Biodiversity

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I, too, am pleased to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. Last year, the UN climate change convention met in Copenhagen. It attracted the most incredible media frenzy, and something of a political frenzy as well, as Prime Ministers, Ministers and politicians from all over the globe made sure that they had a suitable photo opportunity.

In a month’s time, its sister convention on biological diversity will meet in Nagoya, Japan, to discuss why whole species are moving into extinction at a rate that, barring the loss of the dinosaurs, is unprecedented in the entirety of the fossil record of life on this planet. So far, the convention has met with total silence from the world’s press—why? How do the world’s most eminent scientists propose that we tackle the problem of extinctions?

One of the first things I was told in the Department that the Minister now occupies was the wonderful target that had been set to halve the rate of decline in species loss by 2010. That was the UK’s national target. I said that that was wonderful and asked the civil servant what was the rate of loss that we were going to halve. He said that the rate of loss was not known, and I asked how we would halve the rate if we did not know what it was. He replied that we would use indicators. We started without a sufficient baseline. The European Union tried to bail us out, of course, and said that it would substantially reduce the rate of loss. That European target was a bit woollier. With such an assessment at the beginning of the project, it is not very surprising that we reached 2010 to find that even those indicators have not enabled us to say that we have had any real success.

Where will we go in Nagoya? Top of the agenda will be natural capital. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the subject, and all that he said about the TEEB report and Pavan Sukhdev’s astonishing work. We must take on board the fact that one of the great advances in the past 100 years in classical economics was acknowledgment that there is such a thing as human, social and intellectual capital. We have come to realise that a well functioning judicial system and an excellent education system are as much a part of the wealth of a nation as its roads, ports and factories. The irony is that economists and economies have not caught up with the most important capital—natural capital.

Natural capital may be defined as the benefits that accrue to human society from the different species of life that inhabit the natural world—the biodiversity that is the subject of our debate. Classical economics values things such as forests by adding the sale price of the timber that can be harvested, and the alternative use to which the land may be put. A pine forest in the mountains will be worth a lot less per hectare than a forest of oak and ash close to good arable land and a river. Soft wood pine sells for pulp or low-grade timber, but oak and ash sell for designer kitchens. The mountain land has few alternative uses, but river land may raise prime beef. So that is how forests are valued. Wrong.

The true value of forests lies in far more than that. They stop soil erosion, prevent flooding by absorbing moisture, and control climate, often regulating local as well as global weather patterns. They are a source of medicines and food, and they have recreational and aesthetic value. All that is before carbon sequestration has been mentioned. In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 1,360 of the world’s top scientists showed that classical economics captured only one third of the actual value of the services that forests provide. The same is true for rivers, reefs, salt marshes, mangroves and all other natural ecosystems. We fail to factor in their actual economic value to our policies and decision making, but because most of the other services that they provide are not bought or sold in markets, they are normally not taken into account, so the forests, reefs and rivers are lost or degraded.

Another important consideration is that those wider benefits, although immensely valuable, do not accrue to an individual property owner. The benefits are experienced by a community at large. They are regarded as free goods by the wider economy and the wider community, which would no more think of paying for flood protection provided by the local forest than of paying for the air they breathe, which is also provided in part by the local forest. In classical economics, such free goods are called externalities, but because they are not directly captured by the landowner they do not feature in their decisions on how or whether to dispose of them.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. During the last Parliament, we updated the legislation on commons. The previous update had been during the 14th century, so it was in some need of reform. One of the most interesting issues that arose was that there are more SSSIs on common land than on private land because on common land people were under communal pressure to farm sustainably and that such pressure did not exist on private land. There is real-life evidence to back up what my hon. Friend is saying.

