A guest blog by Butterfly Conservation Scotland‘s senior conservation officer Tom Prescott and policy officer Chris Corrigan
The Holyrood elections in May come at a crucial time. Although they are likely to be dominated by the independence debate, we must not forget that this is also a pivotal year for nature and the climate. There will be make-or-break UN Conferences on Biodiversity (COP15) and Climate Change (COP26), the latter hosted here in Scotland. All of this is occurring at the same time as we desperately need a Green Recovery to drive a more sustainable and resilient economy for the future.
Scotland is a beautiful country! In normal times, tourists flock to our shores to experience the wonderful landscapes and wildlife. However, these are no longer normal times and we already know the wildlife which makes this country so special cannot be taken for granted. If the Covid-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is the danger of complacency.
The wealth of Scottish biodiversity is no different. It may be magical, but we know it is also in trouble. The recent State of Britain’s Larger Moths report showed that Scottish moths have declined by 22% in the last 50 years. This is consistent with the last State of Nature report for Scotland which recorded a 24% decline in the abundance of all species since 1994, and revealed that about half of all Scottish wildlife species had declined during the same time period.
Garden Tiger moth
There is a danger that these shocking statistics simply wash over us and don’t sink in. They become meaningless. As a society we have been numbed to the scale of decline. After all, we see big statistics but not thousands of dead and dying birds, insects and animals. Species are slipping away unnoticed as we slide into an almost invisible and growing biodiversity crisis.
The elections are a chance to create a better future. Butterflies and moths won’t have a say in the election but you do!
To inform the debate and ensure prospective MSPs recognise the scale of the challenge, Butterfly Conservation Scotland has signed up to an important Scottish Environment Link manifesto. This covers all the key issues requiring political leadership and action, with the ideas and policy proposals that would transform the fortunes of our wildlife. They will also make a meaningful contribution to tackling climate change.
Large Heath butterfly
Everyone in Scotland can help give butterflies and moths a voice. Set out below are three key issues where you can ask prospective candidates to back measures which will bring about real change.
1/ The need for a new and ambitious Environment Actwith legally binding targets for nature’s recovery. Targets will not save biodiversity in themselves, but when they become legally binding they focus political minds and drive the policy changes needed to make a difference.
2/ A commitment to a new future for farming with nature at its heart and the funding to support it. All farmers, crofters and land managers should be rewarded for helping protect, restore and enhance biodiversity and reduce carbon emissions. There should be an end to direct subsidies and instead, the money used to support farming for food, wildlife and the climate.Complacency can lead to a belief that all is well with nature in Scotland. However, we know that agricultural change has been one of the biggest drivers of wildlife decline and the statistics tell a different story. It is time for change if politicians are serious about reversing long term wildlife decline! Profitable farming which supports more wildlife and reduces carbon emissions is possible. These are not incompatible goals.
3/ A commitment to a Nature Network for Scotland delivering bigger, better, more joined up sites for nature and creating links for wildlife and habitats. Wildlife is being squeezed into smaller, fragmented habitat patches. A new Nature Network is an ambitious approach to restore and enhance landscapes by joining up and expanding areas protected for nature while delivering benefits for people, particularly by developing green corridors and greenspaces in our towns and cities.
Future generations need a safe and stable climate together with Scottish landscapes full of the amazing wildlife we have all been able to enjoy. But such a future cannot be taken for granted. All the evidence shows that without transformational change, this is not the future which our children and grandchildren will enjoy. An impoverished landscape is not inevitable, and we know that with the right political priorities and choices a much more optimistic future is possible.
This is the chance to ask your candidates what they will do to make a difference, especially on the issues we have covered here. If you would like to get involved, the Who Can I Vote For? website is a useful way to find out more.
So please give butterflies, moths and future generations a voice and when it comes to election day and cast your vote for nature and the climate!
Scotland’s salmon farming industry has been the focus of much attention over the last few years, and most recent developments have focused around its impact on marine mammals.
In 2020, LINK welcomed the introduction of the Animals and Wildlife (Scotland) Act, which included a ban on licensed shooting of seals to protect farmed salmon within aquaculture facilities.
Also included within the Act (Section 15) was a requirement on the Scottish Parliament to report on the aquaculture sectors use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs). ADDs emit sound with the intention of scaring away seals, but they also impact non-target species, specifically cetaceans (i.e. porpoises, dolphins and whales).
Widespread use of ADDs has increased in Scotland in recent decades. The lack of oversight or regulation of ADD use throughout this period is concerning. Additionally, due to the recent ban on seal shooting, there are concerns that the reliance on ADDs to control seal predation will increase.
There is clear evidence that ADDs can cause injury, disturbance and displacement of harbour porpoise and minke whales, which was confirmed by the Scottish Parliament report. The report suggests that further research on ADD use is required, and highlights the need for further investigation into non-lethal alternatives.
