Category: Environment

  • Peter Ainsworth – 2002 Speech at the Tenant Farmers Association AGM

    Peter Ainsworth – 2002 Speech at the Tenant Farmers Association AGM

    The speech made by Peter Ainsworth, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 12 February 2002.

    I know that this has been for many of you a truly terrible year. Your chairman has described it as ‘horrendous’.

    It was horrendous even by the standards which your industry had sadly come to expect.

    In the three years to June 2001, over 60,000 farming jobs were lost, and total farm incomes crashed from over £5 billion to £1.8 billion. What other industry could take that kind of punishment and survive?

    By the start of last year, for many of you, achieving the National Minimum Wage was a pipe dream.

    You could be forgiven for asking what you had done wrong to invite the series of traumas, akin to the plagues of Ancient Egypt, which one after another struck. BSE, Classical Swine Fever, dreadful harvests, unprecedented rainfall, a collapse in commodity prices.

    And just when you thought it could not possibly get worse – it did.

    Next week will see the grim anniversary of the date on which Foot and Mouth became official.

    The scale of the disaster remains vividly in the mind. Over 2000 confirmed cases across thirty counties. Many of you saw your livelihoods quite literally vanish before your eyes as some 6.5 million animals were slaughtered, often in brutal circumstances, on nearly 10,000 farms.

    These are the official figures.

    Some estimates have put the number of animals slaughtered at nearer 10 million.

    I know that these numbers, horrific as they are, don’t tell the whole story. It is hard for anyone who was not directly touched by the tragedy to understand the emotional impact on the farming communities and families where the culling took place.

    I am acutely aware of the vital role played by this Association in providing advice, information and consolation during those painful months. It was a ghastly time, but the worst of times can often bring out the best in people and the whole country was moved by the resilience, determination and decency of the farming community during those days.

    There remain many questions to be answered by the Government over its handling of Foot and Mouth. When, precisely, did Ministers first become aware that the disease had broken out? Why was there a three day delay in imposing a total movement ban? Why were Ministers so slow in grasping the need for urgent action? Why was there no contingency plan in place? Why didn’t they mobilise local vets? Why did they rule out vaccination? Why was chaos allowed to develop before the army was finally called in to help with the disposal of carcasses? Was contiguous culling carried out legally? Who drew up the maps on which the culling was based? Why does the Prime Minister refer all enquiries to Defra when it was he who assumed personal responsibility for managing the outbreak?

    Were the Government’s eyes so transfixed by the date of the General Election that they couldn’t see the tragedy unfolding before them?

    All these questions, and more, we will continue to ask.

    But the honest way to learn the Lessons of Foot and Mouth would be to hold an independent public inquiry.

    Just why the Government has set its face against a thorough public scrutiny of its handling of the disease can only be guessed at. The fact is that if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear from a Public Inquiry, and in the absence of openness, we are left to draw our own conclusions about what it is they do not want to have exposed.

    What is certain is that the Prime Minister’s stance on this issue has done nothing whatever to heal the growing rift between Government and countryside which was already all too visible before the last Election.

    To make matters worse, the first measure introduced by the Government since the outbreak, the Animal Health Bill (Animal Death Bill) confers sweeping new powers of entry and destruction on Ministers and officials, and insinuates that farmers were chiefly responsible for the spread of Foot and Mouth.

    The uncompensated financial loss caused by Foot and Mouth to the livestock industry stands at over £1 billion.

    But the true costs to the wider economy have been far greater.

    It was only in the aftermath of the devastation that the Government seems to have begun to grasp the idea that farming is not an isolated activity, and that what happens to farming affects us all. That is why the future of agricultural policy is so important.

    Much has been said and written of the opportunities which now exist to develop a radical new approach to farming policy, but Ministers who lecture the rural community about the need for change must remember that before change must come trust. There remains an urgent need to restore consumer confidence in British farm produce, but equally urgent is the need to address the dysfunctional relationship between Government and the farming community.

    The most important policy objective must be to enable a return to profitable farming; this, more than any new regulations, will help to ensure the future of the rural environment. In fact the swathes of red tape are part of the problem and the Curry report has some useful recommendations to make in this area. Of course there is a need for regulation where issues concerning human health, the environment and animal welfare are concerned, but the command and control culture which originates from the Common Agricultural Policy and finds its expression in the Defra paperchase would be quaint if it were not so damaging.

    In all the discussions about the Future of farming, too little attention has been paid to the particular difficulties suffered by the tenant farmers. Given that you account for some 9.5 million hectares, 40% of land farmed in this country, your interests might be expected to form rather more than a footnote.

    If structural changes are believed to be necessary to farming, then Government thinking must take account of tenant farmers. With no assets to rely on, facing retirement can be a daunting prospect.

    That is why, before the last Election, we promised to use the Rural Development Regulation to introduce a retirement package for tenant farmers which would not only benefit existing tenants but also, importantly, help encourage newcomers into the tenanted sector.

    The Government made a similar pledge but so far they have done nothing to keep it; and we will work with you to hold them to their promise.

    Many of the problems facing farming and the environment will yield no easy or quick solutions, but a determined effort to get government out of the daily management of rural businesses would be a start.

    It seems that hardly a week goes by without some new regulation making life harder. In fact, since 1997 there have been a staggering 15,000 new regulations which have impacted on farming in some way. From the Right to Roam to the vibration of tractors, nothing can be allowed to happen without Ministerial approval and the endless, wasteful unproductive bureaucracy that goes with it.

    As Iain Duncan Smith said recently;:

    “It sometimes sees that what is not illegal is becoming compulsory”.

    What is happening to our country? What is happening to our freedom?

    And what is the meaning of Free Trade when British farmers are being asked to compete for supermarket orders with overseas producers who are less constrained by animal welfare, hygiene and environmental regulations?

    We must ensure that you are able to compete on fair terms.

    When it comes to farming, I want to hear a little less about free trade and a lot more about fair trade.

    The Curry Report had little to say about this, but it had much to say about modulation; indeed although it contains helpful thinking on better marketing and streamlining bureaucracy, modulation is its Big Idea.

    I am keen to help you do what, by and large, you have always done: manage the environment in sustainable way. The beauty of our landscape is of huge economic benefit, but it is more than that. For most of us, whether we live in the countryside or in cities, it has an intangible strength; something which cannot be adequately portrayed in a picture postcard; something essential to the way we think of ourselves as a nation.

    This environment is your work place and it has been fashioned by farmers over the centuries. It didn’t get there by accident, it got there because of you and your predecessors.

    But the words sustainable development become meaningless if sustainable does not also mean profitable.

    What worries me about the enthusiasm shown by Curry for modulation is that, under existing EU laws, it could simply mean that the taxpayer ends up paying an even higher bill, whilst farm incomes continue to decline and farmers become more, not less, dependent on the state.

    I will not attempt, this afternoon, to reform the CAP, although radical reform is urgently needed. The present stand off between the Commission on the one hand and Poland on the other shows just how great the problems are. Let me just say that you have a right to expect the British Government to have identified clear objectives long before now and to be taking a lead in mapping out the future of European agricultural policy. Well, if you know what Margaret Beckett wants out of CAP Reform do let me know, because I haven’t got a clue and don’t suppose she has either.

    The problems centred around the CAP and WTO talks must not be allowed to divert attention from measures which could be taken now. I have touched some of them:

    Start cutting bureaucracy now;

    Begin to rebuild trust;

    Help with retirement plans;

    Encourage new entrants to farming;

    Tackle unfair imports.

    And how about this? Margaret Beckett is keen to talk about encouraging local consumption of local food. We all think this is a good idea. Why doesn’t the Government take a look at its own food procurement policies and put its money where its mouth is (or vice versa)?

