Mr. Andrew Jackson:

Regarding the issue of biodiversity, there are positive and negative aspects to this question. On the positive side, how do we promote nature-based solutions that enhance biodiversity? Then on the negative side of things, how do we prevent mitigation and adaptation solutions damaging biodiversity? The second aspect is, to some extent, addressed by instruments outside the framework of the climate legislation, such as our implementation of the EU habitats and birds directives, the Wildlife Acts etc.

It would be possible, for example, to add biodiversity to the list of matters to which regard must be had in the context of making plans. As I argued in my opening statement, however, "have regard to" is a very weak obligation and I do not think that does the job. Looking at international examples, the Scottish legislation requires the Government to have regard to biodiversity, or to take account of biodiversity, in considering revising the targets contained in that Act. That is one aspect. It also requires the Government to explain the account it has taken of the SDGs when making plans. The SDGs, of course, would bring in various biodiversity relevant goals.

My central idea here, however, to strengthen the Bill regarding biodiversity and to include something meaningful would be to look at section 15 and the general duties imposed upon public bodies. What we really want in respect of positive aspects in this context is to encourage, promote and give precedence to nature-based solutions that enhance biodiversity. Enhancing biodiversity is key, because as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES, the biodiversity equivalent of the IPCC, has commented, not all so-called nature-based solutions enhance biodiversity, and some will even damage biodiversity.

In section 15, therefore, we could usefully look at imposing a general duty in the form, for example, along the lines "that public bodies must exercise their functions compatibly with a goal protecting, conserving and enhancing biodiversity, including by way of promoting nature-based solutions to mitigation and adaptation that enhance biodiversity". We could of course look at the specific language to be used, but that would be another powerful general obligation that would require public bodies to think about this every time they exercise their functions.