Subsequently, the Scottish Government published a second report on non-lethal seal control options, which provides a comprehensive review of alternative, non-acoustic methods. The report recommends that the use of anti-predator nets and/or new netting material should be prioritised.
Indeed, some members of the aquaculture industry have already taken the step away from ADDs (e.g. Scottish Sea Farms) and adopted tensioned nets, anti-predator nets and more robust netting materials. This move has led to a reduction in seal predation in some areas.
We are very much in the midst of discussions around the use of ADDs in salmon farming. Recently the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (who represent all salmon farming companies in Scotland) announced that they would no longer use ADDs that “may have been considered to cause disturbance to European Protected Species” (i.e. cetaceans). LINK very much welcome this development.
However, it remains unclear whether this means some types of ADD will be continue to be used. ADD technology is advancing rapidly and newer ‘acoustic startle devices’ operate at a lower frequency than traditional ADDs. This may lessen impacts on harbour porpoise but result in greater impacts on minke whales. Clarity around the industry’s intention to use any acoustic devices is paramount.
Both the recent decisions on banning seal shooting and stopping the use of ADDs have largely been influenced by the upcoming US Marine Mammal Protection Act. The US MMPA requires all countries that import seafood to the US (including farmed salmon) apply the same standards placed upon US fishermen, including those regarding the incidental killing or incidental serious injury of marine mammals for fisheries purposes.
LINK is concerned that industries operating in Scotland are looking to welfare and conservation standards of other nations to guide best practice in Scotland. It is now three years since two parliamentary inquiries into salmon farming in Scotland took place. Concerns around ADD use were raised and to date little action on the issue has taken place. LINK would like to see the Scottish Government take a leading role and show strong commitment to preventing further use of any acoustic devices around salmon farms.
It is LINK’s view that all acoustic devices designed for scaring seals should be urgently phased out in favour of benign alternatives. Some salmon farmers in Scotland have already proven that non-acoustic and non-lethal alternatives can be effective in deterring predators. Therefore, LINK believe that the Scottish Government should, in line with its own report, prioritise the wide-scale deployment of these alternative methods.
A blog by Julia Pix, WDC communications manager and Goodbye Bycatch campaign manager
Thank you to everyone who’s got involved with our campaign to stop dolphins, porpoises and whales dying in fishing gear in UK seas to put fish and shellfish on our plates. We’ve loved seeing all your support on social media and appreciated every single person who took action by emailing the fisheries minister or contacting their MP, MSP, AM or MLA. We are so grateful to have such brilliant supporters and, even though they don’t know it, dolphins, porpoises and whales are lucky have you on their side!
More than 10,000 of you sent a message to your fisheries minister and so we know that your voices have been heard, although we wait to see what action will be taken. We’ve received responses from Rebecca Pow, UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment, the Northern Irish fisheries minister’s office and the Welsh Fisheries Minister, Lesley Griffiths. At the time I’m writing this, we have not yet received a response from the Scottish fisheries minister.
Ian Findlay has been a part of the LINK family for a long time. He served on LINK Board from 2002, but was involved in the network as the LINK member rep for Scottish Wildlife Trust before then. As a LINK Board member between 2002 – 2017, Ian was also part of the Board’s Employment Sub Group. In 2017, Ian was elected as an Honorary Fellow to LINK. His support for the LINK staff and the wider network was not limited to his formal roles however: he was instrumental in setting up and reviewing LINK’s internal policies on employment and salaries and he contributed hugely to developing our early systems for work planning and evaluating impact, working closely with both Chief Officers, Jen and then Deborah.
His calm and steady presence, his wise advice and his unstinting support for LINK and the work it does with its member bodies will all be remembered by everyone who knew and worked with Ian. We have gathered some memories and stories of Ian that illustrate the immensely positive influence he brought to us all and the huge affection in which he was held.
Ian was a Board member of Scottish Environment LINK when I joined in 2003. He was very welcoming, knowledgeable, calm and encouraging and I took inspiration from that. I enjoyed talking to him about conservation, biking and his involvement with the community acquisition of Cultybraggan camp. When he moved to Paths for All we worked together on a couple of projects to encourage more people to enjoy the outdoors and plant trees. He stayed connected with Scottish Environment LINK after finishing as a Trustee and always remained willing to share his sage advice. He was just an all-round good guy and the world is much worse off without him.
Andy Fairbairn, LINK Board member 2003 – 2011
Ian was an inspirational colleague. We benefited hugely from his calm and collegiate approach, his insight and wise counsel in helping us pick our way through some pretty challenging and sensitive issues and the humility with which he did this. I remember a collective sigh of relief each time Ian confirmed his willingness to continue his engagement with the LINK board. My memory of Ian is of someone so genuine and thoughtful in how he engaged, listened and contributed and the warmth of his smile.