    Finally, the negligent approach to controlling illegal food imports is a disgrace which should be put right immediately. After all that went wrong last year, after all the waste and the cost and the heartbreak, perhaps the most disturbing thought is that literally nothing has been done to prevent Foot and Mouth being imported again tomorrow.

    I am once again, extremely grateful for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you today.

    In the months ahead, I look forward to working with TFA to develop the policies which you need, which we all need, for rural Britain to reverse the years of decline and to become once again a vibrant place to work and a source of physical and emotional nourishment.

    And I will never forget that all too often, Government has been part of the problem not part of the solution.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Article on Rishi Sunak and the Environment

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Article on Rishi Sunak and the Environment

    A section of the article written by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the Observer Newspaper on 6 November 2022.

    Sunak is the latest person to attempt to govern an ungovernable party. He is unable to focus on Britain’s future because he’s plastering over the mess the Tories have made. Just this weekend, he used his first interview as prime minister to shrug his shoulders and say he can’t fix the problems we face. This tired, fatalistic, outdated approach is a recipe for more of the same. It has no chance of grasping a fairer, greener future.

    It is time for a fresh start. One that recognises the crises we face are linked and will only be solved by a new approach.

    The UK’s energy bills disaster was exacerbated by Putin’s grotesque invasion of Ukraine. But it was caused by 12 years of failure by Tory governments to unhook Britain from its dependence on fossil fuels.

    At the same time, we have an accelerating climate crisis, illustrated most recently by the devastating floods in Pakistan and Britain’s first 40C days.

    The truth of our age is that the solution to both of these calamities is adopting cheap, clean, homegrown power as fast as we can. We are lucky; our island nation has abundant natural resources of wind, water and solar. It is an act of national self-harm not to prioritise them over more expensive gas. I wouldn’t be dragged to Cop27 as prime minister, I’d be leading the way. My first objective would be to persuade world leaders that we need to get to clean energy as quickly as possible. It’s why I have set a world-leading commitment for Britain to be the first major economy to reach 100% clean power by 2030. The ambition of those plans is matched only by my determination to deliver them. Under my Labour government, the UK will become a clean energy superpower.

  • Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Ceremonial Opening Speech at COP27

    Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Ceremonial Opening Speech at COP27

    The speech made by Alok Sharma, the COP26 President, on 6 November 2022.

    Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to declare open the twenty-seventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Friends, let me begin by thanking our friends here in Egypt for such a warm welcome.

    My team and I know just how demanding hosting such a conference is, and how many people have worked incredibly hard to get us to this point.

    So congratulations, and thank you again.

    Now as the UK Presidency comes to an end, I want to reflect on what we achieved together in Glasgow,

    and also what has happened since in our Presidency year.

    Last November, the world gathered at COP26 against a fractured and fractious geopolitics, as a once-in-a-century pandemic dragged mercilessly on.

    And yet, leaders recognised that, despite their differences, often profound, cooperation on climate and nature is in our collective self-interest.

    And thanks to that spirit of cooperation and compromise, we forged together the Glasgow Climate Pact.

    Collectively we achieved something historic, and something hopeful.

    With your help:

    We closed the Paris Rulebook.

    We made unprecedented progress on coal, and on fossil fuel subsidies.

    We committed to rapidly scale up finance, and to double adaptation finance by 2025.

    We reiterated the urgency of action and support for loss and damage, and established serious work on funding arrangements.

    We hope that this will pave the way for a formal agenda item and tangible progress here in Egypt.

    And every Party, and I repeat this, every Party agreed to revisit and strengthen their 2030 emissions reduction targets, to align with Paris.

    I want to thank the 29 countries which have already updated their NDCs since Glasgow.

    From Australia to Micronesia.

    India to Vanuatu.

    Norway to Gabon.

    And we also made progress outside the negotiating rooms, with commitments from business, from finance, from philanthropy.

    Friends, thanks to the work we did together, we achieved our objective, the goal at the heart of the Paris Agreement:

    we kept 1.5 degrees alive.

    Now, none of us could have anticipated the year that followed.

    We have been buffeted by global headwinds that have tested our ability to make progress.

    Putin’s brutal and illegal war in Ukraine has precipitated multiple global crises: energy and food insecurity, inflationary pressures and spiralling debt.

    These crises have compounded existing climate vulnerabilities, and the scarring effects of the pandemic.

    And yet, despite this context, there has been some progress in implementing the commitments we delivered in Glasgow.

    Over 90 percent of the global economy is now covered by a net zero target, up from less than 30 percent when the UK took on the COP26 role.

    The biggest companies and financial institutions in the world have committed to net zero and they have done so in force,

    with a global wall of capital creating green jobs, and directing billions into the green industries of both today and tomorrow.

    Countries and companies are making tangible sectoral progress,

    from Zero Emission Vehicles to our Breakthrough Agenda,

    and are accelerating the rollout of renewable energy across the world.

    The Secretary General has been clear: our shared long-term futures do not lie in fossil fuels and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

    Every major report published this year underscores the point that progress is being made.

    Thanks to the commitments we garnered ahead of and at COP26, and indeed in our Presidency year, emissions in 2030 are expected to be around six gigatons lower.

    That is the equivalent of 12 percent of today’s global annual emissions.

    And with full implementation of all the commitments in place today, including NDCs and net zero targets, the reports suggest that we are heading to 1.7 degrees warming by the end of the century.

    Not 1.5.

    But still, progress.

    So, to those who remain sceptical about the multilateral process, and of the COP process in particular, my message is clear:

    as unwieldy and sometimes as frustrating as these processes can be, the system is delivering.

    And there are many people to thank for that.

    And certainly too many to name.

    The Prime Ministers and Presidents who have sensed the changing wind, and indeed sought instead to harness it.

    The Ministers to the miners who have recognised a just and sustainable future can only be delivered with a clean energy transition.

    The civil society organisations, youth representatives and indigenous peoples who pushed us to consider and reconsider what was possible in Glasgow, have continued to do so since.

    And, of course, the brilliant officials, the brilliant civil servants around the world, not least in the UK’s COP Unit, who have helped to deliver progress.

    And yet, despite this progress, I fully recognise the scale of the challenge still in front of us.

    Just as every report shows that we are making some progress, they are equally clear that there is so much more to be done in this critical decade.

    Friends, we are not currently on a pathway that keeps 1.5 in reach.

    And whilst I do understand that leaders around the world have faced competing priorities this year,

    we must be clear,

    as challenging as our current moment is, inaction is myopic, and can only defer climate catastrophe.

    We must find the ability to focus on more than one thing at once.

    How many more wake-up calls do world leaders actually need?

    A third of Pakistan under water.

    The worst flooding in Nigeria in a decade.

    This year, the worst drought in 500 years in Europe, in a thousand years in the US, and the worst on record in China.

    The cascading risks are also clear.

    Entire economic sectors becoming unsustainable and uninsurable,

    entire regions becoming unlivable,

    and the strain on the global movement of goods,

    and the pressure on people to relocate because of the climate crisis, becoming almost unimaginable.

    So, this conference must be about concrete action.

    And I hope that when the world leaders join us today, they will explain what their countries have achieved in the last year, and how they will go further.

    It is very simply, a matter of trust.

    Without its constituent members delivering on their commitments, and agreeing to go further, the entire system falters.

    I will do everything in my power to support our Egyptian friends.

    The UK is here to reach ambitious outcomes across the agenda, including on mitigation, on adaptation, and on loss and damage.

    And we know that we have reached a point where finance makes or breaks the programme of work that we have ahead of us.

