Biodiversity and Conservation
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grayling
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their strategy for biodiversity and conservation.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to launch this debate today. I am going to bring together a number of themes that I followed when I was in the other place, and which I have been very committed to continuing here. I hope that the number of noble Lords here this afternoon indicates to the Minister and her colleagues just how passionately many of us feel about getting biodiversity and conservation right.
I want to start by pushing the Minister on a subject that I worked pretty hard on in the last Parliament. Some progress had been made, but not enough, on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Bottom trawling is a way of fishing that is devastating to the creatures and ecology of the seabed. It does immense damage, and it is extraordinary that it is still permitted in many of our marine protected areas. The public would expect those areas to be protected but they are not; they are hugely exposed to some of the most industrial fishing techniques. Boats come from other countries with vast nets that drag along the seabed, causing damage to fish, other sea creatures and the ecology of seabed, whether it is plants or corals. We were not able to address this while we were a member of the European Union, but we have been able to since we left, freed from the rules of the common fisheries policy. It is an issue on which we had started to make progress. The Dogger Bank, for example, was one of the first marine protected areas to see a proper ban on bottom trawling, and I very much believe that that work needs to continue.
That work needs to continue carefully, because I am acutely aware that there are a number of communities around the United Kingdom that use small fishing boats—local people with local livelihoods—and I would not want to see those damaged or destroyed. But of course, a small trawler coming out of a port in Devon, for example, does not do anything like the damage that is done by a huge industrial trawler, so it is very possible to shape rules that leave smaller boats the flexibility to operate as they always have done in local fisheries. Frankly, in reality, those communities have always wanted to protect their surrounding marine ecology, because that is what delivers their livelihoods. However, these large vessels should not be coming into our marine protected areas, and I have two requests for the Minister today.
First, the previous Government made a start, and I was pleased with it, but they did not move fast enough, and I challenged them on a number of occasions to get a move on and extend this ban to the other marine protected areas. I very much hope that the Minister and her colleagues will do that expeditiously, because it is fundamental to our marine ecology.
I turn now to an issue that I hope the Minister will take up with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office. There is no doubt that, as part of the Government’s much-advocated reset of relations with the European Union, we will come under pressure to grant back substantial fishing rights to other countries. Without judging the rights or wrongs of that, it should not include rolling back environmental protections. I know there are those who wish to fish for sand-eels in the Dogger Bank, but to go back to that kind of fishing would do huge damage to what is a very precious ecology. I do not believe that any of us, whether a Brexiteer or a remainer, want to take a step back on environmental standards. To walk away from the protections that have begun to be put in place as part of that negotiation would, in my judgment, be a huge mistake. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues to make sure that that does not happen.
That is my first priority: that we get on with the protections that are needed for our marine protected areas and make sure we do not step back from them. The second point—which is very topical this week—is around the issue of biodiversity and development. This is always a difficult balance to find. There are safeguards that have been put in place. One of the things I pushed for in the last Government, and which I am glad was put in place and would ask the Minister to make sure is protected, was a safeguard against the ability of a developer to clear a site before they apply for planning consent. I suspect those of us who have been in the House of Commons have all experienced this—a developer buys a small plot, completely bulldozes it and gets rid of any nature on the site before they even get planning consent. There have been very real examples of serious ecological damage being done. There was a case in the south-west—I used to be the hedgehog species champion in the other place—of a large number of hedgehogs that were killed by industrial strimming of a site to clear it ahead of development before planning consent could even be granted. So, whatever comes out of the planning Bill, I ask the Minister not to compromise on that.
There is another particularly worrying concern in the planning Bill. Departments do not always read across what others are doing, as I know, so I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention. I cannot believe it is an intentional consequence of what has been brought forward this week, but it is a real consequence. In a system in which each developer has to pay a fixed tariff into a nature restoration fund for a particular type of site, with no flexibility in it, a developer with a good record of trying to look after the environment, who would spend money on a nicely landscaped pond, wooded areas and amenities among the housing, has to pay the same tariff as somebody who comes and bulldozes the site and builds over everything. That makes no sense at all. Every developer would then have the incentive just to bulldoze. I am sure that is not what the Government intend, but as the measure comes forward, I would ask her to talk to her colleagues and officials and see whether that can be addressed. None of us would want that situation; we want developers to behave in the most responsible way possible. We want to see a proper balance, so that we see proper investment in nature and developers treating nature sensitively.
