Evidence from WWF
Cymru to the Environment & Sustainability Committee
Environment
(Wales) Bill
June
2015
As members of WEL
and SCCC, we have contributed to, and support the submissions they
have made. The information provided in this response, is additional
detail to the major matters raised by WEL and SCCC.
SUMMARY of key
points
- We agree with WG intention to
legislate to embed an ecosystem approach at the heart of
sustainable management of natural resources and to legislate on
climate action in Wales. These are necessary steps to deliver the
wellbeing of current and future generations in Wales, as expressed
in the WFG Act 2015.
- Unfortunately, the history of
failure to adequately protect Wales’ biodiversity renders
legislation necessary to drive a change so that these fundamental
building blocks, which ultimately provide our ecosystem services,
are afforded the priority necessary to ensure environmental
sustainability in the long term.
- We agree that it is sensible
and important to amend the purpose, powers and functions of NRW to
ensure effective delivery of the WFGA and an ecosystem
approach.
- In terms of coherence with
WFGA, we do not feel there is anything contradictory in the Bill
but the Bill could improve clarity in regard to the hierarchy of
obligations between theActs and further clarify the definition of
public authorities.
- There are several instances
where duties are more weakly worded than in WFGA, due to the
inclusion of qualifying words and phrases. These should be
removed.
- We welcome Welsh
Government’s inclusion of the climate section within the
Environment Bill. In general it has the potential to be deliver an
effective governance framework.
- We however have concerns around
some aspects of the proposals including coherence of the
measurement structure including the emissions counted,
lack of regular reporting and the
level of scrutiny.
Part 1
: Natural Resources
Management
What are your views
on the proposal to strengthen the biodiversity duty on public
authorities operating in Wales?
- WG intention’s to
legislate to embed an ecosystem approach at the heart of
sustainable management of natural resources is innovative and
leading the way on governance frameworks for sustainability
globally, recognising in law, humanity’s dependence on and
responsibility for an environmentally sustainable
future.
- The WFG Act reference
group specifically looked at what was required to ‘live
within environmental limits’. We agreed that decisions in
regard to the environment needed to better recognise and manage the
risks associated with breaching or approaching breaching such
limits. Biodiversity is a fundamental building block of ecosystems
and their services but the seriousness of its decline has not been
addressed and given sufficient weight by public bodies. Therefore
strengthening the duty through this legislation is a good
idea.
- We would make a general point
that, as with the initially published WFGA, most of the duties seem
unnecessarily weakened by qualifying phrases, which only serve to
obfuscate what is required. There are various versions of this,
which could easily be amended by addition or removal of small
clauses within the existing Bill. For example,
- Duties in Sections 7.3, 9.4 and
10.4 all use a phrase “take such steps as appear
to them to be reasonably practicable to maintain and
enhance….”. This wording seems unnecessarily
circuitous when compared to similar qualifications in the duties
under WFGA where the only requirement is ‘to take all
reasonable steps’. The phrase ‘appear to them
to be’ could be replaced by
‘are’.
- The duty in Sec 6.1 to '
promote resilience of ecosystems' could be strengthened by changing
section 6.2 from “In complying with subsection (1), a public
authority must take account of the resilience of
ecosystems," to ' have due regard to the
resilience….’.
- Finally, 9 (1) on publishing an
NNR Policy states “their general and specific policies for
contributing to achieving” SMNR. Given this refers
to a policy setting, “contributing to” could be
removed, since a policy is by its nature a statement of intent
about how to reach an outcome, and can easily be
qualified.
Your views on the
relationship between this Bill and the Well-being of Future
Generations Act 2015 and the Planning (Wales) Bill? Are the links
and connections between them clear?
There are several
areas where clarity could be improved.
- Section 6, Biodiversity and
resilience of ecosystems duty, applies to additional public
authorities compared to the WFGA public bodies. We welcome this. It
is important that all public bodies will be contributing to an
environmentally sustainable future for Wales.
- However, this means there are
authorities here who are not subject to the WFG duty
but who they are is not totally clear because the definition of a
public authority includes at section 6 (6) (e) ‘ a public
body’ and then gives some examples. The examples do not
include bodies such as the Arts council of Wales, nor NRW which are
public bodies under WFGA. However, they may be captured by section
6 (6) (f) (ii).
- Therefore there is a likelihood
of confusion in understanding and application of the duties in WFGA
alongside the various duties within this Bill. We recommend some
clarification be provided on this. We also think there should be a
clear explanation of why NRW is not subject to this duty, as
this seems counter-intuitive to the intention of this
section.
