National Assembly for Wales

I should just say for the record that I'm deputy chairman of Natural Resources Wales, and I also chair the OECM committee, looking at other effective area-based conservation measures for the biodiversity deep-dive, and I sit on the biodiversity deep-dive principal panel. So, just to say for the record. 

Sure. Good to know. Thank you.

I think, where we are in terms of progress, we have, because of the biodiversity deep-dive, a set of clear ideas about what we want to achieve, how we will meet, in particular, the target of somehow recognising 30 per cent of Wales's land and sea for biodiversity purposes. I think what we don’t have at the moment is a clear mechanism to make that happen at a sufficient pace and scale. This is a very, very significant target.

At the moment, we have about 12 per cent of Wales’s land surface that is identified for biodiversity. Less than half of that is in good condition. In the marine environment, Dr Unsworth will comment on the scale at which we’re achieving at the moment. It’s probably about 50 per cent of Wales’s offshore environment that is notified, but, again, there are issues with the condition of those environments. We need to pick up the pace, we need to increase the scale of what we’re covering. The number of months we have to meet the target by 2030 is just over 60. We’re nowhere near actually coming to even having our first OECMs or nature recovery areas identified.

In Scotland, there is a bit of a move to legislate, to perhaps make national parks one of the means through which they would deliver their targets. We don’t have an appetite for that in Wales. Government funds are limited and almost certainly dwindling, so we don’t really have cash incentives to make things happen. The agricultural support system, as we’ve seen with the sustainable farming scheme, is being debated. It will come into place, it will provide funds for biological diversity, but there are questions around whether there is sufficient resource being spent on biodiversity.

So, it takes us to a place where we could be reliant on private funds, and that comes with an array of risks around ensuring that whatever private funds might be used have integrity or are appropriately audited and targeted at the right things. So, at the moment, we’re essentially relying on goodwill and teamwork to deliver the target that we need to reach by 2030.

Anything to add? Yes, Victoria. 

I would add that, in the past, we’ve relied on legislation as our sort of key approach in terms of nature recovery, and looking to 2030, and to the target of 30x30, and expanding what we’re doing in terms of the spatial approach, then law might not necessarily be the right approach. But if we're not going to use legislation, then we do need to think about how we incentivise action in this area and how we provide for accountability in whatever it is that we're doing, particularly around private funding. If we're going to introduce that, what are the frameworks that we're going to introduce to ensure accountability in that context?

I wanted to reiterate what Steve was saying around picking up the pace and the scale. And from a marine environment perspective, that is absolutely critical. Recent analysis that we've done within Swansea University and Project Seagrass shows that all of the highest recorded nitrate levels ever in the Cleddau tributaries into Milford Haven waterway, the highest levels ever recorded, have all happened since 2020. The significant degradation of our waterways continues, and whether that's the Wye, whether it's the Severn, the Cleddau, or any of the other tributaries around the coast into our estuaries, they're bringing poor water quality into the marine environment. So, it's not a surprise that our special areas of conservation remain in an unfavourable state, although there are lots of intricacies within those assessments, and we'll see a statement on the condition of those SACs in November. But, there's no indication that there are significant improvements in their status. So, what's happening on the land is continuing to degrade what is happening in our oceans, and with that we have significant threats to biodiversity, we have significant threats to our ability for the marine environment to actually act as a sink for carbon and not as a source. 

And that links to other parts of the degradation of our coasts. I'm involved in some work with the Isle of Man Government, where we're looking at how bottom trawling is remobilising carbon and possibly leading to the sea bed being a source of carbon into our oceans and possibly into our atmosphere. We need to pick up the pace in terms of our actual marine management and not paper-based marine management. That is the critical thing. We can keep categorising parts of our ocean as being areas of conservation, protection, blah, blah, blah, but until we actually prevent impacts upon our sea bed from bottom trawling, from all sorts of other activities, then we won't actually make any change. 

Okay.

Just to add two things. One is that we've spoken quite a bit about terrestrial and marine environments. Dr Unsworth has just mentioned the freshwater environment, which I think we'll come on to at some later point in the agenda, but just to record at this point the extent to which our freshwaters are protected for nature is actually very limited by comparison with terrestrial and marine environments. So, we have about 25,000 km of streams and rivers in Wales, and a very, very small proportion of that, less than 1 per cent, has ever been notified for its nature conservation interest. And I would like to mention something about the quality of those environments later. 

I think one of the other key things is that, on the one hand, we're talking about targets to somehow recognise a given percentage of Wales for its nature conservation importance. One of the key things is that we seldom address the drivers of biodiversity reduction. So, Richard has mentioned nutrients, but there are issues around climate change and the invasive non-native species. So, resource use in the round, if we are going to use the sustainable management of natural resources principle route, could become quite an important way of ensuring that, somehow, we decouple economic growth from environmental impact by somehow trying to reduce our resource use. 

Okay. Thank you. Well, that's quite a sobering place to start, really, isn't it, because as you say it's goodwill and teamwork at the minute, and on this current trajectory we're not going to reach those targets that we aspire to reach. But we'll come back to many of those aspects as we go along. Okay, I'll invite Janet, then, to ask a few questions. 

