Global Warming

Motion to Take Note

17:15:00

Moved by

That this House takes note of the challenges caused by the effects of climate change on natural ecosystems and the role of nature conservation in combating global warming.

My Lords, it is late in the week. The reason why I wanted to hold this debate is that, as those who have been Members of the House for some time know, I have tended to specialise on climate change and energy during my career here. However, more locally in Cornwall, for the last few years I have chaired the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Its aim is to tackle the crises of biodiversity and the retreat of nature regionally. For some time, I treated both those crises—they are crises—as separate issues locally and globally. For instance, I was optimistic about biodiversity in the far south-west of the United Kingdom. I used to say about the climate crisis that, wherever carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, they will affect us globally, wherever we are, but that we can really make a difference to biodiversity in our locality. We hope that the rest of the world gets it right, but we can get it right here as well. However, I quickly learned that, although that is just about correct in the short term, if we do not solve the climate crisis in the medium and long term, our attempts to repair our ecosystems will be equally fraught. I make an apology in that, in asking the question, I have said something that I tell everybody else off for saying—“nature conservation”. Nature conservation was a 1970s and 1980s term. It is no good now; we need nature recovery. Conservation is not sufficient. However, the one thing that I will try to do during this debate is to be optimistic and not mention that our nature is the most depleted of any country in the world. I will not go down that route. So we have two crises. On the climate side, we know that 2024 was the hottest year for our planet, and that all of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. On biodiversity, the Living Planet Index has shown that, over the last 50 years, the average size of monitored wildlife populations has shrunk by three-quarters. In the UK, one in six species has been threatened by extinction, while 7% of our woodland and a quarter of our peat-lands are assessed to be in good condition—a minuscule amount. I will come back to peat-lands later and I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is here to talk about caring for our forests, and the Woodland Trust. Both these crises are linked by their cause but, optimistically, they are also connected by their solution. Briefly on the causes of biodiversity loss, it is now estimated that climate change is the third most important reason for biodiversity loss but that it will, over the coming years, become one of the most important. Those individual threats include temperature, and the fact that species cannot migrate at the same rate as the planet is warming up—at the end of the day, you cannot go further north than the North Pole, and you cannot go further south than the South Pole; flooding and more destructive storms; fires, obviously; species migration, and the fact that we do not necessarily have the right conditions for all the migration routes; seasonal dysfunction, where perhaps a species of flora that an animal or species relies on is there at different times of the season because of changes; ocean acidification, which is directly related to carbon being absorbed by the ocean, which has been hugely helpful against climate change but will eventually be very destructive to marine species; invasive species, which when they come down to being pests can also affect human health; soil destruction; and desertification, as we have seen in Africa and beyond. So we see all sorts of examples of that, including the current wildfires in California, coral bleaching, floods in the United Kingdom and Europe and extreme weather in the Caribbean. I ask noble Lords whether they can think of a day when they have watched the news, whether on television or YouTube, and not seen some form of extreme event problem over recent months. It seems to me that every night examples of this problem are there to see on our screens. This is not just about biodiversity; it is about trying to protect our ecosystems and ecosystem services, whether it is pollination, clean water and air, water cycles, healthy soils or flood control. I will give a bit of bad news and then I hope to come on to the good news, so that everybody can at least feel that there is some solution here. When I first got involved in biodiversity, I was looking at the so-called Aichi targets from the Convention on Biological Diversity. There were a number of them: they were set in 2011 and were supposed to be completed by 2020. Not one of those targets, all of which were on biological diversity, was actually met and we do not seem any nearer to them now. Very few of the sustainable development goals, which we perhaps know better, have been met, either globally or here in the UK. Some have, but not very many in this area. This is a big issue globally. Back in October, there was a convention on biodiversity in Colombia, and in November, a Conference of the Parties on climate change in Baku, Azerbaijan. The first ended without any conclusions whatever because the parties could not agree on the biodiversity side, and at COP, as we know, partly because of the fossil fuel interests that were there, again, there was insufficient agreement on how to move forward. In the meantime, we face a number of tipping points that we must avoid: the disappearance of the polar ice caps, the movement of ocean circulation and the survival of the lungs of the planet—not just the Amazon but the Congo Basin rainforest. I will mention something that really disappointed me, as a parliamentarian, during the last Government. The Treasury, while under the control of Mr Sunak, produced the fantastic Dasgupta report, which was primarily about natural capital. To me, it was equal to the Stern report on climate change from several years before. It was a beautiful report, produced by the Treasury under the previous Government, but did anything happen? Did any of us do anything about it? It lies there, unused. Both nationally and globally, we are all committed to the 30 by 30 target, aiming for 30% of the land and sea to be managed for nature by 2030, but we are nowhere it. Let us be a little bit more upbeat and look at where we go from here. I believe that we can solve all these by solving both together. We can rebuild our ecosystems and can substitute nature for concrete when it comes to adaptation. The first of those ways, as Members in this debate will know, is nature-based solutions. For example, unstraightening rivers, healthy soils, reforestation, beavers—as we have in Cornwall now—or healthy wetlands can all really confront flooding. For biodiversity on farmland, we have ranch-style grazing, herbal leys and lots of other things that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will put far more powerfully than me. Of course, there are no-take areas for fishery regeneration as well. I congratulate the previous Government, particularly on the marine Blue Belt initiative across the globe. I come back again to peatland regeneration. I understand that, although we had a ban on gardening peat last year, we are still able to extract peat and use it commercially. We have regenerative agriculture and nature-friendly farming, which will look after our soils, absorb more carbon and give long-term food security. Seagrass increases biodiversity and is an effective carbon sink. I welcome the Crown Estate’s mapping exercise of our coast, including salt marshes. Native forestry can absorb carbon and increase habitats, and individual trees or clusters of trees give shelter and moderate heat for livestock. Tropically, mangroves promote carbon capture and biodiversity in tandem. Of course, we should not forget urban green areas, which can be as good for human health, both mental and physical. In this area, I would say that we have the promise of a triple win: climate mitigation, adaptation and a rebound of biodiversity. That is my good news—but I ask the Government the following questions. The Government are great on climate change and I really respect and encourage them in their objectives, particularly in decarbonisation of the energy system. I also welcome the rapid review of the Government’s 2023 environmental improvement plan, which has been ordered by Steve Reed, the Secretary of State. But where is the real plan for 30 by 30, even here in the UK? We have only five years left for that now, and the Office for Environmental Protection warned today that the Government are “largely off track to meet” the majority of legally binding nature targets, and time is rapidly running out, as we have seen. How will the Government avoid silo management between DESNZ and Defra? This is a problem for all Whitehall departments and it is absolutely crucial here that the two work together. Will the Government turn first to nature-based solutions rather than concrete ones? Will they look at the Dasgupta report again? In England, how will they deliver local nature recovery strategies? Is there a real way of stopping peat extraction as soon as possible? I beg to move.