[Barry Gardiner]

As always, I was delighted to sit down when my hon. Friend stood up. She made an excellent intervention and highlighted the importance of seeing land, and land use, and land use change, in a fundamentally economic way, and looking at property ownership and tenure is absolutely part of that. All hon. Members in the Chamber and those who care deeply about the subject will know of the issues relating to indigenous people. There are different forms of communal property ownership in tropical forests throughout the world. That applies not just in this country, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, and it is essential to bear in mind the conflict that can arise from land tenure and the different forms of property ownership when considering the future of our tropical rain forests throughout the world.

A country may experience economic growth while becoming poorer, and an example may be helpful. A Government may sell a large timber concession to a logging company. They will achieve for that land only the classical measure of value for the logs or fuel wood, plus any alternative land use. The logging company, perhaps being afraid of political instability somewhere in Africa, may not even cut the logs into timber in the country itself. Instead, it may export them to a neighbouring state where it has a production factory that cuts the logs and produces furniture for export to European markets.

It is important to note that no one in this example has done anything wrong or corrupt. The Government have increased their export sales by the value of the logs and have seen a corresponding rise in GDP. The logging company has paid the market price for its logging concession and made a rational business decision about the management of the company’s political risk. The neighbouring country happily welcomed the jobs and economic growth that come from the re-export of those logs as much more valuable furniture, but the original country is poorer. The value of the ecosystem services that it has lost is far greater than the value of economic GDP growth that it has achieved.

In 2000, Kofi Annan commissioned an assessment of the state of global ecosystems that aimed to describe and evaluate the full range of services that we as human beings derive from nature. In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 1,360 scientific experts reported on the 24 key services on which human life depends. Of those, only four services were found to be increasing, 15 were assessed as being in decline and five were said to be stable although under strain in certain regions.

On the positive side of the balance sheet, agricultural production is increasing the amount of crops and livestock available to feed an expanding world population. On the negative side, marine fish stocks are dangerously depleted, fresh water is declining in quality and availability, and services such as pollination, pest control, soil stabilisation, climate regulation and air and water purification are all in marked decline.

Recognising that those essential services provide 50% of the GDP of the poorest people on our planet, the report pointed out:

“The loss of services derived from ecosystems is a significant barrier to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty, hunger and disease.”

It concluded that

“human activities have taken the planet to the edge of a massive wave of species extinctions, further threatening our own well-being.”

Just as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was being published in 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the coast of Louisiana, killing 1,800 people, displacing 1 million more and causing damage assessed at up to $125 billion. The US army engineering corps is spending $16 billion on building a 350-mile long system of levees to replace those that failed in 2005. That failure was not due to a natural disaster; it was the result of 100 years of policy decisions supposedly to “improve” the navigation and economic efficiency of the lower Mississippi basin, and the consequent loss of wetlands that followed from that.

Today, the sewerage and water board of New Orleans plans to pipe thousands of tons of semi-treated sewage into a bayou to help to regrow a cypress-tupelo wetland and protect the lower ninth ward from flooding. Recently, the US army engineering corps made an astonishing admission: during Katrina, every levee that had wetland protection remained intact but every levee that had no wetland protection was breached.

It has been estimated that since the 1930s, 120,000 square miles of wetland habitat has been lost on the lower Mississippi basin. Currently, one acre—the size of a football pitch—is lost every 48 minutes. The wetlands are of various types, but a freshwater or intermediate marsh wetland is estimated to reduce surge swells during a hurricane by as much as 1 foot for every mile width of wetland. A cypress swamp wetland is estimated to reduce storm surges by an incredible 6 feet for every mile width of wetland. The ring of concrete and steel that is being constructed around the city at such enormous cost—$16 billion—sets in context the true value of the natural capital that makes up Louisiana’s lost wetlands.

In 1956, the US Congress gave approval for the construction of the Mississippi river-gulf outlet—MRGO, as it is known locally. The economic case seemed overwhelming. The man-made navigational channel would connect the gulf of Mexico to the city of New Orleans, bisecting the marshes of lower St Bernard parish and the shallow waters of the Chandeleur sound. That would reduce the passage by 40 miles and straighten the route, making it a safer and more efficient passage for shipping than the Mississippi river below New Orleans with its winding channels.