Dan Barlow, LINK Board member 2004 – 2011
Through the mists of time I can’t recall whether or not Ian was already on the Board when I joined as Treasurer, but I do remember how helpful and supportive he was with many of the internal issues we worked on together. His approach was considered and patient, regularly taking time to step back to view the bigger picture – and challenge the status quo or established view when required.
He also had great people skills, taking time to consider the impact of Board and management decisions on LINK staff, and seek their input wherever appropriate, ensuring that conversations were well informed and inclusive of stakeholders.
We established a number of sub groups on the Board around that time to look at specific topics and unsurprisingly Ian was in high demand for many of these, and typically generous with his time and contributions.
I hadn’t worked with Ian in a long time, but the experience stayed with me, and I was shocked and saddened to hear of his death. I know he’ll be greatly missed by many.
David Downie, LINK Board Treasurer 2002 – 2010
I joined LINK Board in 2004 and always looked to Ian as a source of expert advice. He influenced the way I look at things now. Much more recently, when I joined the LINK staff team in 2019, I asked Ian if he wouldn’t mind mentoring me for a bit while I found my feet. He agreed, of course, and I was lucky enough to be able to draw on his guidance and advice whenever I needed it. It was hugely reassuring to me knowing Ian was there ready with a wise word or two, and continually lifting my thinking to higher levels to identify and work towards working out how LINK as a network could deliver a top notch service for its members and Scotland’s environment. We never finished that piece of work of course, but I will continue it and remember Ian’s advice to keep looking up, keeping looking for inspiration across sectors and most of all, keep drawing inspiration and energy from being outdoors. His mantra of work is not where you are, it’s what you do will always remain with me and is how I now use my surroundings whether outside or in, to tussle with challenges and explore solutions wherever I am.
Deborah Long, LINK Board 2004 – 2014; LINK Chief Officer 2019 onwards.
My main experience with Ian was on the Board of LINK for many years. He was charming, considered, unflappable, fair, positive, never brash or arrogant, always calm and effective in his advice and decision making. An absolute pleasure to be in a room with and spend time with.
Jonny Hughes, LINK Board member 2007 – 2012
Having grown up in Comrie, I had the privilege of knowing Ian for almost all my life. He was an important and popular member of our village community. My earliest memories of Ian are learning to horse ride on the Shetland ponies he and his wife Andrea owned. Andrea and Ian were incredibly patient and kind to my sister and I as we struggled to stay on board the very small (but strong) ponies! I was excited to find out Ian was an Honorary Fellow of LINK when I started working here over a year ago. He was always interested in what I was up to at LINK whenever I bumped into him out for a walk or cycle in Comrie. Ian walked the walk by sharing his passion for the environment with many and cared deeply for the place people have within it. He will be greatly missed. My thoughts are with Andrea and his lovely family, his friends and his Paths for All colleagues.
Juliet Caldwell, LINK staff
Ian’s engagement with LINK covered decades of the network’s development. Where I particularly became aware of the value of his contribution was post-Parliament establishment, when it felt as though the heat was really on at LINK, in terms of amount to be done vs. tiny size of staff and huge aspiration of network in advocacy terms. Ian was among the people I could go to for advice.
Ian was a key contributor to advising on appropriate handling of and support for ‘pressure at the centre’ process. For a period, there was no available line manager for me and that led to a few interesting dilemmas, which Ian and others helped me through. It was Ian mainly who advised us on a salaries process that was shared, fair, amendable, projectable, including scales, expectations around progress through increments, etc. Not many people’s pigeon but oh boy did it feel good to have something professional in place, at last!
Ian made time if asked for help, was never too busy to advise and input; where he undertook to help in a steering group or advisory capacity, as a trustee, Fellow, he delivered. And he was present, could be approached as needed, personally supportive, compassionate. He understood that the CO role is a challenging and sometimes lonely place to be and I appreciated that he reached out – to me, but also to other staff, to offer his support with the ‘tough aspects of the jobs’ and make sure we knew we could seek and expect support and mentoring when we needed it. This mattered to LINK’s arrangements and relationships. It was that humanness of Ian’s which I feel really stood out. A lovely, and fine man.
Jen Anderson, LINK Chief Officer, 1987 – 2019.
I always found Ian to be so enthusiastic about LINK work and the environment in general, he always had time for us and was very approachable, really just a lovely man.
Karen Paterson, LINK staff
I don’t have any specific stories about Ian, simply that I was always struck by how friendly he was and how kind he seemed, always with a smile and time to chat.
Lisa Webb, LINK staff
Ian and I were at University together and, working in similar fields, our professional paths have crossed many times over the last 40 years. Throughout his career, at SNH, HIE, SWT and PfA, Ian demonstrated outstanding knowledge and enthusiasm for protecting Scotland’s environment and encouraging us all to enjoy and benefit from it. He was always self-effacing and keen to engage and mentor others to pass on his expertise and nurture his enthusiasm in others. As a fellow Board member of Scottish Environment LINK, where we overlapped for 10+ years, he was always strategically-minded and focused on maximising the benefits of the organisation (to the environment and its members), but also calm, reassuring and inspirational. He will be much missed, especially by the environmental sector. My sincere condolences to his family.