17:28:00

My Lords, I declare my interests with a range of environmental organisations, as listed in the register. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing this important debate. I am very glad that he has seen the light on the road to Damascus and is now seeing climate change and biodiversity as a joined-up issue. Predictably, the noble Lord has done a splendid job of laying out the issues, so I will not duplicate that. I will simply say that looking after nature benefits not only nature but people, the climate and the economy; indeed, it is one of the most effective ways of reducing carbon and providing solutions to enable us to adapt to the impacts of climate change. When I was looking at what I was going to say during this debate, I was very worried because, when talking about climate and biodiversity decline, you can begin to sound like Private Frazer from “Dad’s Army”—“We’re doomed!”—so I am going to talk about something much more positive: four real opportunities that are around right now, in the real world, that could make a difference for both climate and nature. First, we will be building a lot in the next decade in pursuit of growth, housing, infrastructure and green energy. We have the opportunity to do all that in a completely different way—with planning decisions that are simultaneously good for the climate, the environment, the economy and people; using new green construction technologies; and building our new housing stock to the highest environmental and resilience standards. We will have to change our current ways of doing things, of course, where too many developments threaten or destroy some of the most precious habitats for the storage of carbon and the support of biodiversity—vital carbon sinks such as, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, and peatlands, which store twice as much carbon as forests. You have no idea how difficult it was as a former chair of the Woodland Trust to put pen to paper to admit that something is better at storing carbon than trees are. What we must not do is what I call “doing an HS2”—driving in thoughtless straight lines across protected sites, important biodiversity and stuff that is really important for climate change. My second proposition is that agriculture has probably the single biggest adverse impact on biodiversity and the climate change mitigation and adaptation that biodiversity can offer. But all is not lost; we have a significant amount of funding in this country already invested in agricultural support, which, if used skilfully, can simultaneously support biodiversity, climate change mitigation, food resilience and farmers. We have farmers who have shown that they understand the need for diverse and resilient farm businesses. So let us go for it, but with the climate change and biodiversity issues well embedded in all aspects of the agricultural landscape. My third opportunity—I am sure the Minister will comment on this—is that right now we have an awful lot of initiatives across biodiversity and other environmental measures, planning and construction, energy systems and climate change, and very few of them are joined up. The Government set off in the right direction with joined-up mission boards in support of the manifesto, but we need to go further than that. We are blessed with one thing that joins up much of this: land. Land is a scarce resource. It is fundamental for a whole range of issues: climate impacts, biodiversity, housing, infrastructure development, energy, health, water quantity and quality, and growth. So I urge the Minister not to keep us waiting any longer for the much-delayed—although I must admit it was the Tories who mostly delayed it—land use framework consultation, because that is the foundation that will join up many policies that currently are not joined up. But it also offers a process, nationally and locally, to get away from the sorts of conflicts in the past that were framed around the idea that we can either build or have biodiversity, but we cannot have both. I believe that we can have both and that local people have a right to expect both and to be part of that. My fourth and last opportunity is that the majority of the biggest landowners in this country are public bodies. Look at the league table of land ownership in this country: I bet not many people know exactly who lies where in it. But if those public bodies, such as the Forestry Commission, the Crown Estate, the Ministry of Defence and others, were all to do the right thing by their use and management of their land in the interests of biodiversity and climate change, we could make tremendous progress and set some terrific examples of good practice for private landowners, and globally. Let me take those three examples in a bit more detail: the Crown Estate, the defence estate and the Forestry Commission. I praise the Crown Estate for the progress it has voluntarily made in addressing environmental responsibilities and welcome the fact that, as a result of the Crown Estate Act, it will have an even stronger statutory requirement to do so. The defence estate is less promising, with land set aside for carbon sequestration through tree planting and habitat creation now being sold off for development as it searches for cash. The Forestry Commission, the biggest landowner in Britain, needs serious review. Its establishing statute is now over 60 years old and shows signs of age. The statutory purpose of the Forestry Commission is to promote the interests of forestry and the production and supply of timber. Conservation is to be undertaken, but only if it can be balanced with timber production. We need an urgent review of the legislative framework of the Forestry Commission to bring it into the 21st century and, indeed, we might well consider tasking all public bodies that have major land holdings to deliver statutory targets for biodiversity, environment and climate in much the way that has now been done for the Crown Estate. I hope the Minister will grasp these opportunities.

17:34:00

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness—someone, I confess, I greatly admire. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate and his fantastic rallying cry at the beginning. Sadly—I am sure that I am not alone in this—he has stolen much of my thunder. It was a good speech. I thank all the organisations which I am sure have been in touch with all noble Lords ahead of this debate. I declare that I am a member and supporter of the Conservative Environment Network. There are three things I would like to raise today. First, everyone knows the importance and beauty of our oceans and, sadly, the many challenges they face. Under the last Government the United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating the High Seas Treaty and it now needs us—this country—to take it forward and to play our part. I ask the Minister: what steps this Government are taking to ratify the treaty? There is one linked—utterly crazy, frankly—manmade thing we are allowing that is having a huge effect on biodiversity in the ocean, not to mention carbon, and which we could bring to a swift end. That is, of course, bottom trawling. Just before Christmas I met Oceana, the international organisation doing incredible work to promote ocean conservation. I asked for the meeting because I was struggling to understand why—this is not a political dig at all; obviously, this has gone on for far too long—we continue to allow bottom trawling to happen. I was blown away in that conversation to discover that it is also allowed in marine protected areas. Let us be clear: this activity is unbelievably destructive. It is practically bulldozing entire habitats with extraordinary, ridiculously high bycatch, and it is disturbing blue carbon. As I say, this is actively happening now and in what are deemed protected areas. So urgent action is needed. What steps are the Government taking to ban this destructive form of fishing across our so-called protected areas? The second issue, as has already been mentioned, is around forestry and rewilding. Trees play a massive role in society, in nature, in economic terms, in health and in carbon storage. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking beyond the task force to unleash planting by the private sector to create new woodland habitats, thereby sequestering lots of carbon in the process? More broadly, I have argued for—I am sure noble Lords have heard me bore for England on—rewilding. To me, nature is our ally on so much. It is not just about some green and pleasant land. It is not just about health. It is not the emotional attachment and the enjoyment it gives. It is not about the jobs it creates or the communities it pulls together; nor is it about the importance of restoring habitats or stopping them being lost. Nature does all this and more, especially when it comes our climate and weather. The reason I pushed hard for nature-based solutions during our debates on the Water Bill is because those help us tackle water pollution. Often, they are far better and more efficient than manmade infrastructure. Flood plains, hedgerows and letting rivers meander, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, help tackle floods —as does our great and trusty friend the beaver. Trees, heaths and peatlands also cut gases. I say to those sceptics who say this is all nice to have but is impractical: it is not. Echoing the beautiful and moving words from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, yesterday in her incredible maiden speech in this Chamber, nature does not stop things, including food production. That leads me to my third area: farming. I want to raise it because the only people who can improve nature and biodiversity en masse are land managers. I am afraid it does feel as though this Government are knowingly making it more difficult for land managers to do their job. So I ask, respectfully: what assessment was done by the Government of the impact of the tax changes on farmers and, crucially, on nature restoration? If farmers leave and sell up, what will replace them? In closing, I have a general point that again slightly echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said at the beginning. Nature and the environment are not the same as net zero. They are entirely separate, albeit complementary, and I cannot help but feel that the wider Government—I respectfully exclude the two Front Benchers from this—see debates on the environment purely through the lens of net zero. I am not at all doing down the importance of green jobs or having energy diversification, and of course energy security is crucial, but so are food security and economic security. The Government, with the exception of the Minister, are broadly absent on nature. It is forced on them through the water Bill, or it is always under review, or, as we read the other day in the papers, policies are even killed off as options because they are seen as Tory policy. By focusing solely on wind turbines and solar panels we miss a huge swathe of opportunities. You cannot tackle and mitigate the effects of climate change without recognising the limitless benefits and opportunities of nature. If we become the go-to place to lock up carbon, restore biodiversity and deliver green finance, those are the jobs of the square mile and the countryside as well as the solution to so much, not armies of civil servants or reams of legislation. Can I seek a firm commitment that the Government understand nature and the private sector’s ability to drive change? As I said, nature is a solution for so much.