There is one other big question around conservation that emerges from this week. None of us really understands where biodiversity net gain fits alongside the new systems being put in place. Biodiversity net gain was one of the things that I felt was a positive step forward taken by the last Government. It takes away from the developer to ignore the nature side of things. There are now established structures in place that not only put money into compensation funds—that is one avenue—but invest in specific projects around the country. I do not think it is clear yet—and it is certainly causing anxiety—what the role of biodiversity net gain is alongside the new funds that are being put in place. We have legally binding targets for 2030. The Government’s idea of having funds that can be reinvested in nature and facilitate development without ignoring the nature issues is potentially beneficial. We will debate the detail of that as the legislation comes through the other House and this House. But it is important to explain early on precisely how that fits together with what is already there.
There are two or three points to wrap up with. On the farming front, there is obviously a significant question around the changes we have seen this week. We must not see a situation where farmers lose the incentive to look after their land in the most nature-positive way. Clearly, we want them to grow food successfully and effectively. I am a passionate believer in regenerative farming, for example. The Minister’s department needs to take great care that, in dealing with some of the funding challenges that I know it has, it does not disincentivise or halt investments that would otherwise take place.
There are also issues in the planning system that could be smoothed out. For example, at the end of the previous Parliament, we heard a lot from farmers who said, “I’d quite like to address my water issue by building a small reservoir on my farm”, but the planning complexities in doing something like that—even though it could help solve some of the pollution problems in nearby rivers—are enormously difficult.
Finally, I have two quick requests of the Minister. First, the work on deforestation and forest risk products has not yet been completed and finished properly. We very much want to see that happen quickly. Secondly, there is a piece of unfinished work on ensuring that the due diligence principle also applies to financial institutions that invest in forest risk areas. I would be grateful if the Minister and her colleagues in the Government could make sure that that happens as well.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for opening this debate, which I very much welcome. Following on from his many detailed points, I am going to speak more broadly about the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, launched in Rome last week.
I am going to speak broadly because, to me, if we have this strategy, at least we know the direction in which we are going. In any strategy to reverse and halt nature loss, we have to be clear on three things: first, the aspirational outcomes; secondly, the actions that we will take to achieve those outcomes; and thirdly, a way of measuring progress towards achieving them. I believe that, in the UK, we currently have the first and second in place through domestic legislation and international commitments, as well as the policies that they have borne, but we are still a long way off the third—namely, measuring progress towards achieving these outcomes and understanding the most critical question in saving nature: what works?
In the 120 years since the first nature reserves and national parks were created—we have been trying to do this for 120 years, so it is quite easy to look at this as an historical timeline—three different strategic aspirations associated with reversing and halting nature loss have developed, all of which are in use today. The first aspiration, which emerged around 120 years ago, was to save and protect the most rare, vulnerable, threatened and iconic aspects of nature, be they species, habitats or landscapes. Historically, this was done by creating national parks and AONBs; the modern equivalent is absolutely our 30 by 30 commitment. That is what we are trying to do. In the past two years, many statutory instruments have come through under the Environment Act. We know where we are with them. Broadly speaking, we also know how we are doing; in most cases, it is not very well, but at least we can measure how we are doing.
A second framing emerged in the 1990s. This had a strategic aspiration to reverse and halt the loss of nature by conserving and restoring the ecological processes that underpin biodiversity. It was argued that, without these, we would not have thriving, resilient nature. Here, I am talking about rewilding, restoring large herbivores as ecosystem engineers—beavers, even—and creating wildlife corridors. However, as far as I can tell, we still do not have in the UK the metrics for measuring the success of the measures that we have put in place.
I give noble Lords one example: the rewilded Knepp estate. I do not how many noble Lords have been there but, if you visit it, you really understand what a thriving, biodiverse environment looks like, as well as how we have halted nature loss and restored after its decline. However, if the estate’s success is measured using the BNG tool and/or the species abundance list, as we are supposed to do and as people have done, it comes out as a low-quality habitat full of obnoxious weeds. So we do not have a way of measuring it.
