And to what extent are the proposals for the Bill suitable for public authorities?

We were quite pleased with the Welsh Government's response. After there was quite a lot of discussion about the nature partnerships in the original proposal, it was entirely missed out. So, I think ensuring that those nature partnerships are now a key delivery mechanism, and that's recognised—. We're a lot more comfortable with that, because there's no point removing something that works incredibly well at the local level to bring in something brand new. And I think that will continue to work, as long as local authorities have the resources to be able to co-ordinate those local nature partnerships. It all requires some sort of management of those nature partnerships to bring them together and ensure that the nature delivery for action across each county makes sense and is targeted at the right places. Without that kind of co-ordination through the local authorities, I think some local nature partnerships would probably not work.

Does the Local Places for Nature funding—? Chair, I just want to say that I was a councillor and biodiversity champion prior to becoming a Member of the Senedd. That’s why I have the knowledge. And I’ve been working on a programme called It’s for Them with local authorities. Maybe I should have said that earlier.

That’s fine. We'll note that. 

So, the Local Places for Nature funding, which I think was part of the enabling natural resources and well-being funding, has been useful, has it, for that?

It’s been probably the most successful grant scheme that we’ve had come through from the Welsh Government for a very long time. At the moment, funding is not confirmed yet for next year, which means that that delivery mechanism is currently potentially going to disappear at the end of this financial year, including all of the staff and all of that support for the local nature partnerships, and all the community groups that are also doing really good work out there.

So, the Welsh Government intends to introduce a duty on public authorities to contribute to the delivery of biodiversity targets. Local authorities used to have to have a local biodiversity action plan, didn’t they, before. So, do you agree that the proposal to achieve this through statutory guidance is the best way to achieve this, or do you think that it’s by continuing through the local nature partnerships that you’ve already had, working with volunteers, as long as the funding is in place? Is that what you’re saying?

I think, in relation to targets, obviously all public authorities have got the biodiversity duty already placed on them. Perhaps that could be tweaked so that there was clearer monitoring and enforcement and actually understanding what the expectation is—what does success look like? Because, at the moment, we produce a plan and say what we’re going to be able to do, and then that’s it. That’s great, but are we actually doing enough? We don’t know. So, some kind of steer would be helpful. But, on setting biodiversity targets and requiring authorities to contribute, it depends on the target. It depends on what we’re expected to be delivering. All I can say is, really, that it would be great if we could be involved in working up any future target, and then we can make sure that it is actually deliverable and realistic and ensure that we’ve got delivery mechanisms in place for it.

Do you think it would help if a biodiversity officer or somebody within a local authority would help them? It would be acceptable across all service areas then, whether it’s highways, or whatever, education. It would help all of those service areas within a local authority to deliver biodiversity targets if it was statutory. Do you think it would help those working in that area?

Well, the biodiversity duty is already statutory on all of those areas, but all of those service areas have got a lot to worry about without actually trying to understand biodiversity as well. So, it’s still reliant on the biodiversity officers and the ecologists to go and inform and help them achieve anything. I’ve trained as an ecologist for a long length of time; why would somebody in engineering know enough about biodiversity to be able to know what they need to be delivering? So, there’s always got to be that support mechanism within a local authority from ecology staff, which there are very few of. So, I think the realistic side of things would need to come in there.

Would it help, then—and maybe, Gwyn, you can come in on this—if the duty to contribute to targets was quantified for local authorities, in terms of what exactly it is, and not what kind of activity, but how much they are expected to achieve?

Yes, I think so. And if you were looking at something akin to what was brought in in England in relation to biodiversity net gain, then that's obviously had a big impact and does mean that there is something a bit more tangible for those other departments to start getting involved in. So, certainly, I think introducing a statutory duty—. I mean, politically, obviously, in all our councils, biodiversity is a priority, or it's supposed to be a priority. We've declared nature emergencies, but could you ever imagine somebody taking money off education or social services in order to fund it? Not really. So, in the pecking order of priorities, it's quite close to the bottom, perhaps, if we put it that way.

Statutory duties do introduce a certain liability on the authority, and so that sort of bolsters it somewhat, but, as Rebecca says, there is already a section 6 duty trying to implement that. In my authority, we do that through environmental champions. We try to get champions in each department to come along. In reality, you find that the people who are most interested in biodiversity turn up, rather than, necessarily, trying to target exactly what needs to happen in each department and then being able to get the right people along. So, a duty would probably help with that, insomuch as there'd be a little bit of clout behind it, but it's then what comes with that duty and what the penalties are, I suppose, for not doing it.

Thank you. You mentioned funding and that it's fossilised and complex, so you talk about how a three-year funding stream would be much better—

I'd be cheeky and ask for 10, to be honest with you, but—[Laughter.]

I think there are a lot of nodding heads here.

[Inaudible.]—you get a lot of funding delivery one-year applications, and you just can't strategically plan to deliver and make a difference with those kinds of funding cycles, really, because of the lead-in times required—

Rhys—

I'll give you an example. We receive a lot of peatland restoration funding from NRW, which has been brilliant. It's getting a little bit more complex to get hold of, but that's an internal NRW process and we won't go into that. But these are annual funding blocks. Now, we've got employed specialists in peatland that are living from one year to the other, so it's difficult for them from a personal perspective to make decisions about their lifestyle, where they work, et cetera. But it's very stop-start, and by the time that we've got clearance or assurance that there's funding for another year of work, we've then got two to four months of lag time in NRW to release the funding on an agreed work programme.

In a 12-month spending cycle, when you lose a quarter of it to administration, it gets very difficult then to deliver, and it makes the delivery body look shoddy, because you haven't reached the objectives that you were hoping to reach. So, there are certainly mechanisms that need to be greased or to be made simpler and more effective in how the funding comes through. Even if it is short-term funding, it could be done better, or it could be made easier to administer and govern, to allow us to make more inroads, really, into our targets.

Okay. And, when we talk about landscapes, designated landscapes, that's also AONBs as well as national parks, isn't it?

Yes. 

Their funding is received differently, I believe. Is it through NRW and local authorities, rather than directly from Welsh Government?

Yes. And I think that's been a bit of an issue, really, that the AONBs don't have a funding formula at all, so there are a lot of regional differences in how they're funded and how they use their funds. I think that's been picked up in the 'Valued and Resilient' report in 2018, that they needed better parity, especially with national parks as well. Inroads have been made through Welsh Government, and the AONBs are very thankful for that, but there's still quite a way to go, really. So, it's difficult for them, because they're dipping into NRW funding, social development funding, so you haven't got that consistency across the board, really, and again, no baseline that they can rely on.

The Campaign for National Parks were talking about using our designated landscapes to improve biodiversity, because it's not shown an improvement in those areas, even though they're designated. Your thoughts on that.

Yes. Well, you know, it's part of—. Probably the only thing that the Senedd—. Sorry, I'm thinking in Welsh.

That's okay.

No, I started in English, so I'll carry on. I think it's one of those things that it's not our primary purpose, really. You know, we're a landscape designation, so the biodiversity targets come as an addition, and we welcome that and I think there's always a desire there for us to do more, as we see ourselves as being an exemplar, with the ability to lead. But, again, it's the same barriers really: funding, land ownership and financial stability are all things that don't allow us to deliver as effectively as we could. We could do more, but you feel that your hands are tied and there is that restriction, and if you're a pragmatic delivery-orientated person like me, it gets quite frustrating at times.

Okay. You all nodded about the three, so I get that. Earlier, we mentioned the section 6 biodiversity duty. What's your experience of it and has the duty had any impact, do you think, in terms of positive outcomes?

Definitely. I would say that with, initially, the lack of guidance, I think that that's resulted in, possibly, quite a bit of inconsistency across Wales—just putting my hat on as a representative of the Association of Local Government Ecologists, so I do talk to my colleagues. So, everybody's approaching it slightly differently and some authorities are a bit stronger on it than others, shall we say? But I would say that that duty has essentially put biodiversity on the radar in local authorities. Instead of us trying to keep under the radar and hoping that nobody notices that we're here and deletes us, we can now shout and try and force our way into conversations and push that agenda forward, because we've got that clout now. And I think it's still going to be slow-going, because any change in government organisations can take a while, but I think there is momentum behind it now. I think we've got quite a long way to go for biodiversity to necessarily be considered at the same kind of priority level as other things, shall we say? But we're moving in the right direction.

Okay. And you've talked about the variation between local authorities in terms of implementation of the biodiversity duty. Gwyn, is that something that you feel as well?

Yes. It's an extra tool that you can use, and perhaps it opens some doors in some of the decisions that are being made, whereas previously it might have been an afterthought. But there's a duty, so naturally then we can push our point a little bit. But, yes, it is implemented differently across each authority.

Okay. I suppose they all have their own priorities, don't they?

And every authority is different as well, geographically, demographically.  

Yes. 

And the biodiversity is different as well. We need to remember that everything is different, you know. 

Yes. Just on to pollution. 

Yes, if you want to go on to pollution. 

Okay. So, Wildlife Trusts Wales highlights that local authorities have not received any guidance to help achieve the global biodiversity target to reduce pesticide use by 2030. Are local authorities developing their own policies on pesticide use and what are the implications of this lack of guidance?

I was talking to a ranger the other day, and he was saying that the strimmers they use now—instead of using pesticide they have to strim everything—he's really concerned now about the plastic of the strimmer cord. It breaks down and then that adds pollution into the earth as well. So, he wants a campaign to try and make that so it's biodegradable, but lasts in a way to do the job. So, just your thoughts on that really. 

On the pesticides particularly. Initially.

On the pesticides, sorry. [Laughter.] I've gone off at a tangent because it reminded me, sorry.  

I think any guidance would be helpful to push that kind of agenda forward. I think, as a local authority, we don't tend to use pesticides unless it's necessary. Maybe there are some things that could be reeled back a little bit, but generally our herbicide use is for treating Japanese knotweed, trip hazards on pavements, and then we've got obviously insecticides and rodenticides being used in environmental health and pest control. That's largely it.

That's what I thought. 

And is your experience similar?

