The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee has expressed disappointment at the Government’s concession that it will not improve transparency on a key nature initiative.

Toby Perkins, Chair of the Committee, has written to the Government after the Committee published the Government’s response to its report earlier this year on the role of natural capital in the green economy.

In that response, the Government says it has no plans to improve what the Committee calls a “lack of transparency” in nature assets delivered by developers as part of Biodiversity Net Gain, despite admitting that the data is not easily accessible.

In its report, Committee had called for the Government to establish a register, accessible to the public, of all the onsite and offsite assets being developed under biodiversity net gain, and details of who was investing in these assets, to aid transparency.

“Bearing in mind the evidence highlighting that 50% to 90% of all Biodiversity Net Gain could be delivered on-site, this lack of transparency is concerning,” the Committee says in its follow up letter. “The absence of such a register could allow organisations accountable for delivering Biodiversity Net Gain to avoid their responsibilities and therefore undermine the entire scheme’s credibility and hinder the Government’s delivery of its 2030 biodiversity targets.”

The Committee also repeats its call for the Government to assess how the new Nature Restoration Fund, established in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, will impact on biodiversity net gain and private nature markets. The Government’s response highlights its impact assessment of the Planning Bill, but the Committee notes that this did not address biodiversity net gain directly.

“The Committee observed that the Government’s plans to secure the financing of natural capital improvements through a developer levy, the proceeds of which are to be allocated to nature improvement by Government, appears to be at odds with the encouragement of private sector investment into nature improvement projects,” the letter says. “Can the Government set out how it will ensure that the introduction of the Nature Restoration Fund does not undermine the attractiveness and operation of private nature markets, including delivery of offsite BNG?”

The Committee also highlights the Government’s failure to clearly set out how much nature recovery it expects nature markets to deliver. The Government has previously committed to restoring or creating 500,000 hectares of habitat outside of protected sites by the end of 2042. The Committee asks the Government to clarify how much of this recovery will come from nature markets.

Toby Perkins, Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, said: “I thank the Government for its response to our report, but it leaves several issues unresolved. A public register of onsite assets delivered through biodiversity net gain would improve transparency and hold developers accountable. Why does the Government not see the need for this, when one already exists for those assets delivered offsite?

“And the fact that the Government cannot say how much nature recovery markets will deliver raises serious questions about its ability to create or restore the 500,000 hectares of land it has promised by 2042.

“What gets measured gets managed. But in several cases, it is unclear how the Government intends to ensure its policies are delivering.”