    So whilst I would point to some of the progress shown on the $100 billion,

    I hear the criticisms, and I agree that more must be done, by governments and by the Multilateral Development Banks,

    including on doubling adaptation finance by 2025, and establishing a post-2025 goal.

    Ultimately though, I remain hopeful.

    Look back to where we were before Glasgow.

    Look back to where we were before Paris.

    Indeed, as we mark the thirtieth anniversary, look back to where we were before Rio.

    With thanks to all of you, the UK’s Presidency ends as a demonstration that progress is possible, is happening and is continuing.

    Yes, we need to accelerate that progress in the remainder of this decisive decade.

    But I believe fundamentally that we can.

    We know what we need to do to keep 1.5 degrees alive.

    We know how to do it.

    And Sameh, you and your team have our full support.

    So now friends, let’s make sure we delivery, let’s make it happen.

    Thank you.

  • Prince William, the Prince of Wales – 2022 Speech at the 10th Tusk Conservation Awards

    Prince William, the Prince of Wales – 2022 Speech at the 10th Tusk Conservation Awards

    The speech made by Prince William, the Prince of Wales, on 2 November 2022.

    I am personally delighted to be here at the Tusk Conservation Awards, to celebrate their tenth year alongside so many alumni from past events.

    Our shared goal is to draw the world’s attention onto some truly remarkable people working on the frontline of conservation in Africa today.

    I am sure you will all agree with me that the commitment, innovation and courage shown by each of our winners and finalists is deeply humbling. And as always, it’s been wonderful to see their outstanding work on the big screen.

    These short films brilliantly bring to life the work which the Tusk Awards champion. Thank you to all the talented filmmakers behind them.

    Tonight’s event provides a perfect moment not only to reflect on the remarkable achievements of our nominees, but also take stock of the immense challenges that we continue to face in preserving the natural world.

    The many ecosystems of Africa are precious; they underpin economies and livelihoods and support an extraordinarily rich biodiversity that plays a critical function in reversing climate change.

    As Sir David Attenborough reminded us at this ceremony five years ago, Africa’s wildlife is truly special. What the Awards alumni, their dedicated teams and local communities are protecting is ‘one of the great natural treasures of the world’.

    And yet, we also know that it is just a fragment of what there once was. That is why it is vital that we do everything in our power to halt the frightening decline in species that our planet has witnessed over the last 50 years.

    It is also why the work of Tusk and its partners is so critical. It’s only by collaborating and building partnerships across communities, organisations, and the public and private sectors that we can foster lasting, meaningful change.

    Tusk has taken the lead, both through its Conservation Symposium and new Collaboration Fund, to encourage initiatives that deliver impact, share solutions and build partnerships to scale up conservation efforts.

    We must empower communities that face the challenges of coexisting with wildlife and we must promote grass-roots organisations to establish community-led approaches that preserve and enhance their natural heritage.

    We are living through turbulent times and it is all too easy to lose sight of how critical it is that we look after our natural world. But we must remain focused on investing in nature and the environment, protecting it for future generations. We must not pass on the baton to our children and grandchildren, apologising for our lack of collective action.

    Instead, we must do all we can to support those who support our natural world, often at great risk to themselves.

    The Roll of Honour that we saw earlier serves as a shocking reminder of the ultimate price paid by too many men and women on the frontline of conservation.

    The work that rangers and game scouts do as nature’s guardians is truly remarkable.

    They patrol thousands of miles each year, putting their lives on the line every day, protecting wildlife and eco-systems, supporting communities, and mitigating harmful human-wildlife conflict.

    They do vital work in collecting data to monitor species and deepen our understanding of the world around us. They inspire the next generation to love and respect nature and they teach our children about the fragility of the natural world.

    For this reason, I want to applaud Tusk and its partners for its ambitious Wildlife Ranger Challenge campaign that has now raised over $16m to support the salaries and operations of some 9,000 African rangers impacted by the pandemic. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the dedication and bravery of these men and women.

    Let me finish by congratulating our finalists and award winners again. David, Ian – when we spent time together earlier this year, I was reminded of both your commitment and dedication – it is truly inspiring. And to Achilles, Neddy, Miguel and Dismas – I know that your work is helping to ensure that Africa’s incredible natural heritage is protected for future generations. I look forward to working alongside all of you during my future visits.

    You all should be rightly proud to join the remarkable Tusk Alumni whose incredible achievements over the last ten years have helped lead these efforts.

    To everyone else who has made this evening and these awards possible, including those behind the scenes tonight and Tusk’s partners and sponsors, I say ‘thank you’.

    I wish you all a wonderful evening.

  • Trudy Harrison – 2022 Speech on World Biosphere Day

    Trudy Harrison – 2022 Speech on World Biosphere Day

    The speech made by Trudy Harrison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2022.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, I know, because we had a little chat earlier, that you share my enthusiasm for this debate, and I cannot imagine a better way to spend the end of the parliamentary day than celebrating the very first World Biosphere Day. Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for securing this timely debate—because today is indeed the day—and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for playing his part today.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon recognised, I have personal experience of North Devon thanks to her very generous invitation, when I was the cycling Minister last summer, to join her on a bike on the Tarka trail. So I have seen for myself the beauty of North Devon, and I absolutely appreciate why her area has secured UNESCO world biosphere status. The UNESCO biosphere programme began in 1971 and there are, as we have heard, seven accredited biosphere reserves in the UK. I would like to spend a little time highlighting the programme and its success, and also the importance of nature.

    It is incredibly important that we recognise that much global GDP—more than half, in fact—depends on biodiversity. Over $44 trillion is estimated to be moderately or highly dependent on biodiversity. The loss of tropical rainforests, the collapse of global pollinators and the reduction in marine fisheries would lead to a contraction of global GDP by 2.4% by 2030. That is exactly why we are acting locally and thinking globally. Central banks are directly exposed to nature risk. The Dutch and French central banks have found that 36% and 42% of their portfolios, respectively, are highly dependent on nature.

    What has occurred at the North Devon biosphere reserve in is only possible because of collaboration. There is very little that one person can achieve on their own, but I do want to join my hon. Friend with a special mention for Andy Bell, who has co-ordinated the North Devon biosphere reserve partnership. Since its designation 46 years ago—it is as old as me—the biosphere reserve has enabled the fantastic creation of four extra marine conservation zones. It has improved the water quality with habitat and on-farm actions in 34 catchments, planted over 60 hectares of woodland in partnership with landowners, created 20 hectares of saltmarsh, restored 1,500 hectares of culm grassland with the Devon Wildlife Trust and improved over 120 km of riverbank habitat.

    This absolutely demonstrates the value of the biosphere programme in bringing together a broad range of stakeholders with a shared endeavour to connect people with nature, and as a mechanism to leverage funding to deliver sustainable development at the catchment scale. It is all very much in line with the principles set out by the biosphere sustainable development aims. This is through nature conservation, with the protection of biodiversity and cultural diversity, and through scientific research, underpinning development through research, monitoring, education and training. We need sustainable development that is socially, culturally, economically and environmentally aligned, symbiotically supporting each other.

    The International Day for Biosphere Reserves is UNESCO’s invitation to take inspiration from the solutions already implemented in those areas, and to build genuinely sustainable development everywhere, with full respect for nature and the living world. I absolutely recognise the role that the Man and the Biosphere programme has played in achieving sustainable development goals, by sharing experiences and testing policies. That includes the sustainable management of biodiversity and natural resources, and mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

    I also wish to recognise our newer biosphere reserves. Those include the Brighton and Lewes Downs, known as the living coast biosphere reserve, which covers more than 390 square kilometres of land and sea, and—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight is in his place—the Isle of Wight, which was awarded UNESCO biosphere status in 2019, and covers 914 square kilometres of land and sea. Both those areas are undertaking similar local engagement through their respective biosphere reserve partnerships, reflecting their distinct local terrestrial and marine ecosystems. My hon. Friend called on me to recognise further protections, and we are looking at that as part of what was set out in the Environment Act 2021 for how we protect land. I know that he has already had conversations with DEFRA and Natural England about national park status, and I look forward to engaging in conversations to support that.

