Environment Bill

Written evidence submitted by the National Biodiversity Network Trust (EB63)

1. The National Biodiversity Network Trust

1.1 The NBN Trust (the Trust), founded as an independent charity in 2000, champions the collection and sharing of UK biodiversity data to make it available for use to inform wise policy and planning decisions, producing robust evidence based research and engaging everyone from school children to politicians with the UK’s natural world. The Trust was established to oversee and facilitate the development of the National Biodiversity Network (NBN). T he NBN is the UK’s largest partnership for nature, comprising of over 190 member organisations. Our 125 data partners work together, gathering, verifying and sharing biodiversity information from across the UK. Many of our members have supported the collection of biodiversity data for decades and contribute to the world picture of biodiversity through contributions to the Global Biodiversity Information Forum (GBIF) and internationally acclaimed research and conservation projects.

1.2 This submission is on behalf of the National Biodiversity Network Trust

2. Introduction

2.1 We very much welcome the re-introduction of the Environment Bill into parliament and the ambition for the B ill to form a central part in the Government delivering a step-change in environmental protection and recovery. We are particularly pleased that b iodiversity is included as one of the four priority areas. However, there are area in which the bill could be greatly enhanced.

2.2 Our response is focussed on Part 6, Nature and Biodiversity and Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 1, which cover environmental governance and the proposed Office for Environmental Protection .

3. General Comments

3.1 It would be beneficial for the Bill to have a clear objective , which sets out the overarching ambition to achieve and maintain a resilient, healthy and diverse natural environment that benefits both nature and people.

3.2 The Bill does not include a statement to the effect that this B ill supplements existing legislation and policy on protected sites and species. Nor does it guarantee that protection afforded under this Bill will at least match that currently given under EU law. Statements to these effects should be included in the B ill itself. In particular, there should be explicit mention that current protections for National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife Sites, Marine Conservation Zones and internationally recognised areas e.g. RAMSARs will not be reduced.

4. Part 6 – Nature and Biodiversity (clauses 90 to 101)

4.1 All too often considerations for the environment during planning and other decision making are seen as an add-on at the end of the decision making process or are ignored altogether. Therefore, the steps that are outlined in this part of the Bill to try to halt the decline of nature, particularly as affected by development and planning decisions are to be welcomed.

4.2 While it is an improvement to amend the general duty to conserve biodiversity to also include enhancement, it is still only a requirement to "have regard for" the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity. This is weak and ineffective and should be strengthened to a legal requirement.

4. 3 The additional responsibilities set out in this Bill for public authorities to not only improve their own practices but also assess the plans of others with regard to biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery networks in planning decisions, place an additional burden on local authorities who are already underfunded and under-resourced. Approximately two-thirds of local authorities do not have an ecologist or biodiversity officer on staff. This type of expertise is essential if planning applications are to be adequately assessed on their environmental credentials.

4.4 Natural England is severely underfunded and unable to even carry out their current statutory duties regarding National Nature Reserves and SSSIs, let alone take on the extra responsibilities detailed in this Bill. In order for the proposals set out in this part of the Bill to have a positive effect on the environment these bodies must be adequately funded.

4.5 All of the actions proposed in this Bill regarding the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity need to be based on good quality, relevant data. It should be a legal requirement, enshrined within this Bill, that all decision making is informed by up to date, relevant species and habitat data, obtained from reliable sources. The value of this type of data, and the organisations who gather and curate these data, needs to be given due regard by public and private bodies.

4.6 Habitats improved or created by biodiversity net gain or as part of the Local (and National) Nature Recovery Network strategies must be monitored to ensure the projected benefits are being realised . There must also be the opportunity for oversight and scrutiny of the progress being made. Therefore, it is suggested that data collected in the process of monitoring these projects be made publicly available and easily accessible .

4. 7 Biodiversity Net Gain (clause 92)

4. 7 .1 Making biodiversity net gain a condition of planning permission in England is a good step forward. However, the requirement for the enhancement to only be maintained for 30 years after completion of the works is concerning as the newly created habitats could be destroyed before net gain has been realised. We recommend that biodiversity net gain habitats are maintained in perpetuity.

4. 7 .2 The exclusion of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and other large scale infrastructure projects from the requirement to deliver biodiversity net gain is worrying. These projects should not be exempt from the biodiversity net gain principle.

4. 7 .3 The biodiversity value and biodiversity metric to be used when assessing whether the biodiversity net gain objective has been met (Schedule 7A) rely solely on an assessment of the habitat in the area and do not have any regard for the species found within these habitats. This is a major flaw. Under these assessments it would be perfectly possible for the application of biodiversity net gain to result in the provision of habitats that are less biodiverse. Biodiversity by definition includes the variety of species within a habitat, to have a biodiversity metric which does not take account of this is perverse.