The habitats that the MRGO was cut through are shallow estuarine waters and sub-delta marshes. Much wetland was lost by the original excavation, but more importantly, the soil erosion and rise in salinity have led to the destruction of the cypress swamp. Ironically, the MRGO has not been the economic success that Congress supposed it would be. Today, it carries a mere 3% of the region’s waterborne freight, with fewer than five passages a day. The US army engineering corps estimates dredging costs to be $22.1 million per year. That means that every vessel that passes through will cost $12,657 per vessel per day.

As early as 1958 the US Department of the Interior warned that

“the excavation of the (MRGO) could result in major ecological change with widespread and severe ecological consequences.”

Ecological consequences—the process was not seen as a contribution to the economic debate surrounding the case for the MRGO, but rather as an unimportant, if factual, environmental comment. In those days, the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services were simply not understood by legislators, but today we have no excuse.

What would a Government who incorporated the valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services into their framework of national accounting look like? What would they do differently? Principally, they would make explicit and visible the estimated value of nature’s multiple and complex benefits. By incorporating that value into their procedures of decision making and cost-benefit analysis, the Government would provide a more complete evidence base through which to improve outcomes. Factors previously regarded as externalities would become essential elements of increased efficiency in policy design.

It is important to understand that the values of natural capital do not exist objectively and independently of a community of potential beneficiaries. Therefore, they cannot simply be imported into a set of national accounts as a constant given. However, that is equally true of other forms of capital and it should not be allowed as an argument against a proper valuation of ecosystem services. The kickback given by Finance Departments and Treasuries is always, “It is very difficult to estimate the value of a river or a forest.” Well, it is difficult to estimate the value of a bridge. Nobody would try to measure a bridge by its height or length, but instead by the economic savings in time and fuel multiplied by the number of people who might use it as opposed to the alternative easiest route. One must estimate. It is the same with forests, wetlands, swamps and peat bogs, but the Treasury will always kick back and say, “No, it is too difficult.” That is the area we have to look at.

In the same way, the value of a coral reef will vary, not only in accordance with the quantity of marine life that it spawns, but with the level of dependence that a community may have on it for food. It may also fluctuate in value in accordance with its suitability for use as a tourist destination generating recreational dollars. Thus, the value of natural capital in one part of the globe cannot easily be translated across borders. Economic values are not a property of ecosystems; they are a measure of those ecosystems’ utility to human communities in a given geographical and socio-economic context. For that reason, Governments who take natural capital seriously would do well to estimate the value not of the ecosystem as such, but of the economic effects that a proposed or envisaged change might have were a particular policy to be pursued.

The successful integration of the value of natural capital into UK Government accounts could see the elimination of perverse subsidies in fishing and agriculture and in the use of nitrates and fossil fuels. It could create financial incentives to encourage proper environmental management that preserves ecosystem services and a rigid application of the “polluter pays” principle throughout industry. To achieve that, a number of undertakings would be required from the Government, and, in that respect, I thank the Minister for the positive and constructive meeting that we had with GLOBE the other day. As he knows, I do not lay these issues simply at the door of his Department; the key point is that these undertakings must be given by Governments, rather than Environment Departments. Environment Departments know and understand them very well; the difficulty is getting them appropriated by Government colleagues more widely.

First, inventories should be required of all Departments. They should identify as far as possible all the natural capital assets for which a Department is responsible or whose value may be affected, whether adversely or positively, by departmental activity. Secondly, in adopting the latest methodology set out in SEEA—the “Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting”—Departments should be obliged to co-ordinate with the Treasury and agree a valuation for all the natural capital assets in their inventory.

Thirdly, all policy proposals and recommendations should be obliged to incorporate a costed explanation of how they will enhance natural capital or transform it into other forms of capital so that overall national wealth is increased. Fourthly, where a policy proposal or recommendation is estimated to deplete natural capital or result in declining ecosystem services, that depletion must be clearly costed and agreed by the Treasury.

Fifthly, an equivalent post to that of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must be established with the aim of regulating the Government’s use of natural resources and signing off all allocations of natural capital. Sixthly, that post should have the further challenge function of questioning why Departments are pursuing a technological solution to a problem that might be more efficiently dealt with through an imaginative use of ecosystem services. For example, why build a chemical-based sewage filtration plant when the lugworms on one hectare of mud flats can provide a remediation service for 100,000 people’s effluent?

Seventhly, the Treasury should prepare a set of green accounts for natural capital and ecosystem services, which should be published initially for three years in parallel with the Red Book. Eighthly, after the initial trial period, those green accounts should be fully integrated and incorporated into the Budget and the Red Book.

Ninthly, the National Audit Office should be requested to monitor and report on the effective application of the incorporation of natural capital into the national accounting framework. Tenthly, Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee should be requested to hold the Treasury and all Departments across the Government to account for their use of natural capital and ecosystem services. Eleventhly, the Treasury should be tasked with preparing and publishing an annual report on the status of the country’s natural capital and ecosystems.

Are there better ways to achieve this objective? Are there better uses for these resources? The Government have an obligation to their citizens to ensure that no policy, programme or project is adopted without Ministers first having the answer to those questions, and it is not possible to answer them unless the Government unequivocally embrace a transparent system for the valuation of natural capital.

In October 2010, I will chair the GLOBE legislators session at the United Nations convention on biodiversity in Nagoya—the conference of the parties. One hundred legislators will press to have natural capital incorporated into national accounts. They will establish legislators’ role as that of providing a vital monitor and audit function, overseeing their respective Executives. Many scientists regard success at the Nagoya convention as even more important than success at the convention on climate change. After all, what would a change in climate matter if species could keep pace with the rate of change? The fact that they cannot, and the demise of the ecosystem services that are lost with them, is the greatest threat to human well-being on this planet.

A decade ago, the United Nations set the world the target of reducing the rate of species loss by 2010—the international year of biodiversity. Well, here we are. The UN willed the objective but not the means. The integration of the valuation of natural capital into Government accounting frameworks is that means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is a delight to take part in the debate. I was glad to see, among the various pieces of business that we are dealing with in this fortnight in which Parliament has resumed, this debate on the international year of biodiversity. The debate is timely and I am glad that it is happening so early in the Minister’s career. It allows us to put down a few markers and, I hope, make some helpful suggestions.

At the outset, I want to welcome not only the debate, but the work that has been done by and the briefings that we have had from various groups. I shall mention just a few: the Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. There are others. I also want to mention the work of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has pushed forward the agenda generally. Some of the issues discussed today are not new. Members of all parties on the EFRA Committee have been pushing this agenda forward for some time. It is also very good to see a couple of the vice-presidents of GLOBE present. I acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has been doing with that organisation. It is very important and I shall return to it.

Let me turn to some of the comments that have been made. I shall start with the very good contribution made by my hon. Friend. He brings great experience and expertise to the Opposition Benches, both from his ministerial role and from his various roles with environmental organisations. He plays a prominent and active role in that regard. He gave us a timely reminder of the importance of considering natural capital, which we often ignore because we tend to focus on top line economic gain. He mentioned, for example, that only one third of the value of our forests is captured by classical economic analysis. The same applies across the board. That is the way we traditionally regard those priceless assets in government and in policy making and decision making. I say “priceless” because this is a classic case of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Today’s debate has shown that we need to move way beyond that. We have started work on some of the helpful mechanisms that could lead us to move beyond that point, but we now need to do it.

My hon. Friend’s account of natural defences was interesting. It reminded me of two things. One is a domestic issue. As we consider the increase in storm surges and the increasing prevalence of flooding and of coastal erosion, it is important that while we are employing a huge armoury of different approaches to deal with those things, we do not negate the role of natural defences but actively encourage them as part of the toolbox that we have to respond to such eventualities; otherwise, we are resorting purely to the old hard-style defences. Things have moved on significantly and I know the Minister will be keen to continue with what I have described domestically.