- Section 6 focuses on enhancing
biodiversity to promote the resilience of ecosystems. In so
doing, bodies need only ‘take into account’ one
of the principles in section 4. It also seems that none of
the public authorities in section 6 have a clear duty to
ensure the sustainable management of natural resources (SNRM) (
section 2). Given that these bodies are expected to contribute to
achieving Goal 1 of the WFGA in regard to ‘efficient and
proportionate’ use of resources, this is a puzzling omission.
Paragraph 42 of the explanatory memorandum states that the intended
effect of section 2 includes ‘aiming to improve resource
efficiency’ and para 45 talks of sustainable use of secondary
resources. Therefore, clarity on why section is not an obligation
on other public bodies would be useful.
- For public bodies covered by
WFGA and EB, there is no contradiction in setting objectives to
contribute towards the goal and the duty here in regard to
biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. In fact, these duties should
strengthen the weight given to environmental considerations in
decision making. Statutory guidance can clarify still further that
in setting and meeting WFGA objectives, they must maintain and
enhance biodiversity and promote the resilience of ecosystems. Or
put another way, they should not set objectives which are injurious
to the resilience of ecosystems.
- It would also be useful to
provide specific reference in the EB in regard to the WFGA duty to
set and meet objectives. This could help avoid confusion about the
hierarchy of obligations in the following contexts:
(a) between the SD Duty (including
the duty to set and meet objectives) and the General Biodiversity
Duty (sec 6);
(b) between the SD Duty (including
the duty to set an meet objectives) and the Specific WM
Biodiversity Duty (sec 7);
(c)
between the SD Duty
(including the duty to set and meet objectives) and the new General
Purpose Duty of NRW (sec 5.2).
Part 2: Climate
Change
WWF Cymru strongly
supports having a legislative framework to tackle climate change.
We have recommended Wales strengthen its governance framework for
emission reduction including via a statutory emission reduction
targets and a comprehensive action plan on how that will be
achieved. We therefore welcome Welsh Government’s inclusion
of the climate section within the Environment Bill. In general it
has the potential to be an effective governance framework in
particular placing the accountability to meet GHG targets on the
Welsh Ministers (clause 28) and the requirement for a cross
Ministerial plan for how to meet them (Clause
39).
We however have
concerns around some aspects of the proposals including:
- Coherence of the measurement
structure including the emissions counted
- Lack of
regular reporting and the level of scrutiny
Do
you agree with proposals for the 2050 target?
- We welcome the provision for a
statutory climate change target. We believe that a binding long
term 2050 target gives commitment to deliver and provides a
certainty which is necessary to inspire investor confidence and
drive decarbonisation. In terms of the amount of emission reduction
by that date, we consider the key criteria for establishing this
are:
-keeping global
temperatures below 2 degrees (This objective is consistent with
global environmental limits and global well being in Goals 1 and 7
of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act)
-the UNFCC’s
core principle of “differentiated responsibility”
(which requires countries emitting a proportionate share
of GHG).
- We would like to see evidence
from Welsh Government on their proposed target of 80% to assess
against these principles and understand why Welsh Government
consider this target right for the Wales.
- Discussions across EU states on
the 2025 decarbonisation target have produced a range of proposals
of between 80-95% reduction against the 1990 base level. The
Tyndall Centre has recently produced a report for the CCCW on 2
degree budgets for Wales. Have these considerations been integrated
into Welsh Government's target setting?
Views on whether
the interim target should be on the face of the Bill
- We would require a target on
the face of the Bill for the current Welsh Government target of 40%
reduction by 2020. Welsh Government has made much out of their
ambitious 202o commitments. We believe these should now be
enshrined in law. It is important to ensure the momentum for
ambitious reductions by 2020 is maintained and we ensure this
ambition is not reduced through the process of budget
setting. The Bill’s proposal not to start the budgets
until 2018 leaves too long a stretch of time for uncertainty of
Welsh Government’s plans for emission reduction and the 2020
target would offer certainty and momentum in the interim
period.
-
The Statement of
Policy Intent (SoPI) which suggests that only one interim target
will be set by Welsh Ministers also uses terms which might be
of concern, in order to make cuts at the “most economically
effective rate”[1]
and “some
technologies or change in plant need a long lead in time and some
behaviours take time to change”. This suggests that progress
for some areas, for example heavy industry or power generation will
be excluded and allowed slower than needed emission reduction. We
recommend that the Committee explore this inclusion with the
Minister for clarity of its purpose.