I think you'll find that varies quite significantly according to authorities. So, there is a general working practice, albeit not a policy as such, in my authority to reduce pesticide use. On the implications of that, obviously—. If you look at other authorities that have got rid of it completely and moved over entirely to manual means of trying to remove weeds and stay on top of things, it gets quite expensive. It's only really been through external funding that we've been able to lever to get a ranger team in the last year or so. So, the idea that we'd simply be able to transfer over to that and do it without it being cost-effective would be quite difficult. 

With your external funding, can I just ask where you might get it from, before I go to Rhys? Sorry. Because it's really important that we know that there are all these external funding streams as well. 

So, we're funding the ranger team through the sustainable prosperity fund, which has come down through UK Gov. 

Okay. Thank you. 

All right. Rhys. 

Just a quick note, really. Our pesticide or herbicide use is generally low as a national park, but I think we need to put a marker down in terms of developing policy or we would be very, very worried about moving towards a non-use of, in particular, glyphosate. The risk of losing glyphosate as a chemical or a treatment process would be massive for us, especially in Eryri, because it's the only effective means of treating invasive species, such as rhododendron, Japanese knotweed and so on, and we have a lot of it. If we were to transition into a life with no chemical involvement at the moment and look at mechanical means of managing, the cost would be astronomical and it would undo millions of investment that we've put into the management already, really. I'm not saying it's the best solution in terms of the environment, I acknowledge that, but it's used sparingly in a very controlled manner, but we can't do without it at the moment until something else comes as a better substitute, really. 

Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Janet, you wanted to come in here. 

Yes. This is to Dŵr Cymru now. How might Government better protect biodiversity in freshwater and coastal environments from pollution?  

So, we know that pollution's mulitfactoral, but from a water company perspective, we're not where we want to be at all for the number of pollution incidents that are occurring. I think, if you look at the biggest cause of pollution from the water industry in Wales, it is still blockages, and therefore—. I've sat here a few times talking about wet wipe bans, and we're still in a situation where they are still the biggest cause of pollution in Wales.

The second biggest cause over the last couple of years, and this is changing, is a lack of containment of our network. With climate change, the intensity of rainfall, we can't keep it in the pipe network, and, therefore, actually, to try and manage that, we've got to look even harder at surface water removal upstream and separating that rainwater from the sewage so that we don't get a pollution incident. Nature-based solutions have a clear part to play in that, and, again, I've sat here a few times talking about our need to see more nature-based solutions. At the moment, that is still an uphill battle with legislation, particularly around permitting from Natural Resources Wales. We still haven't got a clear picture of how they will permit nature-based solutions.

Actually, an unintended consequence of Ofwat's approach around the price control, where they're setting new targets—these price control deliverables, where, basically, we have to say what we're going to deliver by a certain date and deliver it, and we get big penalties if we don't—. Well, a nature-based solution, as some of my colleagues have been talking about, you can't do in one year. They take a bit of time to mature et cetera, and, if I'm pushed to do surface water removal quickly, the easiest way of doing that and meeting those timetables without getting any fines would be building big concrete storage tanks, because I can scope them, I can build them and I can get them in the ground, and I have the statutory powers to do that. The minute we're trying to go above ground and build nature-based solutions, I have to work in co-operation with others and we need permitting. So, I think they're the areas where I'd really like to see us explore how we can facilitate quicker delivery of nature-based solutions. 

Okay, thank you. Yes, there is a total disconnect, because I have to tell you, at the moment, we're probably all receiving them, but I've got two areas in my constituency where people are adamant that there is pollution. So, I write to Dŵr Cymru and NRW, but I don't get any particularly fast responses, and it's really frustrating when you get people saying, 'What are you doing about it?' I can't do any more than report it in. But we have got some new developments and we had an area where there were about 50 houses, and part of their conditions were that they had to have proper drainage systems. It took about three years to get them to—. In fact, I've just asked Dŵr Cymru whether they're connected properly, because we're getting lots of pollution incidents now. You say it's wet wipes, and I've always maintained that. We had a panel in a couple of weeks ago—I was on there, because I didn't come down—and they were adamant that it's farming that's causing all of the pollution, and I really get frustrated when we hear different things. So, my two questions to you are: how can Dŵr Cymru and NRW work much faster together, when a Member in particular, or even a member of the public, reports a pollution incident, and (2) what action are you taking on these developers who illegally connect or don't connect or whatever? There's an awful lot of reasons, I think, why we've got pollution, blockages being one, I hate it when farmers get blamed all of the time, and then these illegal connections, as I call them. 

People still have a statutory right to connect to the sewer network, so, actually—

But it's how they do it.

Yes, and we've got good legislation in Wales—better than England—but we need to work quicker, working with local authorities, the planning authority, to make sure that new developments follow the full sustainable drainage systems legislation and that that's done in a timely way. As part of our approach to try and get surface water out and deal with storm overflows, you will see a more, dare I say, aggressive Welsh Water pushing developers and others in this space, because, clearly, the public are seeing that there's water coming out of overflows, going, 'This is terrible, we want to see it fixed quicker', and that part of development has a part to play. We need, as a water company, to be a bit more aggressive around how we police that. 

Definitely.

Just to remind Members, we do have a separate session with Natural Resources Wales later on—

Yes, yes, I get that. 

—where water is one aspect. Before anybody else says anything, there are multiple contributors to pollution; it's not one or the other.

Thank you, Chair. I've started something.

There's no silver bullet; I think it's a multifaceted issue and there are so many key players that have to pull their socks up, frankly. Do you mind if we just go to Carolyn for—? 

I just want to ask a quick question.

Go on then. Go on.

In terms of getting that message out about wet wipes, we periodically have notifications telling people that it's wrong and it causes problems. What are you doing, if anything, or how can we help you do it, to get that message out clearly?

So, we're continuing with our 'stop the block' message. What we're finding is it is far more effective if it more targeted at local community level. Mass communication in this sort of space, people are aware of it, but it's not changing behaviour, and that's what we actually want to see. So, I think it is helping to support campaigning, that message. I think I would really appreciate it to see Westminster and Cardiff working together on a wet wipe ban, and certainly plastic-containing wet wipes. But, actually, we're doing quite a bit ourselves here. This is a place where we're putting artificial intelligence in now to try and spot better where blockages are occurring, and our initial work in this space is having real positive impact in the two pilot areas where we've been doing it. As you know, we've been putting lots of monitors in our sewer network over the last few works. Now we're harnessing AI to be able to say what's going in this network, and we're proving quite successful at being able to find blockages before they turn into pollution incidents. Now what we're going to try and do is, using that data of where this is happening, go into those communities and educate a bit harder.

Can you keep us updated?

Absolutely.

Thank you. Right, we'll move on then. Carolyn.

I was going to suggest, when people have their bills, you could say something then—a little leaflet about not having wet wipes. And where landowners don't understand that, their ditches, drains and culverts, it's up to them to clear them, to make sure that they contain the water and it doesn't go on the highway. It's another thing we could do, working altogether, I think.

We need to move on to planning.

Right, planning. Sorry, it's such an interesting topic.

It is. We could be here all day, and we will at this rate, so let's—. [Laughter.]

Yes, thank you. So, planning. Do you have any early reflections on the net benefit for biodiversity in planning?

I do, yes. Up until a couple of years ago, I was the county ecologist for Neath Port Talbot, so it was my job to get involved a lot with planning, and I still do, on some of the really big schemes that we've got going on in Neath Port Talbot. I would say that the most recent update of 'Planning Policy Wales' 12, the chapter 6 update, was a—. I think it's a step change. I think it strengthened things quite significantly. There's always a certain amount of interpretation that can always be abused, if people want to take it that way, but I would say that, particularly in Neath Port Talbot, my planners are really supportive of the ecologists, and the ecologists' views and our interpretation of 'Planning Policy Wales' and, therefore, it's given us the ammunition and the strength to be able to really push for net benefit.

However, compliance and enforcement—. So, whilst we can push it through planning and make sure the net benefit comes out on a planning decision so that, in theory, it's there, whether it actually happens on the ground is an entirely different question, because we don't have capacity to check compliance or take enforcement action. I've had a few cases be tried to be enforced through our enforcement officers, but it's not common; it's not something that we necessarily have the capacity to check up on. So, I think that there's a little bit of a disconnect there; the actual on the ground reality of whether net benefit is being realised and how far we've managed to push it through the planning system are two different things, I think.

Bore da. I think you say in your evidence that the planning policy can be easily circumvented in the interest of profit over nature. Could you expand on that a bit more, and can you expand on how any further controls could operate? 

It's not necessarily my experience. I think that that obviously comes from the evidence collected by WLGA, which obviously includes information from other local authorities. I think it's possibly the strength that planning officers and ecologists are being able to display when they're having conversations with developers. I've always found that if you're straight up, you're strong, but you're fair and realistic, then they normally will come around eventually. But some people I think really struggle with certain developers. There are certain particular developers out there and there are certain particular types of development that might be a bit more attuned to try and argue that they don't need to do something, that their scheme is more important than the biodiversity, and that, if they are bringing x amount of economic benefit to an area, that should be considered more important than the biodiversity. So, I can see why people end up in those arguments and those discussions, but I think ‘Planning Policy Wales’ is quite clear: you have to deliver a net benefit. Yes, there are clauses in there that allow for exceptional circumstances, which could be better defined, I think. Better guidance on what would be considered an exceptional circumstance where the biodiversity might not necessarily have to go through the very strict process of the step-wise approach in ‘Planning Policy Wales’—that might help with those situations, but I think otherwise it's quite clear you have to be delivering a net benefit and it has to be demonstrated that it is. 

And your experience is that you're usually able to influence developers.

