With the 2020 Paris Fashion Week currently underway, there are few global industries where the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic are more starkly apparent. National lockdowns around the world have highlighted the fragility of linear economy supply chains, and there has been a much-discussed re-evaluation of what counts as vital, necessary or luxury. The industry has been significantly impacted by the logistical challenges and change in consumer habits over the past six months; sales have dropped, there have been significant levels of unsold stock and companies have gone out of business.
The ‘fast fashion’ consumer model of high volume, low quality, low price, and therefore easily dispensable clothing has been economically successful for fashion companies, but has massive environmental and social impacts and is the very definition of unsustainable.
In their 2017 report ‘Pulse of the Fashion Industry’, Global Fashion Agenda and the Boston Consulting Group project that by 2030 global apparel consumption will rise by 63%, from 62 million tonnes today to 102 million tonnes—equivalent to more than 500 billion additional T-shirts.
The report calculates that the environmental impacts from the global fashion industry were 79 billion m3 of water consumption, 1,715 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from energy used in materials extraction and manufacturing, and 92 million tonnes of waste produced. By 2030, they forecast that these figures will rise by 50%, 63% and 62% respectively.
There is growing awareness of the environmental impact of the industry and, as with all sectors, companies are keen to publicise how they are tackling the issue. High-profile take-back schemes and encouraging the donation of unwanted items to charity shops appear to demonstrate admirable aspirations, and make good PR copy, but they are only a finger in the dam when compared to the industry’s driving business model.
What changes are needed?
So what to do? What does ‘building-back-better’ into a more circular textiles industry actually look like?
We don’t like change, we don’t like risk. And the people that run businesses especially don’t like change or risk. So to make the changes required for an industry to transition into one which operates sustainably within its, and all of our, environmental boundaries, the risks involved need to be outweighed by the potential benefits.
As part of Ricardo Energy and Environment’s work in engaging and supporting businesses of all sizes, we explain key business models through which they can benefit from circular economy ideas.
The process of identifying, developing and implementing circular practice for any organisation is the same, it is a logical progression through the following steps:
Step 1 – Ask five fundamental questions:
What is our key product or service?
How do we deliver it?
What raw materials does it require?
What secondary / enabling resources does it require? (energy, water, packaging etc.)
What wastes or by-products does it produce?
Step 2 – Analyse the answers to those questions, considering what opportunities there are to introduce the ideas of the five circular business models.
Step 3 – Once opportunities have been identified, work to understand all of their risks and benefits:
Financial:
What are the costs associated?
What will the delivery model look like?
What are the revenue streams?
Environmental:
How will our resource consumption change?
What will be the long-term impact of our new offering?
Commercial:
How will our customers react?
Is there a market for it?
How do we engage with that market?
How will our reputation be affected?
What regulatory considerations do we need to be aware of?
Social:
How will this change affect the communities we operate in?
What will be the impacts for our suppliers?
Step 4 – Compare those risks and benefits to the impacts of not changing at all.
Step 5 – Gather the results of these investigations into a business case for change, to secure any internal or external support and resources required to make it happen.
When applying this thought process to the textiles industry as a whole, three main necessities for large scale change become evident. Overarchingly, there needs to be a shift towards the use of more sustainable materials, and an accompanying shift towards them being utilised in more circular ways – bringing in cradle-to-cradle ideas of design for longevity, design for repair or remanufacture and resource efficient manufacturing processes.
But perhaps even more fundamental than that, two mutually dependant systemic changes need to be enacted. The core delivery model of the industry needs to shift from ‘fast-fashion’ to one where the concept of access to clothing instead of outright ownership is more prevalent, through product-as-a-service models or facilitated sharing platforms.
For that shift to take root, consumers – all of us – need to be engaged and made aware of the alternative options, and convinced that they represent an accurate reflection of our personal values. Therein lies the classic chicken-and-egg barrier to innovation; businesses will not wholeheartedly change their practices unless the market votes with its collective wallet, but that market can’t vote conclusively without a viable choice of distinct alternatives.
Help, and hope, is at hand
To overcome this barrier there needs to be a combination of two factors; courageous organisations willing to be the standard bearers for the new mode, and support – financial, technical and legislative – from governments and industry bodies to de-risk that courage.
Thankfully these factors do exist. None of this is new information, and it is already on the agenda of the UK and Scottish governments. The Environmental Audit Committee produced a report on sustainability in fashion in 2019. The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ethics and Sustainability in Fashion published a report just last month about the impact of COVID-19 and how the industry should respond. In Scotland the Circular Economy Bill, although now on hold due to COVID-19, includes actions around tackling fast fashion and the compulsory reporting of surplus stock.
Most importantly the industry itself knows it has a massive, if not existential, issue to address. Environmental awareness among the public is at an all-time high and continuing to grow, driving consumption habits and examination of the sustainability credentials of suppliers and retailers.
There are many examples of organisations making large strides towards change, along with Scottish, UK and European Government and NGO initiatives to support and drive the transition to a more sustainable, circular way of doing things.[1]
Here in Scotland, there is significant government funded support available for organisations looking to investigate circular economy options, both technical and strategic assistance through its Circular Economy Business Support Service, and financial support through the Circular Economy Investment Fund.
In helping to deliver a lot of this support over recent years, Ricardo Energy & Environment have worked with many Scottish fashion industry organisations doing great things. These include:
A Lanarkshire based firm specialising in clothing rental services, as well as ensuring zero waste to landfill, employing an innovative low-impact Ozone sanitisation technology, and partnering with high street retail brands to offer repurposing and remanufacturing services for returned garments.