Thank you, and I know I've had similar conversations with Lord Deben, who was the chair of the Climate Change Committee, and his concerns about what we're doing, or not doing, as regards the marine environment. So, Dr Richard Unsworth, in your written evidence, you said that we’re nowhere near actually protecting 30 per cent of our marine environment. What does protection look like? Do you believe that there’s a clear understanding by Government of what’s needed for the 30x30 target?

I think there’s a lack of recognition as to how degraded our oceans are. There’s a very interesting recent publication by a Dr Alec Moore at Bangor University on the historical ecology of our coastal seas around Wales, specifically focusing on how we’ve completely destroyed our fisheries. And there’s classic fisheries ecology work that’s been done all around the world that shows how, as you degrade the ecosystem, you fish down the food web because there’s nothing left at the predatory level and you basically head down to the bottom. And that’s why we now have fisheries that are dependent upon whelk. Whelk are very much low in that food chain and we no longer have significant fisheries for cod. There's a very big herring fishery that used to exist all around the coast of Wales, major fisheries for sturgeon, and that’s really well articulated in an article in a journal called Fish and Fisheries. Alec Moore suggests that it’s good reading for anyone in Government. It’s quite a sobering view of that.

So, our baseline is really difficult to articulate here, and protection, yes, we can protect what is a degraded system, but that’s not helpful for food security, for fighting climate change, for our economy—all those different elements. And, actually, true protection is about bringing that system back and actually taking measures that will truly enhance its recovery. And whether that’s actually about improving the state of our catchment so that our seas have a potential to actually recover, whether it’s about truly creating marine protected areas that are useful and also taking key actions to restore our oceans—.

There are beginnings of restoration in Wales. We’ve been involved with the seagrass component, but there’s a huge amount of different habitats out there that need to be brought back to life and it’s that level of step change—that’s what’s really required in terms of bringing our ocean’s life back together. We only have one truly operational marine protected area in Wales, in Skomer. It’s too small to make any significant regional impact and, unfortunately, we need to be more mindful of how we can actually expand that. We need to be bold and if we’re bold, then that can actually create benefits for our economy.

Thank you. And you talk about fast-tracking measures within catchments to improve water quality and indeed the coastal environment. What elements would you fast-track? And tied to that question, we are so lucky to have the School of Ocean Sciences in Bangor, and over the years I’ve kept close contact with them and they are saying that there is a lot that they could be doing but they just don’t receive the funding. Do you think that there is more funding needed as well to be addressing the very many issues that you’ve raised?

I think that there are mechanisms within Government and within environmental management that can improve the situation, and that's about better management of our agriculture. I noticed, earlier in the summer, there was a consultation on water quality, but it excluded agriculture from that discussion. One of the biggest drivers of degradation of our waterways is agriculture—we can't hide from it. Agriculture and its influence on climate change is far bigger, because of its degradative impact upon nature, than we actually really understand.

Simple measures such as actually improving riparian vegetation, improving management of activities on farms, can actually have major impacts. I spend a lot of time in Pembrokeshire and in Carmarthenshire, and it's very easy to see cattle grazing directly on a salt marsh, directly on a river's edge, with no riparian vegetation, with nothing to stop the direct flow of their effluent into rivers, and I think that there's a lot of basic ecology that needs to be scaled up to think about how we can improve our rivers and estuaries. And I'm not the expert on that, but I think that there are lots of principles there that are well established in the scientific literature.

Thank you. Now, within the biodiversity deep-dive, you mentioned the marine side of things was under-represented, missing elements to address 30x30. How do you believe now we should be looking back? Do we need a more detailed deep-dive, and an action plan to monitor the process?

A deeper deep-dive.

For most of that process, there was one or two of us involved there from a marine perspective, yet the sea bed in Wales is half of our land area. I'm very much a coastal ecologist—I work in shallow waters, in estuary environments; I don't work in the deep, I don't work offshore—and I think there was a very strong under-representation of that type of impact. We're building huge amounts of offshore wind farms, which I personally support, but I don't think we're really understanding how we can manage the impact of those effectively, and how we can improve their implementation to enhance biodiversity. That's not my expertise, but I think there are other opportunities there and that we need to bring different expertise into this discussion.

[Inaudible.]—for now, Chair, thanks. Thank you very much. Really, really detailed, good answers.

Thank you, Janet. Yes, Steve.

I think that just may need a bit of clarification, of what proportion of the offshore and coastal environment is somehow protected for nature. So, if we count only Skomer as the one key area, I think we may be leaving out some of the other designations. Our biodiversity deep-dive actually did record a bigger proportion of the marine environment being protected, and I think we would be doing a disfavour to our colleagues in Welsh Government and other organisations if we said we were actually only at that very, very small proportion. The records of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and others show it's bigger, probably about 50 per cent, but the key problem actually is the condition of those offshore marine protected areas at various times.

Sure. Okay, thank you. Yes, and then we'll come to Joyce.