Yes. In Neath Port Talbot we work with developers. So, we actively engage them, we encourage them to start talking to us really early, and we work up a relationship with developers. That's not all of them, obviously. There are some people who really don't want to come to the table and don't want to have a conversation. There are some people you obviously can't help. But we're finding, particularly the larger developments that we deal with in Neath Port Talbot, they're really thankful for that early engagement and steer in relation to what is expected of them, and to be able to pick our brains, to be honest. Because we know what's good for biodiversity in Neath Port Talbot. Their consultants might come from England sometimes, and they might not understand the local context. I've had conversations where I've had a conversation with a developer and a consultant and said, 'Actually, no, you don't need to do that because that doesn't occur in the county.' So we can save them money as well. I think being able to have those frank conversations with developers and working up a relationship with them to manage to get their planning application to be as good as it possibly can in the first place really does help with trying to deliver that net benefit through planning. 

Okay, thank you. We're going to move on now, because we've touched on resourcing and funding a few times, to funding nature recovery. Janet, you're going to take us into that area.

I'm still on—. Sorry. Planning we've done. This is still on funding, No. 14.

Yes. 

Oh, yes, that's fine. Do you have any experience of innovative funding models for nature restoration, such as levering in private finance? 

I don't a lot. We obviously have to get funding in to be able to deliver anything positive for nature, because, basically, local authorities' biodiversity and ecology departments have been underresourced and understaffed for decades now. I did a survey back in 2022, and there's an average of 1.5 people delivering ecology across Wales. So, unless we get further funding, like the Local Places for Nature funding, the staff resource is extreme. Therefore, we have to go and get additional funding, whether it be from the National Lottery Heritage Fund or from the Welsh Government or NRW; we're always looking for additional funding. 

But from a private point of view, the only examples I've got are via the planning side of things, where we've secured additional funding via section 106 agreements to deliver positive things for biodiversity. I think there's potential for other mechanisms through, maybe, the carbon credits side of things. There's potential that's being looked at in relation to peatland restoration, and whether carbon credits could also be assigned to peatland restoration when we restore it back from forestry on the Welsh Government woodland estate, for example. But we haven't had any other experience of other funding mechanisms. 

I know the Welsh Local Government Association did commission a report on the net-zero side of things, and that includes a section on innovative funding. So, they might be able to provide you with that report; that might give some ideas.  

Thanks for your honesty. It's really sad to think that a level of Government, local authorities, which is really important—we've got 22 of them across Wales—that here they did declare nature recovery, and all that—climate and nature recovery emergency—and we haven't got—. They're not seen as important, funding the roles to be able to make sure we're connected to sorting nature recovery. 

I think Gwyn briefly wants to come in as well on this, and then we'll come back to you. 

Section 106 is the obvious one, but that will vary massively by authority. Perhaps the more affluent counties are able to—

Are there any affluent counties in Wales?

I'm in Blaenau Gwent at the moment, previously in the Vale of Glamorgan. They employed a section 106 officer who would go round and extract the maximum value out of section 106, which was a great model if you're in the Vale of Glamorgan where you can get a lot of that out. In Blaenau Gwent, you're generally struggling to try and encourage people to develop at all. So, that can be an useful avenue. Beyond that, trying to monetise what's generally seen as public space is quite difficult. The areas where it has worked tend to be, perhaps like the nature recovery framework, looking at the cultural aspects of it, where you have country parks, then you're able to introduce facilities in there and look at innovative ways to bring back funding either through filming or commercialisation.

I'm just conscious of time. I'll just bring Rhys in, because Rhys wants to—

Can I just quickly say—? In my own constituency, a lot of community groups have started up now—friends of this and that—and they're doing a lot with biodiversity, so I think they deserve acknowledging. 

Yes. We know about the environment fund that Dŵr Cymru have for third sector organisations. 

Yes, just a couple of things, really. We've been delivering peatland restoration and, as Rebecca mentioned, we can look at carbon credits, but, to be frank, the administrative and governance cost of those is very prohibitive, so the uptake in Wales is minimal, because the nature of peatlands in Wales is quite different to Scotland and the north of England in their extent and how they're structured, and some very technical geeky stuff that will get ecologists excited. So, that model itself doesn't lend itself to Wales very well. But it is a mechanism. 

There's a lot to be said of external funding. Just a quick one: we've worked with a famous German car manufacturer to get external funding in, but it's very difficult, and the demands that they put on what they want back from the funding is colossal in a lot of cases. What they were spending on the advertising campaign was higher than what they were providing as financial support to the authority to undertake work. So, the perception that external funding is the golden nugget is far from the truth at the moment; we're heavily reliant on lottery and Government funding, wherever that's derived from, really.

But there are, again, mechanisms that could be improved here. We've just seen the release of the Nature Networks 4 funding coming through now, which had an application window of six weeks to put your bid in, and similarly the integrated natural resources scheme funding—I think that was again a four- to six-week window to put an application in where you're looking at collaborative work with different land managers on that one. So, these time windows are just realistically—. You're not going to be able to get a strategic plan of great value that's going to make a big difference in those very tight time frames when resources are so stretched everywhere, really, and asking land managers to deliver some of them themselves is quite challenging; they haven't got the financial backing to undertake the financial risk of undertaking them.

As an example, we've got a sustainable management scheme programme that we ran as an authority on behalf of a group of land managers, and we have an appeal that's taken four years to process and has still not been sorted. If you were putting that kind of financial stress on individual businesses, it's too much, you'd bankrupt them. So, there are flaws in the system that we need to look at to get that working more effectively, I think, as well. 

I'm conscious we have three or four minutes left, so I'll come to you, Joyce, maybe, just to conclude this session.

It's on monitoring. How do we know if we've changed anything if we don't know what it is that we've changed? So, is it being monitored across Wales, which will then, in turn, inform management?

We do do monitoring to ensure that we understand whether we are making an impact, but there is no consistency of approach across Wales. The best we've got at the moment is the ENGOs' monitoring through the citizen science programmes like the Big Butterfly Count, et cetera, which are long-term data sets. Different authorities are also doing different things, and nature partnerships are doing different things, so how you would collate all of that to report on an all-Wales basis is going to be really difficult.

We used to have a computer system called BARS back in the day, which used to collate all of the action that was being undertaken, but that went a while ago, so there's no mechanism to feed in anything to be added up at the moment. From my authority and my local nature partnership, we have released our state of nature report for Neath Port Talbot, and we do use the DECCA framework to report the ecosystems resilience of all of our habitats, which kind of fits with the approach that came out of SoNaRR. It's not necessarily the case that any other nature partnership is doing that at the moment, but that's the way that we are monitoring.

We also have updated a lot of our data sets, but we've done that on a local basis. We have been reliant for a long time on phase 1 habitat survey information that was produced by—. Well, it wouldn't have been NRW at the time. But for Neath Port Talbot, that habitat data set, which is the only one out there, was created back in the 1970s, so you can imagine how out of date that is. So, we commissioned that to be updated using a remote sensing approach using aerial photos, and then—

I'm just aware we have 30 seconds left, so maybe Rhys, Gwyn, Steve, any reflection on this before we conclude? Steve.

I think we need to collate all this different data that we're collecting together, because actually, through the net benefit for biodiversity, there's actually lots of pockets of this data now being collected; we've got a wealth of citizen scientists out there really engaged. We're doing a bit of work with Cardiff University to see if we can get a platform to get all this data on, because I think what we're all trying to do is to try and understand the picture, and the data sets are very fragmented.

I would agree with everything that Rebecca said, but I would just reiterate that the monitoring that’s happening tends to be almost on a task and finish basis, from my own point of view, and it’s funded by Local Places for Nature. That grant is critical, going forward, to being able to continue knowing where we are. 

A big challenge. We do no monitoring ourselves; we’re heavily reliant on external groups, and a big problem that we have, crossing administrative boundaries, is that we’ve got big regional differences across landscapes on how data is gathered and collated, and it makes recording very difficult. And there’s no reliable baseline that you can use to measure from either, and I think that’s the biggest hurdle at the moment.

Diolch, Chair. Do you have an actual picture of progress towards the global biodiversity framework commitments, especially the 2030 targets, and also, to you, what does success look like?

Ceri, would you like to start?

I'll start off, if I may. Bore da, bawb. Obviously, through the White Paper and the Bill and the response from the Welsh Government to the White Paper, we do have, now, a clearer picture of how the global biodiversity framework targets will be implemented in Wales. In addition, as an organisation we've been working with the Welsh Government, with the UK Government, and with other sister agencies to develop the UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which is to be published shortly, which again helps to set out how all of the devolved nations and the UK Government will deliver against the framework.

I think the comment that I'd like to make is that the global biodiversity framework requires a big input from across all sectors. It's not just the Welsh Government and NRW, and that came through really clearly in the biodiversity deep-dive, where we had a large number of different organisations and sectors represented in that work. There's a real collective effort in terms of what needs to happen in Wales. So, I think we need to continue to pursue that way of working, working together collectively, but we need to work at pace and at scale to get this moving. I think it's a combination of working through the requirements to get the White Paper implemented into law, but in the meantime continuing to follow through with pace in terms of the actions from the biodiversity deep-dive, but also in the expert groups and the recommendations that came out of those for the specific areas. I think that, really, is the measure of the success that we will then be on the right trajectory for both the 2030 and 2050 requirements.

Thank you. I have to say that 'strategy' is my most hated word here. I think I could build another Senedd with the number of strategies that we've all seen before now. Has the Welsh Government made clear to you which criteria are to be used to count towards the 30x30 target?

So, Ruth, I don't know if you want to come in on that one. 

Ruth. Hang on, Ruth, we need to unmute you first. That's done on your behalf, I believe, by one of our technical operatives—or maybe not. Could you unmute yourself, then, just in case there's a glitch? There we are.

Okay. That's lovely. Thank you. Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Marvellous. The development of the work that's ongoing now, to support the targets that need to be in place, obviously, with the White Paper, the Welsh Government is still developing its response to that consultation, and, as part of that, obviously, is still working with people, including us, on what the approach to those targets could be. And obviously we want to complement and enhance existing legislation, together with the new governance framework that's being set out under that new legislation, and those targets will form part of this. We want to see those joined up with the work that's happening on the global biodiversity framework and, critically for us, joining up the monitoring that's required, the data that's required and the statutory reporting that's required to be able to support—doing things once, but being able to use those things many times is really important for us to drive the efficiency of that work, but also for Wales to be able to demonstrate that it's delivering towards those UK targets. 