A cashmere manufacturer in Tayside investigating the use of wool mill offcuts for remanufacture into its range of high quality, designed for longevity, products.
A subscription service for baby and toddler clothes in Edinburgh. Offering a full customisable wardrobe package for everything a child needs up to 3 years old, items can be returned when they need to be ‘sized-up’ and a new selection is supplied. Returned items are cleaned, repaired where necessary, and circulated back into the available inventory.
For these businesses, and many more, we helped to analyse and engage the markets for their offerings, refined operational models and supported business planning, including financial and environmental modelling, to improve the understanding of investments needed through the growth stages.
So change is afoot, and it is gaining traction. But these are just the first, tentative, stages of the fashion revolution. For the large-scale systemic transformations required to decisively embed a circular textiles industry, the support and incentives available need to be maintained and even strengthened to allow more and more businesses to get on board and build the critical mass. Also, the education and engagement of the buying public needs to be ramped up to drive home the necessity of a different trend for fashion.
Rob Snaith Biography
Rob Snaith is a senior consultant and experienced project manager within Ricardo Energy & Environment’s Circular Economy team. He has extensive experience in managing projects and delivering impartial, in-depth consultancy and auditing services across a broad range of environmental sustainability topics to a broad range of clients and stakeholders.
Rob manages projects and teams delivering successful outcomes for a diverse range of clients, from national and local government, through NGOs and sector-wide bodies, to community organisations and businesses of all sizes. Rob’s work includes:
Inter and intra-national reviews and assessments of circular economy best practice and innovative technologies and business models to inform policy and regulatory recommendations and decisions.
Supporting individual organisations and collaborative groups to develop and deliver circular business models and initiatives. Rob co-ordinates and delivers all stages of projects, incorporating initial innovation and ideation; market assessment stakeholder engagement; operational, financial and environmental modelling; marketing and communications support; and pilot design, delivery monitoring and assessment.
The design and delivery of effective training, engagement and innovation guidance documents and workshops, covering topics such as resource efficiency and circular economy fundamentals, circular procurement and circular construction.
To discuss how Rob and Ricardo Energy and Environment’s Circular Economy team can help your organisation, or just to share your thoughts on this topic, please get in touch at rob.snaith@ricardo.com.
Many governments are turning their attention to the post-Covid economy and there’s talk of ‘building back better’ and ‘green recovery’. Here, I’d like to share some of my past experiences and hopes for the future – where a system which is inherently greedy for raw materials and wasteful is replaced by one that is green
More than 10 years ago, my wife and I interrupted our careers and opened an eco-store and organic café in Glasgow city centre. We spent six months researching the products we would stock – to ensure we picked environmentally the best. We wouldn’t source beyond Europe due to freight miles, and the more local the better.
There were some great items: the triple certified coffee, roasted 3 miles away; a minimum-energy tumble drier, manufactured in Yorkshire; recycled plastic boards for DIY from Dumfries; and hemp clothing from Romania, with hugely reduced environmental footprint compared to cotton.
We stocked Spanish rugs, made from 100% post textile industry waste, and we also stocked Interface/Heuga carpet tiles made in Holland; and it is these carpet tiles which are my particular favourite (by the way, no endorsement is intended and I have absolutely no interest or connection with this company).
Just think for a moment – you want a fitted carpet in your living room. It might cost, with underlay/grippers/fitting, around £30 per square metre – so, for the room, perhaps £500. You might be concerned, along the way, about the environmental impacts of the materials, the wastage of offcuts during fitting, the roll-ends the supplier is left with and whether your carpet be recycled at the end of its life.
Anyway, you’ve got your new carpet and, next day, you spill a glass of red wine. The stain maybe covers 0.05% of the carpet area, but chances are you have to replace the whole thing. Pity – but also a really bad environmental impact.
Now, with a carpet tile, you can have a spare in the cupboard, or buy a few more, or shift them around so the stained tile is under the sideboard. No waste; no impact. What a brilliant eco-design feature. As the carpet wears in doorways or corridors, you can circulate the tiles to other parts – prolonging its lifetime.
The founder of Interface was the late, and inspirational, Ray Anderson. In 1994 he ‘dared to imagine’ and launched Mission Zero, intending to attain zero environmental impact for the company by 2020. Ten years ago, the carpet tiles we sold were all around 80% recycled content, and one line was zero-carbon. By the start of 2020, many of the Interface factories in Europe and the USA had achieved zero impact.
All company data are independently verified and, world-wide, over the past 25 years they have achieved 89% use of renewable energy, 60% of all input materials being recycled/bio-based, 89% reduction in use of water, 92% reduction in waste to landfill, and 96% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Every carpet tile is now zero-carbon.
All nylon fibre used in manufacture is now 100% recycled and the independent supplier has expanded production beyond Interface’s needs and markets more widely. This is an example of the ‘ripple effect’ where a pioneer company can influence others within the sector to innovate. Interface is also proud of ‘Net-Works’, now adopted fully as part of its commercial business model, in which coastal communities in Philippines and Indonesia gather abandoned fishing nets as supply material for recycling into carpet products.
The concept of industrial circularity has been taken further and, across 95% of the USA and 80% of Europe, Interface offers a carpet tile take-back service – promoting maximum reuse/recycling of materials. The company has now adopted the concept of the forest factory, putting more back into nature than is removed. It will become a restorative business. Yes – it’s all being done by a billion-dollar, global, highly competitive business.
But, unfortunately, they are an outlier. Overall, the UK recycling rate for carpets could be a lot better: currently around 55% goes to landfill, 30% is fed into waste-to-energy plants, and 15% is reused or recycled.