    Bob Seely

    It is kind of the Minister to say that. I am talking about island park designation, not a national park—some of my farmers would be very concerned if they thought I am planning a national park behind their back. It is some kind of designation under the new planning system. I would love a national park, but I think that ship has sailed.

    Trudy Harrison

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification—island park designation, indeed—and I look forward to meeting him to discuss that in more detail.

    This is an intergovernmental science programme, and the key point is that we use our biosphere reserves to test our approaches for sustainable development in the real world. That is critical to inform initiatives such as local nature recovery strategies, which are a key tool to meet many of our environmental targets under the Environment Act 2021. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said, a foundation of our new approach to sustainable development will be working with farmers and environmental land management.

    Those schemes will pay for more sustainable farming practices, and improve animal health and welfare. They will also bring environmental benefits, including landscape-scale environmental changes, which will be a crucial step towards achieving our 25-year environment plan and subsequent environmental commitments, and our net zero goals. That is why we are working extremely closely with farmers and other agricultural and environmental stakeholders to help shape the new schemes through our tests and trials, including the North Devon landscape pioneer, which took place in the North Devon biosphere reserve.

    One of the three main functions of biosphere reserves is the conservation of biodiversity. Under the Environment Act, we have committed to halting the decline in species abundance in England by 2030, and to setting at least one other long-term target for biodiversity. Those targets will drive wide-ranging actions to deliver nature recovery. Our three-pillar approach to restoring and improving biodiversity includes: restoring and creating habitat that is greater, bigger, better, and more joined-up; tackling pressures on species and their habitats, for example by addressing pollution—something I know my hon. Friend cares deeply about—and improving water quality; and taking further targeted action for specific, threatened species.

    We are already taking action through, for example, our nature for climate fund, which provides £750 million for the creation, restoration and management of woodland and peatland habitats, and our green recovery challenge fund, which is estimated to deliver 600,000 hectares of habitat creation and restoration within and outside protected sites.

    On the international front, the UK is committed to securing an ambitious outcome at COP15 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally by 2030. We will continue to champion the protection of at least 30% of land and sea globally and recognise that significantly increasing finance from all sources is absolutely needed to halt nature loss.

    At least £3 billion of the UK’s international climate finance will go towards solutions that protect and restore nature and biodiversity. We have launched a £500 million blue planet fund to support developing countries to protect the marine environment and develop sustainable marine economies.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon once again for securing the debate, and for raising the profile of our biosphere reserves in facilitating sustainable development at the local, national and international scale, and thus their contribution to a wide range of Government objectives.

  • Bob Seely – 2022 Speech on World Biosphere Day

    Bob Seely – 2022 Speech on World Biosphere Day

    The speech made by Bob Seely, the Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me take part briefly in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) is in competition with me and a relatively select few to deliver more for her wonderful patch than we do for our respective patches. I hear nothing but amazing reports of the work that she is doing. Similarly, I try to deliver as much as I can for my folks on the Isle of Wight. We both care so much for our wonderful parts of the UK. I thank her and the Minister for letting me contribute to the debate.

    I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said and I will stress two points. Before I do, our Island biosphere designation came quite late—we got it a few years ago after a campaign led by our area of outstanding natural beauty organisation—but I thank Joel Bateman, Councillor Jonathan Bacon and, more recently, Holly Jones and Natasha Dix for their impressive work in delivering that successful bid to UNESCO and since. There are 17 UNESCO sustainable development goals that we are trying to work into the Isle of Wight Council’s planning. We have lots of exciting projects, such as regenerative farming, carbon sequestration in soil and local agricultural, net zero homes, active travel and smart renewable grids that we are trying to do off the back of getting biosphere status.

    The first valuable point that my hon. Friend made that I want to stress is that there is no similar designation in British law that achieves the same effect. I am keen for the Government to take it on board that we have this valuable designation that combines the human world, the natural world and the maritime world. That is actually quite unique; there is nothing like it in UK law, but should there be? For example, 75% of the Isle of Wight comes under some form of UK designation: there are eight separate designations and 13 distinct areas. For an island of our size—it is only 15 miles by 30 miles —that is highly fragmented and somewhat over-complex, and creates a needless bureaucracy when it comes to nature protection and planning. I would love to know how the Government could incorporate and recognise biospheres within UK law. At the moment, we have a tapestry on the Island, but we need a blanket, which is the idea that the biosphere gives.

    My second pitch, in the brief time that I have, is that if the Government are going to bring in a Bill about protected landscapes, such as national parks and AONBs, which I hope they do, and if they are going to slightly fudge the difference between them and perhaps bring in new designations, one of the new designations could be a biosphere designation, which would give biospheres a status within UK law, or an island designation. If we are going to have city parks, why can we not have island parks? It is not a national park on an island but an island park that looks at human habitation, maritime protection and landscape protection as a single whole.

    I would argue that an island park designation for the Isle of Wight would have AONB status throughout. We have only a finite amount of land and we cannot keep giving it up endlessly to low-density, car-dependent, un-environmentally friendly greenfield developments; we need to use land better. We could have maritime and landscape protection, as highlighted by my hon. Friend, and we could use the island park designation to attract tourism and help with our identity, as the biosphere potentially does. We could perhaps get some targeted support for agriculture, because we do not have an abattoir on the Island, so all the livestock goes to the mainland for slaughter, which adds cost and inhibits the circular economy that we need. Those are some of the ideas that an island designation or a biosphere designation could provide.

    The biosphere is about human habitation, so we could also do a great deal with culture. The Isle of Wight was one of the most celebrated places in Victorian England with Tennyson, Keats and many others coming down to enjoy it and paint it. People fell in love with the place and sometimes used it as an escape from mainland Britain. Other people based themselves there, such as the Bonchurch school of artists and the Freshwater set with Julia Margaret Cameron. We also had—who wrote “Alice in Wonderland”?—Lewis Carroll, who used to hang around there back in the day hoping to catch a glimpse of Tennyson. We have had a phenomenal cultural input. Given the Island’s culture, together with its unique species and unique dinosaurs—we have more dinosaur finds than anywhere else in Europe, and in fact it is one of the leading dinosaur places in the world—and our landscape, there has to be a better way of recognising and protecting that. We could do so either by making biospheres part of UK law or, for the Island as a separate issue, having an island designation, which other islands—the Isles of Scilly, Arran in Scotland—could eventually share. It could be a very good idea to have some kind of island designation in UK law. I thank my hon. Friend so much for bringing forward this debate, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

  • Selaine Saxby – 2022 Speech on World Biosphere Day

    Selaine Saxby – 2022 Speech on World Biosphere Day

    The speech made by Selaine Saxby, the Conservative MP for North Devon, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2022.

    Today is World Biosphere Day, and as UNESCO has said:

    “With each passing year, the urgency of tackling environmental issues becomes clearer: we only have one planet, and it is in danger. Our relationship with nature and with other living beings needs a radical rethink in order to address these issues—we need to design and create a truly shared world.

    Biosphere reserves have shown that it is possible to live in this world while also establishing a sustainable and harmonious relationship with nature.

