| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
30 Apr 2009 : Column 341WH—continued
Issues such as overseas development budgets should be co-ordinated with work done on biodiversity and climate change. Protecting forests is good for people who live in such communities. Clean, healthy, aquatic ecosystems are good for people who rely on them for fisheries, water or farming. What is good for biodiversity is good for people. That is the great value of the Darwin initiative, its international support for quality science,
the alliances forged and the partnerships encouraged. It is something that the Government and DEFRA can be rightly proud of.
3.51 pm
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). To put it simply, he has forgotten more about biodiversity than I will ever know.
I shall be circumspect, as I do not want to extend the debate unduly. It is wonderful to be in Westminster Hall rather than the main Chamber—some of us know where our priorities lie. It is also a good thing to be away from swine flu—perhaps hon. Members can hear that I have caught something else, which I why I am sitting separately. Swine flu is a matter for another day, and we must examine carefully its implications for our world and some of the interconnections involved. We cannot talk about biodiversity without considering some of the things that are happening at the moment.
I welcome the debate and I am here to be educated. As hon. Members know, I have a long-standing interest in DEFRA. The Darwin initiative is one of its best kept secrets. Some hon. Members might have looked at the debate scheduled for this Thursday afternoon and wondered, “What is all that about?” If nothing else, they might be able to read Hansard and be educated. The educative process is important, and this subject links to work done by the Department for International Development. The Government have a good reputation for the international aspects of the work that they do, and too often we are not able to explore that in this place. Sadly, they do not get anything like the reward they deserve in the media and other channels.
To begin with, I will go gently on the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), as we might have slightly different views on Darwin, evolution and creationism—although I am not a creationist by belief. It is important that we pay due regard to one of our greatest scientists, whose name has outlived his reputation and the controversy he caused during his lifetime. Everybody has a view on Darwin; he was probably the world’s first celebrity scientist and his views will for ever cause controversy.
The Darwin initiative is important as it brings us together and makes the world a smaller place. I congratulate the Minister on all that the Government do through such projects. It might be a good idea for an annual report to be produced, even if it was only given to the Select Committee. The initiative needs to be given some prominence; otherwise, like other such matters, it will disappear into the minutiae of parliamentary reporting.
I come at this from a fairly jaundiced position. I have not done a lot of travelling—certainly not until I took this job. Kenya has been mentioned on a number of occasions, but the first time I went there, I was genuinely shocked at the lack of wildlife in the part I visited. If anybody wants a clear demonstration of the effects of conflict and climate change, it can be seen in parts of Kenya, even if that country is not necessarily one of the countries in Africa that have seen the greatest changes due to those two dreadful events. We tried to find some elephants, but the nearest we got to that was elephant excrement. There were no elephants to be seen, and neither were there many other animals because people
had eaten them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe said, that is one of the ways in which population impacts on the biodiversity of our planet.
I specialise in the Sudan, where, sadly, the conflict in Darfur carries on regardless of all the other things going on in the world. People were shocked to hear some in Darfur let it be known that they put a higher value on their donkeys than on their children. In the west that was seen to be entirely reprehensible, but without donkeys, people cannot collect firewood and that means that there is no future for humanity in that place, notwithstanding the conflict that is going on. To me, that demonstrates the interdependency of wildlife, livestock and humankind. Although we in the west may have certain views on how we would protect the human species, people in places such as Darfur do not see any future without livestock. We must always be aware of that when dealing with conflicts. I will not ask the Minister to come up with a policy or a project on that, but I have no doubt that either DEFRA or DFID will be asked for such assistance. When dealing with conflict resolution, we must ensure that we are able to have an impact in areas where livestock, or indeed the wider biosphere, has been devastated.
The reference to the Marine and Coastal Access Bill is welcome. That is a very good Bill; it is long overdue, but that does not mean that we should not celebrate it and get it through Parliament as quickly as possible.
I have a couple of questions that the Minister might be able to answer. They are on a subject that has not been raised, although we spent time on it some years ago. Although its importance has not lessened, the environmental liability directive seems to have disappeared off the radar: it would be interesting to know where it has gone. It may be a peculiarly covert EU operation, but the directive is important as it lays down responsibility in our part of the world for those who plant and, dare I say, abuse the planting of various species.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon spoke about the GM debate, which I will not go into—we all have our views on that. However, there are important ramifications for planting regimes, possible repercussions when things go wrong, and who bears liability for such matters. I presume that whatever we do in the EU will be taken forward as a policy into the wider world. Given the debate on GM acceptability, we must know where we stand, so I ask the Minister for an update on that.