The third and final framing came out in the early 2000s, with the strategic ambition to halt the loss of and restore nature that provides important ecosystem services that are essential to human well-being. This includes things such as creating wetlands to clear nitrates from rivers and creating a carbon market. Policies associated with this include ELMS and, in cities, policies focused on restoring green spaces for people’s health and wealth-being. We have signed up to this aspiration. Target 11 of the global biodiversity framework is:
“Restore, maintain and enhance nature’s contributions to people”.
However, as far as I can tell, we are not measuring that either. We have no metrics in place to look at this issue.
We have all of these strategies, ideas and aspirations in our most recent UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which is great—it was celebrated in Rome last week—but, at present, we are simply unable to determine how two out of three of these aspirations are working. That is a big problem. I urge the Minister to come up with new ways of measuring progress on those two framings because, anecdotally, two of the ecological processes—ELMS rewilding and corridors—are working a lot better right now than protected areas. So we really need to understand what works and how we should move forward.
I have one final point. I know that I am over the time limit, so I will soon be quiet, but I really welcome the Government’s statement this morning on AI. It is a tool that we should be using in nature, such as using datasets to work out what works. We should use this as an opportunity.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on getting this debate. I am sad to say that nature does not seem to play much of a role in Labour’s aspirations for its term of office. The Prime Minister cannot stand tree-huggers like me and Rachel Reeves talks as if she wants to squash frogs and newts under the wheels of progress. It does not look good at the moment. Lots of people enjoy the countryside, litter-pick and clear paths. I do not think that they understand where Labour is going regarding biodiversity and nature; they see this as an issue that Labour cannot connect with.
Only yesterday, riverside campaigners discovered that, under new rules proposed by this Government, the precious waterways that they seek to clean up and protect would be unlikely ever to achieve bathing water status and thereby win the extra testing and safeguards of the Environment Agency. If these rivers are not safe for people, they are definitely not safe for wildlife. They are not great for fish and all the other ecosystems there. This is only a small issue, I guess, but this Government are aiming to undermine attempts by campaigners to use the EU-derived Bathing Water Regulations as a driver to clean up our toxic rivers, which of course suffer from sewage pollution, agricultural run-off and urban run-off.
Another proposed change by the Government is in their Planning and Infrastructure Bill. They want to move away from individual ecological assessments in the planning process and look at big plans, with lots of money being spent on nature somewhere else. This could inflict significant damage on UK biodiversity, as the developer will be allowed to erase biodiversity in one place as long as they do something that looks good in another place. I saw this at work when I was a councillor. It is a scam. Nature always loses out. Labour is moving in absolutely the wrong direction. Of course, this approach would violate international and domestic, legally binding commitments to restore and protect nature.
I want houses built and I want our energy system upgraded to cope with a massive increase in renewable energy. I also want those houses and renewable energy sources to be owned by local communities, not by developers who slow the whole system down. However, this Government appear to want to bypass the communities that protect their local landscapes and their rivers and biodiversity. When we are already one of the most nature-deprived countries in Europe, I am worried that the changes to the planning system in favour of developers—as well as the other backward steps that this Government are planning to take—will make things much worse. This is not what I expected from a Labour Government, and I do not think it is what a lot of Labour voters expected either.
I have two questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the urgency in tackling toxic pollution continues against the ongoing threat to our coastlines from underreported spills from oil and gas developments in the North Sea? We really are not protecting our marine protected areas. As I said earlier this week in the Chamber, only 5% of marine protected areas are actually protected, while the others are vulnerable to bottom trawling.
Secondly, the tanker collision is another shocking reminder of the polluting power of big oil, so I am curious as to why the Government have gone ahead with the last round of offshore oil licences in and around marine protected areas. I am more than happy to help Labour in any way if it would like some of our Green Party policies, which are so superb at protecting nature and biodiversity.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Grayling for enabling us to discuss this important subject. Nature-based solutions and the enhancement of our biodiversity are our greatest ally in tackling climate change and mitigating flood risk, yet we are in the midst of an ecological crisis both in the UK and globally. Over the past 50 years, the UK has lost nearly half of its biodiversity, making it one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. This is not just an environmental issue; it is an economic and social one, where the integrity of our natural environment should be enmeshed with the implementation of policy in order to support our food security, public health and economic stability.