    The International Day for Biosphere Reserves is an invitation to take inspiration from the solutions already implemented in these spaces to build genuinely sustainable development everywhere, with full respect for nature and for the living world.”

    The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme was launched 50 years ago as an intergovernmental and interdisciplinary science programme to research and address the conflicts between humankind and the natural environment. Under the programme, living laboratories called biosphere reserves are designated by UNESCO at the request of member states, with the designations tending to be managed by local partnerships.

    There are 738 UNESCO biosphere reserves in the world, in 134 countries, and only seven of them are in the UK: Wester Ross, Galloway and Southern Ayrshire, the Dyfi valley, Brighton and Lewes Downs, Isle of Wight, Isle of Man and North Devon. We were lucky in North Devon to be home to the UK’s first ever biosphere reserve, launched in 1976—one of the first in the world—covering 5,000 sq km of land and sea and integrating land and marine management.

    Redefined in 2002, North Devon’s biosphere is this year celebrating its 20th birthday alongside this first International Day for Biosphere Reserves. Birthday congratulations are also due to south-west Scotland, on the 10th birthday of its two biospheres this year.

    North Devon’s biosphere is centred on Braunton Burrows, the largest sand dune system in England, which stretches into neighbouring constituencies. The Braunton Burrows core area consists of fixed and mobile sand dune systems; I feel most privileged to have been able to walk the area with a local warden and see the water germander in one of the only two locations it still survives in the UK.

    The boundaries of the reserve follow the edges of the conjoined catchment basin of the Rivers Taw and Torridge and stretch out to sea to include the island of Lundy. The biosphere reserve is primarily lowland farmland and comprises many protected sites, including 63 sites of special scientific interest, which protect habitats such as culm grassland and broad-leaved woodlands. It also includes Barnstaple and Ilfracombe in my North Devon constituency and stretches into neighbouring Bideford, Northam, and Okehampton.

    The biosphere links designations such as Dartmoor, Exmoor, North Devon area of outstanding natural beauty and Lundy and the land, sea and rivers between them. It is managed by a partnership of 34 organisations from national agencies, local government, non-governmental organisations and community groups. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all for their work and commitment. I am truly lucky to be able to call the biosphere home.

    UNESCO sets out three functions of a biosphere reserve: conservation, learning and research, and sustainable development. Biosphere reserves aim to create and maintain sustainable communities where people can live and work in an area of high environmental quality. These areas can then provide a blueprint for other areas to learn from. The reserve must be environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. To achieve that, the reserve oversees management of natural resources, initiatives to develop the local economy and an effort to reduce inequalities between people.

    The biosphere programme delivers policy testing for Government of integrated approaches to tackling environmental, economic and social issues. These living laboratories research the conflict between human activity and our natural environment. The programme’s remit includes several large-scale projects that have been developed through the partnership. A £1.8 million improvement project along the River Taw, funded by the Environment Agency, is designed to decrease polluted surface run-off from fields and urban areas into the river. The project will restore habitats and remove obstacles such as weirs that prevent animals from freely moving between sections of the river. It is hoped that the decrease in pollution will also increase beach quality in places such as Instow, which failed water quality tests in 2012—one of only 16 beaches in the south-west to fail.

    A nature improvement area proposed to protect and enhance the catchment of the River Torridge—home of Tarka the otter in Henry Williamson’s book of the same name—was chosen by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as one of 12 nationally important landscapes that will receive funding to restore and recreate ecosystems in the area. Other large projects work to use the natural environment to offset the negative impacts of human activities within the biosphere.

    The success of the last 46 years’ work shows that on land and sea, biospheres have driven a local nature recovery plan, and in our marine environments they have improved the levels of phosphates. This was the first work of its kind in the country. They have pioneered projects in the 25-year environmental plan, and as part of that they have developed natural capital strategies for the region, which are now in operation with the community renewal fund. Alongside new environmental land management scheme trials, this drive for nature encourages others. Today the National Trust has announced the largest grassland project, stretching from Woolacombe to Exmoor.

    The work of our North Devon biosphere also extends abroad, with partnerships in Kenya supporting biospheres there to deliver projects and working with European biospheres to co-ordinate a network of forests. In south-east Asia, work is being done on marine planning and conservation alongside community health. As UNESCO’s oldest intergovernmental scientific programme, our global biospheres are a testament to what we as a world can achieve when we work together. Working together is the only way we are going to combat the global climate crisis, and as we pass on the presidency for COP, 3 November should stand as a reminder of the importance of international collaboration.

    The path that biospheres have carved for the last 50 years shows that we can live in a sustainable way. It is not a choice between modern life or saving our planet; both can be achieved. It is up to us all to make it a reality. I thank Andy Bell for his tireless work for the biosphere and his help with the detail behind my speech. The Minister knows from her visit to my constituency how stunning our environment is, and I hope she will therefore support my battle against the disruption to our sand dunes caused by cabling from development projects for floating offshore wind that is too small to go to the main connection point. I also hope she will consider strengthening the protections for our biospheres and perhaps, as a special first birthday present for the International Day for Biosphere Reserves, give them formal status here in the UK.

  • Graham Stuart – 2022 Speech on Climate Change and Human Security

    Graham Stuart – 2022 Speech on Climate Change and Human Security

    The speech made by Graham Stuart, the Minister for Climate, on 3 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to participate in this important debate, although it is a shame that there are not more people here on this Thursday afternoon. What we have lacked in quantity of Members, we have perhaps made up for in quality of contribution.

    I congratulate the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to them for their work in promoting the importance of the international agenda. The hon. Member for Bath has been a strong voice for climate action and the protection of women and girls in that context throughout her time in Parliament, constantly challenging the Government to do more. I thank her for her commitment to the issue.

    I do not want to be divisive, but I would gently say that if we were to compare the hon. Lady’s useful contribution with that of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, it was more balanced. If one listened purely to the comments of the hon. Member for Bristol East, one would think the Government were a laggard and the country was far behind. One would not believe that we had invested more in renewables than any other European nation, that we had transformed the economics of offshore wind, hosted COP26 and led the global conversation—that my colleague, the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), had taken us from the beginning of our presidency, when just 30% of the world’s GDP was covered by net zero, to now, when that figure is 90%.

    There are plenty of things to pick apart in what any Government do, but surely it is perfectly possible to acknowledge the situation honestly. If people give speeches that absolutely fail to reflect the reality, they do not gain credibility, they lose it. It is perfectly possible to challenge this Government effectively, but it is best to acknowledge the reality of where we are at in order to do so. The hon. Member for Glasgow South talked about climate disinformation. I suggest that there are certain Members here who are guilty of that by not acknowledging what has gone on.

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald

    Will the Minister give way on that point?

    Graham Stuart

    I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to talk about him. I acknowledge his strong support for the people of Ukraine, which has created a severe context for our discussion on energy and climate, and his support for helping them in their fight against Putin. I wanted to acknowledge that before I give way to him.

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald

    I thank the Minister for acknowledging that. He is brave to want a debate on credibility right now. It is not disinformation to point out that the COP presidency—of which he correctly seems so proud—has been demoted from the Cabinet, or that he himself has been removed from the Cabinet, or that the Prime Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming to COP. That is not disinformation; it is fact. Calling it disinformation is disinformation in itself.

    Graham Stuart

    To be fair to the hon. Member, he is a good debater. I was not particularly referring to those points, which are political fair play and not in themselves inaccurate, albeit presented in a certain way. Failing to recognise our overall position and making out that we are somehow, as we heard suggested by another hon. Member, not investing in, promoting and seeking to accelerate renewables is to misrepresent the situation. I sometimes think that, even by myself in a telephone box, I am capable of creating an argument where there would otherwise be agreement.