Do you believe that
the inclusion of carbon budgets is more effective approach than the
3% annual emissions reduction target that is currently in
place.
- We believe that a budget
measurement system is an effective approach when accompanied by
appropriate reporting and scrutiny opportunities on an annual basis
and also has appropriate principles required for the setting of the
budgets.
- This is demonstrated through
the provisions in the UK Climate Act which alongside the budget
planning and reporting required on a 5 yearly
cycle has a requirement for an annual statement of UK emissions
(Section 10). This links in with a report from the CCC which
is produced in advance of the Government’s report to which
the government needs to respond. The UK Act (section 12) includes
indicative annual ranges of targets based on the budgets and these
can be used as a proxy for whether the emission reduction is
heading in the right direction.
- The Scottish Act has annual
targets but the other main difference is the level of reporting
detail and scrutiny required alongside this. The Scottish Act requires
Scottish Ministers to provide the Scottish Parliament with a report
on annual targets, by the second autumn after the target year,
which must state whether the annual target for the year has been
met, and if not it must explain why not. Section 34 of the Act
includes a list of additional information the report must also
contain, including carbon units purchased, electricity generation
and more.
- The current Environment Bill
proposals do not provide for any annual reporting from the Welsh
Government or scrutiny by Advisory Committee or NAW which WWF Cymru
believes is a critical gap in the Bill provisions. We would
recommend a form of annual reporting and scrutiny – at least
as strong as UK’s- is included within the Bill. WWF Cymru has
a few ideas which we can explore with the Committee in more detail.
What is important when considering what form the reporting should
take is the level of detail on emissions or impact of polices that
stakeholders consider necessary to assess Welsh Government
progress.
- Whether Welsh Government
considers the WFG Act’s reporting requirements to provide
this annual reporting is unclear and we would suggest this is
something the Committee explores with the Minister. It is certainly
not something that is specified within the Bill.
- The UK Act sets parameters for
its budget setting which is something that should be included in
the Environment Bill. WWF Cymru will be considering this further
and we recommend that the Committee explore this with the
CCC. For example, there is no legal requirement in the UK Act
for the CCC
or the Secretary of State to set a ‘cost
effective’ budget, we suggest Welsh Government might
include this as a parameter when setting their budgets in Clause 32
(3). This will not only ensure that emission reductions are along
the right trajectory but are in line with the requirements of the
WFGA. It provides a requirement for budgets to be set at a
level which seeks to achieve the 2050 target in a cost effective
manner and would ensure that the the cost is not delayed and is not
disproportionately loaded on future generations.
- We would like the Committee to
explore with the Minister what is meant by “most economically
effective rate” in the SoPI and whether it covers the above
interpretation or means something else which would be of concern
(as explained in Paragraph 10).There are details in Clauses 39,
41,42 and 43 on statements and reports for the 5 year budgets
which are worth flagging up. The reporting and statement
cycle appears to be an odd order of events. This means that
at the start of next budgetary period, the first event will be the
clause 39 report on how to meet the carbon budget for the new
budgetary period with proposals and policies covering the areas of
responsibilities of each Welsh Minister, then followed by the
clause 41 final statement concerning the previous budgetary period
to which it relates, and then finally a clause 42 report on
policies and proposals to compensate for any excess emissions in
the previous budgetary period. It would be a more logical order,
with Clause 39 report following – and taking account of
– the clause 41 and 42 reports, particularly with respect to
any shortcomings they may identify as to progress with reducing
Welsh emissions over the previous period.
- Clause 39 uses the words
‘proposals and policies’. To add a sense of urgency in
the process and to avoid Welsh Ministers being content to leave
matters at the proposals stage without the Act requiring them to
follow through with actual delivery. We would suggest adding the
word ‘actions’.
- As part of Stop Climate Chaos
Cymru and CCCW, WWF Cymru has long called for carbon assessment of
the annual fiscal budget and major strategies and infrastructure.
This is a requirement within the Scottish Act and has led to
demonstrable reprioritisation of spending. We therefore recommend
that this is a requirement within Section 2 of the Environment
Bill. Wales could improve on the Scottish system by requiring a
life cycle assessment or at least carbon footprint assessment which
would capture not just direct carbon impacts but also the indirect
ones. This would be more in keeping with the integrated long term
approach embedded through the Wellbeing of Future Generations
Act.
What are your
views on what emissions should be included in the targets? All
Welsh emissions or those within devolved competence?
-
This is a complex
and technical area of climate legislation. WWF believes that all
emissions from Wales should be included as is the case with the
current cross party commitment to 40% reduction by 2020. That
target can only be achieved by work from both UK and Welsh
Government and also by the effectiveness of EC
regulation.