In Scotland, we must also ‘dare to imagine’. This really is the best opportunity to revolutionise our Scottish economy from one founded on a system which is greedy for raw materials, personalised profit and socialised risk; to one founded on green design, green manufacturing and green wellbeing.
Now I don’t want get too theoretical, but there are numerous studies showing that a circular economy doesn’t just eliminate waste. It also contributes hugely to reducing carbon emissions and to future-proofing and improving our way of life – by providing increased resilience through localised production and repair, by employing more local people and community-based enterprises, and by increasing traditional GDP.
You might ask – what should we do in Scotland? Well, here’s just one example; you’ll be able to think of many others. We should use the neglected section 82 in our own Climate Change Act which allows Scottish Ministers to specify the recycled content of items procured or constructed here. What a great opportunity for the enterprise agencies to determine what local recyclate streams could be available, 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 which, once established, could then be marketed elsewhere.
Scotland has signed up to the New Plastics Economy global commitment and yet recycles only about half of its plastic waste. So, maybe, we set an escalator of recycled plastic content of, say, outdoor furniture – which is a market of tens of millions. In our climate it is far more robust in any case, and we have some excellent local manufacturers.
It’s time to turn it around …
James Curran MBE an honorary fellow of Scottish Environment LINK and chair of the James Hutton Institute.
Yesterday [31 August], the Scottish government published the ‘Edinburgh Declaration’. This declaration seeks agreement between subnational, regional and local governments across the world, calling on the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to elevate ambition in order to halt biodiversity loss. It urges that greater prominence be given to the role subnational authorities play in delivering on the new global targets set to be agreed next year.
The text of the declaration calls for collective commitment to raise ambition for nature’s recovery; frames the global pandemic as a reminder of nature’s central importance to human wellbeing; recognises our collective failure to halt biodiversity loss, and the urgent need for transformative action across land and sea to do so; and it recognises the role that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) like Scottish Environment LINK and its member bodies will play in making the changes needed.
The UK government is a national signatory to the CBD, however Scotland supports globally important wildlife species, habitats and ecosystems, across land, freshwater and marine environments, and virtually all policy relating to nature is devolved to the Scottish government.
Scottish Environment LINK’s Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign, launched in 2018, calls on the Scottish government to set legally binding targets for the recovery of nature. Scotland’s iconic wildlife is under threat, with one in nine species at risk of extinction from Scotland.
Craig Macadam, convenor of the LINK Wildlife Group said:
Scottish Environment LINK welcomes the Edinburgh Declaration and we support its central message on the role of sub-national authorities in restoring nature, against the backdrop of collective failure to date. We urge the Scottish government to cooperate constructively beyond and within its borders, and to realise the declaration’s recognition of NGO roles, developing progressive strategic engagement as the next Scottish Biodiversity Strategy develops.
A recent article in the Scottish press implied that planting trees may not tackle climate change. But the research paper on which the article is based is clear: the issue isn’t with tree planting overall, but with planting on carbon-rich soil. The press article failed to highlight that if the right trees are planted in the right place, they are effective against climate change.
What did the study show?
The new research by Friggens et al. is titled Tree planting in organic soils does not result in net carbon sequestration on decadal timescales. It shows that soils already rich in carbon – known as peaty soils in Scotland – released more carbon than the trees could absorb over the 40 year study period.
But it also provides strong evidence for establishing the right tree in the right place, for the right reasons. We’ve long advocated this at the Trust. The study shows that when deciding where to plant, it’s important to first consider the soil’s existing carbon levels. Landowners will already be aware of these levels based on their location, vegetation type and soil characteristics.
Carbon absorption
Trees lock up carbon as they grow, but carbon exchange also occurs in the soil. Carbon is added to the soil through plant litter and released by fungi and organisms known as decomposers. If trees are planted on soils already rich in organic carbon, it tips the balance so the soils release more carbon than the young trees can lock up over the coming decades.
Lead author of the research, Dr Nina Friggens, explains the implications. “Tree planting can increase carbon stocks in certain areas and ecological contexts,” she says. “But it is important to understand where in the landscape this approach is best deployed to achieve the best results for climate change mitigation.”
Planting in the right places
This is new evidence from the UK for a view long-held by conservationists and the Woodland Trust: there are places where it isn’t appropriate to expand woodland cover. Following lessons learnt in forestry, the UK Forestry Standard now prohibits planting trees on peat deeper than 50cm in the UK. In light of their research, the authors recommend that this should be extended to any soils with organic surface layers less than 50cm thick.
The UK has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. That means we can’t afford to plant trees in soils that release more carbon than the tree can absorb in a generation. We need to plant them where they will be most effective.
Policy and professional guidance needs to improve
Tree policy in the UK is heavily focused on the carbon aspect of tree planting and woodland creation. But that focus neglects many of the other benefits trees offer. The value of our native woods for biodiversity is huge. The right trees in the right place also provide flood mitigation, clean air, timber and green spaces to enjoy for our health and wellbeing.
Experts agree that planting trees can only be a first step to creating a woodland ecosystem. To reap maximum rewards, we must focus not only on planting – or allowing trees to grow naturally – but also on the tree species and their future management.
As well as a climate emergency, we’re facing a nature emergency. Trees are one of the solutions to address these simultaneously. They are vital in tackling climate change and reversing biodiversity loss.
We need landscapes rich in native woods, trees and wildlife. Government policy must go further in committing to plant, protect and restore our woods and trees for the decades to come.
Forestry guidance on what is acceptable needs tightening further too. This latest research shows that when deciding where to establish trees, the carbon below ground must be considered for the trees to have a positive effect on carbon emissions. We need better advice on which trees to plant where, and how. The right trees in the right place are crucial for the future of people, climate and nature.