The introduction of biodiversity net gain is a step in the right direction, requiring developers to leave nature in a better state than they found it. Biodiversity net gain is already starting to drive investment in habitat restoration. However, we must ensure that it delivers real, measurable improvements on the ground. That means robust enforcement, clear biodiversity metrics and a genuine focus on local nature recovery. This is not about box-ticking exercises or distant offsetting. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Grayling said about needing clarity on this subject.
Local nature recovery projects are another crucial piece of the puzzle. These projects give communities the tools to restore their own landscapes, whether through tree-planting, wetland creation or species reintroduction. However, ambition needs funding, which is why the Nature Restoration Fund must be expanded and made easier to access. Right now, too many projects are struggling to get off the ground due to bureaucracy or short-term funding cycles. If we are serious about reversing biodiversity loss, we need to match policy ambition with financial backing.
Of course, public funds alone cannot deliver the scale of restoration needed. The private sector must play a bigger role. For that to happen, though, we need the right financial incentives. One of the most effective ways to unlock private investment is to integrate the UK Woodland Carbon Code and the peatland code into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. This would give businesses a clear, regulated pathway to invest in nature-based carbon sequestration, ensuring that woodland creation and peatland restoration received long-term financial support. At a time when public funding is tight, this is a market-driven solution that could deliver major environmental and economic benefits.
Beyond our borders, the UK must continue to play a leadership role in global nature finance. At the Cali COP, we made real progress by securing a deal on resource mobilisation and launching the Cali Fund for nature. This new funding mechanism is designed to direct financial resources into biodiversity projects worldwide, particularly in countries on the front line of ecological collapse.
Here at home, there are further steps that we can take to drive nature recovery. Much of the debate is at the broader scale of biodiversity environment level but within our natural world are populations and individual sentient animals. We must develop and manage our natural world. Here I acknowledge the important Bill that my noble friend Lady Helic will bring forward in due course on a close season for hares. I urge action as soon as possible to resolve the long-standing inconsistency in our laws for animals. A close season for hares is long overdue: the shocking screams of hares as they are shot during driven shoots in February, at a time when does are pregnant and lactating, is an anathema to an animal-loving country.
I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds to this debate.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow and hear from my noble friend. I declare that I am a long-time supporter of and campaigner for the Conservative Environment Network. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on securing this debate and giving his cracking rallying cry at the start; it has been a fantastic debate thus far.
I want to start on a positive, as I always try to do when it is this Minister. I congratulate her because, finally, someone has delivered beavers. They have been released and, what is more, they were released on my birthday. I am very grateful for that present.
In a Question the other day, another of our furry friends was referred to. It is a heartfelt joy to see my noble friend Lady Helic speaking in this debate. I do not wish to steal her thunder—I could not do so even if I tried—but, as has been noted, she has a Private Member’s Bill on a close season for hares. Having suffered significant population decline where their wider habitats are threatened, they are a crucial part of the ecosystem. As has been said, the period is to reflect the breeding season when leverets—the baby hares—are dependent on their mothers and will not survive if the mother is killed for fun. Other parts of the country have this measure in place, as do vast swathes of the EU. I appreciate that it is for the Whips to decide when that Bill will appear for Second Reading but I would like—as we heard in the Chamber the other day, I am not alone in wanting to see something happen—to put in a plug: for those who have concerns, let us have that debate.
As has already been said, there is, as ever, concern about the future of British farming, not least with the recent announcements on SFI. I want to sense check something, because the Government, when they announced the ending of the scheme, said that it was successful—more so than ever before, they said—yet it appears to be too successful and was immediately scrapped. I do not quite understand that and I want to just check if the Government still believe in nature, not to mention farmers who are already feeling immense pressure.
Another issue, which has already been covered by other speakers, is bottom trawling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, I find it bizarre that we allow this practice in marine protected areas and still call them that. We seem to be in a position in which we say these areas are protected because we are able to monitor their activity, even when the majority of the MPAs see the activity take place. If the notion of bulldozing does not make Governments move—and I use the word “Governments” because it happened under us, I am afraid to say—then what about the economics? One report said there could be a benefit of between £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion over 20 years if the sites were protected from all damaging activity. Can the Minister say whether there has been any assessment of the benefits to sustainable fishers from the UK banning bottom trawling? Can the Minister give reassurances that we will not cave to the ramblings from nos amis français, will not retreat in the so-called EU reset and will learn from the Greeks, who are seen to be much more ahead and stopping it completely?