I was just going to say, the thing that strikes me here about this whole conversation is what we mean by 'protection'. So, from my perspective, in academic law, I think of 'law' in terms of its role in terms of protection, and the approach that we have in terms of protected areas is necessarily limited, because, of course, those protected areas are affected by all sorts of other influences, and we do have legislation in those other areas; we do have legislation that addresses pollution, that addresses agricultural concerns et cetera, et cetera. But one of the key problems with legislation is how it all works together, and that's quite different in a terrestrial environment to the freshwater environment to the marine environment, and the marine environment is actually probably the most complex. So, those are some of the issues that I think we need to understand and to recognise that nature is complex, nature recovery is very complex, and we need complex responses, but at the same time we need to understand how we can make them work effectively.

Just on that—and forgive me, I'll come to you in a second—as I was preparing for today's session, I mean, the plethora and layers of strategies, action plans, bodies and organisations, devolved, non-devolved that are involved in this field—I'm really struggling to put it all together in my head, and I don't think it's possible to do that. I was wondering whether we could have some sort of flow chart showing—. But there are so many different moving parts here. Is it possible to rationalise? Could Welsh Government really sweep some of it away and consolidate into five or six particular—? I don't know, or is that too naive? I know the world doesn't work that way very often, but it just feels overly complicated in terms of pots of money and all. Everything is just—.

I can offer a view partly on that and also to build on Victoria's point. Very clearly, we are in a position with the whole protected area network system of one that has evolved through various pieces of global agreement, European legislation that is still in UK law, British legislation that preceded that, and then, subsequently, features such as the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and it all does layer in very, very complex ways. One of the issues that the array of systems we have brings is that none of them, effectively, cope with the big external pressures that now drive biodiversity decline, so climate change, nutrient distribution—we've heard a little bit about other pollutants, the movement of unwanted organisms, which takes you to the point of actually needing to somehow control those top-down pressures. If we don't address climate change, we cannot address the biodiversity issue.

But in addition to that, there is a move at the level of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee of the UK, through the chief scientists of the different statutory bodies, to rethink the way we might go about identifying areas for biodiversity conservation, making them—in what are quite familiar terms—bigger, better and more joined up, so the bigger areas you have, the more connected they are, the more you're able to absorb some of the changes that are driving biodiversity down through time. Probably thinking bigger is quite important.

Yes, okay. Thank you. Joyce.

I want to talk about one of the things that concern me—you may not have a view, it's not on the paper—which is the increased use of sea resource to replace plastic, and we're talking particularly about seaweed. I don't know whether any of you have done any work on the potential overuse of extracting seaweed, which is a food source, from our waters. If you have, maybe you could write me a note. If you haven't, you could still write me a note and express whether you think it should be done. But I keep hearing it. We're trying to replace plastic, and I absolutely agree with getting rid of plastic, but I'm equally concerned that you might be removing a food source, because we can't see it.

Can I suggest that Richard takes the point about the resource exploitation, then I can say something very brief about bioplastics?

Okay, thank you. Richard.

Well, I don't know much about bioplastics, so that's great. But there are some fledgling industries in Wales that are trying to grow seaweed for various uses, and I think bioplastics is one of those, but they're not extracting natural resources, they're trying to utilise oceans to grow particular products. I can't for the life of me think of the place, but near to Ramsey Island, there's a small operation near St David's that's growing seaweed, and I think they're doing very well. They're looking at different types of aquaculture from mussels to seaweed, all sorts of things. But I think, generally, it's in that space. There are always going to be concerns when those sorts of industries develop, and they need to be managed to ensure that you don't get the overextraction and overuse of natural resources. I think that it's dangerous to create those sorts of opportunities, but so long as it remains an aquaculture-based approach, then it's probably quite a good thing, because it takes nutrients out of the water. If you're growing seaweed, then there are opportunities, but it's just about careful management and not necessarily about it being a bad thing.

There's a long history of marine algal exploitation off the coast of Ireland and a lot of Ireland's agriculture was initially dependent on that exploitation, and as long as the rate of exploitation is slower than the rate of renewal, then it could be a sustainable crop. But specifically on the plastic issue, at the moment, we put about 20 million tonnes of plastic into the world's oceans annually—that's liable to increase to about 50 million tonnes in the next 10 years or so, even with the controls that we hope will come in place to try and reduce that. So, there is a key need to substitute existing plastics with new materials. There is a lot of debate about whether the new bioplastics are free of all kinds of problems that they themselves might have. So, some of the breakdown products, the rate at which they break down and form smaller particles could still be problematic for some organisms and we're still trying to understand exactly what that is.

Thank you very much for that. We'll move on now, then. Delyth.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da, everyone. Good morning. I'm going to focus on the environmental governance Bill that is hotly anticipated, looking firstly at the proposed new biodiversity recovery framework and what the Welsh Government has said around this. Do you think that they get the urgency that's needed? Do you think that that is reflected in what's being said?

I think we're still in a kind of phase of development, aren't we, around the environmental governance Bill in that we've had the consultation, we've seen the policy responses to it, where there is very clear agreement around embedding environmental principles into law, which, to me, seems appropriate. I think there is agreement about an environmental body of some type, with a bit of debate about exactly what that looks like. There is agreement about the importance of statutory targets and some kind of mechanism to bring those into place. We're not clear, as yet, about exactly what those targets will look like. One of my concerns is that they will be actually quite high level, when quite a lot of the importance of biodiversity protection is at levels of detail around species and ecosystems. So, I think we need to see more development, in fact, around the ideas through which the principles translate into action on the ground, and again, to go back to the importance of doing things at a pace and scale and with appropriate incentive to make a difference.