Karen Hornigold, Conservation evidence officer at the Woodland Trust
This article was first published as a Woodland Trust blog on 27 July 2020
There are two elements to this: has the Government identified the most effective approach and action to achieve a green recovery that improves our wellbeing? And can that happen at a pace to meet the urgency of today’s situation?
In terms of an effective approach, the most obvious way to achieve success and to make the most of our physical, social, natural and human capital (as the report calls it) is working in partnership. Hence the very clear acknowledgement in this Government response that partnership working is the only way a green recovery will be achieved is very welcome. This needs to be a consistent thread and it needs to reach beyond the business and banking communities. The Scottish Government make it very clear they are looking to build stronger and closer ties between the public and private sector through board membership, but where are the community voices?
Arguably the GDP focus of the business and banking communities has got us into the unsustainable mess we are already in, and that has led to the climate crisis and the nature emergency, which in turn have led to large scale refugee crises and a global pandemic. Partnership working absolutely must include working with local communities of place and with the charitable sector and communities of interest. The strength of a green, wellbeing recovery strategy will be in building on the world views of those that see new paths for achieving welfare and wellbeing into the future and are able to predict implications of resource use that reaches beyond sustainable limits. By only talking to one side of the equation, this represents not just a massive lost opportunity, but, in my view, an error.
Secondly the levels of investment that the Scottish Government are putting into the green recovery, across multiple facets is welcome. With this matched against private investment and leveraging local ingenuity and charitable sector creativity, we begin to see a scale of investment that should start to make a positive impact. Of course, that investment has to be in the right place and at the right time: the 5 green purpose tests of the Green Investment Bank would be a useful check on whether proposed investments can deliver or not.
And thirdly, embedding climate and environmental sustainability into decision making is evident, welcome and unavoidable. The Infrastructure Investment Plan, for example, with 3 strategic outcomes that mirror the green wellbeing economy outcomes, and include climate action and nature restoration is good, as long as environmental sustainability remains a fundamental basis of economic growth and not an optional add on. Embedding this across Government would form a powerful lever to lead and drive change. When it is matched across the rest of society, business and industry, we start to see a very effective mechanism to move towards the future we all want to see.
So does this all add to the urgency of action we need to see? As ambitions go, this is a good start but needs to take us further if we are to address climate change and nature loss in the next decade, in turn doing much more to tackle the ongoing environment refugee crisis and the spread of disease and collapsing ecosystems. This is why the next Programme for Government, due in September, needs to set out more detailed plans for how progress will be delivered in the short term.
We also need to see all political parties set out their bold ideas for a Green and Fair Recovery in the run up to next year’s elections and for all parties to bring forward constructive proposals that enable Scotland to take effective action using the skills, innovation, creativity and human energy we have across government, business, the charitable sector and communities, to make a swift and effective shift into a sustainable future for all.
If we have learnt anything from the pandemic, it is that wellbeing is not based on fleeting experience and material gain. It is actually instead about immersive experience, close to nature and with family and friends. With that shift in perception ongoing, now is the time for Government to put in place the mechanisms that take us as a society much nearer to wellbeing as we have rediscovered it. And away from the seduction of wealth generated at the expense of local communities, society and nature, what we call, business as usual.
Scottish Environment LINK, a coalition of Scotland’s leading environment charities, has warned the UK government that its plan to create a UK internal market could seriously harm Scotland’s natural environment by dragging down standards.
The plan unveiled by the UK government last month appears to be aimed at both removing regulation and forcing all four nations of the UK to adopt the same standards irrespective of each nation’s environmental context or needs, say members of Scottish Environment LINK. They believe the plan could create a race to the bottom, forcing Scotland to revoke or water down legislation protecting its environment to mirror any lowering of standards in the rest of the UK.
Internationally prized and iconic wildlife including otters, bottlenose dolphins, puffins, bats, Golden eagles and osprey could be at risk along with Scotland’s drinking water, beaches and food standards. At present 80 percent of Scotland’s environmental protections come from EU membership, but the UK will no longer be bound by EU law after 31 December 2020 when the Brexit transition period ends. In response, Scottish Environment LINK launched a campaign, Fight for Scotland’s Nature to help prevent environmental protections for Scotland’s nature from being weakened post-Brexit.
The Scottish government has since committed to ‘maintain or exceed’ current EU environment standards, and published an EU Continuity Bill in June setting out how it plans to replace EU protections.
Scottish Environment LINK is urging the Scottish Parliament to strengthen the Continuity Bill to give greater powers and independence to Scotland’s new environment watchdog, and to enshrine in law the commitment to maintain or exceed standards, requiring Scottish Ministers to keep pace with developments in EU environmental law.
But the charities fear that the UK government’s internal market proposals could instead force Scotland to follow the lowest common denominator, especially where countries negotiating bilateral trade deals with the UK demand lower standards, seriously undermining efforts to combat climate change and biodiversity decline.
Charles Dundas, chair of Scottish Environment LINK, said today:
Scotland’s world-renowned natural environment is central to all our lives, and we must not allow arrangements for a UK internal market to put it in jeopardy by dragging standards down. At the same time, the Scottish government’s commitment to maintain or exceed present EU standards should be enshrined in law and is something we have been pushing for.
High standards of environmental protection are essential if we are to achieve a green recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and tackle the joint crises of alarming nature loss and climate breakdown, the greatest challenges of our time.”
Notes to Editors
Scottish Environment LINK is the forum for Scotland’s voluntary environment community, with 39 member bodies representing a broad spectrum of environmental interests with the common goal of contributing to a more environmentally sustainable society.