Lloyd Austin; LINK Board member 2000 – 2013; LINK Chair 2003 – 2006
I first met Ian when he joined the Scottish Wildlife Trust which would have been around 2000. Ian had joined us from Scottish Natural Heritage as our Director of Conservation and was my boss at the time. I’ve been thinking about the work we did together then and how some of the ideas and initiatives continue in some form or another to this day. Red squirrels, peatland campaigns, reintroduction of beavers all had their origins at SWT around that time. But these important contributions to Scotland’s nature conservation history aren’t what I think about when I think of Ian. It is the man himself, his humanity, kindness and empathy above all else which I will remember. I car shared with Ian and Steve Sankey on our daily commute to Cramond and the conversation would more often than not be focused on our families and how we were spending our time outdoors. Selfless as ever Ian organised to have my baby daughter have her first horse ride – on a feisty wee Shetland pony called Chuckie. Imogen has kept up her passion for horses and has Ian to thank for her first experiences. I stepped into Ian’s shoes as the Director of Conservation when he moved on to lead Path’s for All – which we all felt was such a natural fit for Ian. We kept in touch and would often bump into each other on the train and our conversations would more often than not revert to our families, Ian now a proud grandfather. He gave so much to Scotland’s active travel and nature conservation sectors and he will leave a big gap but my memories of Ian are of our quiet conversations and the care, kindness and support he showed me. It is why I will forever think of Ian as one of the most decent human beings I ever had the privilege of calling a friend.
Stuart Brooks, Scottish Wildlife Trust
Our work, in LINK, is to protect and restore Scotland’s environment and enable and support everyone to access and enjoy it wherever they are. This is why Ian supported us: we will continue in honour of his legacy and all the help he gave us over many years.
Ian’s family have set up a memorial grove for Ian to continue his passion and support for Scotland’s native woodland. Details are here: https://treesforlife.org.uk/groves/307813/
Along with everyone else, Scottish Environment LINK member organisations have been adjusting to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Member surveys in April and November 2020 identified key challenges and the solutions our members were implementing as lockdowns came and went, and returned. Assessing the ongoing and near future financial difficulties caused by the coronavirus crisis for environmental and conservation charities is vital for our members, funders and supporters, and helps identify what support and assistance would help the sector survive and contribute to Scotland’s green recovery.
There have been two major impacts: the immediate impact on front line functions in conservation, access and sustainable living, as practical projects and participation programmes were halted during lockdown and limited by social distancing requirements. At the same time, members experienced a massive drop in income. Most members, before Covid, generated income from as many different sources as possible, using events and activities to generate income over spring and summer. In 2020, these could not take place. In addition, memberships and retail revenue, another important source, also plummeted. With continuing uncertainties impacting on household budgets, memberships and donations are not expected to return to pre Covid levels for a long time.
Our members have adopted different ways to manage these impacts: in the short term, members applied for government support schemes where available and cut costs wherever possible. Looking forward, organisations are now planning for costs to rise again. Revenue generation options remain limited, given ongoing limits to events and activities uptake because of social distancing and social changes for example. Members anticipate a slow return back to former membership and donation levels and there are few sources of replacement funding available from government and funders.
Environmental funding has been in long decline in Scotland. This, with the loss of access to EU LIFE funding, mean sources of grants remain very limited. 45% of our members are now eating into financial reserves, never high as the sector always reinvested income directly into action on the ground. As a result, the sector has become less resilient, at a time when the need for Scotland as a whole to come together and deliver for nature and climate has never been greater.
This sector is important for Scotland. More than half a million people support LINK members. The reason they give their support is because they want to help our members conserve nature, increase access to the outdoors, enable sustainable living and help develop government policy to make everyone’s life in Scotland greener, fairer and more enjoyable.
Going into the UN’s Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, now is not the time for Scotland to lose its vibrant and innovative environmental voluntary sector. Member bodies are doing everything they can to shore up organisational resilience through cutting costs and identifying new sources of income, but the way forward is not clear or guaranteed.
As we go into 2021, LINK and our members will continue to work together to help each other through the crisis, to keep policy and practical action for climate and nature on track and to motivate others to experience nature and benefit from that connection and work with us to conserve it for future generations. Working in partnership brings many more resources, and where underpinned by commitment and effective financial support from Government and funders, we can maintain the vital momentum and progress we were making together towards solving the nature and climate emergencies.
A green recovery for Scotland from the pandemic that works to tackle the climate and nature emergencies is vital. We are ready to play our part. This pandemic is a short-term emergency that must not exacerbate the long-term climate and nature crises and recovery towards a nature rich, more resilient world.