One of the key things I think we should all take away from this meeting is that biological diversity is slipping through our fingers. The nature of Wales and its environmental fabric has changed dramatically in the 40-something years that I've been here, around the loss of key organisms, reductions in their populations and loss of diversity in the round. I found myself thinking this morning of an analogy between the impacts that climate change have upon us, which are large and dramatic, but somehow, the loss of biodiversity is like being sneaked up on by someone with a rapier; somewhere down the line, we will suddenly realise that there is a major loss that we've incurred, whether it's in pollinating organisms, whether it's in the control of pests. But we are at serious risk of the collapse of some of the processes that we depend on for life support unless we make a difference.

Just to add to that, there was a very big warning on Radio 4 this morning: the Butterfly Conservation trust for the UK was saying that they've been running a survey for 14 years, and this year, they recorded the lowest ever numbers of butterflies, with huge amounts of individuals contributing to that survey not recording a single butterfly. There's a whole series of indicators of our biodiversity that are showing that creep that Steve was referring to. I think there's only a certain amount of time that we can keep on just seeing them and just talking. I don't think there is enough urgency. I'm not a policy person, so it's very hard to discuss the governance Acts and policies, but I think that failures in lots of other environmental management in Wales and the wider UK means that we shouldn’t rush a governance Bill and get it wrong. We should put things in place that are actually creating mechanisms that work and that actually when they’re implemented result in actual improvement in biodiversity. It’s a twin battle of our time, but we need to get it right. I’m not sure I have an answer there, but I think that there are two things that are at play. But we do have to ramp things up at scale and pace.

There are two elements to this White Paper. One is the new environmental governance body and the other is the nature recovery framework. When it comes to the environmental governance body, we’ve been discussing that since before Brexit. I’ve given evidence to this committee on that several times and I’ve always been a great proponent of that. I think there’s been a process where, rightly, we have discussed that at length and how it should operate, and we do have the other nations of the UK and the examples there to consider. We have been slow in developing that in comparison to the other nations of the UK. So, that’s one issue.

But when it comes to the nature recovery framework, I think we’ve had less debate and discussion about that in comparison, and, as you said, we do need to get that right. I think one of the key issues there is how we incorporate what we want to do in terms of nature recovery into our existing framework for sustainable management of natural resources. It's recognising that kind of complexity that we have in terms of nature recovery, the challenge that we’re facing, and that the sustainable management of natural resources regime recognises that complexity, and tries to address, as you said, the plethora of action plans and legislation around this area in terms of environmental protection. We’ve had that for a while now, it’s starting to embed. The key question then is how do we make that match up with what we’re trying to do in terms of nature recovery.

I think it’s very important in that context that we have a kind of shared understanding of what we’re doing in terms of ecosystems resilience and biodiversity, what those two things mean, and how they relate to one another. Because I think the scientists are very clear, but policy makers and people like me need to really understand that, because the sustainable management of natural resources and the well-being of future generations Act has focused our attention on ecosystems resilience, and there’s been some questions raised about how that system has emphasised biodiversity and how we can improve that in the future. I think sometimes some of these problems are around our fundamental approach to things like that, to our understanding of what these things actually mean. I think that’s what we now need to do, especially around the recent debates about whether or not we incorporate this into our existing system or whether we have something separate.

I think I'll bring Delyth back in, if that's okay.

Thank you all, firstly, for how eloquently you’ve put the scale of the challenge and, as you say, the danger of things creeping up on us when we have twin emergencies—we have the climate emergency and the nature emergency. The power in your words has really brought that into focus again, so thank you very much for that. Looking at how this proposed Bill is going to tackle this and some of the details of how the Welsh Government is proposing to do this, I’d like your views, please, firstly on the fact that the Welsh Government is considering replacing the 2030-50 headline target for this Bill with a nature positive purpose or mission statement, and then on the other hand the detailed biodiversity targets that it’s proposed would be in regulations. Do you think that that is the right way of approaching this, please?

The one point I would make, I think, in all of this conversation is that actually I would much prefer to live in a nation that had targets and an incentive system to move towards more protection than one that didn't. So, I think we have to recognise the importance of statutory targets through which we can all be held to account about what we do. And I've lost the second part of your question—if you could just remind me. 

Forgive me. The fact that it's proposed that the detailed targets would be in regulations. Do you think that that is the right way? Do you think that they should be on the face of the Bill?

I think, very clearly, what we are seeing develop are multiple strands of some kind of governance system through which we try and protect biological diversity. So, the statutory targets and a plan or a mission statement very clearly is a statement of intent, which is clearly important for Government and others to have, and, alongside that, the delivery of our commitments under both existing legislation and under what we're doing for the global biodiversity framework with other effective area-based conservation measures. Big areas of land and sea that are somehow recognised for nature, nature recovery exemplar areas and nature networks mean that we have multiple strands that are operating together. If we do have some kind of target, then, clearly, there is a regulatory requirement that sits alongside it. We have bodies like Natural Resources Wales who—I want to use these words—'should be' discharging regulatory responsibilities, and the possibility of a new organisation, an office of environmental protection, which would have a regulatory responsibility. So, all the concepts here are joined up, and they are moving in the right direction. We have got to turn that rhetoric into real action to make a difference.

