Senedd members demand action on nature loss in Wales
Leading a debate on May 7, the Plaid Cymru politician said it is difficult to reconcile the time frame with Welsh Government claims that addressing nature loss is a priority.
The committee's inquiry heard Wales is 'nowhere near' the key international '30 by 30' target of protecting 30 per cent of land and sea for nature by 2030.
Mr Gruffydd said: 'Work to scope out the targets started over two years ago. It seems inconceivable that it will take another four years.'
The Senedd's climate change committee called for a more ambitious timeframe in its report, a recommendation that was rejected by Welsh ministers.
'The Welsh Government said this would be simply impossible to do,' said Mr Gruffydd, pointing to similar UK and Scottish Government proposals taking around a year.
He warned the 2023 'State of Nature' report showed Wales' biodiversity, and wider environment, continuing to decline and degrade.
'That report details the devastating scale of nature loss across the country,' he said. 'Welsh wildlife has decreased on average by 20 per cent since 1994 and one in six Welsh species are under threat of extinction.'
Mr Gruffydd acknowledged the Welsh Government was quick to sign up to global biodiversity targets and declare nature loss as a priority.
'But, to use an old adage, actions speak louder than words,' he said.
Mr Gruffydd raised concerns about the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 having 'little material impact' on reversing the decline in biodiversity – a finding echoed by an Audit Wales report.
Plaid Cymru's Delyth Jewell warned: 'I'm concerned that our society and the world has become used to the destruction. That's the frightening reality.'
The Welsh Government rejected six of the committee's 30 recommendations in its formal response to the report, with the remainder accepted in full or in principle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
NHS to spend more on US drugs as Britain bows to Trump
Ministers are preparing to boost NHS spending on US drugs in a race to avoid a future tariff hit from Donald Trump. The Government told drugmakers last week that it would agree to boost spending on medicines to comparable levels with the US. The promise to increase the GDP share allocated to medicines is understood to have been made as part of talks with drug bosses over the NHS drugs spending cap. It follows demands from the US president that other countries stop 'freeloading' on American innovation and pay more for its medicines. In the US-UK trade agreement, signed earlier this year, ministers said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. The UK's expenditure on new innovative medicines currently stands at just 0.28pc of GDP, around a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even in Europe, the UK lags other countries, with Germany spending 0.4pc of its GDP and Italy spending 0.5pc. Ministers are understood to have offered to take steps to get the UK level closer to the US proportion. However, sources said the Government did not provide details on timing or concrete actions as to how the NHS would increase medicine spending. One insider claimed the proposal was 'a lot of jam and a lot of tomorrows'. The offer comes weeks after the US president told the world's biggest drugmakers that they needed to lower prices for Americans, suggesting they pay for this by charging higher fees abroad. In a letter sent to the bosses of 17 pharmaceutical companies, Mr Trump demanded they 'negotiate harder with foreign freeloading nations' for their medicines, suggesting he would use tariffs to push through higher prices if countries resisted. Earlier this year, the Telegraph revealed that the White House was already pressing for the NHS to spend more on American drugs. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that allows the NHS to spend less on medicines than other countries by forcing drugmakers to pay rebates. The UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (known as VPAG) makes sure that the NHS does not overpay for medicines. It does this by requiring pharmaceutical companies to pay sales rebates back to the NHS if its medicine bill rises faster than expected, essentially keeping a cap on drug costs. Earlier this year, the Department of Health launched a review of the scheme under pressure from Mr Trump and the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, ministers have been in negotiations with drug companies over how much the NHS should be able to claw back in rebates. Drug company chiefs are expected to vote on whether to accept the latest offer next week. The offer follows years where drug bosses have called for the UK to spend more on medicines. Albert Bourla, the chief executive of US drug giant Pfizer, said in June: 'We represent in the UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices.' He said countries were other countries were 'free-riding' on the US. A government spokesman said: 'The VPAG review is one of many ways in which we are taking decisive action to unlock innovation and drive investment in the UK's world-class pharmaceutical sector including the Life Sciences Sector Plan. 'We will make sure the next game changers in medicine are developed here in Britain, for the benefit of our health at home and abroad. 'We continue to work closely with industry, including Associated of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, on the VPAG review and the outcome will be announced in due course.' The Government previously argued it would 'only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading'.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Is a gambling tax the answer to scrap two-child benefit cap?