The economic fall-out from the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in large-scale job losses. Youth unemployment is forecast to reach the 1 million mark over the coming year unless the government provides an ambitious recovery plan. The “corona class of 2020”, 800,000 school leavers and graduates due to join the labour market, are the most exposed age group to the likely unemployment surge caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Scotland’s economic recovery plan post COVID must guarantee jobs for young people. Bold government action can mitigate both mass unemployment and the imminent climate and nature crises.
Without support and investment, nature cannot continue to provide the well being and livelihoods we depend on. Our health and well being should be based on a healthy and resilient environment. As well as ensuring the climate and biodiversity emergencies are part of our recovery, economic recovery and nature’s recovery should go hand in hand. Green jobs are the basic components of a green economy. Green jobs are central to sustainable development and can respond to challenges such as environmental protection, economic development and social inclusion. Up to 60 million new jobs worldwide in the green economy could potentially be created by 2030. A green recovery from COVID-19 could see increased education and skills provision for young people which could link to the new green jobs needed to promote the sectors of the economy likely to deliver on social, economic and climate justice. In 2018, a survey conducted by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of 1,000 young people aged 18-24 revealed climate concerns and new opportunities are driving young people towards careers in the green economy. Youth unemployment, climate change and the nature crisis may appear as different issues, yet they have a common mutual solution. These challenges are intrinsically linked and should be tackled together. A green economy provides a crucial lifeline for young people facing unemployment after coronavirus.
As more young people identify climate change as the defining issue of their generation, more are seeking careers that will have a positive environmental impact. A 2020 survey carried out by the Royal Society of Chemistry asked 1,008 UK students between the ages of 15 and 18 for their views on environmental issues and careers in STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths). The survey found that around one-quarter are keen to pursue a career in the green economy such as renewable energy or with an environmental NGO which is working directly to combat climate change and the nature crisis. More young people are seeking careers that will have a positive environmental impact and can adapt most easily to the new ‘green requirements’ that are needed in the labour market. However, the transition from education to employment is becoming a complicated process due to the instability of employment.
Tomorrow’s workforce is actively calling for major changes. Climate change protests erupted in 2019 with millions around the world standing up to demand climate justice. The protests were attended predominately by young people. Young people are increasingly concerned about the future of the planet and their vested interest in environmental issues can act as a key driver for greening economies. Teach the Future Scotland campaign is a student-led campaign to repurpose the Scottish education system around the climate emergency, climate justice and ecological crisis. The students behind the campaign believe that young people need to be taught about this emergency and be equipped with the skills to live and lead sustainably. The campaign advocates for the reinventing and reforming of education around the climate emergency and ecological crisis. The campaign asks for this to be a well-funded strategic priority for the Scottish Government from 2021. Young people must be educated and aware of the rapidly changing world they are entering. We must develop in a way that is working with nature and linking in natural capital to address the climate emergency alongside the biodiversity crisis.
Many of the global challenges to development are especially salient for young people. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) established that young people are a driving force for development, however only if they are provided with the skills and opportunities needed to reach their potential and support development. By equipping young people with skills, knowledge and confidence in their abilities, there is a real chance that governments can harness the potential of young people to reach the SDGs over the next 14 years.
If properly managed, green growth can provide an opportunity to address the youth employment challenge while simultaneously preserving biodiversity and increasing climate resilience. Governments have the opportunity to harness young people’s sense of agency by engaging them in formulation, co-creation and/or implementation of policy responses and recovery plans.
Juliet Caldwell
Species Champion Coordinator at Scottish Environment LINK
A blog by Esther Brooker, LINK Marine Policy and Engagement Officer, and Calum Duncan, Head of Conservation Scotland for the Marine Conservation Society.
Our ocean remains in desperate need of recovery. International expert reports[1][2][3] released in 2019 underlined the stark consequences for biodiversity and ecological systems due to climate change and human overexploitation of living resources on land and sea. Since then, the global Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has brought our world close to standstill, with the tragic loss of countless lives and economic challenges that many countries will be dealing with for years to come.
One major realisation has to emerge from this crisis: understanding and appreciation of the fundamental role nature plays in underpinning society.
Environmental Standards Scotland: a Scottish Environment LINK perspective
Since the EU referendum, Scottish Environment LINK has been calling for a new environmental ‘watchdog’ to be established in Scotland to replace the oversight and enforcement functions previously carried out by the EU institutions. The Scottish Government’s new ‘Continuity Bill’, introduced to Parliament last month, proposes just such a body – to be called Environmental Standards Scotland. This is a very welcome step forward.
But how fully does the proposed watchdog replace those EU functions? Will it have the independence, powers and resources required to hold government to account on environmental matters? In this ‘long read’, Lloyd Austin examines these questions and suggests how the bill might be improved by Parliament to ensure Environmental Standards Scotland is an effective watchdog.
Nature has become increasingly important to many people during the covid-19 pandemic. But long before the virus struck, we were facing two linked existential crises – climate change and biodiversity loss. These human-induced emergencies, both requiring urgent action, would be difficult to address even without the constitutional turmoil of Brexit. With 80% of Scotland’s environment law derived from EU law, the UK’s departure from the EU makes these crises even more challenging.
Scottish Environment LINK and its members have engaged with the environmental implications of Brexit since it was announced, seeking to influence the debate in Scotland and engaging in discussions at both UK and EU levels along with partners in Greener UK and the European Environmental Bureau.
Governance gap
A major concern identified by environmental NGOs, and acknowledged by governments across the UK, is the environmental ‘governance gap’ resulting from the UK’s departure from the EU. Regardless of other arguments for or against Brexit, the role of the EU treaties and institutions in protecting the environment is widely recognised.