4. 8 Biodiversity Report (clause 96)

4. 8 .1 While it is heartening to see reference the inclusion of quantitative data relating to biodiversity in reporting, the Bill only states that the Secretary of State may by regulations require such data to be supplied. Robust, credible data from before, during and after any intervention or mitigation are essential to be able to monitor and assess the success of any actions. Therefore, it should be a requirement that relevant data are included in any biodiversity report.

5. Part 1 – Environmental Governance

5. 1 Environmental targets (clauses 1 to 6)

5.1.1 The inclusion of biodiversity as one of the four prio rity areas for which environmental targets are to be set is welcomed. However, improvements are need ed to ensure these targets are appropriate, ambitious and measurable.

5.1.2 In particular, the targets should be based on independent, expert advice supported by robust , quality biodiversity species and habitat data. Inclusion of relevant data should be a requirement of the reporting duties .

5.1.3 Long term targets are welcomed and should be set as soon as possible. Howe ver, the bill should also allow and encourage the setting of shorter-term targets.

5.1.4 The term " significant environmental improvement " should be clearly defined and measurable. Furthermore, it should not be restricted to priority areas, but rather be improvements for the environment as a whole.

5.2 Environmental principles (Clauses 16 to 18)

5.2.1 The requirement for government ministers and public authorities to have "due regard" to the policy statement on environmental principles (which is currently unpublished) should be strengthened to require all public authorities to apply the environmental principles. F urthermore, the armed forces, taxation, spending or allocation of government resources should not be exemption from this requirement.

5.3 The independence of the Office for Environmental Protection (Clauses 21 to 24, Schedule 1)

5.3.1 The establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection as an environmental watchdog is welcomed. However, in order for it to be effective it needs to be truly independent from government . Some improvements in this regard have been made in the latest draft of the B ill, however, they do not go far enough in providing independence.

5.3.2 The appointment process should be subject to greater oversight by parliament as the current process gives ministers broad powers . In particular, the proposed appointment of the interim chief executive by the Secretary of State would enable minister s to control the crucial early development of the OEP.

5.3.3 The ring fencing of funding of the OEP for five-years is positive, however, there is no longer-term commitment. Provision should be made in the legislation to ensure the OEP continues to be funded beyond this initial period. Furthermore, under the current proposal, the Secretary of State determines the level of funding required for the OEP. The OEP itself should be able to estimate the funding it feels is required to adequately carry out its role.

5.4 The OEP’s enforcement function (Clauses 28 to 38)

5.4.1 The enforcement function as set out in the Bill is inadequate. The "information notices" and "decision notices" that can be issued to public bodies who are believed to have failed to comply with environmental law are not binding . Nor is it clear how issuing of these notices will lead to remedial or legal action to address the failures.

6 . Recommendations

6.1 We make the following recommendations:

· The Bill should have a clear objective setting out the overarching ambition of a resilient, healthy and diverse natural environment.

· A statement should be added to the effect that this Bill supplements existing legislation and policy on protected sites and species.

· A statement should be added to this Bill guaranteeing that protection afforded under this Bill will at least match that currently given under EU law

· The Bill should be amended to make it a legal requirement to conserve and enhance biodiversity .

· Sufficient funding is guaranteed to provide the resources required by local authorities, Natural England and other bodies to assess, regulate and enforce the actions set out in this Bill.

· The Bill should include a legal requirement for all decision making that affects biodiversity to be informed by up to date, relevant species and habitat data, obtained from reliable sources .

· It should be a requirement for all data collected in the process of monitoring biodiversity net gain and Local (and National) Nature Recovery Network projects be made publicly available and easily accessible.

· Biodiversity Net Gain habitats are maintain ed in perpetuity

· Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and other large scale infrastructure projects should not be exempt from the requirement to deliver biodiversity net gain .

· The Biodiversity Metric be amended to include species data.

· The inclusion of quantitative data in Biodiversity Reports be made a legal requirement.

· Environmental targets are be based on independent, expert advice supported by robust, quality biodiversity species and habitat data.

· Shorter-term targets should be allowed and encouraged.

· The term "significant environmental improvement" should be clearly defined and measurable.

· All public authorities should be required to apply the environmental principles.

· Appointments to the OEP should be subject to greater oversight by parliament.

· A longer-term commitment to funding of the OEP should be made.

· The OEP should be responsible for estimating the funding required to carry out its duties.

 June 2020