Thank you for that series of questions. I completely agree that the changes post EU—to what were structural funds—are very, very troubling. As Delyth Jewell said, we have over a number of years developed a strategic approach for a range of programmes, particularly focused on biodiversity and climate change, which now don't neatly fit into the structures the UK Government has set out. Indeed, they seem more concerned about giving Conservative MPs local discretion to fund things that will look good for them, rather than taking a whole-system approach, which is what the science today demands that we need to do. So, I think we all need, as a Senedd, to make sure that those concerns are understood, and that we develop those funding programmes as we go forward in a way that is consistent with the responsibilities we all have to tackle the nature and climate change emergency.

On the specific point on the EU LIFE programme, I will write to her on that. I'm not aware of any equivalent replacement in the funds, but I'd be keen to take that up with the UK Government, and if we're able to do that on a cross-party basis, I think that would be all the better.

In terms of the impact of marine, I completely agree. In my briefing, it's referred to as 'blue carbon habitats'. I must say I've never heard that phrase before, but it is rather neat, because the marine environment both stores carbon and promotes biodiversity through saltmarsh, seagrass beds and shellfish beds, and they are under considerable pressure from sea level rises and acidification. NRW are currently mapping areas of marine and coastal habitats, including those that store and sequester blue carbon, to understand the potential and further opportunities for restoration of these important habitats. I think Delyth Jewell is right to highlight that as an important piece of work, to put that on an important footing.

The final point about individual action and making that relationship, not just on a large land management approach but in terms of human beings and families and communities, and restoring that link to our behaviour and its impact on our local environment, I think is a critical one. One of the things I hope to be doing under the deep dive on tree planting that Julie James announced last week is to both look at the large-scale issue of aforestation, but also to look at the individual, the community level. I think our nature networks fund has shown real progress in a very short period of time in local biodiversity projects and showing that relationship that individuals can have. But I'd like to do more than that. I'm particularly interested in what we can learn from our Wales for Africa project, where, in Mbale in Uganda, our funding, working with the Size of Wales project, is giving people there free trees to plant. I think in something we are telling Africans to do with our money, we should be applying those principles to ourselves as well.

We've spent an awful lot of time trying to unlock the problem of NRW's approach to planting trees at scale, which is important, but there's a great deal that we can do at the community level. I think one of the real challenges we have here is that this is all rather arid and abstract on a scientific level, and we need to make this real for people. One of the things that we've seen through the lockdowns is that people's relationship with their own doorstep nature has been quite profound. I myself have become suddenly interested in the trees where I live and the trees in my garden in a way that simply wasn't true before. We need to capitalise on that by making people realise that they have a role to play, and through a multitude of small actions, that can make a difference too.