    Wera Hobhouse

    I am a little perplexed by what the Minister said. I said in my speech that, yes, we made lots of pledges and there are lots of targets. We are agreed on those, but it is about the delivery. The Committee on Climate Change itself has said that the delivery of the targets we have set ourselves is far too slow. We need to accelerate the pace of change. Will he acknowledge that we need to accelerate the pace at which we move toward net zero?

    Graham Stuart

    The hon. Lady is right in that respect, but it is important to acknowledge where we are. We have gone further and faster than any major economy on Earth in reducing our emissions while also leading the global conversation. If we do not acknowledge those points, we do not create a properly contextualised conversation. That is all I have sought today, but I entirely agree with her; my job from the Prime Minister is precisely about accelerating this. We need clean baseload, and that is why we are seeking to do more on nuclear. It is a great shame that the Opposition parties—with some exceptions—do not support that. It is interesting to see that if Scotland were to have 100% renewable energy, it would be reliant on the baseload provided by nuclear in England.

    Kerry McCarthy

    The Minister is talking about what the Government are doing on renewables. It was not clear, in his response to the shadow Climate Secretary at COP questions this week, what the current position is on the ban on onshore wind. We know that the new Prime Minister spoke against onshore wind during his unsuccessful leadership campaign. Can the Minister confirm if there is now a ban on onshore wind, or if it has been lifted?

    Graham Stuart

    Onshore wind is our single largest renewable source, providing about 14 GW altogether, 3 GW of which are in England. In order to deliver, we need all these energy sources, but we need to do this in a way that works with the grain of communities, whether that is through ground-mounted or roof-mounted solar, onshore or offshore wind, nuclear, hydrogen, carbon capture, utilisation and storage—without which it is hard to see how we can do industrial decarbonisation. We need all those things in order to deliver the targets, which, as the hon. Member for Bath suggested, are extremely challenging, but which we are on a firmer path toward than any other major economy on Earth.

    It is great that the Americans have now come back to this agenda, and it is good that they passed the Inflation Reduction Act to promote it. I met with John Kerry recently, and discussed how we need to work co-operatively. In that context, at Glasgow we brought about the break- through agenda, looking sector by sector at collaborative ways to drive forward change across nations.

    The UK, and indeed the world, as colleagues have said, is facing unprecedented challenges. I and the Government agree with the picture that has been painted. The food and energy crises, the war in Europe, inflation and recovery from the covid-19 pandemic are all part of the context, but in all the short-term pressures, around energy bills and the like, we must not lose our focus on climate change and we must recognise that it has an impact on human security, precisely as the propagators of the debate have suggested.

    Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity, and this summer we observed record-breaking temperatures, as other hon. Members have said, across Europe, the US and China, including the temperature rising above 40°C in this city for the first time. It was reported that the European Union saw 53,000 excess deaths in July as a result of the heat. As has been mentioned, the devastating floods in Pakistan affected 33 million people and a third of the country—an area about the size of Britain—was under water at one stage, which is truly horrifying.

    These events serve to underscore the point that climate change and its impacts are being felt today, not in some distant future. It is driving food and water scarcity, displacement, migration and humanitarian and economic crises, while eroding resilience and reducing our capacity to respond. People, countries and regions will be impacted differently and over different timescales, but climate-related disruptions will increasingly strain international security arrangements globally, precisely as has been said today, causing a knock-on impact on human security worldwide in ways that we cannot always predict. Urgent action is needed to adapt and build the resilience of people, economies and ecosystems to current and future climate change and nature loss, and to the associated risks and impacts.

    Climate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities. It was acknowledged as a threat multiplier by the UN Security Council and the science is absolutely clear. A rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a significant scaling up of investment in climate change adaptation is needed to avert the most damaging impacts, but some of those impacts are already baked in, as has been said. That is why the integrated review identified tackling climate change and biodiversity loss as a leading priority over the coming decades—so it is in our national security strategy, in the form of the integrated review—and highlighted the inextricable links between climate change, nature and national security.

    We were the first country to bring the security implications of climate issues to the UN Security Council in 2007, and the first to convene a leader-level debate on climate security in 2021. We have also convened workshops within NATO and we are seen as an international thought leader on the security implications of climate change—something to which hon. Members are contributing today. So we recognise and understand that human insecurity caused by climate change is a significant challenge.

    The UK’s COP26 presidency helped us to continue our leadership in this area. COP27 starts on Monday in Egypt, and the Prime Minister’s attendance demonstrates the importance this Government attach to the climate agenda. An African COP, in a continent on the frontline of climate change, will rightly shine a light on the need to follow through and deliver on the commitments that have already been made, and scale up action on adaption and mitigation. COP26 secured many important commitments. Countries reaffirmed their commitment to keep 1.5°C alive, albeit on life support. Among many other important pledges, developed countries agreed at least to double their adaptation finance from 2019 levels by 2025. Those commitments must now be delivered.

    To achieve human security in the face of climate change, the world must act. We need to reduce emissions faster than ever before. We need to seek to stop damage to nature and rebuild the biodiversity that is so central to human security, so we will continue to push for a landmark agreement to protect nature at COP15, the convention on biological diversity in Montreal in December—that is the other big COP, so we have COP27 and COP15. We need to enable countries and communities to avert and minimise losses and damages, while providing means to address impacts when they occur.

    We estimate that, between April 2011 and March 2022, the UK’s international climate programmes directly supported 95 million people to adapt to the effects of climate change. We have pledged to double our international climate finance to £11.6 billion between 2021 and 2026, with the goal of mitigating climate change and supporting countries to adapt and build their resilience to its impacts, as well as protecting and restoring nature. Those investments directly support the improvement of human security.

    We can and will do more. It is not just about the amount of money spent; the UK is making sure we spend smarter, plan more effective responses and utilise our world-class diplomatic service to support countries to be more resilient in the face of climate impacts. It is also about following through on our commitment to deliver net zero and nature action at home and internationally and to support the scaling up of adaptation globally as we build the legacy of our presidency and support Egypt to drive forward progress.

    Hon. Members are right to challenge us to ensure that this takes place right across Government. I met the lead non-executive director of BEIS this afternoon, who leads on net zero. All Departments now have a non-executive member on their board with responsibility for net zero, because it is a matter for every Department. Through the Climate Action Implementation Committee and other Cabinet Sub-Committees, in my role as Minister for Energy and Climate Change I will be working to ensure that Ministers in every Department recognise the imperative to deliver net zero.

    Kerry McCarthy

    The Minister mentioned the Climate Action Implementation Committee, which came up in, I think, Prime Minister’s questions or perhaps COP questions. The Prime Minister is no longer chairing that Committee. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, I think, asked who will chair it, but we did not get an answer. Can the Minister tell us who is in charge?

    Graham Stuart

    The Climate Action Implementation Committee has up to now been chaired by the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West. He will cease to be President of COP in a few days, of course, but he will lead our negotiations through Sharm El Sheikh. It will be up to the Prime Minister, I guess, but I do not know. It is quite likely that it might be the Minister for Energy and Climate Change—I do not know. It will be a Minister who leads that Committee, which reviews carbon budgets, gets presentations from the Climate Change Committee and others and ensures that we stay on track, as we must if we are to deliver that.

    Our agenda is not just about avoiding harm; it is strongly in our national interest. By leaning in ahead of the rest of the world, by cutting our emissions more than many others, and by investing in renewables in a way that has led Europe, we can create industrial capability that we can then export to the rest of the world. We genuinely can do the right thing by the environment, build a more prosperous and reindustrialised nation—in some parts of the country—and serve the interests of humanity and the planet as a whole, while delivering greater economic security and prosperity at home. That is very much what we are focused on; it is all about accelerating what we are doing in order to enable that. That will be my job and those of my officials.