I would say the debate over whether this should be a target or a statement to me is less important than what we're actually trying to say with this, because this is the headline for what we're trying to achieve. We sometimes use the term 'nature positive', we sometimes use the term 'nature recovery', and I actually think it's important that we get the messaging right and that it is consistent, so that we all know what it is we're trying to achieve.

The international obligation has been framed around the idea of nature recovery, and, so, if we're going to achieve consistency in that respect, that might be a better term, but I know that others might disagree with that, because they say it's not ambitious enough, because we need to be nature positive, so we need to be adding value. So, I can see that there's an argument there, but I think we need to decide and be consistent—I think that's the most important thing.

If you think about climate change, climate change, again, is very complex, isn't it, and we don't all have the best understanding of climate, or what's happening, but we can all understand the target in terms of net zero by 2050. And if you've, as I have, watched the development of our responses to climate change over the many years since the original convention in the 1990s, you can see how we've developed that understanding over time. The biodiversity convention was signed at the same time, but we've much slower in responding to that challenge and to this nature crisis, and, in a sense, we're now catching up. We need to try to develop the kind of consistent message that we've got with climate change in terms of what I would refer to as nature recovery. I think, for me, that's what's most significant in terms of the headline.

And then, when it comes to the other targets, in terms of exactly what they should look like, I think that's for the scientists. But in terms of whether or not we put it on the face of the Bill or in regulations, the clear advantage of regulations is that it is easier to change them, it provides that kind of flexibility over time, because we are creating a system that will necessarily need to be reviewed. These targets will need to be reviewed, they'll need to be changed over time. But what we can do is, on the face of the Bill, create a framework for that. So, we can say what should be the objectives in terms of these targets, what should be the time frame, et cetera, and we can create a sense of accountability on the face of the Bill for what will happen in terms of the development of the regulations.  

Just a brief thing to add, really, to those statements there, that whatever target or goal or everything that is set, the implementation requires financial support. I actively work with people in NRW and I see the extreme levels of funding limitations that are present there. People can't travel within Wales to attend meetings, there are facilities that are being closed down, there are jobs being cut. That is not speaking ambition that aligns to future legislation. So, we can create all the legislation we want, but if we're not funding the capacity of NRW as the principal delivery agent of all this biodiversity management action, then we're not going to do anything. It just comes down to a funding game at the end of the day, and whether we consider biodiversity as being important, and if we do, and climate change adaptation, then we need to be funding NRW properly, and we're not. It's not just NRW. I don't know about some of the other designations around Wales, but, from a marine special areas of conservation perspective, they are grossly underfunded, and that is the elephant in the room around all this discussion.

Okay. Thank you very much. Delyth.

Diolch. I have one other question, but I'm aware of time, so I'm happy to leave it there and, if we've got time at the end, to come back to it. 

If you'll allow, yes, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. We'll come on, then, to Janet, who'll take us on to the next area of questioning. 

Thank you, Chair. This question is to Dr Richard Unsworth. How can the Welsh Government better support seagrass restoration? I'm really supportive of the work you do, and generally in seagrass restoration, given its carbon sequestration ability. How could the Welsh Government support you better?

There was a promise that came out of the last election programme for government to support seagrass restoration and salt marsh legislation. In a meeting earlier this year with the then climate change Secretary, Julie James, she discussed how that action came from—. Is it a Youth Parliament or a youth congress of Wales? I don't really understand the exact mechanism there, but it came from their bottom-up wish list, and I think some of the parties got behind that and it has led to a promise as part of the programme for government. I'm pretty sure that there's very limited delivery of that. I'm personally involved with the seagrass bit of that, but I also know that, with the salt marsh, there's been next to no progress on it. Now, not delivering on that is, I feel, like a fundamental disassociation from the future, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, because, in one sense, you are asking the youth of Wales what they want and at the same time you're not delivering it.

So, what support is needed, then? That's the question.

The seagrass network for Wales has put together a proposal for an action plan for seagrass for Wales. That's a consortium of all sorts of different partners from Project Seagrass—Swansea University, Bangor University are part of that, the Port of Milford Haven are part of it, and WWF. There's a whole range of organisations involved. And that has been passed to the climate change office, and it has been given the context of an external proposal. So, actually, we're now applying for competitive funding, whereas actually this is about a programme for government, not a competitive funding opportunity. It's great that we're getting some advice to apply for some funding to support it, but it should be a programme for government, not a side action that external organisations are having to run with.

And as part of that action plan, there's a whole series of different activities in it, and NRW were part of that, the Welsh Government. There was a great consortium of people who have come together and created some great ideas there. And that's not just about seagrass; it's about the environment that supports seagrass and, therefore, it's about, essentially, using seagrass as a poster child for actually how we improve our coastal environment.

So, isn't it right back to square one, then, whereby, really, 'Let's get on with the fast-tracking'? Enough action plans have been written up previously—strategies. Do you not think a faster track way is by us asking for more funding directly to support seagrass and salt marsh projects?

I think, yes—

'Yes', in a word.

It's in the programme for government. The Government needs to find that money.

I'll be asking.

