Source · Select Committees · Environmental Audit Committee
Recommendation 22
22
Not Addressed
Revise Nature Restoration Fund impact assessment to include diverse environmental issues and local authority roles.
Recommendation
The Government should revise the impact assessment for the NRF, to take account of a variety of environmental issues, not only nutrient neutrality. It should consider the impact, role and budget of local authorities during the revision process. Only once a fully comprehensive impact assessment of the environmental aspect of the NRF has been completed can informed decisions about the efficacy of the NRF be made. The Government and Natural England must be clearer as to how approaches to the NRF will differ depending upon the environmental issue at hand. If this is not possible, then the NRF should only be applied to nutrient pollution, as we cannot be sure of the impact it will have on the environment otherwise. (Recommendation, Paragraph 90)
Government response summary AI-generated
The government's response details investment in flood and coastal defence, support for nature-based solutions for flood risk, and policies for sustainable drainage systems, but does not address the recommendation to revise the impact assessment for the Nature Restoration Fund.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government · verbatim extract
Not Addressed
40. The Impact Assessment for the NRF used the example of nutrient neutrality to demonstrate how a strategic approach could reduce delays and improve environmental outcomes. Given the range of potential environmental impacts that could be addressed through an EDP, it would not be possible to consider all of these through the impact assessment but an indicative example of a known issue was used to demonstrate the potential scale of impact of this new approach. 41. The efficacy of the NRF model will be considered through each EDP and these will clearly set out how the NRF approach differs depending on the environmental issue at hand. There are a number of legislative safeguards to ensure that an EDP can only be made where it will improve environmental outcomes. These include: • An EDP only being able to be put in place where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the effect of conservation measure will materially outweigh the negative effects of development. • EDPs and conservation measures they propose must be evidence- based considering the best available scientific evidence and will be subject to public consultation. • EDPs must include back-up measures and set out circumstances in which these must be deployed. This will be triggered where monitoring shows the conservation measures that have already been implemented are performing as intended under the EDP. 42. In addition, and as set out in our response to Recommendation 11, there are legislative monitoring and reporting requirements and we have committed to implementing nutrient EDPs first. Overall, this will ensure that the efficacy of the NRF is considered for each environmental issue and ensure that EDPs are not made unless there is confidence that positive environmental outcomes will be secured.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