Court of Justice of the EU. The institutions of the European Union have played a positive role in protecting the environment. Image by Marc Schneider from Pixabay
Our Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign has been a public expression of this work, calling for legislation to:
Embed key EU environmental principles in Scots law;
Create an independent and well–resourced watchdog to enforce environmental protections; and
Set clear targets for environmental protection alongside adequate financial resources.
The Continuity Bill
Last month, LINK therefore warmly welcomed the introduction of the ‘UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill’ to Parliament. This bill, which will be considered in detail by MSPs over the late summer and autumn, purports to address the first two of the above issues. On its publication, Michael Russell MSP, the Scottish Government’s ‘Brexit’ Secretary, said:
The Bill’s proposals on environmental principles and governance will also help us to maintain high standards, in line with the EU, in Scotland. … It proposes the creation of a new governance body – Environmental Standards Scotland – which will be able to investigate whether public authorities are failing to comply with environmental law, to take steps to ensure public authorities remedy any failure to comply with environmental law, as well as to investigate the effectiveness and delivery of environmental law by public authorities.
The bill is, therefore, a very welcome and big step forward. It parallels the proposed Environment Bill, currently proceeding through the UK Parliament, which will cover England and (subject to agreement by the devolved Executive) Northern Ireland. Similar measures are under consideration in Wales, although no detailed legislation has yet emerged.
The bill includes three main proposals: a so-called ‘keeping pace’ power, the incorporation of the EU environmental principles into Scots law and the creation of a new governance body, to be called ‘Environmental Standards Scotland’ (ESS). A previous blog provided an overview of the bill, and some immediate thoughts on the proposals for ESS. This more in-depth analysis tests the provisions against the need for new governance, as identified by LINK, including in research commissioned from Professor Campbell Gemmell. Future blogs will look at issues such as the ‘keeping pace’ powers.
When the Scottish Government announced its plan to set up a new watchdog, LINK’s Chair, Charles Dundas, welcomed the proposal but added, summarising the nature of an effective watchdog:
We need a watchdog with teeth: real independence, the power to enforce protections, and the people, expertise and funds to do the job.
These three themes of independence, powers and resources will be used to examine the detail of the proposals in the bill.
Independent, unless it isn’t
In order to ‘replace’ the oversight functions of the European Commission and Court, LINK has consistently argued that any new watchdog(s) must be “truly independent of government” and that, for Scotland, this means ‘it will have to be appointed by and accountable to the Scottish Parliament.’ This view was supported by Professor Gemmell’s research which, based on international examples of environmental governance arrangements, proposed an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Our colleagues at Greener UK have sought similar independence for the UK Government’s proposed watchdog, which will deal with England, probably Northern Ireland, and any reserved matters.
The Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign has been pushing for an independent, well-resourced watchdog.
However, despite these proposals, neither the UK Government’s proposed “Office for Environmental Protection” (OEP) or the Scottish Government’s proposed ESS are truly independent. When the UK Government’s proposals for the OEP were first published, the Scottish Government was understood to be sceptical at the time– suggesting that a ‘non-departmental public body’ (NDPB) model provided insufficient independence. Yet, this is exactly what is now proposed for the ESS. Both governments have sought to include some reassurances about the independence of what are, otherwise, standard NDPBs – with members appointed by the relevant Ministers and with their budgets decided by those Ministers.
In Scotland, one supposed reassurance of independence provided in the legislation is that ‘Environmental Standards Scotland is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government.’ Yet, this provision is accompanied by an exception that it ‘is subject to any contrary provision in this or any other enactment.’ In other words, it is independent unless it isn’t! This exception should either be deleted or circumstances for its use clearly defined.
Rubber stamping?
The other alleged reassurance is that appointments to the board of ESS must be approved by the Scottish Parliament. This is welcome, but is at risk of being, or becoming, a ‘rubber stamping’ exercise. The bill itself should proscribe greater Parliamentary involvement in the selection process. This might, for instance, include provision for the relevant committee to specify role profiles for board members, or areas of expertise that must be represented. A committee might also nominate ‘rapporteurs’ to be involved in the recruitment/selection process.
LINK is calling for greater parliamentary involvement in the selection process for the ESS board. Image by Waldo Miguez from Pixabay
Future budgets for ESS will significantly define its future effectiveness. Yet, this is purely a matter for Ministers, as part of the normal, annual budget process for the Scottish Government and its agencies. This should be improved to ensure multi-annual, ring-fenced funding that cannot be ‘threatened’ by Ministers. In relation to the OEP, funding was recognised as crucial part of its independence, and UK Ministers have now made additional commitments, such as in their response to pre-legislative scrutiny of Environment Bill. Similar commitments are needed in Scotland.
The UK Environment Bill also requires the OEP to include, in its annual reports, an assessment of whether it has been provided ‘sufficient funds to carry out its purposes’. This allows more transparent scrutiny of ministerial decisions on funding, and such a provision should be added to the Scottish bill.
To address these issues and ensure that ESS is genuinely as independent as possible, the bill should be amended, or Ministers asked, to:
Delete the proposed exception to the prohibition on control or direction (Schedule 2, para 1(2)).
Enhance parliamentary oversight of appointments.
Consider multi-annual, ring-fenced funding arrangements with parliamentary scrutiny separate from the annual budget for the government.
Add a requirement for ESS to report on the adequacy of its funding.
International obligations
The general functions of the ESS are wide-ranging and, in principle, very welcome. Its high-level functions are:
to monitor compliance with environmental law,
to investigate if a public authority is failing (or has failed) to comply with environmental law, and
to take the steps to secure compliance with environmental law.