My hon. Friend’s comments also reminded me of observing at first hand the replanting of mangrove plants in the Cayman Islands in little concrete wellies. The idea was to hold them down and embed them sufficiently before the concrete fell to bits. They had to have something that weighted them down sufficiently, given the storminess there, and very successful it was. It was hard work, but it was a case of rebuilding natural defences and recognising the wide benefits that come from valuing that natural capital, rather than choosing hard technical solutions all the time.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend has just given a fascinating illustration of the point. I suspect that he may have visited that project because it was one of the Darwin projects. Does he agree that of all the things that the Department does, if it protects anything in the comprehensive spending review, it should be the Darwin projects? Nothing can be more innovative and valuable than the work that has been done under that relatively tiny budget.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. In terms of bang for our buck—or whatever the sterling equivalent is—we cannot do much better than the Darwin initiative. I applaud the Minister for not going through the political rote that we sometimes hear at the moment of “Times are terrible.” I know that he faces challenges, but I agree with my hon. Friend; the Darwin initiative is a singular example of an initiative in which a little investment goes a long, long way. That investment sits alongside an investment of expertise from people from the natural history museum and Kew gardens, and the use of committed people in the overseas territories, volunteers and so on. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that announcements will be made about the next round of funding under the scheme. We look forward to that. I ask him please to keep that momentum going.

My hon. Friend moved on, in the latter part of his contribution, to some excellent ideas about embedding the values of natural capital in our policy making and decision making. That is one of the big ideas whose time has come. He talked about Departments having natural capital auditing and evaluation and every policy being assessed according to its contribution to increasing natural capital wealth or to denuding natural wealth. Another idea was the use of ecosystem services instead of hard technical solutions and weighing those up every time a hard technical solution is proposed. Sometimes we will need hard technical solutions; that is without a doubt, but they need to be weighed in the balance against whether there is a softer, longer-lasting, enduring, multifaceted-benefit approach that might be better.

That very interesting concept of departmental budgets of natural wealth should, after a trial, be incorporated into the Treasury. I would not give up on that. I know the Treasury is often portrayed as the ogre of Government, sitting there jealously guarding the keys to its bullion, or whatever it has, but it can be open to persuasion if a good case is put forward, particularly if the denuding of our domestic natural wealth affects us in a very anthropocentric way—a purely selfish way. When that is done, both globally—in terms of impact on global poverty, migration flows, our own shores and indigenous communities—and here, it is better to weigh these things in the balance. I genuinely offer the Minister and the Secretary of State my support. The Minister should advance that argument because it is time to do so. I will return to that.