17:41:00

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on sponsoring this important debate and on his impressive opening speech. Clearly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, stated, farmers have a key role in helping to address this challenge. Having been a farmer for most of my life until recently, I am conscious of that responsibility. Some in this House may be aware that I was responsible for a report published in 2002 on the future of food and farming, commissioned by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We reported that agricultural policy had been slow to recognise the impact of post-war policies on the natural environment. When we drafted that report, participation by farmers in stewardship schemes was less than 10%. We recommended the introduction of a broad and shallow entry-level scheme, which the Government endorsed, and after five years’ participation it led to 70% of eligible land being in some form of stewardship. It was an important first step for the majority of farmers, but we still face a huge challenge if we try to slow down and arrest species decline. The subsequent stewardship schemes, and latterly the ELM and SFI schemes, have built on that early progress. However, I am concerned that, having got the balance wrong in the latter half of the last century, when we as farmers were incentivised only to produce food, that we may still be getting it wrong. The pendulum has swung 180 degrees. We need to learn lessons from the past and get the balance right between sustainable food production and addressing the environmental challenges we face, including the restoration of habitats. Those are not incompatible objectives, and I am sure the Minister will reassure us that Defra is fully aware of this challenge. Even if all farmers were to actively engage in trying to restore habitats and re-establish ecosystems, we may never recover some species due to other factors, including climate change, as we mentioned, rising temperatures, urbanisation and, I may say, the increase in predators. I mention predators because they are having a greater impact on the natural environment than is appreciated. I welcome the inclusion of grey squirrel control in the SFI. Just for information, the badger population has doubled over the past 40 years. Over the same period, the population of hedgehogs has fallen from 20 million to fewer than a million. Of course there are other factors at work, but badgers are the only predator of hedgehogs. There is undoubtedly some urgency about the challenges we face. The year 2030 is just five years away and these are long-term trends that we need to turn around. We need landscape-scale participation, with targeted action to address specific environmental issues, including the encouragement of species at risk. There are some great examples of that beginning to happen, and we need more of them. Existing schemes may need revision in order to achieve agreed landscape-scale priorities. Tensions are clearly apparent on some estates between landlords and tenants, with the latter feeling threatened by decisions taken without consultation, particularly with regard to short-term tenancies. The viability of farming businesses is being put at risk. I hope that the new tenancy commissioner will be given the powers to investigate perceived unreasonable behaviour by some landlords. There is clearly a need to look at all schemes—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, stated this—whether that is woodland establishment, selective tree planting or flood mitigation, and the SFI and the various options available, to make sure they are reliable to deliver the desired objectives of restoring nature, climate change mitigation and sustainable food production. It does not feel as if policies are joined up. Peat has been mentioned and the planting of trees, so I will move on. I want to make a plea to the Government. Soil quality is crucial for sustainable food production and the sequestration of carbon, but also for supporting effective ecosystems. Soil is fundamental. The previous Government committed to a soil action plan and then reneged on that commitment. We need a national plan to enable us to optimise the effectiveness of the contribution that our soils are capable of delivering. Northern Ireland has a national soil map; so does the Republic. We need one in England. We have the opportunity, through the ELMS, to capture information on soil quality, which could be supplied by all participants. Soil’s carbon content varies from farm to farm, from field to field, and within fields. GPS, in conjunction with soil testing, can help identify what actions are needed and where to improve soil quality. We need a national map and a plan. I will make two other points. First, the statement by the Secretary of State for Defra committing to £5 billion of funding for agriculture support over the next two years is very welcome. However, despite fairly encouraging figures of farmer participation in the SFI, there are still thousands of family farmers, many in precious and vulnerable landscapes—some will be neighbours of the Minister and some neighbours of mine, on the other side of the Pennines—who have not yet engaged in the schemes. Can the Minister confirm that funding will still be available for those who have not yet applied, or have delayed applying, due to either the scheme being too complex or the options available being inappropriate until recent revisions? Is there a possibility that Treasury pressure on Defra might have to limit participation in the SFI? It would be deeply regrettable if that were to be the case. I will be just a short moment. I have long believed that the public benefits that farmers can deliver are much greater than has been calculated in the past. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did, when we can expect an announcement—

Can the noble Lord wind up, please?