That's the point—if it's in the programme for government, yes, sure.

Okay. My next question is to Dr Victoria Jenkins. And thank you, by the way, for the last question. We've heard that the protected site network is in poor condition. Do you believe that that is due to shortcomings in the legislastion, or is it poor implementation? Because, for me, you can have legislation, and it's how well it's implented, but can it be implemented if it's not funded enough? So, what is the hold back on this?

I think it's a really important issue. There is a protected sites legislation because we are building on that in terms of what we're doing, in terms of meeting the 30x30 target. So, we need to understand what's been happening with that legislation because, clearly, the recent report by Natural Resources Wales on the state of the protected site network has highlighted the problems that exist there. The interim environmental protection assessor for Wales is currently carrying out an investigation and producing a report on that, and I have been involved in evaluating the evidence on that. And I think we need to wait for that to really be able to understand the issues there. I think it highlights the very important role of that IEPAW, and, obviously, the environmental commission that's being proposed is the fact that we can then carry out these kinds of investigations and get a really good understanding of what has been happening and where the problems are.

Okay. I'm a little bit sceptical about the role of the interim measure because I want to see proper environmental governance, with powers to be able to go after people on each environmental governance issue. But, again, I do believe that there's so much talk that goes on about biodiversity, climate change, the marine environment, and, for me, I believe now that it's time for the Welsh Government to actually be held with their feet closer to the fire. Professor Steve Ormerod, how can the Welsh Government better support freshwater biodiversity, please?

Thanks for the question. It goes back to one of the points I made earlier on around the area, the extent of freshwaters that are currently protected, which is small. I think we've got to understand something of the pressures that impact on freshwater condition on key species, such as Atlantic salmon and sewin. And what our evidence shows contrasts a little bit with the narrative where sewage is considered to be one of the important drivers. Actually, now, the evidence we have shows that climate change is increasingly a problem, so we've got to find ways of adapting freshwater environments to absorb the effects of climate change—by tree planting along their banks, among other things. But one of the other key issues is we're seeing deterioration associated with nutrients, particularly in areas of intensive agriculture, and in particular intensive dairy. So, I think it takes us to the point that we can have as much legislation as we want—through protected areas, or anything else—but unless we address the drivers of biodiversity decline, we will continue to be trying to protect things that are declining and, essentially, just cataloguing their decline. So, we've got to take action to make a difference.

In the case of rivers or, indeed, lakes, one of the issues is that protection mostly just is associated with the wetted perimeter, when in actual fact we need to protect the whole catchments that give rise to the flow that then enters into the river environment or the lake environment. There are some initiatives around, for example, the Wye with the restoration scheme, the Teifi with the idea of some kind of community project, where we try and involve communities of people to reduce catchment-scale pressures on the freshwater environment. And, in fact, I would like to see us incentivising those ideas more and using river catchments as one of our key instruments in delivering the 30x30 initiative. So, the bigger, other effective area-based conservation measures could involve river catchments as an example, and we could then harness sustainable farming scheme support, water company investment, community interactions, contributions from ENGOs. Freshwaters could act as a really major focus of illustrating how we make a bigger benefit to the environment in general.

Excellent. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Right, I'm conscious we have 20 minutes left, and I know that Carolyn, Joyce and, if possible, I would like to come in on a few things as well, so we'll move straight to Carolyn.

It feels to me that, sometimes, it's the economy that's the enemy, or the economy versus the environment and biodiversity, so it's about getting that balance right. So, whether it's agriculture, farming, or business versus the challenge of protecting the environment and biodiversity, it's a very difficult balance, it feels like, when looking at policies, going forward. I've got a question about the Environment (Wales) Act 2016: what are your views on the implementation of it in terms of delivering for nature? Do you think it's making a difference and being applied?

So, the emphasis that's come out of Wales's environmental legislation in general is just full of positives, and the fact that we recognise, first of all, the importance of environment as widely as we do, and we recognise the importance of being good ancestors, I think, is absolutely critical. But the evidence that we see from the environmental trajectory in Wales is that what we have has failed to make a difference in stemming biodiversity loss, and I think that goes back to the point around addressing the key drivers of biodiversity decline and, indeed, climate change. They come about because we are exploiting resources more rapidly than we're protecting them, and if we were protecting resources and using less, almost certainly our biodiversity would fare better. And that takes us back, I think, to your opening statement about the balance between growing the economy and protecting the environment, and we are in a position where I think it's extremely difficult for Governments not to have an environmental growth agenda. But, at the same time, we have to live in a world where we bring people's level of well-being up to a certain minimum standard globally, but, at the same time, we operate within an envelope where we don't damage the environment, and some kind of sustainable economic model coupled with better resource sharing almost certainly would be the ideal way, in my mind, of moving towards those circumstances. But we have Governments here in Wales and across the border in Westminster who are committed to a growth agenda, which essentially means we've got to decouple economic growth from environmental impact, and it has to be about minimising resource exploitation and use.

Do you believe that the area statements can be—? Well, do you think that the area statements can be better applied to restore nature?