Dr Deborah Long, Chief Officer, Scottish Environment LINK
A version of this blog was published in The Scotsman on 23 March 2021
Scotland is known worldwide for its rich and diverse landscapes and nature. This richness is often lauded – it is used to promote our tourism industry, our food and drink products, our national identity.
However, despite these positives, not all is well – our wildlife has suffered and declined considerably over the years through climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, marine pollution and the impact of invasive species. It remains in danger, as the State of Nature Scotland 2019 report details in full. Without significant intervention, today’s children cannot hope to experience what their parents, yet alone their grandparents were able to discover and enjoy in nature.
The State of Nature Scotland 2019 report shows that 1 in 9 species is threatened with extinction. More than half of our globally important national seabird populations, for example, have been in long-term decline for more than 30 years, with some – including kittiwakes and Arctic terns – down by more than 70%. The declines illustrated in this report are part of a much longer term trend. The data only take us back to the 1970s at which point, Scotland’s wildlife was already in significant change. For example, Scotland’s woodlands have been in decline for much longer. Our native Caledonian pinewoods, so rich in their unique wildlife community, making up c. 28% of Scotland’s native woodland, are severely impacted by herbivores, are at risk of Dothistroma Needle Blight disease and remain fragmented into vulnerable habitat islands.
Fortunately there are significant interventions that have seen strong successes, where people have protected and enhanced the wildlife that shares our planet and our country. Perhaps one of the most effective, yet least appreciated, driving forces behind those successes has been the impact of EU wildlife legislation – the ‘Nature Directives’ – and, in particular, the funding mechanism established to help countries implement it: the EU LIFE Nature fund.
Scotland has benefited enormously from that fund: since its inception, LIFE has funded over 25 projects benefiting Scotland, bringing in well over £25 million for conservation delivery in the country, a massive 21% of the UK total. And this money, of course, freed additional funds from elsewhere.
Among the beneficiaries are Atlantic salmon, freshwater pearl mussel, corncrake, hen harrier, red squirrel, porpoise, upland invertebrates, seabirds on Canna and the Shiants, machair grasslands, the Flow Country peatlands, Caledonian pinewoods and Scotland’s rainforest.
There are two key factors in the success of initiatives supporting these species and ecosystems, and they both relate to scale: geographic and temporal. LIFE funding supports projects at a landscape scale, each typically lasting 3-5 years, costing between €1-10 million.
Biodiversity projects by their nature often require sustained investment until a clear tipping point has been reached: invasive species eradication is a clear case where unless eradication is achieved and maintained, the situation very quickly deteriorates again. Equally, the factors driving nature loss and biodiversity decline are pervasive: tackling small and scattered sites is not an economic way of finding an ecological solution. Large- scale action, able to bring a suite of habitats and entire ecosystems back to health, is a demonstrably effective mechanism to restore biodiversity at a scale where it is more likely to survive into the future.
Action at this scale is best delivered through partnership and LIFE supported projects have enabled wide partnerships to operate at scale. The principle of additionality also enabled LIFE funding to be used to match against other funds and thus offers a mechanism to drive investment at levels far beyond the reach of individual funding sources.
MSPs have noted the benefits of LIFE funding: ‘The EU LIFE programme…has provided £42 million in matched funding to support peatland restoration over the past 20 years. Where will that support come from now, when we need healthy peatlands more than ever for both their conservation value and their vast carbon sinks?’(Mark Ruskell MSP 2016)
On leaving the EU, Scotland and the rest of the UK are no longer eligible to apply for LIFE funding and there are currently no proposals on how LIFE funding will be replaced. The UK Government’s Shared Prosperity Fund will replace Structural Funding from the EU: this does not include replacing the competitive funds such as LIFE and Horizon 2020.
‘It definitely makes you wonder if such landscape scale ‘game changing’ projects for biodiversity will ever get off the ground again without a LIFE programme to support them.’ (Alison Connelly RSPB 2021)
So what are the options going forward? The significant benefits that LIFE supported projects have brought to Scotland and right across the UK cannot be ignored. It is possible that the UK Government will work with the devolved governments to find a way to put in place a replacement fund that can replicate the benefits gained from LIFE funding. However, this is far from guaranteed and allocating such future replacement funding according to the Barnett formula would see much lower levels of funding coming to Scotland.
It is clear that building wide and diverse partnerships is an effective way to deliver at scale and in an ecologically successful and sustainable way. Networks such as LINK and EFN can help to foster and build partnerships. Key to success however is finding investment that operates over at least 3 years. Anything less than this is unlikely to yield clear and sustainable results. Ecological restoration is an endurance race, not a sprint.
The main element that is required is vision: vision in those able to deliver change on the ground and vision in those with resources to support and drive that change forward. Where funders and recipients can come together behind clear visions of change towards a better future, then we might see life after LIFE.
Later this year, the UK will host 195 world leaders at an international climate summit in Glasgow. Also known as COP26, the talks will be a crucial opportunity for the global community to come together to find solutions to the climate crisis.
But fewer people are aware of another key summit this year: the international talks taking place to address the equally urgent nature crisis. The COP15 biodiversity summit will take place in Kunming, China. To date it may not have attracted the same level of attention as its climate counterpart, but there’s a lot riding on success at the talks.
What is the Convention on Biological Diversity?
At the landmark 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, world leaders agreed to three Conventions as mechanisms to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Each is governed by the Conference of the Parties (COP), where world leaders meet to review progress and take decisions that advance the delivery of the convention’s objectives.
COPs take place every two years under the CBD, with this year’s COP being the fifteenth meeting. The CBD’s purpose is to conserve and ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity at every level.
At the 2010 talks in Nagoya, Japan, 194 countries (or parties) signed up to a series of 20 targets to be met by 2020. Dubbed the Aichi targets after the region in which Nagoya sits, they were created to address a wide variety of issues in support of global biodiversity. Following the conference, signatories were also required to devise national biodiversity plans to meet the targets. In the UK, biodiversity is a devolved policy issue, and so the devolved governments are responsible for creating and delivering their own action, while the UK Government’s plans pertain to England.
Fast forward a decade to 2020, and the5th Global Biodiversity Outlook report revealed that these targets were spectacularly missed across the world. Despite world leaders promising a decade of concerted efforts to tackle the inexorable decline of nature, the world collectively failed to meet a single one of the 20 targets. The UK, and each of the four nations, also failed in their contribution towards this global goal. This lack of progress and the deepening ecological emergency make it clear that while the last UN decade on biodiversity failed, this coming decade on ecosystem restoration cannot.
What’s the plan for COP15?
As if a triple bill of all three Convention meetings in the Autumn wasn’t enough, this year’s biodiversity summit is also an especially important one. As parties prepare to meet in Kunming, initial plans for the new post-2020 biodiversity framework have already been drawn up. The final version will be decided at the conference but is expected to include an agreement to put global biodiversity on the path to recovery by 2030, and a target to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and seas by 2030.
We cannot afford to make the same mistakes and miss these targets a second time. The evidence is clear that continuing nature’s destruction will lead to thousands more extinctions, pose a serious risk to global food insecurity, and increase the likelihood of further pandemics like Covid-19. And as the climate crisis worsens, degraded ecosystems also limit our resilience and ability to adapt to extreme weather events.
What role can the four countries of the UK play in influencing the outcome of COP15?
A new international deal for nature must be matched by domestic ambition to bend the curve of biodiversity loss and deliver commitments made under the CBD. The UK has a strong opportunity to lead, taking advantage of the cross-over with the UNFCCC presidency for COP26 and the G7 presidency. In each country, the political attractiveness of adopting a global leadership role offers the opportunity to leverage greater ambition in national agendas, linking the credibility of negotiating positions to the strength of domestic actions.
In September 2020, the UK Prime Minister announced a commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land by 2030. In December 2020, the Scottish Government committed to protect 30% of Scotland’s land for nature by 2030, in the ‘Statement of Intent on Biodiversity’. The four Links also welcomed the recent Edinburgh Declaration on post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which has called for a collective commitment from subnational Governments, cities, and local authorities to raise ambition for nature’s recovery. This is especially important given that most of the land and sea area that is legally protected for nature in the UK is within the jurisdiction of the devolved governments.
However, whilst these announcements are welcomed, all four countries of the UK need to show that they are serious about tackling the biodiversity crisis by translating these promises into genuine action on the ground. We want to see:
Targets:Setting a global goal for the restoration of species and habitats on land, at sea, and in freshwater habitats would be a good place to start. Going into the talks with this already put in place across the four countries of the UK would send a clear signal to other leaders to follow suit. There are opportunities to do this through a State of Nature Amendment to the Environment Bill in England, and similarly through an Environment Bill and the next Biodiversity Strategy in Northern Ireland. To meet the ambitious commitments set out in the Scottish Government’s statement of intent, Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy must contain ambitious and meaningful targets, and be supported with the resources needed to deliver nature’s recovery. In Wales, we are calling for new legislation on environmental governance, to introduce new legally binding nature recovery targets.
Measures to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss:Targets must be accompanied by a clear plan for how to reach them. The 30×30 initiative could play an important part in any plans, provided protected areas are effectively managed and monitored. At the moment, however, sites protected for nature are often in poor condition and sites designated for landscapes like National Parks do not have clear legal requirements for nature’s recovery. Drivers of nature loss outside the 30% must also be addressed.
Adequate financing and a framework to track progress:A robust monitoring, enforcement, reporting, and verification system will also be crucial for assessing progress towards targets, and efforts to reach them must be supported by appropriate funding.
Coordination across the four nations: It’s important to remember that nature knows no borders and as global temperatures rise, species will shift their ranges to stay within suitable conditions. To successfully meet any targets, it will be essential for the four UK Governments to work collaboratively. Although each nation will be responsible for its own biodiversity strategy to suit its specific ecology, no single country can do this alone. The only way we can achieve the scale of change we need is through global leadership and commitment to legally binding targets for nature in every country.
Over the next few months, the four Links will be working together to develop our recommendations on how the four Governments of the UK can work together and contribute to the success of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. It will be impossible to solve the climate crisis without tackling the nature crisis and vice versa, and so securing good outcomes at both summits should be of utmost priority for the four governments. COVID-19 may have derailed 2020 as being a ‘super year’ for the environment, but through global leadership at COP15 and COP26 the four countries of the UK could be instrumental in helping 2021 claim the title.
Juliet Caldwell, Nature Advocacy Officer at Scottish Environment LINK
Imogen Cripps, Policy Officer at Wildlife and Countryside Link
Jill Eagleson, Policy & Projects Officer at Northern Ireland Environment Link
Rory Francis, Nature Targets Advocacy Officer at Wales Environment Link
By Dr Phoebe Cochrane, sustainable economics officer at Scottish Environment LINK
We all know that recycling is important – that waste does not end up in landfill, but instead gets recycled into new things. Ideally, we would like all new things to be made from either renewable or recycled materials. That would mean we would no longer need to quarry, mine or drill for non-renewable raw materials.
In yesterday’s UK budget, the Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced draft legislation for a new Plastic Packaging Tax, which will come into effect in April 2022 across the UK. This tax will apply to all plastic packaging that contains less than 30 percent recycled content. It has been broadly welcomed by environmental campaigners.
It takes 75 percent less energy to make a plastic bottle using recycled plastic compared with using virgin raw materials. Despite this, the market for plastic recylate has been variable, being at the whim of fluctuations in the price of crude oil and suffering from underinvestment and varying quality.
The purpose of the tax is to incentivise the uptake of recyclate and provide demand for reprocessed plastic, providing assurance to the recycling value chain and stimulate new investment in domestic recycling infrastructure.
For example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is readily and widely recycled and it is relatively easy to achieve high percentages of recycled content in PET bottles and containers. So, the threshold for PET could be higher, especially when the upcoming Deposit Return scheme provides an additional stream of plastic bottles for recycling.
Then there is the question – why only plastics? There is a need to bolster the recycled content of all packaging materials.
There are also other ways in which governments can encourage businesses to increase the recycled content of their packaging. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), for example, aims to ensure that producers bear financial responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products, and are incentivised to reduce these impacts.
EPR has tended to focus on ‘end of life’ impacts, and increasing recycling, but is currently under review (with the second consultation due this spring). If the focus was on reducing the whole life-cycle impact of packaging and the fees that producers pay were sufficiently differentiated to reflect this impact, it could incentivise increased use of recycled materials.
However, one of the problems with using taxes or EPR to incentive use of recycled material is that the effectiveness of these measures varies according to market prices of the virgin and recycled raw material. Regulation is more straightforward.
The Scottish government could introduce regulations under the neglected section 82 in our Climate Change Act which allows government ministers to specify the recycled content of items procured or constructed in Scotland. This could be an opportunity to identify what local recyclate streams could be available and what local businesses might be ready to use those recyclates, and then to create, by regulation, good stable home markets to promote innovative eco-designed products.
Last, but certainly not least, while we do need to establish markets for recyclate, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that recycling is near the bottom of the waste hierarchy. In terms of packaging, we must be thinking about how we reduce unnecessary and single use packaging, moving to less packaging and reusable packaging.
There are some examples of brands using reusable packaging for deliveries and of supermarkets and other shops offering loose produce, but these need to become the norm rather than the exception.
Rishi Sunak’s Plastic Packaging Tax is a step in the right direction. Let’s keep up the pressure on governments to do much more to reduce packaging waste.
Today is United Nations World Wildlife Day and this year’s theme is “Forests and Livelihoods: Sustaining People and Planet.” In recent years forests have attracted attention for their role in capturing carbon in the fight against climate change. They have sustained the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people globally for much longer than that. For as long as there have been people and trees, woodland has fed and sheltered us. Here in Scotland that is as true today as it ever was.
Down the west coast heavy rainfall, mild temperatures and clean air create the conditions for an explosion of biodiversity under the canopy of native woodlands. Every surface is lush with mosses, lichens and ferns. These are our rainforests and it is our responsibility to look after them. We would have a cheek to criticise countries clearing tropical rainforest to ranch cattle or mine minerals, while allowing our own temperate rainforest to be grazed out by deer or overgrown with Rhododendron ponticum.
Scotland’s rainforest is one of our most precious habitats, and yet most Scots are not even aware we have it. A voluntary partnership of over 20 organisations, The Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest is seeking to change that, and also to turn round the fortunes of this dwindling habitat.