17:47:00

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on this debate. I agree with almost every word he said, but when he starts telling the House that the Labour Government are to be congratulated on their climate change actions, I am afraid that I disagree really strongly. In a debate on an existential crisis for the human race and the planet, we have one Labour Back-Bencher—albeit an excellent one. At least we have three Tories, most of whom will talk some sense—but not completely, obviously. I just do not understand how this Government can take this so casually. It is absolutely appalling and I have been sitting here fuming since we started. We need nature and we need biodiversity. It is not a nice thing to have but absolutely necessary for human life. Biodiversity, in particular, is nature’s safety blanket; it cushions the shocks and creates resilience. We have been shredding that security blanket for decades with an industrialised agricultural system that is overly dependent on chemical life support. Human actions have raised global temperatures by 1.5 degrees. We have done that a decade ahead of when we thought we would. Climate science is constantly wrong because it is constantly cautious in talking about impacts and because it is constantly running to catch up with real-time impacts that scientists are measuring. For example, last year the UN issued its big climate report that brings together all the other reports. It was its sixth assessment, and it declared that things were far worse and disaster much closer than it thought in its fifth assessment. Its fifth was worse than its fourth, and that was worse than its third. We have had decades of these reports and emissions are still going up. The science that went into the UN report last year is already out of date. First, the rate of increase in global temperatures has accelerated and broken barriers that we thought we had over a decade to reach. It might be why Trump is so interested in the sovereignty of Greenland; as the ice sheets melt, zinc and all the other minerals and precious metals will be available for grabbing. His rich friends know that the climate is changing. Their denial is simply greed; they want to carry on making money while the rest of us have to swim to our lifeboats. Secondly, the scientists who work on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation—the Gulf Stream is part of that—are saying that it could fail because of all the freshwater running off the Greenland ice sheet, and a lot of those scientists are now saying that it could fail in the next few years, rather than in the next few decades. That research is important, as it talks about Britain losing the warm waters coming north and having the same climate as Newfoundland. Imagine icebergs floating off the coast of Cornwall and you will get the picture. That research will not appear until the UN’s seventh assessment report in 2029. We can see that the science is constantly behind in reporting. I used to worry about what a seven metre rise in water levels would do to our coastlines and major cities when the Greenland ice sheet melts, but it turns out that, well before that happens, we will be very, very cold. That cold will probably destroy our farming industry and wildlife. This Government and the last—I blame the previous Government just as much—are unprepared for any of this because their plans are based on the out-of-date science of the last UN report, rather than on what the latest research is telling us. I hope that Government Ministers can get more up-to-date advisers. Please talk to scientists and find out the latest research. Building up the countryside’s national resilience to the potential shocks of climate chaos should be a priority for our Government, farmers and planning system. The talk of constant growth does not fit with human survival. Capitalism places no value on nature, other than destroying it as fast as possible to create more wealth. We are destroying parts of the planet that we need for our own lives and well-being. That is utterly stupid. I want to bring up a nationally important case for rivers. Labour committed in its manifesto to clean up rivers. There is a river in North Yorkshire—with a nice name, but I cannot find it in my notes—over which the Pickering Fishery Association, a club in North Yorkshire, won a landmark legal case against the previous Government and the Environment Agency. The anglers successfully argued that the Government and the Environment Agency had failed in their legal duties to clean up and protect the Costa Beck, a former trout stream near Pickering. Please can the Minister tell me what the change is? The previous Government put in an appeal against that ruling. This Government, through Steve Reed—who the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, congratulated—have continued with that appeal. This Government are refusing to clean up a river that the courts have said they should. I do not understand why this Government cannot see that they should be the face of change—and they are not. We might as well have the Tory Government still in power—though I do not want that.

17:53:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for including climate change and nature in this debate. They are and always have been inextricably linked. I agree with the Government in describing the crises facing them as the greatest long-term challenge the world faces. It is significant that, in the Global Risks Report published by the World Economic Forum yesterday, extreme weather and biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are ranked first and second over a 10-year horizon in a table of severe global risks. This interconnection, and the policy focus on measures to address the climate and nature crises, is likely to result in increased human-wildlife conflict. The global biodiversity framework recognises the role that human-wildlife conflict and coexistence plays in nature conservation in its target 4. In taking a lead, will this Government adopt the IUCN guidelines that provide the necessary framework to address conflicts and promote coexistence? If so, when? While nature-based solutions—known as NbS—can help mitigate the effects of climate change, there is evidence from other countries that addressing climate change and biodiversity loss in isolation will result in other environmental implications. The Grantham Research Institute reports that, in some cases, NbS “have been employed with a short-sighted focus on rapid CO₂ removal without due attention to other environmental implications”. To pick up my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s point, this is a clear warning to the Government that a holistic discussion addressing the issue is needed. Does the Minister agree that NbS should be pursued alongside other measures, such as emission reductions and a concurrent focus on consumer consumption as opposed to just producer emissions? Many NbS have long timescales and may not even achieve the ambition of the restoration of an ecosystem, such as peatlands, but rather the creation of a novel ecosystem that relates to current climatic conditions. It is claptrap to say that we can save our peatlands by rewetting, when it is estimated that only 30% of the Peak District can be rewetted as part of peatland restoration. Climate change will cause land degradation. Models of future climate projections suggest that the geographical distribution of blanket bogs gradually retreats towards the north and west. Therefore, the protection of these existing carbon sinks is vital. The question for the Government is whether the focus should be on adaptation rather than mitigation in some habitats and areas. Wildfire is one of the drivers of biodiversity loss and is becoming a growing threat. The UK’s Third National Adaptation Programme identifies wildfire as a significant risk to forests, woodlands and peatlands, with the climate change risk assessment highlighting a significant increase in summer wildfire danger. While the risk is highest in the south and east of England, the change in risk is likely to be more pronounced in the north and west. The expected milder, wetter winters will promote vegetation build-up, and hotter, drier springs and summers will increase the risk of vegetation catching fire. This increased fuel load will be an added threat to new woodland plantations. Some UK habitats consist of fire-adapted species such as heathlands and peatlands, but the projected increase in fire frequency and the increase in fire intensity and severity means that even fire-adapted species are at risk. Whatever the targets for habitats and biodiversity are, wildfire is just one example of where proper management is essential in ensuring that NbS are good for both climate mitigation and biodiversity. Each site or area will be unique, requiring a policy that does not take a one-size-fits-all approach. We all know how difficult that is for Governments to implement. Proper monitoring will be necessary, for how can one judge whether a policy is successful or not without it? However, we know that Natural England and the Environment Agency are struggling with resources and that the lack of monitoring has already led to environmental problems. I therefore pose the question: do the Government have the inclination and resources needed to grasp the challenges and opportunities? We are waiting to hear how their policies will be designed to meet their targets. Sadly, they appear rudderless, with the Treasury treating Defra with disdain. They need good non-departmental bodies to help implement their policies. I conclude with two further questions. Why is there is still an interim chair of the Climate Change Committee? The term of office of the chair of Natural England ends in April. Will he be reappointed and, if not, when will his successor be announced?