CITES has been mentioned. A number of us tried to persuade the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to look at that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) is very keen for us to consider the matter. One problem is that we are already so busy dealing with events and everyday work that some of the more important global and strategic issues that have a bearing on CITES pass us by. It would be good to know how such issues can be brought into the light in Parliament, lest otherwise they disappear. Yesterday, I was present at the start of the debate on bees, which is a subject that is now receiving some useful attention. We can see how the plight of bees can spiral into a number of other issues, including pesticides and the way in which we consider landscape and territorial changes and climate change.
Like other hon. Members, I pay due regard to our own scientific prominence. Kew has been mentioned,
but we also have the Royal Botanic gardens in Edinburgh. I also praise DEFRA. In the debate on swine flu in the Chamber yesterday, I mentioned the need to link the veterinary laboratories at Weybridge and the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright, which is, if not the best, then one of the best centres for vaccination research. We also have Rothamsted Research, which specialises in plant technology; although it is an independent research establishment, it heavily relies on DEFRA funding. It is important that we understand that, although we are discussing a specific initiative—the Darwin initiative—it can only operate in the context of some of the other things that we are doing. The institutions I mention are vital because they are pushing forward the boundaries of knowledge.
At the moment, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is undertaking research into food security. We received some fairly frightening evidence from Rothamsted Research on the degree to which the movement of population will require north-west Europe to go back to being a major agricultural producer—or at least much more so than it is at the moment. I am talking about not just self-sufficiency within the United Kingdom, but growing enough and keeping enough animals so that we can begin to support other parts of the world that are affected by climate change. That is an area of some conflict and one on which we may not have touched. We could go down all sorts of avenues, including the conflict over red and grey squirrels, bovine TB, which I am rather obsessed with, and the controversial question of set-aside. We have not yet resolved the degree to which we are prepared to protect our landscape. We could be asked to grow more crops and keep more animals.
In conclusion, I pay due regard to those involved in the protection of the great apes. My constituent Ian Redmond, who has been appearing on all sorts of television programmes, was behind the Forests Now initiative—a good initiative that aims to get the world to understand that it cannot afford to lose any more rain forest. In particular, it focuses on the great apes and gorillas. I have great respect for people involved in such projects, because their work, more than anything else, has brought home to us how biodiversity matters in all our lives and how, in those wonderful species, we can see our future as well as our past. I hope that that is an area in which the Darwin initiative can get involved because otherwise we will miss an opportunity to make it something that has more traction in the lives of ordinary people. We must use this educative process to go out and persuade people that this is an area in which they should invest. Moreover, we as a country must persuade other countries to do likewise.
4.5 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: With the leave of the House, I am delighted to respond to this excellent debate. I know we often say that, but the passion, expertise and insight of the various contributions show not only the success of the Darwin initiative itself, but how it stretches across so many areas. The initiative pulls together the three areas of the triangle of sustainability—the social, the environmental and the economic. If we get it right, we can do great things; if we fail, the impact is unimaginable. We need to continue in that direction of travel. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions today.
The Government remain fully committed to tackling, both nationally and internationally, the issues of biodiversity. Let me begin by responding to the points made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). I am not being condescending when I say that he made a very good and thoughtful speech. I welcome his observations on the work that he saw being done in Kenya, which other hon. Members mentioned as well, and his commitment to biodiversity in the UK and globally.
Critical issues lie ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) touched on one of them—set-aside and how we recapture the benefits of a scheme that was not designed to have environmental benefits, but did. He also touched on the fragile nature of our marine ecosystems and the sustainability of fish stocks and fisheries that depend on them. We have real challenges to deal with here. Recently in Luxembourg, I introduced the statements from the EU member nations on the first response to the Green Paper on reform of the common fisheries policy. I made it clear that the UK is committed to leading from the front and to taking a radical approach to the CFP and its fundamental pillars. We need to move forward in our own marine environment, across the EU and internationally, and to make difficult decisions on balancing livelihoods both on the seas and in areas that have fragile habitats.
I agreed with my hon. Friend when he talked about the need to do more on the ground. That is where we need to see the evidence, not least in the UK. Moreover, we need to consider what we do about set-aside, which is currently up for a 12-week consultation in which a couple of models have been advocated. One is based on the cross-compliance mandatory model, which gives certainty, but lacks the advantage of bringing people with it. The other is the voluntary one, on which the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association are working with support from my officials. When considering the two models, both the Secretary of State and I have said that we need a high degree of certainty that, having lost set-aside some years ago, we can deliver what has been lost. We must also consider what we will do if we cannot. I am interested to hear the response to that. Everybody recognises that the set-aside initiative, which was not set up to deliver biodiversity benefits, did deliver biodiversity benefits. If we can agree that we need a high degree of certainty about how to regain those, then I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend.