The fascinating idea of an audit of the state of the nation based on natural wealth, with an annual report, and with the EFRA Committee playing a scrutiny role, was, the Minister will be intrigued to know, part of a conversation that took place in discussions with the former Secretary of State. We frequently asked, “What comes beyond Pavan Sukhdev and TEEB? What comes beyond the internal work that we have been doing? What is the next stage?” If it is to be embedded in Government, it cannot be in DEFRA alone; that point is well made.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly mentioned the importance of community engagement and education. It is very often the simple, immediately identifiable natural phenomenon that can do that. I recall visiting a school just outside Newcastle early in my tenure as a Minister, where we were looking at the reintroduction of the red kite. It was being reintroduced not to a completely rural environment, but to an urban-rural mix. I had not seen a single red kite and came out of the school thinking that it was going to be a classic ministerial visit; they had brought me all the way up there to see it and I was going to have to say how impressed I was, but I had not seen a darn thing. The school had branded itself round the red kite and the kids understood—they get it in a way that an earlier generation has not quite. As I walked out of that school door on the way back, five of the magnificent red kites were swirling around in the air outside. Whether it be the red Kite or the blue iguana in the Cayman Islands, such events bring it home to me that single species can transform people’s understanding of the importance of biodiversity in the natural environment. They can also lead to habitat recreation and so on. It is a virtuous circle. We need to start with young people and community engagement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made a good contribution. I had never heard of the Teesdale array but I am glad that I have now. She reminded us of the intrinsic value of species. That briefly takes me back to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) when he, as Secretary of State, announced the opening of the South Downs national park, the final bolt in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I spoke just before him and I was like the greased mechanic in the bonnet talking about the nuts and bolts and how it had happened and so on. While I had spoken in prose, he got up and spoke in poetry and reminded us what it was about: the joy, the experience, the benefits for many people who will never see some of the species we are talking about. The fact that they are there is important. That has to be balanced against finding a way for policy makers and decision makers to see tangibly what that value is. How does one express that in decision making, so that Ministers, civil servants and international organisations can make sense of it and base decisions on it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland also reminded us of the importance of volunteers and the great tradition of enthusiastic amateurs, in monitoring, recording and protecting our flora and fauna. She finished neatly by reminding us of that very good RSPB campaign, “Don’t Cut the Countryside”. I know that the Minister will be aware of it and will return in his closing remarks to how we can avoid that cut.

I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks to the effect that this does not have to be a matter of the economy or the environment. It is a matter of putting the triangle together: the economy, the environment and communities—national and international—and making sure that they are all delivered, at least in this international year of biodiversity.

The Minister noted the progress that has been made in some areas on SSSIs and on some of the UK species. He also rightly noted the accelerated loss of biodiversity as we run up to the countdown to 2010 and what will come after. He also rightly reminded us of the £42 billion cost per year in biodiversity loss. That is as real for us in developed nations as it is for poorer countries. We need to do something about the issue of access and benefit sharing, which is one of the pieces of unfinished business of Copenhagen, going into Nagoya. We need to find the right mechanism by which we can share the benefits that can accrue from sustainable exploitation of that natural wealth.

With regard to the CSR, I will go through some detailed and some big points, in as helpful a way as possible. I know that neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State intends to be the one who sacrifices natural wealth and environment on the altar of austerity. I welcome the Minister’s opening comments because I do not think he intends to be that person. The environment, the economy, society and communities go together. May he be the Minister who brings them together, domestically and internationally, within the UK Government and international institutions.

In a very good contribution, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) reinforced the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North and also rightly said that the tools we employ are not sophisticated enough; I will return to that. In a way that was slightly prickly and defensive, the hon. Gentleman perhaps glossed over, or was a little begrudging about, the contribution of the previous Government in moving this agenda forward. I think we moved it forward significantly, hence the nature and tone of this debate. It is now a matter of what the next steps are. Let me go back to the launch of the discussion document on the natural environment White Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am glad that I have just under two hours to respond to the many and diverse points that have been made this afternoon in what has been a fantastically useful debate. It has unlocked some of the talent that we have in this place, across the House, on these important issues. I will respond in as much detail as I can provide to the points that have been raised and if I cannot respond now, that is either because I cannot speak about financial matters with as much willingness as I would like until after 20 October or because I do not know the answer, in which case I will write to the hon. Member concerned.

I want to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for what I thought was a very powerful speech, which established the absolute importance of knowing, first of all, where we are on biodiversity. We cannot measure whether we are continuing to see a decline in biodiversity, holding the line or reversing that decline unless we know where we are. There are all sorts of indicators that we use to measure diversity, but they are relatively blunt tools; I am the first to admit that. I think that there are wider measures that we need to apply.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to value natural capital. When we talk about our natural environment White Paper or our passion for this subject, some people nod and think, “Oh, good, here’s a Minister or here’s a Department that values our natural environment in the general sense,” and I say, “No, we are actually talking about real value, in the economic sense.” Until we do that, we will not get to where we need to be and I am grateful for suggestions about how to embed the valuation of natural capital into Government decision making.

