First Report - Biodiversity in the UK: bloom or bust?

The government's response details efforts to invest in green skills and jobs, assess capacity needs for environmental policies, and strengthen government capabilities in environmental issues. It does not address the committee's specific recommendation regarding the scope and interim targets for the 'State of Nature' target on species abundance.

The government's response describes the 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicator Framework, the use of earth observation technology, and funding for natural capital estimates. This response does not address the committee's conclusion regarding the failure to prevent the spread of invasive species.

The government's response focuses on marine protection, Marine Protected Areas, and managing fishing activities, but does not specifically address the committee's conclusion regarding the economic cost of invasive species or the importance of preventing their establishment.

The government's response discusses healthy soil, sustainable farming practices, and soil health monitoring, but it does not address the recommendation to review and implement previous proposals on invasive species or to increase biosecurity funding.

The government acknowledges the importance of monitoring costs and spend, referencing existing funding and measures to leverage private finance for biodiversity. However, it does not specifically commit to increasing investment in training and skills for chartered ecology.

The government refers to recommendation 11 and states that spending plans beyond 2021-22 have not been set, with future plans to be agreed as part of SR21. This response does not address the committee's recommendation about strengthening the link between environmental monitoring and remedial action or how biodiversity data will inform decision-making more substantially.

The government's response focuses on efforts to eliminate harmful subsidies, support international agreements, and ensure sustainable practices through legislation like the Fisheries Act and Subsidy Control Bill, but does not address the recommendation to establish a formal mechanism to review and act on Environmental Accounts.

The government details its plans for monitoring progress through the Environment Bill and an Outcome Indicator Framework, which is under development with an aim to finalise all indicators by 2024, but does not address the committee's observation regarding the difficulty caused by the variety of data systems.

The government's response outlines its 25 Year Environment Plan, the Environment Bill's provisions for environmental improvement plans and targets, and the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, but does not specifically address the recommendation for a preferred data management approach or greater use of earth observation data.

The government's response references a Written Ministerial Statement on the Landscapes Review and protected landscapes. This response does not address any of the committee's specific recommendations concerning Marine Protected Areas, bottom trawling, or marine monitoring and surveillance.

The government's response discusses gigabit broadband connectivity and the Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme, which is entirely unrelated to the recommendation on addressing the soil health data gap.

The government's response outlines commitments to establishing a Nature Recovery Network and Local Nature Recovery Strategies, which will guide funding from schemes like the future farming programme, but it does not directly address the committee's conclusion regarding past budget cuts hindering environmental efforts or commit to increasing overall biodiversity expenditure.

The government's response discusses nature-based solutions and various environmental initiatives but does not specifically address the recommendation to urgently review funding for bodies monitoring biodiversity or to provide a proper funding settlement for Natural England in the next Spending Review.

The government has commissioned the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to develop a global environmental footprint indicator as part of the 25 Year Environment Plan. However, this response does not address the committee's concern about the lack of a single point of responsibility for monitoring environmental expenditure or understanding total costs.

The government's response discusses international aid spending on family planning and reproductive health, which it links to global biodiversity, but does not address the recommendation to provide a detailed, time-bound record of UK funding for the 25 Year Environment Plan or domestic biodiversity.

The government's response discusses GDP limitations, the Bean Review, and funding for the ONS to improve natural capital estimates, but does not address the conclusion regarding Natural England's reduced funding and its impact on statutory duties.

The government's response discusses global leadership in natural capital and international accounting standards. It does not address the committee's specific concern about Natural England's funding and the need for consistent multi-year investment.

The government's response explains that spending reviews assess costs and benefits using the Green Book, which is being improved to include environmental impacts, but it does not address the specific recommendation for Natural England to receive materially greater funding.

The government's response discusses exploring a new GCSE in Natural History and the benefits of outdoor learning, then details commitments related to nature-related financial disclosures, a Green Taxonomy, and the Green Finance Institute. However, it does not directly address the committee's core conclusion regarding the 25 Year Environment Plan's lack of sufficient direction, the failure to establish baselines for measuring environmental progress, or the continuing deterioration of natural capital assets.

The government response describes the existing Outcome Indicator Framework but does not explicitly commit to urgently establishing a baseline for it, address funding, or detail Defra's pilot as requested.

The government response describes the existing Outcome Indicator Framework but does not address how future progress reports will relate to the ten goals, how priority actions will be assessed, or how ELM/LNRS will be assessed from 2022 onwards.

The government's response focuses on the Biodiversity Net Gain policy and the Environment Bill's provisions for a 10% gain, without addressing the committee's concern about the lack of definition for a broader 'net environmental gain' or the risk of habitat fragmentation.

The government's response describes the general Biodiversity Net Gain policy under the Environment Bill, but fails to address the committee's specific concern that the proposed 30-year minimum for maintaining gains is insufficient for long-lasting nature recovery.

The government's response describes the general Biodiversity Net Gain policy under the Environment Bill, but fails to address the committee's specific concern about the potential for the Planning White Paper to weaken or undermine biodiversity protection.

The government's response outlines the existing Biodiversity Net Gain policy via the Environment Bill, ensuring a minimum 10% gain, but does not address the specific recommendations regarding embedding environmental net gain, extending mandatory gains beyond 30 years, strengthening local authority capacity, or reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework.

The government highlights its investment in nature restoration and nature-based solutions, including the Nature for Climate and Green Recovery Challenge funds, and the Peatland Grant Scheme for peatland restoration, but does not address specific recommendations on defining NbS, bringing forward the peat ban, or providing tax incentives.

The government acknowledges the positive impact of family planning and its commitment to sexual and reproductive health and rights, citing past spending and future global health funding. However, it does not set out the extent to which aid budget cuts will specifically affect family planning and reproductive healthcare, nor does it commit to protecting ODA for these areas at or above 2019 levels.

The government is exploring a Natural History GCSE but has made no commitment. It recognises the benefits of outdoor learning, but does not explicitly commit to re-evaluating new opportunities, involving children in afforestation, mandatory ecology briefings for civil servants, or establishing a biodiversity education charter.