In written evidence, you told us an action plan for the whole deep-dive is needed for a team Wales approach to deliver the recommendations with clear ownership and expected time frames. In the earlier sessions, we heard that local authorities are not part of the deep-dive working group, and we've also been hearing that it's really important to have communities on board as well with biodiversity improvements and understanding the importance of them as well—developers, everybody. Can you expand on this and give your thoughts on it?

Yes, sure. That's great. There are a couple of things for me. There was a mention of having too many strategies—clearly, a strategy on its own is not enough. We need to move from the strategic position to a more tactical and place-based delivery and, for that, you're right that we need lots of people on board. We also don't want to wait to have an action plan, although we need the leadership of it, I think, to clarify those strategic priorities and to demonstrate how and where, critically, we can work to optimise the outcomes for nature. 

I think the deep-dive has been great. It has provided clear recommendations. It has already provided 40 actions, and we're cracking on and continuing to support direct delivery, delivery through others, and the development of spatial evidence and tools to help to get Wales investment ready, if you like, for where we can invest to best effect in nature. But I think that, although not everybody, clearly, has been involved in the deep-dive itself, I think there's an opportunity now to move to wider engagement, and I think that's recognised by all the people who have been on the deep-dive, that there are other critical partners that need to be involved and that, if we're going to move Wales forward and recover nature in Wales, we also have to include those people who own the spaces and make decisions around the spaces where we need to create change for nature. 

Ceri wants to come in as well. 

Yes, it was just to follow on from the point that Ruth was just making. I chaired one of the expert groups, and one of the things that we did at the beginning of that piece of work, and at the end, was to review who did we need to be in the room or around the table having those discussions, recognising that we couldn't have everyone. But what we also did was we used our abilities as individual organisations to reach out through our normal communities of working arrangements—so, through our stakeholder groups, to ensure that we were using all of those mechanisms to bring as many voices into the room if we couldn't actually have all of the people in the room. So, I think that there was a great deal of effort to ensure that we were reaching out beyond the core deep-dive group and beyond the core expert groups into those other areas. But, one of the things that we recommended at the end of, I think, all of the expert group discussions and the report provision was around needing to reassess who exactly needed to be involved in terms of the next stages as we move on and develop those plans, and in terms of actions. So, I think it was just trying to provide a little bit of reassurance that we were cognisant of who was not in the room and using those mechanisms.

Hopefully, local authorities might be involved, then, going forward—as a plea—in the local nature partnerships that deliver with communities. Thank you.

Yes, absolutely.

We've heard concerns that a lack of resource for NRW limits implementation or may limit implementation of the biodiversity deep-dive. We know NRW helps monitor SSSIs, river and marine quality, tree planting, the SFS, maybe, going forward—there's so much that NRW is expected to deliver—and our visitor centres as well, working with people. So, your thoughts on that, please, regarding resource for all that NRW does, but specifically regarding biodiversity.

Okay. I'll start on this one, if I may. So, clearly, and I think as we said in our evidence, our resources are stretched thinly, and we are conscious of what we would like to do and aim to do, moving forward, to ensure that we're prioritising our work on biodiversity. And that's why I think, when we developed our corporate planning, we were very clear that we wanted to focus in on three key objectives: one around nature, one around climate change, and one around pollution, as we see those being interactive, integrated and delivering across all three of those areas collectively.

We have pressures on our finances; we're no different to any other public sector body at the moment, and we are in discussions with the Welsh Government about that and trying to ensure that, where we do have specific elements of funding provided, we are able to use that as flexibly as possible. So, for example, you mentioned our ability to monitor, and I think that came up at the end of the first session, and what we've been trying to do is, where we've been given extra funding, through things like Nature Networks, is use our ability to extend that funding to include things like baseline monitoring and ongoing monitoring, rather than just the capital delivery of the work that might be then to deliver the biodiversity benefits. So, we are using all of the resources that we have available to us.

We have done some things to help ourselves, like, for example, we have stringently looked at our regulatory charging income to ensure that we are making sure that we are covering our costs through our charging regimes. I know that's never palatable, to charge payers to meet increased costs, but it is really important that they are paying for the service that they receive. So, we are working to ensure that our costs remain covered by our charging schemes.

And we are working with the Welsh Government and others to see what more can be done in terms of new forms of finance into the mix, because I think everyone's recognised that if we are to achieve the target, it's going to require a lot more investment than the Government has available to it, or any organisation funded by the Government. So, that's another key area of work that we will be working with the Welsh Government on.

And I think, as I said at the outset, it's been clear that we need to work collectively and collaboratively together to ensure that all of the resource that each organisation is putting into this is being used to its best effect, and one of the things that came out of the monitoring expert group was that there is a lot of work going on in a lot of different organisations, and what we really need to do is to bring that all together so that we're all complementing each other, not duplicating each other, and then the gaps that need to be filled will be much clearer and then we can pursue how we fill those gaps. And the same is true in terms of the work we do on SoNaRR. So, pressures are on—our resources have very tight and thinly spread, as you said, but I think we are trying to do what we can within our powers to bring more resources into the delivery here, through things like the Nature Networks fund, other external funding and looking at these other areas like cost recovery and new, innovative finance mechanisms.

Okay. Thank you very much. I think we're coming to you next, Janet.

Yes. Do you—? I beg your pardon—

Well, maybe I can come in on this one, then, because we've seen the proposals for the new biodiversity recovery framework in the recent White Paper, and we were just wondering—. Obviously, the Government has responded as well to people's contributions to the consultation. Do you have any comments on what's being proposed and how that affects the work that you do? Ruth, do you want to come in first?

Yes, I'll come in on this. We really welcome the White Paper. The aim of that is to really complement, as far as we can see, and enhance the existing legislation. It's going to provide a new governance framework, which I think will support the application and delivery of environmental law. As somebody overseeing what's being delivered and how that's being delivered in Wales, it is welcome.

We did put in a comprehensive response, which I'm not sure you've seen, and, obviously, as you said, there's the Welsh Government's response now. We're still working closely with the Welsh Government on the Bill development and the details. We're providing advice in the context of the global biodiversity framework requirements and alongside our own statutory duties, including SoNaRR. It's difficult to give any detail on that, but we've talked already this morning about the targets and the approach that's going to be made to how those targets are going to be set. The detail of them is, obviously, still to be defined.

Can I ask what's your message, if you have a message to the Government, about timescales for setting those targets, because we're up against it already? In England, I think they managed to turn that around in six months. The danger is that we pass legislation and then we look to regulation for targets, or targets being set elsewhere, and that takes another 12-18 months, two years. So, would you be concerned that this is something that happens quickly, because 2030 will be upon us in no time, really?

I think there are a couple of things there, for me. One is I think if we can get some headline targets onto the face of that legislation, that will be helpful. I think the principles that are going to be set out and—

I'm sorry to interject. What kinds of headline targets are you thinking there? What kinds of things?

As I think I said previously, we would like to see that aligned with the global biodiversity framework targets. It is difficult, because there is, obviously, more than just the 30x30 target there; there are another 22 to consider and I don't think that will be able to cover them all.

Yes, because the dilemma here is whether there's a target on the face of the Bill, or whether there's an aspiration on the face of the Bill. You would rather headline targets.

Well, as I said, I think we're still working with the Welsh Government on that, and there are other people who are feeding into that discussion. But there is concern that if it's not clearly set out in the form of a target, then the accountability needs to be clear, for us too. We want to be held to account in this as well.

Sure. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I interjected. Ceri, do you want to come in, and I'll come back to you, Ruth, if you want to add anything?

Yes, two points for me, really. One was going back to the previous point around how we resource all of this, and one of the things that I would say is that I was pleased to see, in the Welsh Government's comments, where they are trying to use things that we already have that are already set out in Wales legislation to better effect—so, things like realigning SoNaRR so that we're not doing SoNaRR and then also having to do another monitoring piece. But it's realigning things, using the NRP to make sure that those things that we already have are repurposed so that they will be delivering for the new targets. I think that is really key, because that means that we can all focus in on those things, not trying to do very many similar things that are not quite coming together.

On that point about what's on the face of the Bill, I think if we end up with more of a mission statement or a vision, for me, it's the point about making sure that it's really clear that all public bodies in Wales have a duty to respond to that, because that's the way that we will get that utmost and foremost in every public sector body's delivery. Don't forget we do still have the section 6 biodiversity duty within law currently that we can use to this effect and to, I think, again, maybe look at that to ensure that that really bites and that we are all being held to account in terms of that section 6 delivery duty. So, I think it's a combination of not waiting for the new but repurposing what we've got to make sure it's delivering the aspirations of the new, and making sure that we're making those things that we have bite harder to require us all to deliver against what we need to deliver well before and beyond the trajectory for 2030.

Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. Right, we'll move on now then to Julie.

Thank you. I'm going to ask about SSSIs. The 2020 assessment showed that the condition of half of the SSSI features is unknown, and that where conditions have been assessed, 60 per cent were in an unfavourable condition. So, I wondered what you thought should be achieved by 2030. What is your ambition for 2030? And also, what are your plans for longer term, for improved monitoring and management of SSSIs?

Shall I start, maybe?

Yes. Diolch, Huwel.

Thank you for the question. I think it's an interesting thing. What I would say, just reflecting on some of the discussion today, I consider perhaps—. We focused on the difficulty around the funding models at the moment, but I would say that, with the LIFE programmes we've managed, and continue to manage, over the last three or four years, and with the Nature Networks funding, with the Heritage Lottery Fund funding that we have now, we're probably in a position where we've actually made more progress towards getting sites into better management. And I think what's critical around that is that the Nature Networks funding has enabled us to undertake capital improvements on sites, because sites can be damaged or fall out of conservation management from, often, a lack of management, through grazing. So, those programmes have often helped us to get the right infrastructure in place to enable grazing to come back in, and that's a good thing, not just for the designation itself, but a good thing for the wider rural community, because it brings employment to undertake that work.