- Basing targets on all Welsh
territorial emissions makes it easier to show progress towards
UN-inspired targets of 40% reduction by 2020 and 80% reduction by
2050.
- Obviously currently, many key
drivers of Welsh emissions are not within power of WG, such as
energy, however, this is legislation for the long term and devolved
powers will change over time, with proposals already in train for
this. Elsewhere in the Bill, Welsh Government has shown much
foresight in future proofing the legislation and such an approach
would be important here. Targets based on territorial
emissions don't need to be reassessed when more things come within
devolved competency.
- Until then however the all
Wales emissions tend to both obscure and hide delivery by Welsh
Government itself. Energy production is not in the control of
Welsh Government but makes up much of Welsh emissions movements.
The all Wales figures therefore do not provide sufficient analysis
of Welsh Government policy impact. Whilst the analysis of emission
within devolved competence offers more insight into the
impact of Welsh Government policies, the way it has been
presented in the Welsh Government annual report did not offer the
detail that would enable sufficient assessment of Welsh Government
activity or delivery.
-
Possible
alterative mechanisms could be provided in the annual reporting
alongside the all Wales emissions which could draw on examples for
the Scottish and UK annual reporting. We can provide further
details on this to the Committee. We would welcome the Committee
exploring with the Minister how they anticipate providing
assessment of its programmes’ impact within all Wales
emissions.
- WWF Cymru would certainly also
expect to see separate assessment of carbon embedded in the
products we export and also import – our carbon footprint or
consumption. The Well-being of Future
Generations Act Goals 1 and 7 requires Wales to make a positive
contribution to global well-being and us resources proportionately
so to not include this would seem at odds with existing
commitments.
- We recommend the Welsh
Government formally include international aviation and shipping
emissions (IAS) in its climate targets from the outset. This could
initially be achieved using similar formulae to those adopted by
the Scottish government[2].
Inclusion will underline the importance of fully accounting for
IAS, enabling policymakers to make informed decisions about these
sectors without imposing any restrictions on Welsh aviation that
are not in practice imposed in England and Scotland. The Welsh
Environment Bill could become the first piece of climate
legislation in the UK to have complete credibility on international
transport emissions from the outset[3].
-
Section 16(2)(c)
of the Scottish Act makes this a one-way power – once
shipping and aviation are brought in, then they cannot later be
removed from the calculations. The Environment Bill does not do
this, for reasons unknown, therefore we recommend that there are
amends to that effect in line with the Scottish Act.
Do you agree with the Bill’s proposals as
to what should happen if the Welsh Ministers fail to meet emissions
targets or carbon budgets?
-
We are pleased to
see responsibility to “each” Minister (section 39(2))
as this helps mainstream climate action across
government.
-
Clause 42 requires
a report on policies and proposals to compensate for an excess of
emissions over the net Welsh emissions account, if the budget has
been exceeded, to be published “as soon as reasonably
practicable” after laying the final statement in clause
41. The
compensatory action for carbon budgets is to be welcomed. However
the timing of this is odd as explained above as is the apparent
reporting of the Advisory Body to Welsh Government. We would seek
clarity in this section from the Minister.
-
We consider that a
more regular reporting and scrutiny system (as outlined above)
would help reduce the possibility of missing the carbon
budgets. Five years is too long to wait to make compensatory
actions.
-
It is worth noting
Section 28- the general purpose of the Welsh Bill - carries
with it a requirement that Welsh Ministers meet
‘targets’ for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases
from Wales, which is not so overtly stated in Scottish or the UK
Acts. While it is hard to envisage any separate enforcement of
clause 28 alone by way of judicial review, it would be helpful in
such a case to have clause 28 on the face of the Bill, should any
future legal proceedings challenge, for example, some detailed
decision leading to the predicted or actual failure to meet
emissions reductions in Wales.
What should the role of an advisory body on
climate change be?
-
The Advisory body
needs to have in-depth expertise therefore we support the
involvement of the UK Committee on Climate Change as the Advisory
Body. We also accept the power to appoint a Welsh advisory body in
place of the UK body, if such a body can be similarly resourced and
staffed with expertise in the future.
The
relationship between this Bill and the Well-being of Future
Generations Act 2015
- This has been
covered through questions above.
I gael mwy o wybodaeth, cysylltwch
â / For more information, please contact:
Anne Meikle, ffôn/phone: 02920454970, e-bost/email:
ameikle@wwf.org.uk