    The transition to a net zero economy presents job and export opportunities. McKinsey estimates that the low-carbon transition could present a £1 trillion opportunity for UK business by 2030; it is genuinely enormous. At Glasgow, we took steps to make London the first net-zero aligned financial centre. There are opportunities for the City of London and our industry in things such as hydrogen and carbon capture. Up in the north-west and right across the country, there is an appetite to see that happen. Taking a lead will drive prosperity here in the UK and globally, as global markets transform.

    International action enables us to meet our own net zero target more efficiently and cost-effectively, while positioning ourselves to take advantage of the global economic opportunities that arise. If we engineer it right, we can come out not only with a net zero, emissions-free energy system, but one that is internationally competitive because we have helped to lead the global conversation and others are following us. We can use our natural resources—for example, the North sea basin—not just to get out the oil and gas for now. With ever higher environmental standards around production, that is the right thing to do while its production declines. We can also use it for offshore wind, storage of CCUS, and storage of hydrogen, which might be part of that whole hydrogen story. We have a European resource here by which we can help to serve the whole continent of Europe in a way that helps with the net zero challenge, and also helps with prosperity, not least in areas that otherwise would be left behind, because levelling up remains a central mission for us.

    COP27—we will hand over the presidency next week, a year on from the brilliant COP26 hosted in Glasgow—is an opportunity for the world to come together to address climate change. With the Prime Minister at the helm and leading our delegation, the UK will be front and centre in driving forward meaningful action, without which the security of all humanity is at stake. I entirely agree with colleagues across the Chamber who have given such powerful speeches today in support of that positive objective.

  • Kerry McCarthy – 2022 Speech on Climate Change and Human Security

    Kerry McCarthy – 2022 Speech on Climate Change and Human Security

    The speech made by Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East, in Westminster Hall on 3 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing this debate, which is a very timely one, given that COP is about to start. I think I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South that this debate should have fallen within the remit of the FCDO or the Ministry of Defence, but the Minister and I, with our climate change briefs, will try to do justice to some of the issues that have been raised.

    The hon. Member for Bath was right to talk about Putin’s hostile actions in Ukraine, which have drawn energy security to the forefront of people’s minds. It has always been quite difficult to get people interested in energy policy—it is sometimes seen as a very techy issue—but when we put it in the global context of how undue reliance on Russian energy supplies affects our security and the security of many countries, the lesson to be learned is that we need to be more self-sufficient. Obviously, the way to achieve self-sufficiency is through a quicker shift towards renewables, and—as I hope Members spotted—at its recent conference in Liverpool, Labour made a pledge for clean power by 2030. That is not just based on the awareness that we need to tackle the climate emergency, or that renewables are far cheaper—nine times cheaper—than gas; it is about our energy security needs as well.

    It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bath talk about the impact on the financial system. I have spoken to insurance companies that are having to reappraise what they do, given that some of the risks they are used to insuring against are getting to the stage where they are either uninsurable, or those companies are far more likely to have to pay out on them. Flooding is an obvious example, but there is also this issue of stranded assets when it comes to their investments. Both the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and the hon. Member for Bath talked about how this is an opportunity, and as the shadow Secretary of State for climate change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said at Labour conference,

    “It’s cheaper to save the planet than it is to destroy it.”

    Most people—although perhaps not the previous BEIS Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—are beginning to realise that we have huge opportunities in this space.

    The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the irony of there being flooding one moment in Northern Ireland and hosepipe bans the next, which brought home the fact that this is not just something that is happening in the most climate-vulnerable countries: we are seeing the impacts of climate change everywhere. Even just in recent times, we have seen floods in Pakistan, as has been mentioned; droughts and famine in east Africa; extreme weather events hitting central America, the Caribbean and the Asia-Pacific; and wildfires in California. We are seeing those physical manifestations of climate change around the globe, and the associated geopolitical risks.

    Obviously, climate migration—the outflow of people from areas where their lives or livelihoods are threatened—is one of those risks. In some cases, those people are in mortal danger and it is imperative that they flee; in other cases, it is because their former way of life is no longer economically viable. A report from the World Bank suggests that 216 million people may be displaced by 2050 due to climate breakdown. Of course, not all of those people will choose to leave their homes, but they will then be left in an increasingly vulnerable situation where they are likely to be in immense poverty and at risk of resorting to desperate measures.

    The other aspect is the battle over resources—for example, the melting of the ice on the third pole, the Himalayas. That is absolutely crucial to the water supply in India and China, and we may well see those two major superpowers at war with each other over access to that resource. Increasingly, we also see criminal elements being involved in deforestation in a bid to plunder the forests. Somali piracy, which was an issue a few years ago, is not quite a climate change issue, but it is closely linked to overfishing. It might not be climate change, but it is about the plundering of the world’s natural resources, and the inadvertent consequences of Somali fishermen not being able to make a living from their traditional way of life, and therefore turning to other activities.

    The climate crisis accelerates instability around the world, and opens up a vacuum in which extremism can fester. As the UN Secretary-General said, it is a “crisis amplifier”. It often contributes to a breakdown of law, increased inequality and rapid social change. For example, in the Lake Chad basin, Boko Haram has taken advantage of a scarcity of natural resources to conscript young people to its cause. In war-torn Yemen, the humanitarian crisis has been exacerbated by drought. ISIS has exploited water shortages in the middle east. As well as turning people towards terror, the damaging effects of climate change also risk leaving countries dependent on hostile states. A delegation from Madagascar is here this week, for example, and we know the role that China is beginning to play there. Countries in desperate need of economic support and security are turning to China, which gives China a huge degree of influence over their politics and full access to their resources.

    I appreciate that this is a matter for FCDO, but one way in which the Government could make an immediate impact, if they wanted to, would be to reinstate our overseas aid commitment of 0.7% of GDP. The cut was a stark betrayal of the world’s poorest people, and may well have security consequences. Given our respective briefs, however, I will focus primarily on COP and what can be achieved there.

    At COP, there should be a big focus on climate mitigation, renewed ambition when it comes to countries’ nationally determined contributions, and a focus on keeping 1.5° alive. Somebody said during a debate this week, I think, that 1.5° is on a life support machine, but we certainly must ensure that it is still very much the ambition. However, COP cannot be just about mitigation. We must also hear much more about adaptation, and how we can support the most climate-vulnerable countries as they try to make their nations more resilient. That could be about building sea walls; about natural defences against rising sea levels, such as planting mangroves; or about buildings that can better withstand extreme weather events.

    There is a lot that we can do, but those countries need finance. In some cases, they are very poor countries that would normally be in receipt of aid, or they are tiny countries, for example the small island developing states. They tell me that they find it almost impossible to access climate finance. There are too many hurdles for them to jump over. In some cases, that is because they do not have the resources: they are tiny countries, and do not have the people to do all the research for the paperwork.

    According to the UN, the 10 most environmentally fragile countries receive a mere 4.5% of all climate funding. That falls far behind other nations. It is not just about giving them climate finance; it is also about supporting them with their own initiatives. For example, the island and coastal states are increasingly looking at blue bonds. I know that Seychelles is doing so, as is—I think—Belize. As the centre of global finance, whether it is green finance or blue finance, the City of London could play a good role by helping those countries to access that money. That would be money from investors that are looking to do climate offsetting, for example. I am not that keen on carbon offsetting. It is not the solution to reaching 1.5°, but if there is an opportunity to get climate finance to climate-vulnerable countries, the UK ought to be playing a leading role.