17:59:00

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for calling this crucial debate. I note my interests in the register and the various capacities in which I wrestle with the challenges of climate change and nature restoration, as both a sustainable economy lawyer and a sustainable land manager in Devon. Given that climate change is so significant to future generations, I also note my interests as a father of two children whose own recent experiences of climate change warrant mention. My kids have been privileged and challenged to spend their childhood in the south-west of two different countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. In the UK, they schooled at Kenton Primary School in Devon, which was inundated when a biblical deluge swept through the village on a Sunday in September 2023. The beautiful building in the middle of the village had hosted a village school for over 400 years. Given the devastation wrought by an unprecedented spate of five feet of water within an hour’s rainfall, it will never host a school again. A new school is promised on the edge of the village, but the excitement of schoolkids’ playtime voices will not be heard from the Triangle ever again. Having moved to California to finish their education, they have enjoyed the delights of the Pacific Palisades Charter High School, replete with surf and beach volleyball teams, where my daughter is a senior and my son a sophomore. Until last week, that is, when the school burned down, victim, along with a whole community, of the Palisades fire, which still burns—it is only 22% contained. They are safe and evacuated, but over 50 of my daughter’s classmates are now homeless. They have lost everything: wildfire has taken back that whole hillside. The Apocalypse is here and it is now, and I speak today in tribute to that community and the remarkable bravery of firefighters, volunteers and public servants. While their experience is, thankfully, somewhat unusual, it will not be in the years ahead. Whatever we can do, we should have done it years ago. Of course, it is not just these personal challenges that we need to bear in mind. Climate change’s impact on our natural ecosystems has devastated recent harvests. UK wheat production last year was 21% down due to those rains, and the Spanish fires around Barcelona massively disrupted supply of fresh fruit and vegetables. Bad weather has added over £350 to national food bills. Tree disease is rife due to unseasonable droughts, and pollinators are stressed by parasites encouraged by warmer weather. Similarly, our national infrastructure is threatened by rising sea levels, with the main railway line past my home now under constant vigil at high tide due to the threat of breach of the Exe estuary’s Powderham banks. Nature, of course, will survive these challenges. The fires may be life-threatening to us, but the Santa Monica mountains will recover; this is their natural cycle, after all. Rewilding is not the option; the removal of productive farming and the local communities that steward the land is not the solution. That way lies hunger and increasing food insecurity. What we need to do is to listen to nature, not to fight it; to embrace it and to farm with it, sustainably harvesting our food and regeneratively intensifying production where appropriate. Around the River Exe, we should not seek to hold back the tide, like King Canute, but we should embrace its return and look to harness nature-based solutions to the challenges of coastal erosion and flooding. I have long requested that intertidal habitat play a more important role in our land management structures; thus I applaud the inclusion of this land type in the recently announced SFI options. As a priority, the Government need to turn around their relationship with farmers and land managers. The APR inheritance tax reforms were simply a disaster for rural trust. Steve Reed recently announced fresh reforms at the Oxford Business Conference: a farming road map. I ask that the Government take care in uprooting and changing farm policy yet again. Farmers, and the soils and biodiversity on which they rely, require consistent, long-term and dependable policies, not constant chopping and changing. I echo the call by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for us to honour the work of Professor Partha Dasgupta and his The Economics of Biodiversity. I happened to meet him yesterday at St John’s College in Cambridge. In their tireless drive for economic growth, the Government need to recognise the cost of the natural capital that that growth will inevitably consume. If we do that accurately, and accurately measure what we consume, we may turn the tide on global warming and biodiversity loss. To conclude on a positive note, both my children are passionate about the environment and hope to study it at university. They know that nature can provide a solution to these terrible challenges, if only we treat it with the deference and respect that it deserves.

18:04:00

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing and introducing this debate, and I congratulate everybody who has taken part. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, regretted the small number of Back-Bench speakers here today, but I have to say that that has given us a little bit more time. With a debate such as this, the trouble is that this Chamber is an echo chamber: we all know what we are talking about and what we want to see happen. We have to get that message out there—not just to the public but to No. 10. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the potential conflict between DESNZ and Defra. The people who can sort this out are in No. 10, which has to provide leadership on these issues. If there were anything we could do to give Defra more power to its elbow, I am sure we would all agree on that. The trouble with being the last Back-Bencher to speak is that it has all been said. I was also struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, and it is true; there are some conflicts. I should register my interest as a member of various conservation organisations. I would normally be seen, and hope to be seen, as someone who is on the side of nature, but the noble Lord is absolutely right about the number of badgers. I can attest to that in my own garden, where the hedgehogs have disappeared and, suddenly, a camera trap has produced badgers. I am delighted that they are there, in suburban Middlesex, but I lament the loss of the hedgehogs. I have been interested in birds, and been a member of the RSPB, for more than 60 years. I have seen things change. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I have actually seen a species—although not in Britain—which is now recognised as extinct: the slender-billed curlew. I am sure there are a few other species I have seen during those years which will become extinct before I do. However, I am pleased to say that some breeding has gone on, so there may be some Randalls still around in generations to come. As has been mentioned, climate change has affected mountain birds, which are going higher and higher. Snow-buntings and dotterel are running out of mountains because there is nothing left. It is not the right climate any more. This is an urgent and important issue. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne mentioned the very good maiden speech yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, who was president of the NFU for a long time. What struck me in what she said was how farmers can help. We must not have this conflict—it is not that farmers are bad for nature and conservationists do not like farmers. The most important thing is that we all work together. My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the peatlands. This is another issue on which have to find a common theme. There are too many people taking a polarised view of these things. Another issue, which has been hinted at, is wetlands, which present a fantastic opportunity. Some have been restored and new ones have been created. The Wild Fowl & Wetlands Trust has created wetlands on the Steart estuary, and it has just announced that it is trying to create them on the Awre peninsula, which juts out into the River Severn, by the Forest of Dean. These are places where we can restore wetlands, with all their benefits. There will be a problem with the planning. As president of the Colne Valley Regional Park, on the edge of London, I am very concerned about this. Our green belt is being attacked by all sorts of things. No one seems to worry about whether the land in question is on a flood plain. This is not about housing; it is about databanks and so forth. These are real issues. I would like the Government to think about creating wetland cities, as we had garden cities. We could re-wet some areas; the Fens would be quite a good area for that. The RSPB has the Lakenheath reserve, where it has recreated wetlands over some not particularly good agricultural soil—the original Fens. Perhaps we could create new towns there where people would actually want to live. The Minister could also talk to the MoD, which has a huge amount of land that it could do things with. Let us not be too pessimistic, but, if we are not careful, we will have reason to be pessimistic because it will happen and happen badly. But we still have just about enough time.

18:10:00

My Lords, I will speak in the gap, for one minute only, because there has been only a very brief mention in this debate—by the noble Lord, Lord Curry—of the potential for action on nature recovery by tenant farmers and the barriers to that. Half of all farmable land in this country is either fully or partly tenanted, so we cannot afford to ignore the contribution of tenant farmers. Is the Minister aware of the 2022 Rock review on tenant farmers led by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock? It was commissioned by the last Government following recommendations in your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee report of that year on nature-based solutions to climate change. Will the Minister look at the review and assess whether recent developments in response to the recommendations have been adequate?