Well, in fact, I did look at the evidence submitted by Natural Resources Wales to this committee, and their points very clearly are that there is a lot in the nature recovery plan, the area statements, SoNaRR, our existing legislation, including the environment Act, that we don't use as fully and effectively as we should for biodiversity protection. I think we should be looking to NRW, to the new office of environmental protection, when it comes in, to encourage us to think about how we use those existing pieces of legislation better, but also how we incentivise real action that makes a difference for biodiversity.

So, some say the sustainable management of natural resources framework is not currently focused on biodiversity restoration and recovery, and suggest that objectives should be updated to address the issue. I think this was in evidence from RSPB Cymru—so, just your views on that.

Others might want to comment, but I know that the civil servants working in Welsh Government, through their policy response to the recent Bill development, are focusing on SMNR as being one of the key areas where we could have some purchase over what happens in the environment. I would like to see better evidence that SMNR approach did deliver for biodiversity, but again I think there is an opportunity to use SMNR principles as a way of somehow reducing and managing resource use in ways that don't actually drive environmental degradation.

There is an urgency to reverse biodiversity loss. Do you think a way forward to drive that would be using our national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, Ramsar sites, public open spaces?

We have a lot of legislation in the mix already. From a marine perspective, we have special areas of conservation, and they get no direct Government funding. The strategic partners involved, they fund a particular office. I've worked very closely with the Pen Llŷn a'r Sarnau SAC in Gwynedd, and they run a system where they're continually trying to bring in project money to effectively carry out what is, essentially, a strategic need. So, they're unable to have the finance to actually think about the bigger picture of the SAC. And that I think there's a lot of instruments in Government, whether it's that environment Act in 2016, they're not fully being implemented. The legislation that underpinned the original establishment of SACs had a lot more meat in it, and it's just the SACs are unable to really implement a lot of the actions that could go with that. So, it comes down to resources. Have we really funded the NRW to actually make the most of the environment Act 2016? I don't know the exact ins and outs of that, but I'd struggle to actually think that we have truly supported them to deliver the Act.

All those areas mentioned earlier that are managed by the Wildlife Trust, Plantlife Cymru, the non-governmental organisations, and then local authorities as well manage some of the AONBs, all publicly funded, which—. We're struggling for that money. So, we've got a question here about innovative funding, haven't we?

Well, yes, go on then.

I'm leading to that question.

Go on. Good, because that's where I was going to go next. We've spoken a lot about funding, but we haven't really addressed it.

So, I wanted to say: have you any experience of innovative funding models for nature restoration levering in private finance? There's mitigation, sometimes, isn't there, on different offshore wind developments, for example.

The funding model in Scotland around the development of something called SMEEF—I can't remember what the acronym stands for—

What was it, sorry?

SMEEF. That's an attempt to try and bring in private finance and offshore wind impact mitigation funding to improve nature conservation. I think that's a really nice model. For me, I think that there's a greater need for the landowners of the marine environment to truly commit to improving the status of the seabed for future generations rather than taking money out of it eternally, and I think that the Crown Estate need to reconsider where they are for Wales and for the marine environment as a whole. And I think there are lots of other landowners in the marine environment who are present but don't really actually provide financial inputs to improving—it's status quo.

Thank you. Steve.

Those two questions, one on the national parks and national landscapes and other large areas, are actually in consideration as part of the biodiversity deep-dive, as regions where we could do more for biodiversity, with resources. There is a governance structure in place, but, at the moment, biodiversity isn’t one of the duties that national parks and national landscapes have. And the state of biodiversity within some of our national parks is actually no better in areas outside, so there would have to be a step change.

Specifically on green financing, there are clearly opportunities here, in that there is a significant amount of private cash that is looking for some sort of investment. We need to know more about the provenance of that resource. We need to know more about exactly what it is delivering in biodiversity terms. We need to have appropriate systems in place to ensure that it’s audited properly, that it has integrity, that the science behind it is robust.

There are models developing, so there is something in England now, linked to water companies, called the environmental markets board, which is setting itself up as some kind of prototype regulator for those activities, and I think Wales could learn from some of those initiatives. There are debates developing in Wales, but we’re a little bit behind the curve of where England is. And I should declare an interest; in fact, I was asked to sit on the environmental markets board to head up their science advisory group, and I did it because I wanted to learn about the opportunities for using green funding for these purposes. It could fill an opportunity that Government funding, currently, isn’t able to fulfil.

Okay. Fine. We’ll move on to the—. Do you want to add anything?

All I would say is—it’s not particularly my area, but—when it comes to private funding, I think you do have to be very careful that you have integrity and accountability, because you’re taking yourself out of the legislative environment.

Sure, and we understand that the Government has, just this week, published a consultation on the principles of private investment in this sphere, so, hopefully, those issues will be addressed as part of that.

Fine. We’ll move on finally, then, to Joyce.

Monitoring biodiversity—so, I suppose the big question is: what are we monitoring and how are we using it? So, to what extent is academic data collection on biodiversity feeding through to the more centralised databases, and then, in turn, being used in public efforts to restore nature?