We then look at the specialist work that we've done around our dune systems. Many of our dune systems have become too stabilised because of marram grass and the removal of or reduction in rabbit numbers due to myxomatosis. And again, those programmes have helped to reintroduce positive management to many of the sites, I think, across Wales. And that's not to mention the work on the peatland programme, which has started to undertake some positive management on locking in peat and carbon up there. So, I think we have a good way—. We've made good progress—I won't say 'great', but good progress—over the last few years, using those sources of funding.

I think, looking forward, what's critical now, with the tools we have and in particular, we have around about 5,000 or 5,500 landowners of SSSIs in Wales, in the just over 1,080 SSSIs, and many of those landowners are agricultural practitioners, farmers, and many of those farmers will hopefully get into the sustainable farming scheme. For us, working with Welsh Government on the design of that scheme is quite critical, and the hope is that that scheme will enable us to reach further to the agricultural communities to help us deliver, working with others, the management of those sites. I think that's the view we've got on what can be achieved between now and 2030, but I'm not sure if Ceri and Ruth want to come in and add a bit more on the policy side.

I think I was going to add, if I could, on the—. Sorry, I forgot to put my hand up.

No, it's okay.

I was going to add, on the monitoring side, again, I think rapid action on the recommendations from the expert group. Because monitoring for the 2030 targets will be much more wide than the previous monitoring, or the current monitoring that we do and others do. So, it's going to need to not just look at species, habitats and conditions, but it's going to need to look at things like resilience and connectivity, and the sort of temporal scale and spatial scale. So, really quickly, we need to get further work done now, following those recommendations, to ensure that we can start to look at the baseline and then, as things start to improve, that we can then continue to monitor those improvements through. So, it was just that I wanted to add that point. Thank you.

Okay. Before I bring Ruth in, Janet, did you want to just make a point?

Yes. There was mention earlier about lottery funding. How much lottery funding have you received, please?

Do you want to pick up, Ruth?

Huwel might have more detail, but obviously, we've got some projects that are supported by the lottery. We also support some lottery funding, so some of the Nature Networks money goes out—

What sort of values—? What sort of funding are we talking about?

Okay. Maybe you could write to us with a figure, because it's difficult. It's probably pretty dispersed across the organisation, I'd imagine. 

Yes. Can I come back in on the—

Yes, and then we'll come back to Julie.

There are a couple of other things that relate to the knowledge about the impact of management on some of our sites. Quite a few of these capital programmes that we have, and some of the LIFE funded programmes, have got an element of evaluation in those projects, which then looks to evaluate the outcomes that we've achieved through doing that work, or that others have achieved through us funding them to do work. I think that's one point we wanted to make, which helps us in the knowledge about the condition of these sites. 

The second point is that we are also, as part of the biodiversity deep-dive work, doing a review of our protected sites series, SSSIs, in the same way that we're doing with marine, on terrestrial sites, and I think that's going to help us to see these sites as a network. The mapping work that we've done to support the Nature Networks programme is setting out the priority ecological networks and what it is that we need to do with our existing SSSIs, and how we might need to extend that protection to build a better network, particularly in the terrestrial environment.

Okay, thank you very much. Julie.

Following on from that, can you update the committee on the notification programme to identify more SSSIs? When will that be complete?

Can I—?

Yes, Ruth.

Well, that will line up with the review. So, the review will give us clarity around priorities. I think it will help us to review the list that we already have of sites that we are looking to designate. Obviously, the designation process does take some time, so part of that review is also looking at how we can streamline that process, so I think that will be helpful. In terms of the timescale around that, we're looking to deliver that in the new year.

Right.

Just to add a little bit to that, yes, I think current legislation does mean that if you come across new features on the existing SSSIs that fit the notification criteria, we have to do a whole notification process, so it is a streamlined process that we maybe need to look at to make things quicker. Of course, we have an ongoing notification programme, and we are building together a future programme. But, first of all, we need to make sure that we've got the right series of SSSIs to make sure we've got the right, appropriate sites across the geographically spread research areas, and I think that's the work, as Ruth mentioned, we've got to push on and begin in the next year, and that's a key piece of work for us to do to make sure that the series for the future is fit for purpose. Diolch. 

Thank you. Then, finally from me, the Farmers Union of Wales has told us that only 5.4 per cent of SSSIs are covered by a management agreement. So, to what extent are SSSIs contributing towards the 30x30 target? 

If I can come in on that, at the moment, we have around about 500 to 600 live agreements. The agreements themselves are, normally, five-year agreements—that was the pre-Brexit approach. Since Brexit, we're currently looking at short-term agreements to tie us up to the beginning of SFS. At the moment, the SSSI agreements cover around about 30,000 hectares of land. So, whilst it may be, I think, around about 10 per cent of the totals—I don't think it's quite as low as 5.5 per cent; I think it's a little under 10 per cent, but that's the figure we've got at the moment with SSSIs—of course, it is contributing and what I would say is, with those management agreements, we work very much in tandem with the Nature Networks funding. Whereas the Nature Networks funding will often bring in the cash injection to undertake the active work needed to put the infrastructure in place, the management agreements tend to be fairly low cost, in the main, and that builds us on from—. The costs of the management agreements are much lower—on average they're £1,000 to £2,000 a year—but they're critical in ensuring the long-term management of sites. It's a partnership and an agreement between us and those private landowners, and third sector landowners, to make sure they manage the land appropriately after there's been a capital investment, often, as is the case these days. Diolch.

Diolch, Huwel. I think it's fair to say that maybe there's a feeling that SSSIs maybe should be contributing more, given that they are designated, but, obviously, there are practical issues around that—we appreciate that.

On another practical note, I'm hearing notifications coming through on somebody's phone—and that's another one there. So, if we could please make sure that all mobile devices are put on silent, because it is quite—. Well, it's coming through on the audio, and it's not great, really. Diolch yn fawr. We'll move on to you, Joyce.

Good morning, everybody. We've talked a bit about monitoring biodiversity, but I want to ask you if you can clarify exactly what your duties are in monitoring the protected site network. And we're talking about SSSIs, but also the special areas of conservation and the special protection areas. Is it being fulfilled?

So, perhaps if I can kick off, Chair. We do undertake monitoring across the whole of our activities, but it is risk based and targeted, to ensure that we are able to apply the resources that we have as effectively as possible. We use also a number of innovative techniques to try to ensure that we can focus in on those areas. Part of the work that we did through the expert group and that we're doing within NRW also is to look at things like remote sensing, to look at the use of earth observation, which is not as easy to say as it should be, and then to use that to help us to target in on where we might need to supplement that with on-the-ground, if you like, monitoring of condition and assessments of condition.

We use desk-based assessments as well, using information that's been collated through a number of different sources, and we also use information from monitoring that's done through citizen science work, extensively for terrestrial monitoring. So, there is a pretty comprehensive campaign of monitoring, and analysis of monitoring, but it is very much risk based and targeted, to ensure that we use the resources that we have as wisely as we can. And I think what I would say, Joyce, moving forward, is that we were quite clear in the expert group, when we were looking at the future targets, that this is an area that will require further funding, if we are to fill the gaps in the current monitoring establishment, and also to ensure that we can extend the parameters that we look for to have the assurance that the targets are being met and that we're on the right trajectory.

Okay. That's really interesting, but you didn't actually say what your duties were, unless you thought that they were your duties. But you have a duty, and I think what we're trying to get at is to understand what that duty is.

Our duties are around the condition of the habitats and species on those designated, protected and special sites, and to assess what condition they are in at a species or a habitat level, and we do that through surveillance and through analysis of a range of different monitoring techniques.

Thank you. You've talked already about data sharing and the collaboration that's needed, and some ideas about how it can be achieved, but the Welsh Government says that reporting on progress towards the new biodiversity targets is going to be through SoNaRR, and additional data collection is going to be minimised, given the existing data collection for established UK and international commitments. Would you like to tell us your views on those proposals?

So, I think, as I said earlier, and Ruth can come in as well shortly, that we welcome the fact that they're looking at SoNaRR to ensure that it's continuing to deliver what we need in the future, rather than adding in another different thing that would potentially be less efficient for us to be able to operate. SoNaRR already assesses where there are data gaps, and that's one of the principal requirements for SoNaRR—to report on where there's a lack of evidence. So it already does that. I think SoNaRR will need to be repurposed, if you like, to ensure that it's picking up on the new requirements for 2030 and beyond.248

We will need to work with Welsh Government, though, about our ability to be able to do that and what resources are required, going forward, for that, because, clearly, we can do what we're doing now, but if we are going to need to do more then we will need to have some additional resource to be able to fulfil that. But I think the point is at this stage that's the work that needs to happen between us and Welsh Government now, is to work out exactly what SoNaRR needs to look like in the future for 2030, and then to look at what the gap is between what we currently do and what the new thing is that we'll need to do moving forward. But, Ruth, you wanted to come in.

Yes, Ruth.

I realise I've jumped the gun.

Lovely. Thank you. I just wanted to add, I think it's really important to remember the link back to informing the Welsh Government's natural resources policy from SoNaRR. I think that reflection from the targets we'll see starting to be reported through SoNaRR for nature. But also it's critical that we work with Welsh Government, and others, actually, particularly JNCC, to ensure—. Because we do a lot of reporting, and it's often the same people in NRW that are doing all that work. So, we'd like to see that more lined up, both in the sort of timescale over which we report and also the connection between the reporting that we do for the global biodiversity framework, the reporting that we do as one of our duties on our protected sites and the reporting that we're going to be doing under the targets that are being set at Welsh level so that we streamline the effort that needs to go in and we can do work once and use it many times.

Thank you. Okay?

We can go back to where we should have been.

That's okay. Thank you very much. Okay. We'll move on to Delyth, then.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da, pawb. I want to ask you about the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Firstly, the updated list of the section 7 list of priority species and habitats—that still hasn't been published. We had been promised that that would be published in the spring. Could you talk us through, please, what the barriers are to publishing this and when you think an updated list will be published?