    We need to see progress at COP27 on loss and damage, too. There should be a formal mechanism in place so that those with the responsibility and capacity to pay for it do so. I was part of a meeting last week in Parliament with John Kerry, the US climate envoy. I asked him about the issue, and it was good to see that he thinks that it is important. He spoke about trying to bring forward progress on loss and damage, so that it is something we can deliver on at the 2023 COP, rather than perhaps something for 2024.

    I also met the Foreign Minister of the Maldives recently, on Tuesday. That is an island state with a small population that covers a massive territory when we include the ocean around the islands. Seventy of its islands flooded this year. I wonder whether the Minister remembers when the then President Nasheed held a cabinet meeting underwater with scuba gear. I think he addressed the Conservative party conference around the same time. He was highlighting the fact that they will all be living under water if they are not supported. They are paying a price for a problem not of their own making.

    The Foreign Minister spoke to me about how the country hopes to get to fully renewable energy by 2030. Although its own carbon footprint is absolutely minuscule, it is doing its bit. The islands are of course surrounded by salt water, but fresh water is really important, and the rain water is so polluted by the industrialisation of neighbouring India that it cannot be used. That demonstrates the interface between what the industrialised world is doing, and small countries such as the Maldives. They cannot sort out this issue by themselves. They need collective responsibility to be shown.

    On finance, it was shocking to hear that the UK has not yet coughed up its contributions to the green climate fund and the adaptation fund—the $300 million promised in Glasgow. We currently hold the COP presidency. If we cannot meet our promises when we are meant to be showing leadership, we really cannot expect anybody else to do so. It is a total abdication of responsibility, as is the Prime Minister’s reluctance to attend COP27. He is going now, but it is pretty obvious he regards it as an inconvenience. I suspect he is only going because the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is going and he does not want to be upstaged.

    I hope that when he gets there, the Prime Minister rises to the challenge. It is crucial that, in the outgoing days of our presidency, we bring together countries to co-operate and that we show climate leadership. I hope that he has a bit of an epiphany as he flies out to Sharm El Sheikh and realises that he is there to do a serious job, and that he does it.

  • Stewart McDonald – 2022 Speech on Climate Change and Human Security

    Stewart McDonald – 2022 Speech on Climate Change and Human Security

    The speech made by Stewart McDonald, the SNP MP for Glasgow South, in Westminster Hall on 3 November 2022.

    I am grateful. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate. It was a pleasure to be a co-sponsor—or whatever the correct terminology is—in the application to the Backbench Business Committee. Though the issue is serious, nothing says taking climate security seriously like the acres of empty green chairs before us on a Thursday afternoon in the House of Commons.

    Nothing says taking climate change seriously like, after being the host country for COP26—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), from north of the Clyde; we were only too pleased to host that conference in my home city of Glasgow—a grudging Prime Minister sulking his way to Egypt for the COP27 conference. Nothing says taking climate security seriously like stripping the COP President and the Minister present today of their places in Cabinet. Indeed, if all that was not bad enough, even the King—a man who, in this country at least, is perhaps uniquely credible on the international stage on climate change and the environment—was banned from going to COP27, not just by the former Prime Minister, but the new Prime Minister. Come Monday next week, maybe a new Prime Minister will have changed that. As well as having a practically empty Chamber, I am willing to bet that this debate, which is scheduled to last 90 minutes, will not go the full way and we will adjourn early. [Interruption.] I can hear some challenges to that behind me.

    Turning to climate security, I know the Minister takes his portfolio extremely seriously and I do not aim this at him—in fairness, it may have been down to how the application was made—but it would have been good to have an FCDO or even a Defence Minister to respond to the debate.

    Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)

    Does the hon. Member agree that the failure of the UK Government to invest properly and sufficiently in renewable energy in recent years has damaged our ability to see security through the lens of human security, rather than what matters to Governments? Does he agree that the £4.5 billion of energy exports to the UK that Russia profited from last year emboldened that country to sustain its traditional state-centric view of security and, in that sense, has exacerbated climate change?

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will come to some of those points in turn. I want to speak about how I view climate security and where it fits in the broader issue of the security strategy across Government. We can learn great lessons from countries such as Sweden, which follows what is called a total defence concept, where the dynamic and changing threat picture that countries and national Governments face is given commensurate space in their national security strategy. Whether that is the hard military invasion, a pandemic, a shock weather event or a virus, the dynamic threat picture is represented in that national security strategy.

    As my party’s spokesperson on defence, I have found it difficult to criticise the MOD over the past 10 months, not least in what it has done to support Ukraine, as have many Members across the House. However, we now have a situation where the integrated review, which can only be two years old, was going to be reviewed and then was maybe going to be reviewed, and I understand that it will now definitely be reviewed under this Prime Minister. We have an opportunity to get this right and give climate change and climate security the representation it deserves in the overall national security posture of the UK. I have an interest in this as a Scottish Member of Parliament. There are unique factors about climate change for our part of the country but, as hon. Members have said, this is a matter for the planet as a whole. In thinking about how we work on that, there are three key areas when it comes to defence and security. Climate change is a threat multiplier. The secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, gave an eloquent speech earlier this year on how that threat multiplier can and should be taken seriously by NATO member states. Indeed, it runs through NATO’s strategic concept, and NATO is one of the twin pillars of European security.

    The second pillar is the European Union’s strategic compass. Traditionally, the European Union has not done as much in the area of defence and security, but it is doing more. When NATO leads on hard security—military security—the European Union absolutely complements it as the second twin pillar for things such as disaster management and resilience, and for dealing with climate change and other shock events that its member states will experience. That makes the case for the British Government to take off the blinkers and pursue a comprehensive defence and security treaty with the European Union in which it can partner with a major role-setter. About half a billion others on our shared continent can partner on a strategy for climate change.

    Even more importantly, the European Union can help pursue a strategy that gives the global south its rightful place at the table. For all the experiences we have in this country—whether it is in the high north of Scotland, or the extreme weather in July this year—those in the global south feel ignored not just on climate, but on much else. To see the manifestation of that, we only have to look at the votes at the United Nations in condemnation of Russia and in support of Ukraine. Across the global south, the pattern of abstentions and voting against the interests of European and Ukrainian continental security, or against sanctions on the Russian regime being deepened and widened, is a product of our ignoring the global south for far too long.

    I will end by talking about an issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow North rightly mentioned: climate scepticism. I want to go slightly further and talk about climate disinformation. We will all be asking our constituents to do more as we try to achieve our climate goals. We will be asking them to do more now, as the cost of switching on the boiler and leaving on the lights goes up and up and up. What an opportunity there is for climate deniers, sceptics or whatever we want to call them to pursue political strategies, much like we have previously seen in other policy areas in this country and elsewhere, not least the United States. What an opportunity there is to pursue disinformation strategies against what is a major threat to the people on this planet: climate change. What an opportunity there is for those on the extreme right—I certainly do not include the Minister in that—to sow disinformation, increase polarisation and set democratic countries off course in what they have to do on climate change. That is why it is really important that we have a national strategy to counter disinformation on this issue and much else, and that we build as much information resilience as possible across the population.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Is it not true that we really need unmitigated support from the Government? Otherwise, we will not tackle the immense problem that we are facing.

    Stewart Malcolm McDonald

    Yes, and that is perhaps a neat way for me to conclude my remarks. We do need that support, and we need all the parts of the state architecture working in concert with devolved Governments, the private sector and many other actors to pursue a national strategy for robust climate security that is at the centre of a broader national security strategy that works in concert with European and NATO allies and gives the countries of the global south their rightful place at the table.