So, the question, specifically, is about the uses of academic data. Actually, academics do carry out monitoring and assessment, not over very long timescales, and not over very large areas, typically. So, I would suggest that they’re not the best sources of data to understand long-term environmental change. Organisations like Natural Resources Wales, the water companies and others, do have very extensive data. At the same time, our ability within those sectors to monitor is being really seriously squeezed by resources, and we don’t yet fully understand what the outcomes of resource reductions in NRW will be. But I think they could be significant in front-line areas, such as monitoring and evidence and assessment. And that sits alongside an increasing need for monitoring to assess how well we’re doing around the 30x30 target, which comes with its own set of monitoring requirements.

So, my overall assessment is that monitoring is squeezed very, very substantially. It’s probably not doing the full array of things that it should be doing. But I go back to a key point that, if all we are doing is monitoring the decline of nature, that’s not always particularly helpful. So, I think we could streamline and build more effective, focused monitoring systems, share them among organisations, but, in the end, one of the key points is to incentivise the things that restore nature and penalise the things that impact on nature more fully. We’ve got to take action, and not just make assessments.

The Welsh Government says that the progress towards the biodiversity targets would be through SoNaRR and additional data collection will be minimised, given existing data collection for established UK and international commitments. What do you feel about that?

So, I think that’s hinting at the extent to which, on the one hand, we have systems such as SoNaRR, which are in place for collecting data, but the assessment of our delivery against international commitments are where the new monitoring requirements around a biodiversity deep-dive are being generated. So, we've got to understand the extent to which we are meeting the requirements of environmental legislation or environmental agreements—so, in other words, are we satisfying the needs of 30x30 and the biodiversity targets—but also we need to assess whether they're really making a difference in restoring nature. So, they're where the additional resource requirements actually add to what we already do through SoNaRR.

So, you're happy, or content, as much as you can be, that the monitoring of biodiversity is given due credence in all the rest of the work that's ongoing.

Well, I mean, we can demonstrate quite clearly that there are gaps in what we are able to understand. So, Victoria's point around the condition of our SSSI network, for example, illustrates that there is quite a lot we actually don't know the condition of, even though it's being monitored. If you look at the freshwater environment, an area that I know best of all, up to about 10 years ago I could have drawn on hundreds of thousands of data points from tens of thousands of locations across England and Wales to understand the trajectory of the river environment. That is now down to a few thousand locations and a few thousand data points. In the end, resources are bound to be squeezed, and we have to develop more sensitive and sensible systems that enable us to track the environment more effectively with less resource. We're looking at things like remote sensing as being a means of potentially doing this, new molecular models, the use of environmental DNA, as examples, but there is always a challenge between switching over from what we traditionally have been doing into what some new, integrated, simplified monitoring methods will tell us, and I think we're in that transition point at the moment. 

Just to add into that, I think that in the marine environment it's a similar story. We're getting fewer monitoring points generally. I don't think we use data, monitoring data, enough to an ability that it could actually drive stronger decision making, and that comes down to a resource need. I also think that resources are always going to be constrained within Government, but I think that there are opportunities that other stakeholders in the marine environment should be playing a role in monitoring and assessing the biodiversity that is on their land, and I think that we're not—. Ports, major sea bed landowners—there are a lot of coastal stakeholders who are not really playing their part in that. And as monitoring dwindles in Government, I think we need to think about where other sources of resource can come into that, so organisations that have a statutory role to protect and improve the environment need to actually play a role in that.

And the very last word from Victoria.

Yes. I was just going to say that I think all of these questions are actually interrelated—all those last questions—because what you're asking is what is the place of biodiversity in our existing system for sustainable management of natural resources, which is focused on ecosystems resilience, and that's what we really need to get to grips with, particularly in looking to the future and developing this new system of accountability. If we're going to include this within our existing system for sustainable management of natural resources, we've got to think about how the new approach is actually going to focus attention more clearly on this, and how it's going to drive action more quickly and more effectively. So, that would be my last word.

And that's a positive note to finish on, so thank you very much to the three of you for joining us this morning. We very much appreciate the evidence that you've given us, both in written form, but also today orally. It will certainly inform the work that we do over the next couple of months as we pursue this inquiry.

You will be sent a copy of the draft transcript to check for accuracy, but can I thank you for being with us and for your participation, and for the work that you do? Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

The committee will now break for 10 minutes and we'll reconvene in time to start again at 10:50, when we'll be hearing from environmental organisations. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

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

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

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

Alex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, all, for that—. Oh, sorry. 

Carolyn, very quickly. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't possibly comment on that.

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

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

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

That's a good example.

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

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

Can I just add one point?

Yes, after you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And below that, we have structures, like the nature recovery action plan, which some of us sit on. I think I've been on NRAP for five years. We've not really done anything. We've tried very hard to make it actually have power within Government, and some of the suggestions in the Bill around giving it a stronger footing, or placing it with different things so it does have a stronger footing, might be good, but, really, it's not been the legislative standing of that body that has stopped it working, it has been the fact that it hasn't had any power to do anything. It makes recommendations within the discussion group, it sees where the problem is, but it can't go, 'Oi, you over there, you need to be doing x, y and x and make change.' It doesn't have that power. So, there needs to be something within Government that functions like that. Maybe some of this will get us in that place, but it needs to have the confidence to move beyond what we've done already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know. Sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It happens together, yes.

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

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

Okay.

Can I—?

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

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

Finish on a positive.

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

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

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

Oh no. [Laughter.]

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

Thank you for that clarity.

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

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

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

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

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