Okay, thank you for the question. Yes, so we've undertaken a complete review of all the habitats and species to be included in that updated section 7 list. It's covered the terrestrial, freshwater and the marine environment, and we've also worked with a range of environmental organisations on the approach that we've taken to that, and we've sense checked that and that list and our approach has been submitted. We've had to answer quite a few comprehensive questions around that suite, and, that suite of queries, the majority of that has been now answered and we've responded to the Welsh Government. I think there is an outstanding issue that needs to be resolved, and I think it's quite important, actually, to think about this, because we've got a lot to do in Wales, and some of that is going to involve land-use change. We want to plant a lot more trees, but we have to find and understand the best places to plant those trees, and so, when we are looking at that suite of habitats, we need to be able to ensure that we've got the right policies in place, which complement each other, and that we have got the right guidance in place to support people who are having to make decisions. So, there is one habitat that is causing some need to have further conversations at a policy level, and we know we will also have to respond to that by providing guidance around priority habitats to ensure that, when we're making other decisions that further our climate and nature actions in Wales, we’re getting that right for Wales and for the people of Wales.

Thank you for that. I take it that you wouldn't be able to tell us what that habitat is that's causing the delay, but would you anticipate that it would be spring next year when that would be published, or is it not possible to say that at the moment? 

I would hope it would be before then. 

Okay. Okay, thank you. Ceri is nodding as well. RSPB have told us that the framework for the sustainable management of natural resources in the Act isn't currently focused on biodiversity recovery. They suggested that the objective of those resources should be updated to address that issue. Would you agree with that, or what would your response be?

I think that the suite of legislation that has been put in place and is also to be put in place together with this will support an Act for nature recovery in Wales. I think remembering—and I think it's been mentioned already this morning—the section 6 duty already places a requirement on all public bodies, how those public bodies are then responding to that duty is critical in the decisions that are being made through those public bodies, and what impact that's going to have. Somebody's already mentioned this morning the local nature partnerships and how that's working with the local authorities to develop their well-being plans and how their well-being plans are responding to section 6, and they're also putting other plans in place to support through those nature partnerships. So, I think that's working really well. 

Obviously, the Act also imposes obligations on Welsh Ministers and other public bodies, but it's only us that's got the general duty to pursue the sustainable management of natural resources. But the new White Paper and the legislation that comes from that will not only provide some governance around all of this, but it also will be setting out principles, the high principles, and I think that will also be really helpful. 

Yes. 

Thank you. Forgive me, Ceri, do you want to come in? 

Yes, I was absolutely going to support Ruth on that one, because we've been pushing quite hard, I guess, to say that if we're the only ones with the SMNR duties—sustainable management of natural resources—it's really hard to achieve that, and in all of the discussions that we're having with Welsh Government at the moment that duty is featuring well in terms of the future biodiversity targets, and a hierarchy that includes the SMNR duty, and therefore bringing that out across wider public bodies. So, I think the signs are positive that that will improve, going forward, and I think, as Ruth has said, they're tying in as well; that section 6 duty is really key to ensure that the two things together deliver properly for what we need to achieve on biodiversity in Wales. 

Thank you. Cadeirydd, do I have time for one more question? 

Yes. 

Yes. Just finally from me, evidently it's well publicised the budget cuts that you're having to face and, obviously, as a committee, we can appreciate how difficult that will be. One of the casualties because of that will be that the budget for land management—well, section 16 land management agreements—has been reduced. Could you talk us through, please, what the implications of that budget reduction will be?  

Okay. Well, at the moment, we've actually had the budget reinstated at the present time, so what we're looking for, Delyth, is to try and ensure—. The budget for land management agreements has fluctuated; it's been around £1 million for the last five or six years. What we've actually seen is an increase in the number of agreements, with a peak in about 2021—130-plus agreements signed that year—and around about 80, 90 signed in the preceding years. So, where we're getting to at the moment is we want to maintain the section 16 process—the land management agreement process—to support small landowners, those who won't be eligible for the sustainable farming scheme, other bodies—third sector organisations and so forth—that are looking for that support and mechanism.

And also, some agreements we have won't be eligible for other mechanisms of support: so, bat roosts, where they may need specialist work undertaken to secure and maintain the bat populations in semi-redundant buildings. So, at the moment, we've had a delay as a part of the review of where we go forward in the prioritisation of sites, which ties in, partially, with making sure we've got the right series, the right set, of SSSIs, and we're just about now to recommence with proceeding some additional agreements for this year, so we're hoping to sign up about 60 to 80 renewals for the remainder of this year. 

So, that's where we're getting to and we're working to see what will happen with the tie-in then with the sustainable farming scheme, remembering that, in the Glastir programme, which supported landowners, something in excess of 2,500 landowners were having payments on SSSIs under that scheme. That scheme, obviously, ended last December so there is a bit of a gap and a bit more of a demand, but of course Welsh Government has brought in the Habitat Wales scheme—or Wales habitat scheme; I always get them mixed up—as an interim measure there to ensure there's an approach to continuation and support and management of designated sites as well as wider biodiversity. I think we also welcome the decision by the Welsh Government, the announcement made by the Cabinet Secretary, for the universal layer payment to be made to SSSIs as well, which was a positive outcome following the initial consultation on SFS.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. I'm mindful that we have 15 minutes left, so I'll come to Carolyn in a moment, then to Julie, but I just wanted to come back, given that we're still on designations a little bit there, to marine designations and the creation of a marine conservation zone. Where are we with that? What's the process, and what do you envisage to be the timescale for that? Ruth.

Well, obviously we're working with Welsh Government, as they're leading on the consultation process, but we've done a big body of work to contribute to that, and we've submitted pre-consultation advice to Welsh Government this year. This has represented more than just evidence, if you like; it's also gone as far as providing information around six potential marine conservation zones, two of which are fully in-shore, and we've done data confidence assessments, which is important. I think there have been some delays on the timelines for the work, but I think that's due to just things in process that Welsh Government are now developing, and particularly I think they had to go through some procurement, so, obviously, there's a timescale around that procurement, which has created some delays.

Okay. And you're not aware of what the timescale is?

It's in train, but I'm afraid I can't tell you what the actual dates will be for that work.

Okay. Thank you. Fine. Okay. We'll move on, then. Carolyn. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Just regarding planning, in evidence, you told us there's a gap in current guidance to support planning policy delivery for nature, and a need to establish a clear net benefit for biodiversity policy. We heard earlier that sometimes there's pushback from developers and a suggestion that perhaps 106 funding could be accumulated for greater impact. So, there are different suggestions. Can you expand on how these issues could be addressed, and your views on it?

Okay. So, obviously, the Welsh Government's policy on net benefits is in place, and I think there is still a need for some implementation guidance, and we think that could support clearer connection to the opportunities at a place-based level to ensure that the investment through that development supports the priorities that are being set out in the nature recovery and what that looks like locally. So, I think that is something. So, that join-up between what we've talked about this morning and the targets and 30x30 and the Nature Networks, what does ecological resilience look like in Wales and where could it be done to the best effect, I think there's a great opportunity to join that back up with this policy on net benefits.

I think there is some guidance out there. It's often been, I think, developed by the bodies that are supporting ecologists and developers. We think we still need to see that central guidance coming through 'Planning Policy Wales' and the planning team in Welsh Government, but we are supporting them to do that. We also have a strategic programme to actually ourselves provide a greater body of standing advice for planning, including on biodiversity, rather than just doing it on a case-by-case basis, and I think that's going to provide greater consistency and clarity and more efficiency for us too, and for developers and planners, because I think it will help support more of a sort of self-service for developers. That's going to take time, and obviously we've begun that work and we're prioritising the effort in those areas where we're going to have the greatest impact on biodiversity through the planning system.

I'm just conscious of time here, so, if you don't mind, we'll move on to Julie, because there's a couple of areas that we wish to cover before we finish.

Yes. Thank you very much. Diolch. The fact that NRW is going to be reshaped, I think, is causing some concern that there may be a move away from biodiversity and monitoring functions. What are your comments on that?

I think what I would say is, obviously, as I mentioned at the beginning, we're under the same pressures as the rest of the public service, really, and what we’re trying to do—. We started this journey with our corporate plan development, and we consulted widely on that with key stakeholders, and what we’ve produced is a plan that really puts three key objectives at the heart of what we do, and thriving nature is one of those. So, we are trying now, through the pressures that we’re under, to ensure that we are able to put our resources—which are under pressure, as for everyone else—into those areas that we believe will deliver the fastest for nature, for climate and for pollution prevention. So, we are in no way moving away from our biodiversity functions. In fact, what we’re trying to do is to strengthen it, and we’re trying to focus in particularly on those things within our functions that only we can do, so where we may be the regulator or the adviser and where there are things that only we can do. And, at the moment, we’re considering stepping away from those things where there are other people who could equally move into that space. So, yes, it is still very much a priority for us.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. 

The only other thing, sorry, I was going to add on that was, again—and I mentioned this earlier—it’s in the context of looking for these different sources of funding, so that we’re not wholly and only reliant on grant in aid, which is the part of our budget that is under the most pressure. So, what we are doing, and what we’ve attracted, as you’ve probably seen in our evidence, is an additional £20 million-worth of funding that’s going through the Nature Networks programme, which is funding actual activity on the ground to improve nature. And I think it harks back to one of the very early first comments about the strategies and the number of strategies and plans. So, what we are trying to do is to ensure that there is absolute action on the ground to help, and using things like the Nature Networks fund, the heritage lottery funding we’ve had for Natur am Byth—£8 million there—and LIFE funding to deliver the improvements on the ground.

Thank you. So, you’re not concerned that there will be any move away from biodiversity, basically.  

No, it’s one of three corporate priorities for NRW to continue focusing on biodiversity.   

Right. And you’ve mentioned different ways of getting in money. What about the private sector?   

Yes, well I think that is absolutely another area that we are keen to work with the Welsh Government on. I know that, obviously, we have to all be assured that it’s good, reliable money, and not in any way sort of green-washing delivery. But the Welsh Government are working quite hard now on setting out some principles for what additional private finance could come in to help delivery biodiversity activity, along with climate and pollution. So, we have a role in that. The Welsh Government, obviously, will develop the policy, but we’re working closely with them to understand what that might mean for us and what our role can be in the delivery of that, maybe looking at offering forward activity on the ground, action on the ground, that will help with biodiversity, for example.