18:11:00

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and much more optimistic than it might have been. I felt, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that we could have fallen into a bit of a doom loop, but thanks to my noble friend Lord Teverson’s tour de force introduction, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, called it, which gave good examples of how things link up, we have had a very positive debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for saying that we had not talked enough about wetlands, because that is what I intend to talk about in my wind-up. I will look at a couple of examples of how habitat restoration can substantially increase biodiversity, mitigate aspects of climate change and store carbon. Salt marshes and wetlands at the confluence of freshwater and saltwater are examples of this. There are now 470 hectares of wetlands at the mouth of the River Parrett in Somerset. They are known as the Steart Marshes, which started out as a flood management project in 1998. I must declare an interest as my husband, Humphrey Temperley, was then chair of the Wessex flood management board. He was passionate and committed to this ambitious project for many years, so I have learned an awful lot about it. Under a different regime, it continues to thrive and go from strength to strength. It is a multifaceted and, as my noble friend called it, triple-win situation. The mudflat habitat and tidal creeks provide nursery areas for fish, including sea bass, and overwintering migrant birds thrive. There are otters, marsh harriers and any number of species that had been in substantial decline. There is grazing for Dexter and other cattle and sheep command a premium price as salt marsh lamb. There is a lot of community engagement and Manchester Metropolitan University has estimated that, since the restoration, 30,000 tonnes of carbon have been stored that would not have been otherwise. It has certainly fulfilled its original aim of flood mitigation and management. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned that it is sometimes controversial to do things of this sort. Indeed, this was, but, happily, one of the irritants in the way of further salt marsh plans in the area has been removed. The then Conservative MP for Bridgwater, Ian Liddell-Grainger, said such schemes were a waste of money. Thank goodness the community by the Severn estuary had the good sense to replace him with Rachel Gilmour MP, who has a wealth of experience in environmental issues. There are lots of estuary and salt marsh projects. There is a huge project under way in the Humber which I have not visited yet. It is being undertaken between the Wildlife Trusts and Ørsted, the huge wind farm company. That is an example of a big one and there is a small one that I hope to visit tomorrow on the Dart estuary between Totnes and Dartmouth. My noble friend did not limit his debate to what was happening in the UK; he also mentioned mangrove forests. That is another win-win-win situation. When I visited Sri Lanka in 2011 with War on Want, I was taken to see a community project then in its infancy. Noble Lords will remember that in 2004 Sri Lanka suffered terrible effects of the tsunami. Also, shrimp farms and salt pans had degraded the coastal strip very adversely, affecting fishing and making the coast vulnerable to erosion as well as tsunamis. The tsunami provided the impetus to think about mangrove forests and the immediate protection they offered, and the community was replanting them. In 2015 Sri Lanka became the first nation to legally protect all its mangrove forests and a decade later, in 2024, Sri Lankan mangrove regeneration programmes were recognised by the UN as one of its first World Restoration Flagships. Both wetlands here and mangrove forests there give us firm examples of a win-win-win. Blue carbon sequestration in mangrove forests is one of the most efficient methods of sequestration in the world. I have to leave the cheerful examples now and move to some of the questions I have for the Minister. I certainly do not accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, that this Government are worse than the last. She must have forgotten all the things that happened as a result of Brexit, such as no more regulation around water and air. The loss of the EU water framework directive alone should give her pause for thought. This Government are busy bringing in regulations that will make sure that some of these issues are addressed in the short and long term. There was also a starvation of funds to Natural England and the Environment Agency, which meant that they were not able to deal with the things she mentioned, such as the North Yorkshire issue. I feel that this Government are making a very good start. However, I have to ask the Minister about neonicotinoids. They are a proven mortal threat to our pollinators. I mention it particularly tonight because the government decision is imminent on whether or not to allow a fifth year of derogation from the ban. I believe it would be an utter disgrace if this Government cave in and allow a fifth year of derogation. I agree there might be a bit of loss to the sugar beet growers but it is nothing compared with the loss of our pollinators. Each year for the previous four years the Conservative Government allowed the derogation even though the negative effects to our pollinators was known and proven. That derogation was subject to farmers implementing a strict rotation system but after four years it is unlikely that even they can comply with the conditions, because, as the Minister must know, you are not allowed to use the same fields that you have used neonics in for 46 months, so unless they are very large holdings, that rotational requirement is probably being ignored or not enforced. A further condition is that they monitor the levels of neonics in the environment and submit the results to the Government. Is the Minister satisfied that that data has come in and is it feeding in to the decision? As I mentioned, I absolutely do not doubt that exiting the EU has had an extremely detrimental economic impact, but I believe that it has had an even more detrimental effect on our biodiversity. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, called for a soil action plan. I absolutely echo his call. Finally, will we in some form follow the EU chemical strategy for sustainability, particularly to address the issue of forever chemicals? They are really dangerous: they turn up in drinking water, and they threaten not only this generation but generations to come. We really need a chemical strategy with teeth to make sure that any manufacturing does not threaten this country’s drinking water in any way whatever. The Government should look at having that sort of regulation. Having said that, I am delighted to have been able to take part in this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

18:20:00

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a developer of new, woodland carbon code qualified forests through LR Strategies; as an investor in Cecil, a data platform for nature reporting, and in Circular FX, a trading platform for natural capital; and as a farmer and landowner. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing this important debate. I always listen with great interest to contributions from the noble Lord, who has unique insights into these issues. Other noble Lords spoke with great authority on many different areas, and they have left me with little more to say on illustrating the extent of the problem. How we in the UK interact with our landscape and ecosystems will have marginal impacts on global warming or global ecosystems, but it is still critical. As a wealthy and small nation, we are well placed through our actions to create, demonstrate and export best practice. Our actions will also have a massive impact on how we experience global warming and climate change in our country; we must continue to act. It is also important that we remember the line of the great ice hockey player, Wayne Gretzky: “Skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been”. Softwood trees we plant now will mature in 30-plus years in a climate not experienced in this country for 100,000 years. Our mighty oaks planted now will take 75-plus years to mature, and that could be in a climate that this country has not experienced for as much as a million years. Therefore, it is critical that we focus on planning ahead and stewardship rather than preservation, in order to protect and allow adaptation in a thriving, healthy, resilient ecosystem. There is much anecdotal good news, as many noble Lords have highlighted. I add that Knepp and Nattergal have achieved remarkable things with rewilding, and evolving over time the balance between rewilding and food production. Foresight and Gresham are highly successful in reforesting tens of thousands of acres, with the help of the woodland carbon code. I was also lucky enough to spend a day with BaumInvest at its Finca La Virgen reforestation project in Costa Rica, where sloths, monkeys, frogs, deer and ocelots had all recolonised this 750-acre reforestation project since it was planted only 12 years ago. That project is enabled by the sale of carbon sequestration units under the gold standard. However, all these achievements are measured in the hundreds, thousands or low tens of thousands of acres. There are 60 million acres in the UK, and we are a tiny country. Thunder Said Energy estimates that 6 billion acres globally have been deforested since 1850, releasing a quarter of all anthropogenic emissions and destroying ecosystems that had been in place since the last ice age and before. It estimates that 3 billion acres could be reforested, allowing decimated ecosystems to recover on a global scale and massive recapture of carbon dioxide. This is less than 20% of available land, and with careful planning can protect global food production. Although the UK may be a small country, it is climactically advantaged for growing trees and has considerable areas that either are not farmed or could potentially be better used economically and environmentally for growing trees. We also have a strong market for timber, given that we currently produce only 20% of our timber needs. However, the cash flow profile of timber production, with it taking around 40 years until the first meaningful revenue is generated, has made it difficult to persuade land managers to change land use to forestry. Does the Minister propose to revise—I hope upward—our previous Government’s commitments to new forest creation? What more will and can this Government do to help achieve those targets? In government, we established the Woodland Carbon Code, which creates additional incentives for reforestation via the award of carbon sequestration units, which can then be sold to help bridge the cash flows between planting and first harvest. It is unfortunate that recent rule changes appear to have made qualification unnecessarily difficult. Can the Minister say what progress is being made with the E&Y consultation on additionality qualifications, and what progress is being made with the code certification under the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s core carbon principles? When do the Government intend to announce the results of the consultation on admitting WCC units into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme? Could the Minister update the House on what other initiatives are being pursued to bring private finance into nature restoration and other nature-based solutions? Within the context of the horrendous changes to APR and BPR for inheritance tax, forestry investment will also be damaged, as forestry previously qualified for 100% business property relief. Given that forests can take from 30 to over 100 years to mature, these are multigenerational assets that lose their appeal if they are subject to inheritance tax, requiring disposals to fund that liability. This will tilt the equation back towards annual crop and animal farming. I urge the Government to rethink this disastrous change in the tax code while there is still time and before permanent damage is done to families and family businesses. The forestry sector has been disappointed with the Defra biodiversity net gain calculations, which appear unable to capture the full life cycle biodiversity gains from forestry, which are evident to anyone spending time in forests. While new forests may often be predominantly of productive species, all new forestry schemes are required under UK forestry standards to have strong diversity of species planted, which creates vibrant new ecosystems. What progress is being made to improve the BNG calculations so that they work for forestry? The role of land use change in nature conservation, preservation and enhancement goes far beyond just forestry, as many noble Lords have noted. While this particular land use change may give the most bang for the buck in protecting and enhancing nature, we need other, more incremental land use changes that preserve and enhance our food security, while being kinder to our soils and our native flora and fauna. These include regenerative farming, the rewetting of peatland and highly selective rewilding, in addition to the reforestation I have discussed—lots of “re-” words. Land use needs to change, but the right choices can preserve our ability to feed ourselves without it being at the cost of carbon emissions, and with massive benefit to ecosystems. With the excellent Environment Act, bequeathed to us by my right honourable friend Michael Gove, the last Government initiated local nature recovery strategies, biodiversity net gain, a general duty to preserve and enhance nature, species conservation strategies, protected site strategies, conservation covenants and the power to ban the import of commodities from forests at risk. That Act is the greatest boost to nature recovery since the original Wildlife and Countryside Act and the creation of the national parks. I very much amplify the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, on the terrible impact of predation on our most prized species, as well as his call for a soil action plan. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her gentle chiding of this Government’s commitment to nature restoration, and to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for his warnings to this Government on their need to restore trust with farmers and landowners after a disastrous Budget. I urge the Government to pay heed to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s warnings of increased wildfire risk as a result of global warming. We have the opportunity in this small but productive country to take leadership on land use changes and demonstrate to the world how to develop nature-based financial solutions which can allow us to be a world leader in standards, markets, and advisory and financing solutions. To quote Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa in The Leopard: “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”