I will make a broader final point about nature and, crucially, rewilding. In a few days, it will be World Rewilding Day. We can make a difference on nature and biodiversity, but it is not only because we should feel better about ourselves—it is real. It is jobs and growth, health and food, it can educate and inform, and everyone can play their part, because nature is our ally. It is why beavers, rewiggling rivers and putting in nature help tackle the effects of weather, but also what we do to our country. It is about finding a way for man and nature to work together. I know we will study this when the planning Bill is discussed, but I am frustrated to hear endlessly some Ministers say that nature is blocking the building of homes—that, in effect, we cannot have both. The two are totally compatible and can prosper together.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on introducing this debate and I thank my noble friends for supporting my Private Member’s Bill, but above all for supporting hares. I recognise the Minister’s personal commitment to biodiversity and conservation, and I really welcome it. I thank her for all our conversations; I have walked away positive, but I do not know whether we are going to get anywhere. However, I thank her very much.
Global biodiversity is in freefall, driven by habitat destruction, intensive agriculture and unsustainable land management. The State of Nature report has, sadly, identified Britain as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. This is a matter of national heritage, ecological stability, and rural sustainability.
I commend the previous Government for pioneering the global biodiversity framework and embedding legally binding targets through the Environment Act 2021. I also welcome the current Government’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, but if we are serious about halting biodiversity loss we must focus on specific, meaningful actions. That is why I too urge the Government to address the plight of one of our most iconic yet vulnerable species: the hare.
Hare populations have declined by over 85% since the late 19th century, decimated by modern farming, habitat loss and unsustainable shooting practices. Despite this alarming decline, this is the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory close season, meaning that they can be shot legally throughout the year. This is both an animal welfare and a biodiversity issue. Hares are not just part of our national heritage; they play a crucial role in biodiversity. Their grazing habits promote plant diversity and their foraging improves soil health.
The Born Free Foundation has highlighted the suffering inflicted on hares, which others have already mentioned, particularly when they are killed during the breeding seasons. Leverets, which are entirely dependent on their mothers for survival, are left to slowly starve to death or fall victim to predators. Current protections are fragmented and ineffective, and voluntary codes, although welcome, have failed to prevent the indiscriminate killing of hares.
Like many others, I believe that a statutory close season would bring England and Wales into line with the best practices elsewhere, ensuring that biodiversity commitments are not undermined by avoidable cruelty. Furthermore, studies show that introducing a close season, as elsewhere in Europe or in Scotland, has already had an impact on improving hare numbers. A close season would not hinder farmers but enhance clarity and consistency, licences could still be granted to prevent crop damage, and the legal framework would provide better enforcement against the brutal and illegal practice of hare coursing, which farmers have long endured.
With that in mind, will the Government introduce a statutory closed season for hares? Will they commit to a review of the current regulatory framework to ensure consistency across all game species? If we are serious about restoring biodiversity, we cannot allow inconsistency to undermine our ambitions. A close season for hares would be a small but vital step—practical, proportionate and long overdue.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, bracken is a plant that deserves admiration. It is thought to be largely unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs and it has been found on every continent except, to date, Antarctica. It is found across the UK, from a garden to an almost inaccessible hillside.
Bracken supports specialist flora and fauna and is welcome as part of a mosaic of vegetation types. However, it can out-compete other vegetation due to several biological adaptations. If there is no effective management, this can result in dense monoculture stands with the loss of sensitive and diverse species—which, in comparison to the mosaic, are biological deserts. The Lake District is an example of an area which is suffering from this, but it is far from alone.
Currently, there is no reliable estimate of the area of bracken in the UK and of whether, and by how much, it is increasing. Farmers and land managers were able to use Asulox, which was an effective control method, especially as it was possible to apply it from a helicopter. With its withdrawal from the UK market, they believe the plant is spreading at a rate of up to 5% each year, and the many problems associated with bracken are mounting.