To carry out these broad functions the body then has a range of general and specific powers. The general powers are very wide-ranging and include matters such as ‘carry out or commission research’, ‘seek advice’, ‘review data’ and ‘make recommendations’. It is particularly welcome that they also include:
keep under review the implementation of international obligations related to the environment,
have regard to developments in international environmental law, and
collaborate with other environmental governance body in the UK, including the OEP.
These general powers are all welcome and will, if adequately resourced, make a significant contribution to replacing some roles of the EU institutions. However, if the Scottish Government is serious about ‘keeping pace’ with, and maintaining or exceeding EU standards, the power on developments in international law should specifically require regular reports on, and recommendations in relation to, how this might be achieved. In addition, reviewing ‘international obligations’ will also need to include work and advice on targets (e.g. the Aichi targets and their successors) as well as advice and recommendations to Scottish Ministers on how such targets should be set in Scotland.
These general powers are also accompanied by a variety of specific powers in relation to its investigation and enforcement functions, such as on information collection, improvement, compliance, and the ability to seek Judicial Review. These are also welcome – but, as the bill is currently drafted, they are unnecessarily restricted and will limit their effectiveness.
No individual decisions
First, ESS cannot use its powers related to ‘improvement’ and ‘compliance’ in relation to ‘any decision taken by a public authority in the exercise of its regulatory functions in relation to a particular person or case’. This is an extraordinary limitation of its role, with individual decisions, including casework, excluded from its remit. The Scottish Government attempts to justify this exclusion with a suggestion that that the ESS should focus on strategic issues, and not be overwhelmed by trivial matters. This argument neglects to take account of two factors. First, under current EU arrangements, by failures with individual decisions – and ESS’ internal operating processes could determine that a case, or cases, that raise issues of strategic importance are prioritised or accorded enhanced action. Secondly, these internal processes could also include a system to ensure that genuinely vexatious or trivial cases are not entertained.
It has also been suggested that this provision is because of a wish to ensure that the ESS does not, in effect, become an additional layer of appeal. However, this argument is disingenuous – as there is no doubt that the functions of the European Commission (EC) and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) are (or were), in effect, an additional layer of appeal! If this argument is deployed, it undermines the Scottish Government’s claim to be replacing the functions of the EC/CJEU.
Indeed, casework – arising from complaints submitted by citizens, communities, and NGOs, made up most of the European Commission’s work (although the Commission was selective in choosing cases of strategic importance to pursue through all the stages, or to refer to the CJEU). To anyone from Scotland submitting such complaints, this extra European ‘layer of appeal’ is (or was) of great importance – because opportunities to appeal domestically are limited by poor provisions in relation to access to justice (e.g. Judicial Review in the UK is either prohibitively expensive or inappropriate because of its inability to address the ‘merits’ of the case).
The new watchdog proposed in the Continuity Bill will not be able to investigate complaints about specific, local breaches of environmental standards.
Finally, it should be noted that the proposed OEP will not be so constrained – and, indeed, has a specific ‘complaints’ provision (s.29 of Environment Bill). In Scotland, the ESS’ strategy has to address how it will ‘provide for persons (including members of the public, non-government organisations and other bodies) to make representations to it’ about issues of (alleged) failures to comply with environmental law. However, this seems less clear and specific than the proposed OEP complaints procedure – and there is no duty to investigate such representations (just to indicate how they will be ‘handled’).
Defining environmental law
The second serious limitation on the powers of ESS arises from the definition of ‘environmental law’, which is the legal term used to define all its enforcement powers (although not its research, monitoring and reporting functions). The definition in the Scottish bill is identical to that used in the UK bill and raises the same concerns – the ESS’ general powers in relation to international law are considerably better (see above) but the definition issue is the same.
The Scottish Government has a very welcome policy ‘to maintain or exceed EU standards’ and retain alignment with European and wider international environment law – a commitment the UK Government is unwilling to make (due to its underlying desire to ‘take back control’). Nevertheless, it is unclear whether ‘environmental law’, in this bill, includes such EU/international law that is not (or will not be) binding in domestic law. If not, ESS will be unable to use its specific enforcement powers to take improvement action against the Scottish Government if it fails to live up to its own aspirations. This issue should be clarified, or the bill amended to ensure that it is explicitly within the powers of ESS.
People, expertise, and funds
Any effective watchdog needs the resources to do its job. These include people, expertise, and funds. The bill itself makes no provision, positive or negative, in relation to resources; these will be a matter for the Scottish Government’s annual budget process as well as the decisions of the new body itself. However, the financial memorandum suggests the new body would require ‘funding of around £1.5 million a year, based on the budgets of similar bodies, such as the Office of the Informational (sic) Commissioner and the Scottish Fiscal Commission’. It further suggests that ‘a staff complement of around 20 is envisioned for the new body’.
This may or may not be sufficient funding to enable ESS to do its work – whether or not it is will depend on the number of complaints it receives and/or the number of issues of (alleged) non-compliance it investigates as well as how many of these prove to require enforcement action. At this stage, LINK will press Ministers to provide reassurance that, as these factors become known, resources are made available as required. This process will made more open and transparent if ESS is (as with the OEP) required to report on such matters and the sufficiency of its funding.
Interim arrangements
The UK is expected to leave the EU completely on 31 December 2020, at the end of the current transition period. Ideally, therefore, it would be best if the replacement governance mechanisms were in place and operational from 1 January 2021. While this bill may have been passed by that date, it is unlikely that implementation will be complete – including the establishment and operation of ESS.