Marine conservation zones were also mentioned. Working with stakeholders—fisheries, dredgermen, energy companies and green NGOs such as the Finding Sanctuary project in the south-west—is the right way forward. We are trying to introduce proposals, confront the evidence and make decisions together. However, we cannot distance ourselves from our obligations under Natura 2000 and the habitats directive. We will have to make some tough decisions and tough calls and get them right. We will then need to work with communities and businesses and all stakeholders to implement our decisions. There is a whole heap of things to deal with, including nitrate protection zones and the water framework directive. I welcomed what the hon. Member for Newbury said about doing much more on the ground, here in the UK
and internationally. Collectively, the House and Ministers will have to make some decisions on how to improve our biodiversity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned the principle of compensatory conservation, which means offsetting unavoidable harm to biodiversity. The principle is already in legislation and policy: the EC habitats, birds and environmental liability directives require biodiversity offset in certain circumstances; section 31 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 also contains provisions in that regard; and planning policy statement 9 on biodiversity and geological conservation supports biodiversity offsets. PPS 9 states:
“Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity...interests which cannot be prevented,”—
“adequately mitigated against...or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.”
We would then look at the offset. There is scope for offset, but it is not a substitute for the other measures I talked about. As in the oft-repeated remark, if one has only a hammer in the tool box, everything looks like a nail. We need more tools if we are to drive forward positively.
The consultation on set-aside, which I mentioned, was launched on 4 March 2009, and I encourage hon. Members to contribute to it. We need to ensure a high degree of certainty when it comes to recovering some of the benefits that we have undoubtedly lost, not least in farmland birds, as my right hon. Friend said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made a very good contribution to the debate and I recognise his and other hon. Members’ long-term commitment. He is right, as a number of hon. Members have said, that the Darwin initiative is an unheralded success story. For a little bit of effort and expertise, and some resources, and by working in partnerships on the ground, we can deliver not only enormous local benefits, but have a significant impact on biodiversity targets, not least in the overseas territories. My hon. Friend was right that Darwin predicted the effects of habitat and environmental depletion on flora and fauna. It is right and appropriate that we celebrate the fact that the initiative that bears his name helps to mitigate some of those impacts. My hon. Friend also drew attention to CITES and the convention on migratory species, which are encompassed by the Darwin initiative.
On marine conservation zones, to which a few hon. Members have referred, I am looking forward to the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, to debating it on the Floor of the House and in Committee and to going through the details. I am absolutely committed to delivering an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones. I want the zones to mean something and for them to be well worked out so as to bring people along, and for that to happen in good time. As hon. Members have said, I want them to be properly devised, managed and resourced.
I also want to consider compatible uses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe has said. The debate on wind farm development is interesting. At one time, NGOs were wholly opposed, but now, many NGOs, including those that once opposed them, are looking at their potential for reef and habitat development and so on. I went to Reading this morning to launch the
second of three workshops on the marine science strategy, to which I will return in a moment. Indeed, the evidence from marine science will allow us to make good decisions, rather than making “get reaction” decisions, including on compatible uses. As the Bill progresses, it is right that we enhance the existing expertise in marine science, of which there is a great deal.
I have made clear in today’s announcements our continuing commitment to the long-term funding and sustainability of the Darwin initiative. It would be churlish not applaud the fact that the initiative was set up under a different Government some years ago. We have built on it year after year and, under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe and other Ministers, augmented what we have done and built the budget. Also, cleverly and intelligently, thanks to those people who select and propose Darwin projects, we have ensured that the money goes a long way.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was a fine substitute today in his Front-Bench role and brought an interesting perspective on science and research, of which he has great knowledge. He commented on my constituency’s biodiversity. Ogmore is a former coal mining constituency and, curiously, it is the southernmost habitat in the UK for several semi-Arctic tundra species. I can stand at the top of the Bwlch mountain looking down at the splendour of the landscape, knowing that there are fragile species not only in SSSIs, but in places such as my constituency; all hon. Members can give similar examples. That awareness helps us to connect the local to the national and international.
The hon. Gentleman talked asked about the publication of operational research. The research that comes out of the Darwin projects is made available and published—reporting is a condition. All reports are published on the Darwin website. Depending on their nature of the reports, not all appear in peer review publications, but I am pleased to say that they are all made public.
The hon. Gentleman will be interested in the marine science strategy. I chair the ministerial group on marine science and champion it in government. I urge him to put his thoughts into the strategy, which will underpin much of our work on the marine environment. The strategy will not replicate what we have been doing: it will recognise what is good, but it will also identify the gaps and develop the synchronicities between various organisations that have a good science and research base. It will point the way forward on what else we need to know about the UK and international marine environment. With his background, I am sure he will want to contribute to the strategy as it progresses.
Dr. Harris: The Minister is aware that this is a big subject. Indeed, the former Science and Technology Committee, which left no scientific stone unturned, conducted an inquiry on investigating the oceans, which was debated in Westminster Hall. The Chairman of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), is keen to ensure that the Government follow up the report’s recommendations.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |