Nature Recovery Green Paper

What degree of reform do we need to ensure a simpler and more ecologically coherent network of terrestrial protected sites? 

We would be particularly interested in your views of how we can have a coherent, effective and well-understood system of protections, as well as supporting the delivery of our legal binding species abundance target and other potential long-term targets.

Option 1: Reform including a tiered approach emulating the approach taken in the marine area for HPMAs and MPAs, consolidating existing protected site designations and the creation of highly protected sites

Option 2: Lighter touch reform including streamlining existing site designations (SACs, SPAs, and SSSIs) 

Option 3: Amalgamation into a single type of designation with a scale of protections 

Other /No reform/Do not know

What degree of reform for the marine protected area network do we need to meet our biodiversity objectives and commitments? 

Please indicate the option you prefer and briefly explain your preference and what benefits or risks it may have in the free text box.     

Option 1: Reform including a tiered approach consolidating existing protected site designations and the creation of highly protected sites. 

Option 2: Continuing to manage existing site designations (SACs, SPAs, and MCZs) similarly, streamlining our approach by to refer to them all as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). 

Option 3: Amalgamation into a single type of designation with a scale of protections. 

Other  / No reform / Do not know

Do you agree that there should be a single process for terrestrial designation?

We would be particularly interested in your views on how this might best be done for example, should decisions be vested in the appropriate authority [ministers] on the advice of its nature conservation bodies? 

Should we reform the current feature-based approach to site selection and management to also allow for more dynamic ecological processes?

We would be particularly interested in your views of how our sites can be made more resilient to climate and other natural changes and can encompass wider purposes such as carbon sequestration.

How do we promote nature recovery beyond designated protected sites?

Do you see a potential role for additional designations?

Do you agree we should pursue the potential areas for reforms on assessments and consents? 

Should action be taken to address legacy consents?

If ‘Yes’, we would particularly welcome your views on how this might be done in a cost-effective and fair way.

Should we move to this more outcomes-focused approach to site management?

• Yes, using Site Improvement Plans 

• Yes, but building on Site Improvement Plans to offer a holistic site outcome plan 

• No / Other / Unsure

Do you have suggestions for how regulation 9 requirements should be reformed to support delivery of England’s 2030 species target or other longterm biodiversity targets and to improve our natural environment?

Do you have suggestions for how processes under Regulation 6 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and sections 125 to 127 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 together could better deliver outcomes for the MPA network?

Do you have suggestions for improving the EIA scope and process for the Defra EIA regimes?

We would particularly welcome your views on how they can more effectively help to reduce the environmental pressures outlined in chapters 3 and 4, deliver the objectives in the Environment Act, and facilitate sustainable development. 

• Yes – Marine Works EIA regime 

• Yes – Forestry EIA regime 

• Yes – Agriculture EIA regime 

• Yes – Land Drainage EIA regime 

• Yes – Water Resources EIA regime 

• No / Unsure

What are your views on our proposal to establish priority areas for afforestation?

What are your views on our proposed criteria to achieving our 30 by 30 commitment? 

We are keen to hear views on the proposed approach for assessing Protected Areas set out under 4.1 and suggestions for areas of land we should consider as OECMs in England

What are your views on our proposal to reform forestry governance and strengthen protections for the Nation’s Forests?

We are keen to hear views on any additional powers and statutory duties we should consider that would help to deliver on the benefits of woodland beyond timber production.

What are your views on our proposal to adjust forestry permanency requirements for certain project types?

Do you agree with the proposed changes to the UK Marine Strategy (UKMS) delivery programme, and if not, what other changes would you make to streamline the reporting of UKMS? 

Do you support the approach set out to split the high-level Good Environmental Status (GES) target into individual descriptor level GES targets?

Do you agree we should pursue the potential areas for reforms for species?

Based on your knowledge and experience please can you tick the criteria below that you think we should use to determine what level of protection a species should be given?

• Threat of local or national extinction 

• Welfare of wild animals 

• Controls in trade 

• Importance to the ecosystem (a species that has a disproportionate beneficial effect on an ecosystem and if they are not present the ecosystem will be in danger of collapse). 

• Promoting recovery (a species with a low or declining population, which may not yet have a threatened conservation status, but could be protected to support recovery and increased distribution). 

• Importance to genetic biodiversity (endemic species or sub-species within England that are important for the wider genetic diversity of the species). 

• Management requirements (a species where management is required for public health, to protect agriculture, commercial interests and to protect habitats) 

• Socio-economic importance (a species that could be protected to benefit people and communities, for example, to promote tourism) 

• To support efforts to reintroduce species or rewild habitats. 

• Unsure / Other

What proposals should we look at to improve our current licensing regime?  

What proposals do you think would make our enforcement toolkit more effective at combatting wildlife offences? 

What are the most important functions and duties delivered by Defra group ALBs to support our long-term environmental goals?

Where are there overlaps, duplication or boundary issues between ALBs, or between ALBs and government? How could these be addressed?

What are the benefits and risks of bringing all environmental regulation into a single body?

What are the opportunities for consolidating environmental delivery functions into a single body? Which programmes and activities would this include?

Please provide your views on how more effective cost recovery for regulation would affect: a) environmental protections b) businesses.

What is the most efficient way of ensuring businesses and regulated persons pay an appropriate share of the cost of regulation

What mechanisms should government explore to incentivise the private sector to shift towards nature-positive operations and investment?

What level of regulation is needed to incentivise private investment in nature while ensuring additionality and environmental integrity?

What else should government be doing to facilitate the development of a market framework that provides investors, farmers and land managers, regulators and the public with confidence in the quality of privately financed nature projects?

What financial impact do you think the proposals set out in this green paper would have either on business (For example, landowners) or government?

Please let us know if you feel these proposals would have a significant impact on your business area, or if you think they would have an impact on public funds. For example, this could be about costs or if you think certain proposals would have a positive financial impact or create opportunities. Please tell us in what way you think these impacts would come about, which proposals would drive that change, and try to evidence any financial estimations of costs or benefits.