18:29:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing what has been an interesting and passionate debate. Noble Lords have made a lot of good suggestions, so I am pleased to be responding for the Government on this important issue. Resilient, naturally functioning ecosystems provide essential services that underpin our lives. Alongside the intrinsic value of nature, these services, such as pollination and flood management, are fundamental to our economy and future prosperity and crucial for our health and well-being. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, clearly demonstrated, the impact of climate change on the natural environment is becoming increasingly evident. The scale and extent of this impact is, unfortunately, projected to increase. In addition to the direct environmental challenges it poses, climate change also exacerbates existing pressures on biodiversity and their impact. Environmental degradation increases the likelihood and impact of climate shocks that could create significant and material risks for the UK economy. A report by the Green Finance Institute found that ongoing environmental degradation could slow UK economic growth by up to 3% of GDP in the coming decade. When compounded with climate-related damages, this could result in a scenario where GDP is more than 8% lower, so this is an economic issue as well as a nature issue. The UK was one of the first nations in the world to enshrine climate adaptation into law, in the Climate Change Act 2008. We published the third national adaptation programme in July 2023, outlining actions to address the risks and opportunities from climate change that were identified in the third UK climate change risk assessment. The national adaptation programme includes many actions that will be taken to support the resilience of the natural environment, such as delivering our legally binding targets for biodiversity in England that were set through the Environment Act and are central to our environmental improvement plan, which we are updating, as I am sure noble Lords are aware. These include to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat by 2042. Delivering our biodiversity targets will help create more ecologically functional, better-connected habitats and larger species populations, which will confer resilience to the predicted impacts of a changing climate. We also have international nature recovery commitments, as we have heard, such as to effectively conserve and manage 30% of our lands and seas by 2030—the 30 by 30 commitment about which we have heard so much. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, specifically asked about government plans to achieve this. We intend to deliver these targets through a variety of mechanisms, such as biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies and environmental land management schemes. Our review of the environmental implementation plan will play a key role in that. As we have heard today, climate and nature are intrinsically linked. Functioning ecosystems are required to tackle climate change, and climate change is a key pressure on nature. Natural habitats provide key carbon sequestration and storage, which is needed to combat global warming. Around 580 million tonnes of carbon are stored in England’s priority habitats; deciduous woodland, blanket bog and upland heath-land store about 76% of the national total. Both the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about nature-based solutions. When designed well, such solutions can contribute to tackling climate change. Planting trees and restoring peat, as well as tackling climate change and restoring biodiversity loss, can support other priority issues—for example, flood management, which the noble Earl mentioned. I reassure noble Lords that this Government absolutely support and promote nature-based solutions. We are also improving the evidence base through the Nature Returns programme. Six projects are creating or restoring habitats to test which are most effective in promoting carbon uptake or preventing greenhouse gas emissions. We are also supporting organisations to develop investment-ready nature projects that use private sector investment, which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about, to benefit the environment and tackle climate change through the natural environment investment readiness fund. Through £15 million in grants, so far we have backed 86 pioneering projects to develop new business models that generate revenue from nature recovery, through carbon storage, cleaner water or enhanced biodiversity. We have confirmed the third round of grants, supporting an additional 50 projects to help farmers generate revenues from ecosystem services alongside food production. The pathway to net zero includes actions to protect existing ecosystems, restore degraded landscapes and sustainably manage and create new ecosystems. We are actively pursuing the role of nature-based solutions to enhance habitats such as seagrass and salt marsh to deliver blue carbon and biodiversity benefits. This is not just about restoring land; it is also about restoring the sea. A number of noble Lords, most recently the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about trees and tree planting. Of course, other key habitats are trees and native woodlands, which are an essential part of our nation’s biodiversity and are at the forefront of our plans to reduce emissions. As the noble Lord said, reforesting has an important role in achieving this. We are working towards our target to reach 16.5% tree canopy and woodland cover in England by 2050. Achieving this target would remove more than 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050 and more than 100 million tonnes by the end of the century. As the climate changes, however, extreme weather events will become more likely. The right trees in the right places can help protect us from these extreme events: for example, they can slow the flow of flood water to protect people, homes and the natural environment during intense rainfall. However, trees can provide these benefits only if they are themselves resilient to a changing climate. Threats posed by a warming climate include direct threats such as drought and wildfire—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked in particular about the challenges of wildfire—and the increased risk of new pests and diseases. Good woodland management is key to tackling these threats, but only 57% of all woodlands in England are currently in sustainable management. To address this, in December last year we published details of the improved offer for woodland management as part of the Countryside Stewardship higher tier environmental land management scheme. This includes increased payment rates and a new payment option for woodland resilience. We are also providing guidance for woodland managers and grant scheme requirements to ensure compliance with the climate change guidelines of the UK forestry standard. Noble Lords asked about peat. We have ambitions to restore hundreds of thousands of hectares of peat across the country and are working to make sure that we have the most effective mechanisms in place to go further than we have before. Peatlands are our largest terrestrial carbon store, so our peatland restoration will directly support the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean-energy superpower and accelerate towards net zero. Peatlands are also a haven for rare wildlife and are natural providers of water regulation, helping to reduce the impacts of climate change. Private finance will be critical to meet our restoration objectives and peatland projects must be able to use new revenue streams, including carbon finance. The Government are implementing policies that will mobilise private investment, including working with the International Union for Conservation of Nature to attract investment via carbon credits through the Peatland Code. I hope that helps to answer some of the questions on that. On the noble Baroness’s specific question on extraction, we are looking at the best measures to end the use of peat, including working with the horticultural industry to look at how best we can get there. To achieve the best outcomes, it will be important to spatially target actions to restore nature in a climate-resilient manner. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that local nature recovery strategies are being developed right across England to target and deliver land management changes where they will have the most impact for nature and the wider environment. These strategies will consider climate change projections to help local areas prioritise and spatially target nature-based solutions that take account of our shifting climate. My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. We have clearly committed to publish the land use framework. I previously said that we would publish it “soon”; I am pleased to be able to say that we will publish it “very soon”. I cannot give an exact date, but it will be very soon. Over the next 25 years, England’s landscapes will need to change to support climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production, clean energy and the statutory targets that we need to meet on nature recovery. I also point out that the NPPF—the National Planning Policy Framework—has recently been published and has a lot that relates to the environment and nature and how we should involve planning, with a look at the impact and mitigation on environment. There are three sustainable development objectives in the plan—economic, social and environmental—and I will read noble Lords the environmental objective: “to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy”. If noble Lords have not read it, it is very good. I turn to international co-operation, which is very important, because we cannot address the huge crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss without co-ordinated global action. A good example of the impact of climate change globally was given by the noble Lord about what is happening in California at the moment with the appalling wildfires. At the UN Convention for Biological Diversity COP 16 last year, the UK took the lead on unlocking the climate and nature finance and resources that developing countries need to support emissions reductions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The UK co-chaired the negotiations, which led to the creation of the Cali fund on digital sequence information, which is the first fund of its kind to focus on channelling finance from the private sector towards nature conservation and restoration. At COP 29 recently, we continued to build on these successes by maintaining momentum on the interlinkages between climate and nature, focusing on sustainable agriculture, nature finance and the ocean. I turn to some of the other questions that have come up. First, I reassure noble Lords that Defra and DESNZ work incredibly closely together: we have some staff who work between both departments, because we recognise the importance of working together to achieve these targets. My noble friend Lady Young talked about public bodies. With the concerns that she raised, I remind noble Lords that the Corry review is currently looking at the effectiveness of existing bodies and whether things can be done to improve them. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned wildfire. I think it is important to say that we are working with and encouraging landowners and land managers to adopt good-quality wildfire management plans, because that can make a real difference. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about the high seas. The UK played a significant and proactive role in over 10 years of negotiations leading up to the adoption of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. I am sure he is aware that ratification of the agreement is in line with the Government’s determination to reinvigorate the UK’s wider international leadership on climate and nature, and we are currently working at pace on the measures needed to implement the detailed and complex provisions of the agreement before we then ratify. The noble Earl also asked about the chair of the Climate Change Committee. My understanding is that that is a matter for DESNZ, so I would have to pick this up with that department, or the noble Earl could. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, also asked about bottom trawling. Over 60% of marine protected areas have restrictions on damaging bottom towed fishing. The department is now considering the next steps for fisheries management in the MPAs in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations and how we can support the fishing sector at the same time. We are extremely keen to manage it and sort it out. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, specifically talked about the green belt. There is a great big section in the NPPF on it if he is very interested in it. Again, we are taking our responsibilities towards it very seriously within that planning document. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about neonics—neonicotinoids. I can confirm that we are committed to ending the use of those neonicotinoid pesticides that are known to carry substantial risks to pollinator populations, including through the use of emergency authorisations. In our recent policy statement, released on 21 December, just before Christmas, we set out our plans to deliver on that commitment. A number of noble Lords asked about farming. First of all, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I have read the Rock review. I regularly discuss tenancy matters with the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Also, the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, is very keen to work closely with the tenant farming sector and is doing so. On other issues around farming, we have committed to support the farming sector through a farming budget of £5 billion over two years in order to invest in the sector to support farmers to make their businesses and food production more sustainable and resilient. That is why the previous Government brought in the environmental land management schemes, and why we are continuing to support them and take them forward. They will remain at the centre of our offer for farmers with the sustainable farming initiative, Countryside Stewardship higher tier and landscape recovery all continuing, because we want to give farmers and land managers the support they need to help restore nature while supporting productivity and building in resilience to climate change. That includes restoration of soil. The final question I come to was from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is nothing I enjoy more than a gentle chide from the noble Baroness. She asked about the EA appeal regarding the river in Pickering. I have asked about that because I felt the piece in the media was quite concerning. I now understand, and it is important we get this clear, that the appeal is seeking clarification on the interpretation of the water framework directive provided by the High Court judgment. The issue is whether the river basin management plans can be strategic plans to improve surface water and groundwater for a river basin district. That has been the approach in the UK and across the EU since the river basin management plans were first published back in 2009. Following last year’s judgment, the Environment Agency has undertaken a further review of water quality at Costa Beck and publicly consulted on measures to improve that water body, which is one of nearly 1,000 covered by the Humber area, so there is good work going on to improve that river’s status. Finally, it is important to point out that we are committed to improving our water quality both through the Bill that has recently been through this House and through the commission that is taking place. In conclusion, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are serious about tackling the challenges of climate change and the loss of biodiversity. To those who say that the Government are not taking it seriously, I point out that we have a Minister for Nature, who was appointed because we want someone to be focused on nature and nature’s recovery. That Minister is Mary Creagh MP. She is extremely competent and working very hard on delivering on the commitments and targets we need to achieve in quite a challenging space. I hope I have demonstrated that the Government are taking action in many areas to deliver the restoration of our valuable ecosystems while recognising the increasing threat of climate change. I look forward to working with noble Lords to deliver on our targets.

18:49:00

My Lords, I thank all Members of this House—all noble Lords and the Minister—for their contributions so late in the day. Very briefly indeed, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the challenge on the Government’s carbon policy. I would still say that the 2030 decarbonisation target—to make that possible, we need to be really focused—is excellent. They have a much bigger challenge on the 30 by 30. I thank in particular the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for bringing a personal and human aspect to this debate. Lastly, I really like the idea of wetland cities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. The bad news is that, if we do nothing, we will have lots of wetland cities into the future. But I am optimistic. We can get this right. We can do it, both nationally and globally, with both these crises together.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 6.50 pm.