That is precisely the type of issue that the Secretary of State will be discussing with other Environment Ministers in New York next week, to bring together ideas and initiatives for embedding the valuation of biodiversity and ecosystems across government. It is also a theme that we will take forward in our thinking in the White Paper.

The hon. Gentleman and others, including the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), made the point that the impoverishment of our natural environment hits worst those who are least able to deal with it the poorest. That is why this issue is not something for some leafy backwater of Government; it is absolutely at the heart of every single Department.

If our constituents are concerned about the pressures of international migration, they should be interested that we are supporting forests, environments and ecosystems that will sustain agriculture and life, and they should also be interested that the marine environment is sustained in parts of the world where it is currently being degraded at an alarming rate. They should be interested because that environmental degradation puts pressure on societies such as ours, both through migration and the impending catastrophe that is a war brought about by poverty and all the other related pressures. So this issue of biodiversity is absolutely at the heart of everything that we are talking about; issues do not get much more important than biodiversity.

[Barry Gardiner]

Given what the Minister has just said, he will perhaps reflect on the fact that, in the horn of Africa, we have seen what are often referred to as the first climate change wars. The desertification that has gone on there has seen the collapse of civil society and spawned the lawlessness that has given rise to piracy on the high seas around the horn of Africa. From that perspective, we see countries such as our own and the US, and international shipping generally, spending millions of pounds in that region on insuring ships and providing navies to escort and safeguard ships in that region. Yet we spend nothing, relatively, on sorting out the ecological and environmental problem of the desertification that has caused that piracy in the first place. Does he not agree that that is the case?

[Richard Benyon]

As before, the hon. Gentleman has got it exactly right. Elsewhere in Parliament, Members are debating the strategic defence and security review. Part of that review involves how we will fund the type of operations being carried out in the seas off the horn of Africa. It is precisely because fisheries in those seas and agricultural systems in the region have been degraded, as well as the fact that the governance that supports a civilised society has been allowed to collapse in that region, that we now have to spend millions of pounds every year as part of an international campaign to counter that issue of piracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I wish that I could answer that question precisely, but until I am 101% certain, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the reply that he deserves. However, we value HLS and understand its importance, and I hope to be able to satisfy his concerns in the near future.

[Barry Gardiner]

To reinforce what I know is the consensus here on the importance of uplands management, it may be useful in discussions if the Minister asks his civil servants to prepare a document along the lines of the valuation of natural capital, which we discussed earlier, that includes a precise valuation from a tourism and aesthetic point of view, as well as other elements, of natural capital valuation. Those are the arguments that will have to be weighed in the Treasury, as we all understand, so those methods can be used to protect an incredibly important subsidy scheme for farmers and keep some of the most important hill farmers going.

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely understand that point, but we cannot support HLS to the exclusion of other systems. The benefit of entry-level stewardship is that it is done over a lot of space. Others have spoken today about the need for connectivity between our natural sites; agricultural land is the key to getting that right. It is important to get the balance right. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I hear the points that have been made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke in support of the points made by the hon. Member for Brent North, and noted, as I have done, the important work being done with farmers by water companies. That has been a revelation to me, and I have started to think about how it can be extended. I applaud the water companies that are doing such work for showing us how caring for the natural environment saves the taxpayer from having to build large constructions, nitrate-stripping plants and so on. Ultimately, too, the customer gets better-quality water at less cost, the environment is protected and the farmer is rewarded. It is an entirely virtuous circle for ecosystems, and I am slightly incredulous that I did not twig earlier in life that that is obviously the way forward. I applaud those doing it.