There is, therefore, a need for some form of interim arrangements and it is welcome that the bill makes some provision for this. The bill refers to a ‘non-statutory Environmental Standards body’ and permits the members of such a body to become the initial members of ESS. It can thus be assumed that Scottish Ministers will establish this non-statutory body and enable it to begin appointing staff, developing strategy and procedures etc; indeed, recruitment for a chair and board members is now underway.
Such an interim, transitional arrangement is welcome – to limit any ‘governance gap’. However, it is also important (especially as the interim board will become the first formal board) that appointments are carried out adopting as much transparency and parliamentary engagement (see above) as possible. Ministers should also confirm that the interim body will be able to accept and investigate complaints from the public – and that, although formal enforcement action may not be possible until the body is legally vested, that such action will still be valid for issues arising during the interim period.
Delivering a genuine replacement
The Scottish Government is committed ‘to maintain or exceed EU environmental standards.’ Such standards should include the establishment and operation of appropriate governance mechanisms. It is therefore welcome that a new governance body, Environmental Standards Scotland, is being proposed. Cabinet Secretary, Michael Russell MSP, has said that this is being ‘established to replace the system of environmental governance provided by the institutions of the European Union which will be lost at the end of the transition’. It is notable that Mr Russell uses the word ‘replace’, suggesting that ESS should be able to carry out the full range of governance functions of the EU institutions – and to be able to do so as independently as those can at present. To fulfil this pledge and deliver a genuine replacement, the bill should be improved to address issues of independence and breadth of powers. Ministers should also provide reassurance regarding the adequacy of funding – and require ESS to report on its sufficiency.
Lloyd Austin is an honorary fellow of Scottish Environment LINK, and convenes its governance group.
This blog is published as part of the Scottish Environment LINK project: A Circular Economy for a Fairer Footprint.
It is clear that Scotland is at a crossroads, facing a challenge to respond to two defining emergencies. First, how do we recover from the economic and social consequences of the Covid-19 emergency? Second, how do we continue to focus on the environmental imperatives presented by our ongoing response to the climate emergency? The meeting point of these two agendas defines what I would mean by a green recovery.
What does a green recovery look like? In fact, what do we mean by “recovery”? An economist might see recovery as getting GDP and jobs back to where we were before Covid-19 hit. But a doctor would see recovery as getting a patient back to a place of health and wellbeing. This begs the question, how healthy was our economy, society and environment before the Covid-19 pandemic? Scotland’s recovery needs to balance the urgent economic, social and environmental priorities we face. Promoting reuse is central to a green recovery in Scotland and defining a new “post Covid” normal.
It is estimated, by Zero Waste Scotland, that 74% of Scotland’s carbon footprint results from our consumption of products and materials. Reducing this footprint is therefore the most important element of tackling the climate emergency. To do this we must move rapidly to a circular economy.
Most members of the public would say the best thing they can do with old household items is recycle them. This is not true – recycling is good, but reuse better, much better. Reuse is simply taking an item such as a bike or washing machine and using it again for its original purpose. This has a much lower carbon impact than breaking it down into its separate materials and recycling them, whilst at the same time manufacturing a replacement product.
There are social as well as environmental benefits to reuse too. For example, reuse creates more jobs than recycling. It has been calculated that processing 10,000 tonnes of waste creates 36 jobs in recycling but up to 296 jobs in reuse and repair.
Community Resources Network Scotland (CRNS) is Scotland’s national reuse, repair and recycling charity. Our latest member survey published in 2019 showed that our members divert over 37,000 tonnes of materials from landfill each year and significantly, for the first-time, reuse had overtaken recycling among our members. Our members are providing local solutions to the global climate emergency.
Each year Recyke-a-Bike diverts 12-15,000 bikes from landfill and last year 16.74 tonnes were reused. In Stranraer, the Reuse Shop is co-located with the council run Household Waste Recycling Centre so literal diversion from landfill could not be more convenient for the public. At CRNS our own Reuse Consortium has sold over 11,000 reuse furniture items to four local authorities generating over £1million of income for local social enterprises.
Our ambition is for reuse behaviour to become mainstream and be the convenient first choice for the Scottish public whether they are donating to a reuse social enterprise or taking items to their local authority recycling centre. Good quality reuse services at local authority recycling centres should not be a postcode lottery. There are some excellent examples of co-location (Stranraer, Moray and Oban), or zero waste sheds (Dunbar and Irvine) but these are the exception to the rule right now and this must change.
Our vision is for every local authority recycling centre in Scotland to offer a convenient and high-quality reuse option for the public. To achieve this, local authorities should be supported to work in partnership with local reuse social enterprises, ensuring local reuse opportunities are maximised for all.
As part of the green recovery, we are calling on the Scottish Government to define reuse best practice in a Reuse Charter or include reuse as a vital part of the existing Scottish Household Recycling Charter. Household Recycling Centres should be renamed Reuse Centres and include best practice provision for reuse as a convenient first choice for the public. Targets for reuse should be set for each local authority and monitored and reported annually (as already occurs for recycling). UK wide legislation for Extended Producer Responsibility could provide much needed funds to invest in this urgently needed reuse infrastructure.
Only by taking these actions can we be confident Scotland will make the rapid progress towards a circular economy needed to meet our climate change obligations. Reuse would also provide valuable jobs which would assist the wider recovery agenda.
Michael Cook
CEO Community Resources Network Scotland.
Michael Cook joined CRNS as CEO in September 2018. His early career was in the financial sector as a chartered accountant and in Change Management. Over the last decade Michael has benefited from a range of experience in the charitable sector, leading both the Scottish office of a medical charity working in West Africa and, subsequently, a large residential outdoor centre.
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.