Our rainforest can help us combat the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. Its rare and fragile ecosystem is a so-called “nature-based solution” as it locks up huge volumes of carbon while providing a vital home for a globally significant assemblage of species, some of which occur nowhere else. But Scotland’s temperate rainforest, just like the tropical rainforest isn’t just important for biodiversity or climate control. People live and work here. They always have.
At Lagganulva on the Isle of Mull Helen MacKay relies on the hazel, oak and ash woodland surrounding her farm to provide year-round shelter for livestock, which is especially valuable during calving. Helen says it is a healthier environment than any shed. It allows her cows to follow their natural instincts when it’s time to separate from the herd. She should know, as she is also the local vet. Like other farmers in the area, Helen is eager to protect her slice of rainforest and encourage natural regeneration.
Based in Morvern, Donald Kennedy is a contractor and partner in the Lever & Mulch Partnership and has been working to remove invasive Rhododendron ponticum from native woodlands across the west coast for more than 15 years. This essential task is an important source of employment for many communities.
So is deer management. John Taylor works for Forestry and Land Scotland and is tasked with managing large areas of woodland in the heart of the rainforest zone. This involves controlling the red deer population and restoring forests planted with non-native conifers back to native woodland. Deer management provides local employment, reduces traffic accidents that involve deer collisions, and even reduces the emission of methane, a greenhouse gas far more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide.
Scotland’s rainforest is a visitor attraction even if most of those visitors have yet to realise it is a rainforest. Jon and Angela Mercer run Glenloy Wildlife – a tourism business in Lochaber. Jon says nature-lovers are blown away by the variety of wildlife here. It cannot be experienced anywhere else. The more rainforest there is, the more opportunities for wildlife watching and nature tourism.
So our rainforest supports jobs; its canopy provides cover for livestock; people use it for exercise and to recharge their mental batteries. It is a natural classroom for school children; a meeting place for groups and volunteers; and a destination for tourists. Scotland’s rainforest is a hugely important natural asset contributing to the economic, social and mental wellbeing of the people who live in and around it. That is why action on green recovery must include expansion and restoration of the rainforest.
Yes, Scotland owes it to the world to look after these woods for their natural wonders, but we owe it to local people to look after them as a considerable community asset too.
In the next Parliament we will be working closely with Nature Champion MSPs to secure a better future for the rainforest and the people it supports.
George Anderson
PR and Communications Officer at Woodland Trust Scotland
Scotland should follow suit. Like Europe, we should be aiming to reduce our consumption of raw materials to sustainable levels – we have a moral, as well as an environmental, duty to do so. We currently use about 3 times our share of global resources and the quantity and nature of goods we use has a huge environmental impact.
MEPS voted overwhelmingly to back mandatory material reduction targets.
It is not only environmental NGOs who are concerned about the unsustainable nature of resource extraction rates. Security of supply of raw materials is a core interest of business and the rising costs of raw materials is a primary concern of Scottish business leaders.
Our economy is currently mainly linear – take, make, use, dispose. A circular economy offers a new approach, based on the principles of designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems.
Unfortunately, although the idea of a circular economy is innately appealing, we need government policy to make it happen. We also need to know that the policy initiatives are making a difference to the things that matter. It is great to increase our recycling rates, but if we are not then substituting recyclate for secondary raw materials; and using less raw materials overall; we won’t address the climate and nature crises. We can still enjoy new and different goods, but they need to be made and used differently.
Scottish Environment LINK, together with a coalition of other organisations, has been calling on the Scottish government to introduce consumption reduction targets. We need our government to:
Publish data on the quantities and types of materials we are using and wasting;
Set targets to reduce our overall consumption of raw materials;
Produce plans that detail how this will be achieved and how to deal with problematic materials.
We hope the next Scottish government will bring forward a Circular Economy Bill this year and demonstrate its alignment with progress in Europe, with a focus on reducing our overall consumption. Action on raw material use must be central to Scotland’s efforts both to tackle climate change and to reverse global biodiversity loss.
Steps towards a circular economy
Designing out waste and pollution. The way that products are designed is really important – they must be designed such that their life-cycle environmental impact is minimised; so that they can be used for as long as possible; and so that, if there is any ‘waste’, it can be recycled and become a resource – a secondary raw material or a compost to replenish our soil.
Keeping products and materials in use. Products, such as buildings, cars, furniture, clothes or electronic goods, must be designed so that they are easy to repair and reuse, straight forward to disassemble and their component parts and the materials from which they are made are all re-useable or recyclable. Also, products that are typically idle much of the time, such as private cars or tools, are better shared, through clubs or libraries.
Regenerating natural systems. Instead of being extractive and polluting, our economy must be regenerative, and pay particular attention to the condition of our soil. Agriculture and other land uses must be regenerative, returning carbon and other nutrients to the soil.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
Garden Tiger moth