The hon. Member for Ongar mentioned the Darwin initiative—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I will try the English version. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Darwin initiative. I spoke about it earlier, and I know of its value. In my conversation with Professor Macdonald, I discussed things that I had seen in parts of the world where there is great pressure between local people and certain species that we in the west might value, such as elephants, large cats and tigers. We need to lever funding to encourage local people to value those species, rather than see them as a threat to their existence. That is very much the case with elephants in northern Kenya, for example, where group ranching schemes can be operated with local people. Such schemes allow local people to get value from tolerating those animals. Those are the sorts of things that the Darwin initiative has been particularly good at, and I want to see it do such things in future.

There has been much talk today about the Treasury. My experience of those who work in the Treasury is that they are very warm and cuddly souls who have nothing but the milk of human kindness flowing in their veins, so I hope that some of the apocalyptic views of the future of funding will not come to pass. Ultimately, it comes down to how these matters are viewed at the highest levels in Government, and the issues of the natural environment and biodiversity are absolutely at the core of the highest levels of this Government. In our Department, those issues are part of our three main areas of priority.

Some of today’s comments have been about how to get across the message on biodiversity, and how we brand it in a way that people understand. I was very taken by the words of Jonathon Porritt, who some years ago admitted that if the green movement has a problem it is that it can be unutterably miserable about the prospects for our globe, planet, society and existence. He said that if the green movement could be more optimistic, it might be listened to by more people. That was very self-effacing and courageous. If we try to communicate the problems about biodiversity purely by saying that the situation is miserable and terrible things are happening, it becomes a weight on people’s shoulders that, in their busy lives, they do not want to bother with. We need to make people feel close to the issue and encourage them to become involved with it—whether that is with the local countryside around where they live, or through concern for an international species that is under threat or the marine environment where they go on holiday. Those are the sort of drivers that will be much more effective in unleashing the undoubted enthusiasm that exists in society for this key cornerstone of our existence.

The hon. Member for Ogmore talked about his experience on ministerial visits. I had a fascinating visit to Bristol where, just a few yards from 500,000 people, I saw some plants being protected that do not exist anywhere else within the Avon gorge, and I was practically dive-bombed by a peregrine. All of that existence was being maintained locally by enthusiastic volunteers, a committed local authority, and government in the form of Natural England and others doing their bit and working together. I completely understand the need for partnership. I also understand the importance of uniting the environment, the economy and society in one concept to deal with the issue.

I will now tackle the specific questions that the hon. Member for Ogmore put to me. We very much hope that the issues of access and benefit sharing can be taken forward at Nagoya. That is an absolute priority. Some people are depressed about the prospects for Nagoya, but that should not mean that we do not try our hardest. We do not want a clash between the developed world, the fast-developing world and the developing world, which is way behind. That dynamic is not insurmountable; we can find a way through. I welcome the fact that a number of different people are going there. I also welcome the fact that GLOBE is so much at the centre of trying to push the concept of doing the work set out in TEEB, and of putting the issues of biodiversity, ecosystems, and green accounting—valuing our natural environment—at the heart of Government.

On Lawton, I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm. National parks and AONBs all have a role in our campaign to reverse the decline in biodiversity. That will be absolutely vital for a host of organisations, including those that are voluntary or member-led—the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, small local groups and many more. I look forward to hearing what Sir John says in his report and I applaud the work that he and others have done. I have seen at first hand—well, through a video link—a BioBlitz in Bristol. They are very impressive. It was truly impressive to see young people engaged in that way.

The hon. Gentleman wants to know how we are going to take the matter forward and whether at the end of the international year of biodiversity we are going to forget all about it. No, we are not. He and others would not let me, and we would not want to. It is very important that we build up a head of steam through the international and national work that is taking place, particularly through our White Paper. We can carry that forward and translate it into real, positive action on the ground. That head of steam, or wave of enthusiasm, will not be allowed to diminish.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister will know that the bulk of Britain’s biodiversity is not within these islands; it is within our overseas territories. Will he give a commitment that the White Paper will include a very clear focus on the work that we need to do in those international territories? Our responsibilities for biodiversity do not stop at these shores or at the 12-mile limit; they go right across the oceans and islands of this world, because of the commitments we have in those overseas territories.