Okay. Briefly, Ruth. 

Yes, I was just going to come in specifically with an example of that— not just us, although we’re supporting it—as the blue investment working group, working under the coasts and seas partnership, is a really good example of this sort of activity, where it’s trying to establish a marine fund Cymru. So, it will draw down and bring together not just the funding, but also, working with us and others, to sort out the what and the where. So, I think we’re beginning to see these sorts of ideas and partnerships establishing to try and help to get Wales ready for the sort of investment that we think might be possible, through the Welsh Government leading, to establish that framework for investment. And we’ll be responding to the current consultation on that.

Thank you. 

Just on that funding theme, then, we heard evidence about the way that you distribute grants and operate some of the schemes. There are obvious concerns about 12-month funding cycles. There was reference earlier to work on peatland, where you need experts involved, and, of course, not being able to commit beyond 12 months for those people isn't great, is it? Very often, there are short windows for applications, and they're for collaborative schemes, which makes it difficult to bring everybody together in that short time, and then consequently there may be a two- or three-month lag before the money comes through, which, you know, when you're looking at short cycles isn't great, really. So, do you recognise that maybe that's challenging, that maybe you could do better in that sphere? Ruth first and then Huwel.

Yes, I'll come in on that. I think, for us, obviously, we've got a mechanism to be able to support others through grants, but it aligns, really, with our own ability to commit money. Now, we are trying to provide more certainty to people by issuing longer term grant funding, but we are having to caveat that three- or four-year funding with our ability to be able to fund. So, I think it comes back to how also we are funded, and we are in discussions with the Welsh Government about looking at more multi-year funding, and we ourselves are developing a more multi-year approach to planning our work. So, some of the projects that have been given as examples today, like the work we're doing through the nature and climate emergency fund provided by the Welsh Government, we're moving to a multi-year plan, which can be supported by multi-year funding, to try and give more certainty, both in the things we're delivering directly and also where we're supporting others.

Okay. Thank you. Huwel, briefly.

Yes, just to add to that, we do also take, sometimes, a more flexible approach within our local areas, complementing what we do centrally. We do have to facilitate other funders. We've worked very closely with RCT and Neath Port Talbot on a heritage lottery bid on the forgotten landscapes of south Wales, looking at peatland restoration. And, of course, the other thing I would touch on, with the demand for renewable energy increasing, we also have heathland habitat and peatland restoration programmes on much of our woodland estate, which we manage on the Welsh Government's behalf. So, we have the Pen y Cymoedd 106 agreement, which is £3 million of clean funding to deliver peatland restoration as part of that proposal. That is changing part of the nature of the woodland estate to become more biodiverse in its nature and more climate resilient as well. As the trees are felled, we take opportunities to undertake more positive work, using our own funding and resources as well, derived from some of that timber income as well. So, there are other ways and other additions that we look at as well. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Okay, are we content? Did you want to come in with a final question, or are you okay?

No, that's fine.

Because we have two minutes left.

I wanted to—. The final question that we were going to cover, if that's okay.

If you wish, if you wish.

I'm just concerned if we've got the right ecological skills, going forward. We know that there will be some savings of jobs, and new jobs possibly created that people will have to apply for, so I'm just concerned about loss of experience in certain areas, and those people with experience having to apply for new jobs as well, in those new priority areas. So, yes, really loss of skills, and especially those skills in biodiversity areas—how are they going to be taken through that process?

Ruth.

Yes, I'll come in on this and Ceri might want to add more.

We've got 60 seconds left, so if we can—

Okay. We've got highly professional technical staff in the business. They support all sorts of work that we do, from supporting projects and advice into projects, strategic partnerships, engagement, and internal and external advice. They are often the same staff that are relied upon, and they're often singleton posts. It is an issue—we do have a resilience issue. But we're also coming in behind that with a workforce planning strategy and a training strategy to try and ensure that we've got a flow of people coming through the organisation that can build their knowledge, that can build their knowledge from the people that we've already got. I think it is challenging, but we're trying to get it right.

There we are. Okay. We'll leave it at that, I think, with thanks for your brevity there.

Nadia, do you want to answer this one?

Yes, I'll pick this one up. Obviously, we can't go into specific detail about prosecution cases that are still being developed, but obviously we have a number of regulatory approaches, depending on whether it's to do with the breach of a permit, or whether it's to do with an incident, for example. We can take a number of different types of enforcement response depending on the severity and the root cause, and whether it's a deliberate act or an accidental issue. We might take a different approach to our enforcement response on that, based on the public-interest test that we apply.

In terms of the numbers that we put in our written evidence to you, there were 483 enforcement cases resulting from water industry incidents since 2018, over 400 of which have now been resolved, mostly through warning letters or formal cautions. We have had three prosecutions. We do have 46 cases remaining under investigation, with enforcement responses to follow. A number of these cases are significant and may result in prosecution. And we have two cases listed at this current time for prosecution as well

Thank you very much, Nadia. In terms of resource implications for NRW, are budget pressures an issue here? Do you have enough money to pursue all of those prosecutions that you feel should be pursued that way?

Budget pressures are always an issue and we do have to manage—[Inaudible.] As we've said, prosecution cases are very resource-intensive, but where that is the appropriate response to make, we will obviously do so and we continue to do so, so that remains the plan.

Diolch. Thank you.

Julie.

Diolch. What consideration have you given to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, and in particular the water industry offences and penalty level that are carrying an automatic fixed penalty? Have you discussed this with the Welsh Government?

Thank you. We have had discussions with the Welsh Government. It's all come in quite quickly, so it still feels quite early days on some of this. And obviously, we've focused our attention on responding to Welsh Government queries so that they can liaise effectively with DEFRA. But we very much welcome the special measures Bill to strengthen our regulatory powers around water pollution from sewage discharge and some of the ageing infrastructure issues that we know in Wales impact on performance. We particularly welcome the measures around the penalty regimes to apply automatic penalties for a defined list of offences. But we have highlighted that some additional work in Wales might be needed on civil sanctions in parallel, as we currently don't have civil sanction powers for environmental permitting regulation offences. Whilst the two things can kind of stand separately, we would like them to be considered together if that's at all possible. That will help us address the gap in our enforcement capabilities. Delyth mentioned the resources issue earlier; we feel the opportunity to have civil sanctions and automatic penalties will certainly help with that resourcing issue and allow us to reprioritise our work accordingly.

Thank you. And the funds that you collect now from current fixed monetary penalties, where do they actually go? Do they go to NRW, or do they go to the Welsh consolidated fund?

As it stands at the moment, we don't really issue any fixed monetary penalties. We have very limited scope for civil sanctions within the current Act that we have. So, it's not really an issue that comes up. I believe the few that we do have go back into the Welsh consolidated fund, but we don't really have the powers to issue those to any significant effect at the moment.

So, any automatic penalties under the Water (Special Measures) Bill, you would expect those to be dealt with—? Where would you see them going?

I would expect them to go back into the central fund. Obviously, we would like to have a conversation about whether there is a possibility for some of that funding to be returned to us, but—[Inaudible.]—going back, and then the money that then comes back to us is dealt with via a grant proposal. That's how I think it would probably work in practice.

Thank you.

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr. Janet.

Thank you, Chair. To what extent are you currently able to recover costs for water industry enforcement activity?

Enforcement activity is funded by grant in aid, and for certain areas where we have incident response into watercourses, we can apply a recharge process for the incident response element, but not the enforcement element. As I've indicated, it is an intensive area of work. The only place that we can get costs awarded is via the court, if a case goes to prosecution. So, all other enforcement responses—apart from those limited civil sanctions that I've mentioned—don't have an option of cost recovery. So we'd very much welcome in the Bill this opportunity to recover costs for enforcement activity, and we'd need to introduce a charging scheme to allow that cost recovery to take place.

Thank you. Do you not feel you should be taking more perpetrators to court? And also, do you expect provisions in the Water (Special Measures) Bill relating to cost recovery to have a significant impact on NRW's ability to effectively enforce water industry activity?

I think it's difficult to just look at the numbers and say, ‘Are we taking enough people to court?’ I've indicated we've got 46 outstanding open cases that we're looking at within the water sector, several of which may end up in prosecution. I think, broadly, the numbers that end up in court are the right ones. We consider very carefully which cases need to progress to prosecution and we follow our Government's processes to ensure that that happens. In terms of the Bill specifically—. Sorry, what was the second part of the question?

Just whether you feel that the Water (Special Measures) Bill relative to cost recovery will have a significant impact on NRW's ability to effectively enforce water industry activity. Because many of us believe that there needs to be more enforcement. What about serial offenders? Are they going through the court system, and are you succeeding?

Let me come on to the Bill bit first. The water industry enforcement functions are defined quite broadly in the Bill. It covers a whole range of areas around pollution incident reduction, water abstraction, drought and also regulation of certain activities within environmental permitting regulations. There is certainly scope in the Bill for them to be quite wide ranging.

As I said, on automatic penalties, I think the presumption is that the money will come back into central funds rather than directly to NRW. So any opportunity for us to have any of those resources back is something that we have to discuss further with the Welsh Government.

In terms of serial offenders, we only have two water companies in Wales, so obviously it's fairly obvious, if we prosecute a water company, which ones they are. We have a number of them outstanding at the moment with Welsh Water, so we will be looking to take those actions accordingly, and they do often build on where there has been previous offending at a site, for example. These may build on those, and we do take that into account in our process and policy.

Thank you.

If I could just interject somewhat here, we've heard previously from your chair and chief exec that the approach sometimes is not to hammer those who transgress financially, but to maybe work with them so that that resource can be used more positively to fix what might be a problem within the system. But what I get back from some of my constituents, for example, is that it feels a bit like one rule for the big players and another rule for Joe Bloggs in the local community, maybe. I don't know—what kind of criteria you use? Because sometimes people look at this and think, ‘Well, you're willing to give Dŵr Cymru a bit of grace and work with them to fix a problem, but then you take me to the cleaners.’