Bracken can block access for walkers. It reduces the amount of land available for livestock grazing and nature, especially for red-listed species such as curlew, lapwing and raptors. It provides a habitat for sheep ticks and tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, which are increasingly impacting on people, livestock and wildlife. Bracken is highly toxic and there are strong links to certain types of human and mammalian cancers. The toxic exudates from bracken risk polluting water and drinking water supplies. Bracken is a source of fuel for damaging wildfires, and in the right conditions burns at a high temperature with a long flame length, producing a highly irritating deep yellow smoke with carcinogenic and cyanide properties. Limestone pavements, a priority habitat, can be damaged, as can any underground archaeology or structure, as Historic England warns us.
Successive Governments failed to grasp the problems of this pernicious weed because Asulox was available. Now an opportunity presents itself to assess all the problems scientifically and holistically. Farmers and land managers will be only too willing to help with the delivery of an approach that keeps bracken in check, and this will help achieve the Government’s goal in the 25-year environment plan of
“creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site network”.
However, farmers and land managers need to be given the necessary information, tools and support.
The proposed UK strategic bracken framework is welcome so far as it goes, but it risks looking at the problem only from the nature conservation angle, which is not good enough. As bracken is a hugely and surprisingly complicated subject, a cross-sector approach to its future management is essential. Only the Government will enable that. Therefore, will the Minister convene a conference of all interested groups so that the many issues can be addressed and placed in context, and an effective way forward identified?
I thank my noble friend for arranging this debate: it is hugely important. We will lose a lot of expertise on this particular subject when the hereditary Peers go, but I just ask the Government, when they consider anything to do with the environment, to please base it on sound science rather than emotion.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, what an interesting debate, from beavers to bracken. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for bringing this essential debate and for raising the important issues of bottom trawling, biodiversity net gain and forest risk products.
Biodiversity is the heartbeat of the planet, and famously we are one of the most nature-deprived nations in the world, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned. One in six of our species is indeed threatened with extinction. Five years on from our 30 by 2030 commitments, we have not really made progress, as just 2.93% of land and 9.92% of our oceans is protected.
My worry is, despite the strong words in Labour’s manifesto of a “nature emergency”—I welcome progress on some issues—whether we are really seeing the robust action, the legislative requirements and the funds to meet the monumental scale of the challenge. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to raise the issue of the mixed messages from Labour on growth.
We welcome the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, but how does it fit with the overall government strategy? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is absolutely right to raise the issue of strategy in this debate and ask what works. I understand Labour’s need for a short, sharp review, but this is separate from the environmental improvement plan, and, outside that framework, it is largely powerless and will soon be outdated. Will it be incorporated into the EIP? The Wildlife and Countryside Link says it is not clear whether the actions in this plan will add up to achieving the UK’s global nature commitments. The Office for Environmental Protection is clear that we are largely off-track, and the scale and the pace of the effort is not sufficient. The OEP’s recently published progress report is also very damaging. When will the Government respond to the OEP’s annual report?
We call on the Government to commit to incorporating all international biodiversity targets in the revised environmental improvement plan. This should include allocation of responsibility for delivery, along with evidence-based policies needed to achieve that delivery.
We need rapidly co-ordinated, properly funded, large-scale action. The polluter must pay. The Government must bring stronger legal protections and must provide the resources required for the Environment Agency to do the work it needs to do. We are running out of time. Fly-tipping, plastic pollution, sewage, forever chemicals, habitat loss and overfishing—the list goes on. The rapidly changing climate is compounding these problems. The window is closing fast, and we must do more to meet our biodiversity targets and commitments.
I conclude with some key points. Budgets are essential. I am particularly worried about growing pressures on the Defra budget, particularly for nature-based solutions. We must get nature-friendly farming right. We need our farmers; we must support them. They need certainty and reliability from this Government. The cut to the SFI budget, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, does not improve these relations.
When will we get a chemicals convention? We also need to stand up for climate science. The UK Government need to lead the world on this and stand up to Trump: stand up for truth.
Fly-tipping is an issue I have raised before, but when can we expect some legislation on this issue? It is blighting our countryside and is out of control. We need more on plastic pollution to encourage the circular economy. I welcome Labour’s commitment on woodlands and tree planting, but that has to happen.