'I grew up in a town more than fifty years ago where I saw poverty first-hand. It was a mining town, it was a linoleum town but jobs were being lost and poverty was there. I never thought I would see that kind of poverty again but I am seeing it again.' The former chancellor pointed to Delaware, where online gambling taxes are far higher than in Britain. 'It would cost three billion to take half a million children out of poverty by scrapping the two-child benefit cap, which would be the quickest way and the most cost-effective way of getting children out of poverty…Three billion could be raised by fair taxation of the gambling industry. 'By taxing the gambling industry, this would be the first step in raising money without breaking the fiscal rules or any manifesto commitment.' According to reports, the reforms currently being considered by the Chancellor would not impact physical bookies or any bets made in-person except promotional 'free' bets. Some prominent voices have been more sceptical, however. The former SNP MP for Inverclyde, Ronnie Cowan, has long campaigned on the dangers of gambling. He took to social media to criticise the ex-PM: 'Brown and Blair turned the gambling industry into the Wild West by allowing it to self govern. 'Brown wanted super casinos. He doesn't understand the damage that can be caused by gambling and using them as a cash cow for any government is immoral…Bigger profits [equal] more damage.' In an open letter, The Herald wrote the cap "punishes children for circumstances entirely beyond their control and entrenches hardship across generations". It adds: "We believe the removal of the two-child limit would be one of the single most effective measures your government could take to reduce child poverty swiftly and significantly." The campaign also urged First Minister John Swinney to increase the Scottish Child Payment to £40 per week, per child. The Scottish Government does not currently hold powers to raise taxes on gambling. However, speaking to the BBC on Thursday about Gordon Brown's proposal, First Minister John Swinney said: 'I think there's merit in that idea because as we all know gambling can lead to significant negative effects in our society which can exacerbate poverty. (Image: PA Media) 'So therefore there is a reasonable and legitimate argument to raise revenue from such an approach as long as it's reinvested properly.' Researchers believe the abolition of the two-child cap is one of the clearest paths to reducing child poverty. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said: 'There is consensus across the policy community that investment in removing the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to reduce the headline rate of poverty.' The institute is also backing the proposal to raise taxes on gambling, arguing for 'targeted tax rises on profitable parts of the gambling industry – especially online casinos, slot machines, and high-stakes betting – where harms are concentrated and revenues have soared.' However, the Tax Policy Associates think tank recently released a report claiming that: 'The IPPR's calculation is 'static' – it simply multiplies current gambling profits by the new rates. The IPPR justifies this with illustrative calculations showing gambling companies worsening their odds to maintain their profits. 'If the IPPR are wrong, and the tax can't be passed on, then the revenues raised would be much less than £3bn – potentially half.' If the two-child cap were to be scrapped, it would also certainly save the Scottish Government money. The Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts that mitigating the cap is set to cost the Scottish Government £11 million in 2025/6 and up to £155 million in 2026/7. If Westminster scrapped the cap, this would free up money for the Scottish Government, who are currently facing a £5 billion black hole in their finances.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Self-doubt was my ‘secret superpower', Sturgeon says
Excerpts from the former first minister of Scotland's new memoir, Frankly, were published by The Times this week, ahead of the book's release on Thursday. The pieces discuss some of the hardest moments of her life and career, as well as conflicted feelings over motherhood and sexuality. In an interview with The Sunday Times, Ms Sturgeon described herself as a 'public introvert', telling the paper: 'I am somebody who can come alive on a stage in front of thousands of people, but put me at a dinner table with four people and I will struggle much, much more.' When asked about the theme of self-doubt running throughout her memoir, she said: 'I spent the earlier part of my life thinking it was a great handicap. I actually came to think it was my secret superpower. 'It definitely drives you on. You work harder. So I wouldn't change it. I don't know that I'd have got as far in politics without it, actually.' The interview also touched on the importance of emotional intelligence for politicians, with Ms Sturgeon telling the paper: 'I think politics sucks it out of people. I also think people with very low emotional intelligence are probably disproportionately attracted to the status. 'I guess it kind of sits with narcissism. I've come across them all my life in politics, people who exude this kind of superiority complex.' Elsewhere, Ms Sturgeon said she was excited about the next chapter in her life. 'I feel happier than I've possibly ever felt,' she told The Sunday Times. 'A future where I can go anywhere, live anywhere I want, form new relationships. I can meet new people, I can do new things, I can find out what it is I want to do with the rest of my life.' In a fresh excerpt from her memoir, Ms Sturgeon claimed Alex Salmond, her predecessor as first minister, may have leaked details about an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against him. And in an extract published on Friday, Ms Sturgeon discussed her arrest in 2023, describing it as 'mental torture'. Ms Sturgeon served as Scottish first minister between 2014 and 2023.