It very much depends on how we apply those public interest tests around the severity of the outcome, of the incident itself, and how much pollution or harm that may have caused; also, the intent of the person involved. It's a bit different if something is an accident or something could have been prevented or something is deliberate. So those are the sort of factors that we would take into account. As I said, it's difficult to judge, because we have a number of cases outstanding with Welsh Water. So if you just look at numbers, it always ends up looking a little bit skewed. But I think when you look across the whole of our performance activity, there's a whole mix, not just for water, but across all of the functions that we regulate. There's a whole mix of cases that happen, whether they're large companies or individual offenders. There is quite a good spread.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you. We'll move on now to Carolyn.

Thank you. Are the issues raised in Y Byd ar Bedwar a fair reflection of NRW's grasp on water quality in Wales? Are 80 per cent of permitted discharge permits not being monitored? Is it a true figure? And is up-to-date monitoring data available for all relevant sites?

I'll take this. Diolch yn fawr. Obviously, as were a lot of others, we were disappointed to see the programme Y Byd ar Bedwar, and some of the allegations and the concerns that were raised in that programme as well. We do take our responsibility for protecting the environment very seriously, and it is something that's important to us. We've identified within our corporate plan three well-being objectives. Preventing pollution is one of those. So, this is an area of work that is particularly a priority for us. 

I think it's also important to look at where we've come from in terms of water quality. We've made huge progress over the last 30 years in improving water quality in a number of places across Wales. But it's also important that we don't rest on our laurels, as there is always room for improvement. We are absolutely dedicated to working through our own responsibilities, and working with other organisations and partners as well, to make those improvements that are needed.

In terms of some of those specifics that you raised there around the compliance work and the numbers, it's important to reflect on the way that we monitor compliance. So, a lot of the discharges, whether that's water companies or private dischargers as well, we rely on those companies to take their own self-monitoring samples and to share that data with us, so we do have that data. We do have opportunities to go in, double-check and to do spot checks, and we do a lot more auditing now than we used to do in the past. We used to rely on what we called 'end-of-pipe monitoring', where we would just go in and take a sample of what was coming out into the river. But by moving that effort and asking the companies to take their own samples, it means that we can then do much more in-depth audits; we can get under the skin of information and data and understand exactly what's going on on sites, so that we can have much more focus in that way.

So, it's difficult to interpret. The data that was shared on that programme is probably right in terms of the number of samples that we're taking, but it's not just the samples that we're relying upon; it's a much more holistic approach to look at how sites operate, how companies operate, whether that's water companies or private dischargers as well, and understanding the whole rather than just understanding what's coming out into the river.

Joyce.

How do you respond to Y Byd ar Bedwar participants' view that there is no point in reporting pollution incidents to you and that many responses are too late, and the programme's findings that NRW fail to respond to over half of reported incidents in a year?

I think, again, it's disappointing to see the way that some of that was interpreted on the programme. It's important to us to reflect on that and to learn as well. But having said that, we absolutely, as I said, are dedicated to responding to pollution incidents and to reducing the number of incidents that happen. Because, obviously, once an incident has happened, the environmental damage may have already happened by that stage and, in effect, it's too late. So, what we're looking at now is reviewing our approach, thinking about how we can shift our effort upstream, if you like. So, before an incident happens, how can we work with companies, with private dischargers, with landowners, and so on, to prevent incidents happening in the first place? We get thousands of incidents reported to us every year. It's impossible for us to attend every single one of those. We do a triage process, and we decide, based on risk, which ones of those we attend, and we will make sure that we continue to adopt that risk-based approach.

As I said, we are, at the moment, reviewing how we manage incidents; how we make sure that only the incidents that are relevant to us are reported to us, because we get a large number that aren't NRW-related incidents reported to us; how we make sure we reduce those and focus on the ones that are causing or have the potential to cause the most environmental harm, and focus our efforts on responding to those. We can't, I don't think, ever get to a place where we're responding to every single report that comes in to us, but it is around prioritising, taking that more risk-based approach and tackling things upfront to prevent the incidents happening in the first place. So, we've got a piece of work that we're carrying out at the moment, looking at that in line with our corporate plan priorities, looking at how we focus our resources and our efforts on delivering that corporate plan priority of minimising pollution.

You say that—[Interruption.] We've got feedback here. You say that you're responding to 20 per cent of reported incidents. If you had more money, taking into account what you've just said, that you couldn't do every single one, but if you had more resource, whether it's money or not, would you like to respond to a higher number?

Sorry, I was muted then for a minute. Potentially, yes, if there was more money available, we could potentially respond to more incidents. We would still need to look at the ones that are the highest risk, but there is potential that we could do more, yes.

Just on—. Sorry, Nadia, yes, if you want to come in.

If I could add to that. There are different levels of responding as well. There's responding as in going out and attending the incident, which is one metric that I think we're often measured on, if you like, but actually the overall response is much broader than that. It's also about what we do, looking back at the monitoring data for the area, at the likely causes of an incident, and then the investigation that then goes around that. So, again, it's quite difficult when you just look at that number in the raw. And I think that when we split it up by the amount of incidents that we actually attend for water, it's much more than the 20 per cent; it's somewhere closer to 40 per cent. So, I don't think we will be going out more on water than we probably are, or not a lot more, but it's—[Inaudible.]—that I think it's important to consider. 

Sorry, we're getting feedback from somebody when we speak in this committee room. There we are. That's better. Okay, Siân, you said that very often, when you receive a report, it's too late because the incident has happened, but of course very often it's not, either, is it? So, can you tell us a bit about—? I mean, do you immediately triage so that you know whether it's worth turning out or not?

Yes. So, the incident reports come in to our incident control centre. They will undertake an immediate assessment, based on the information that has come in to them—how much information comes in from that member of the public, what exactly people are describing—and then that will be passed to our local team for further assessment. So, obviously, the highest level incidents that are reported to us, we have targets to respond to those much more quickly, and we will aim to respond to those as quickly as we can. For the highest level ones, as Nadia said, responding doesn't always mean going out and attending, but for the highest level ones, we would always aim to get out and attend to those. 

Thinking about the purpose of an incident response is also really important. The incident response role that we have is there to minimise the impact on the environment. So, it will be around attending, it will be around talking to operators, it will be around talking to members of the public, gathering information as well. And if there is the potential for enforcement action to follow, then that will be passed over to a separate process, if you like, which is the enforcement action process. The incident itself is all around how we can minimise that environmental impact. 

Because, very often, the pollution incident can be very short term, can't it? If you think of air pollution, within a few hours it may well have gone, and then you turn up and there's nothing to see. So, I think it's challenging, isn't it, to decide where you turn out and where you don't. I have a constituent who called your hotline on a bank holiday weekend and there was no reply. They were wishing to report an incident. So, I don't know whether that's something that might be of concern, or whether you accept that—. I believe it should be a 24-hour hotline. 

It is a 24-hour hotline. It would be really interesting to have details of that, so that we can look into it, if it hasn't already been looked into. But all I can imagine is that somebody was on a call with somebody else at the time and unable to answer. It shouldn't happen as we should have people—we do have people—there 24 hours a day. So, as I said, it would be interesting if we could have more details so that we can look into that specific incident. 

Yes, okay. It has been raised by certain people, but there we are. I'll contact you again about that. 

Okay, well, if I come in initially. So, as you know, the consultation with the trade unions has recently closed on our proposals, and the proposals were very much around looking to change our structures to refocus our resources on the activities that have the most impact on our three corporate priorities, around nature, the climate emergency and minimising pollution, as well as the statutory work that only NRW can do, whether that's in a regulatory frame or our statutory nature body work, but also to make significant financial savings—we have to obviously be very mindful of that.

So, the consultation is closed. Obviously, the responses that have come in are now being considered by our exec team and any change proposals will be taken to the board for approval. So, it's quite difficult to talk about the specifics of the change, but in terms of how it's being communicated, we've presented a case for change pack that is very comprehensive, and as leadership team and as exec team, we've had various meetings either on a departmental basis or on a business basis, or from my point of view, the regulatory service or land stewardship service or evidence service, whichever, sort of thing. So, we're taking them on a service-by-service basis, so that we can have those conversations with staff, which has enabled them to provide responses into the consultation. We have had a lot of responses in from the consultation with the trade unions, so the communications that we've done have elicited appropriate responses, which we will now consider going forward before we go to the board for approval.

Okay. So, do you recognise a situation where—? I've had people working with Natural Resources Wales contacting me, saying that departments are contacting each other, asking, 'Do you know what's going to happen? Do you know where we're going to sit, if there's going to be anything for us to apply for at the other side of this redundancy programme?' It set off some alarm bells in my mind that staff weren't fully sighted on what the plan would be moving forward, because they couldn't see where—or even whether—they fitted in in terms of the skills that they had and the expertise that maybe they could contribute.

I mean, obviously, there are going to be people who, at the end of this process, end up at risk, but the structure of what vacancies are likely to be available if the proposals were to be accepted were clearly communicated. It's understandable that people will have concerns about their own futures if there is not an obvious slot for them to fit into, but the next stage of the process will unravel some of that, and obviously there will be further work that will have to be done around where work is due to stop, how we stop that work, and in which way that can then be delivered for each of the services.

And can I ask to what extent is the Welsh Government involved in this strategic forward planning, or is it just left to the board?

I'm not personally involved in those discussions with Welsh Government other than with policy colleagues in my area, but there are open conversations through our sponsorship division around what the proposals are looking like.

Okay. Has there been any sort of impact assessment work done on how the changes might affect your work and some of the aspects that we've discussed already in terms of delivering your remit?

Within each of the services, we've had to consider what the impacts of the changes are going to look like, so we have tried to take account of those impacts in developing the proposals.

And do they come together at some point, as a corporate?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean specifically, but—

The danger is that you end up doing this in silos and not across the whole organisation.

Oh, I see. No, sorry. That is all brought together in the overall proposal, and the case for change is organisation wide, so all the services kind of come together through that lens to consider as a whole.