I come to my final two points. Access to nature is vital, particularly in our cities. I call on the Government to include people, work with civil society and bring in citizen science; not only is it cost effective, it just makes sense.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a farmer, forestry developer, landowner, owner of fishing rights and investor in Circular FX, Cecil and Agricarbon, which provide services to the natural capital industry. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Grayling for securing this timely and important debate on the Government’s strategy for biodiversity and conservation. As Conservatives, we hold a deep-seated belief in our responsibility to preserve and enhance the natural heritage entrusted to us; that is why we brought forward the Environment Act 2021.
I must bring up the dreadful news on SFIs from Defra this week, as it impacts directly on the topic of this short debate: we expect farmers to deliver most of these improvements. Many were already facing unexpected financial hardship from the massive reduction in delinked payments, but this latest news adds many more who were expecting to transition to SFIs this year but had not yet applied. I ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact of the SFI announcement on the financial viability of the farming industry? What impact will that have, in turn, on compliance with the legally binding commitment, delivered in our Environment Act, to deliver the 30% improvements in biodiversity and nature recovery? If incentives to benefit nature restoration and biodiversity largely target action by farmers and landowners, how can pausing them help?
The Government have committed to a nature restoration levy, which will possibly—I hope we will hear—replace the current biodiversity net gain system that we created. We on these Benches have grave concerns about its creation, as articulated by my noble friend Lord Grayling, and also about placing its administration with Natural England rather than with local authorities. How can the Minister reassure us that this will deliver better outcomes for nature?
Atlantic salmon populations have collapsed by over 75% in our rivers over the last 50 years, as evidenced by reported rod catches, and despite almost all fish being caught and released over recent years. The Atlantic salmon is a crucial indicator of the health of our river catchments and it is now on the IUCN red list. What specific measures will the Minister take to address water quality, pollution, selective restocking and habitat degradation in our rivers to support its and other species’ recovery? I urge the Minister to identify the salmon as a keystone species for biodiversity and nature restoration efforts. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, might agree with this strategy, given her comments on water quality. I note my noble friend Lady Helic’s comment that the hare is probably also a worthy inclusion as a keystone species to gauge the success of nature restoration.
I fully support the comments of my noble friend Lord Caithness: bracken can be a scourge, and it is depressing that its presence is so widespread in locations where we should really be planting trees in order to fulfil our strategy of restoring our woodland cover. My noble friend Lord Grayling mentioned the renegotiation of our TCA with the EU prior to mid-2026. I agree with his environmental comments and add that we also expect this Government to negotiate a deal that delivers complete zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone for British fishermen.
Given this Government’s disappointing financial decisions, and as my noble friend Lord Courtown rightly highlights, we need more private sector finance to replace the public purse. It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand what role she sees for private sector finance to replace public finance in biodiversity and conservation improvements. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply to this short debate and the many questions posed, in writing if necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, just said, there have been many questions and I have only 12 minutes to respond. I shall do my best but will of course write with any outstanding remarks that I need to make. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for tabling today’s debate. It has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate, with many different contributions, all of which have huge merit as we discuss how we restore biodiversity in our country. We know it will be a challenge—we have very challenging targets—but I want to assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to protecting nature, because we rely on biodiversity for food, for regulating our climate, for pest control and for many more things that support our ecosystems.
In England, as noble Lords will know, we have committed to ambitious targets to halt the decline by 2030, to reverse the decline by 2042, to reduce the risk of species extinction by 2042, and to restore and create over 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats by 2042. We are honouring commitments to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030—the 30 by 30 target; although it will be very challenging, it is extremely important.
The revised environmental improvement plan was mentioned. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the rapid review. In revising the plan, we aim to be clear on the role of the enablers—for example, green finance, which was mentioned by noble Lords. That needs to be implemented across government. We need to look at how enhancing nature supports the wider outcomes that the Government want, including for energy and growth. We will clarify Environment Act target delivery plans and update the interim targets to cover the five-year period from the completion of the review, in line with our statutory requirements. We will also clarify exactly how we intend to deliver the environmental improvement plan.
Local nature recovery strategies were mentioned. Those are being prepared currently and will be published. They will cover England, and the idea is to draw on the same data and principles as the land use framework, providing a key mechanism to enable progress. It is important that we join up all the different strategies and principles that we are taking forward. However, we are not waiting for the revised environmental improvement plan or the finalised land use framework to act. We have challenging targets, and we know that we need to take action on three fronts: to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats; to tackle pressures on biodiversity; and to take targeted action for specific species. Various species have been mentioned in the debate.
We know that our environmental land management schemes are crucial to enabling much of this. A number of noble Lords mentioned farming. An announcement was made this week on the SFI. A lot of questions were asked, but there will be a Statement on this issue on Tuesday and we can explore it in more detail then.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about planning and the Nature Restoration Fund. On Tuesday, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was introduced. The idea is that, through the Nature Restoration Fund, the Bill will provide a more efficient and effective way for obligations related to our most important sites and species to be discharged, at a scale whereby that action has the most impact. This will benefit development and nature recovery, where both are currently stalled.
I turn to fixed tariffs and the importance of developers behaving responsibly towards the environment. Developers must deliver a 10% increase in biodiversity, and the provisions are designed deliberately to discourage certain behaviours. Often with such issues, we need to see what happens in practice, but that is what the provisions are designed to do. I hope that helps reassure noble Lords.
The noble Lord asked about biodiversity net gain and the Nature Restoration Fund and how they will work together. The idea is that BNG and the Nature Restoration Fund will work in a joined-up manner, to maximise outcomes. The development section of the Nature Restoration Fund specifically addresses environmental impact and biodiversity net gain and will continue to apply. This is to ensure that developers are incentivised to reduce their biodiversity impact on site and to secure future residents’ and local people’s access to nature. That is extremely important to ensure that people do not lose that. We want to continue to seek opportunities to grow biodiversity net gain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the planning Bill and the impact it will have on nature. We are absolutely committed, when it comes to that legislation, that steps will be undertaken to deliver positive environmental outcomes. I encourage the noble Baroness to read the National Planning Policy Framework, in which the environment is central.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the metrics around biodiversity. We have 55 individual measures comprising 29 indicators at the UK level. England and the UK biodiversity indicators are accredited official statistics and cover a wide range of species, including birds, butterflies, mammals and plants, in addition to habitats and the extent and condition of protected areas, as well as indicators for the response to pressures such as pollution and climate change. I hope that is helpful.
The water industry was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I assure him that we are doing a lot of work around this. He will be aware of the work that Sir John Cunliffe is doing. We absolutely recognise the importance of salmon and of Scottish businesses in this area. Clearly, we need to work together on this.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned pesticides. We are taking action to ensure that pesticides are used more sustainably—for example, we have committed to ending completely the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides that we know carry substantial risk to pollinators. We published a policy statement last year that sets out the next steps around pesticide commitments.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about bracken—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and others talked about beavers. I am really pleased that we have been able to set out our approach to the wild release and management of beavers in England. Beavers can bring enormous benefits, and I am pleased that we have management tools in place so that they are in the right place and can be managed properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about bottom trawling, and other noble Lords asked about it, too. The noble Lord asked whether we would complete the previous Government’s work on this. At the moment, we are considering our next steps to manage bottom trawling, along with other fishing methods, where it could damage MPA features or benthic habitats, in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations. We are keen to carry on working closely with fisheries and marine stakeholders, as well as environmentalists, as we develop future plans for fisheries and the marine environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about the impact of the EU reset on fisheries and environmental standards. I cannot talk about what we are discussing on the EU reset, but, clearly, all these things are taken into consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked some questions around bottom trawling. The first two stages of the Marine Management Organisation’s offshore by-laws programme introduced by-laws in marine protected areas. Currently, our figures say that this protects 10.87% of English waters from bottom-towed fishing. Clearly, it is something that we need to be working on.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about deforestation. We recognise the urgency of taking action to ensure that UK consumption of forestry commodities is not driving deforestation. I hope we will soon be setting out our approach to this.
A number of Members asked about green finance, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We recognise the huge importance of mobilising private finance into nature’s recovery. We are doing a lot of work on this and will be grateful to work with noble Lords on suggestions for how we can move forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned the Cali Fund. We are working closely with businesses across a lot of sectors to see how we can take this forward.
There were a number of other questions, but I have only 10 seconds left. I want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that I absolutely heard what she has been saying about hares. There needs to be consistency—we completely appreciate that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, spoke about rewilding. We have our own rewilding project at home. I personally have seen the benefits that rewilding in the right place can bring. I end by saying that, two weeks ago, we found that we had curlews.