The challenges that we face as a planet are significant right now: natural challenges of climate change and biodiversity, and human made challenges of democracy, including Brexit and the aftermath of the American presidential election. If there is ever a time for sophisticated and methodical thinking, that time is now. With the complexity of natural systems, feedback loops and tipping points, the potential opportunities of a systems approach to these challenges become clear.
A systems thinking approach is not a new concept: it’s not even a human concept. Ecosystems operate in a systems approach. Systems thinking has become a vital tool for business and brings a more robust approach to decision making and action delivery.
However, a systems thinking approach is not yet being used effectively in national policy making. A systems approach to land management for example, would see stakeholder engagement being used to produce a national strategic plan, implemented by key stakeholders according to agreed and specific principles, supported by government and relevant legislation to deliver an overall clear and measurable objective with feedback loops and regular analysis to correct direction if needed. This should be how Scotland’s Land Use Strategy works: its issue is that it lacks specific principles and spatial tools that are consistently applied to land use decisions. The net result is that planning and development decisions are not being made strategically, and this is making the fragmentation of habitats, cost of national infrastructures and efficiency of spend even worse.
If we were to use systems thinking to address Scotland’s planning and land use dilemmas, it may look something like this:
What are our priorities to achieve from Scotland’s land?
Increased renewable energy
Healthy food accessible by all communities
Efficient infrastructures including IT, transport and energy transmission
Intelligently planned communities with full access to a healthy environment and the services they require, including schools, doctors, access to shops
What is the context of that?
A country of just over 80,000 km2 of land
A climate emergency that requires us to increase carbon sequestration and decrease the amount of energy we use
A biodiversity emergency that is losing species through pressures of land use practices and climate change
A country that is home to nearly 5 million people who all require a safe and healthy environment, access to healthy food, a living income and access to key services
A country with the potential to be world leading in terms of environment, civic society and planetary responsibility.
How do we reconcile these needs?
Mapping: what resource do we have, where is it, where are the suppliers and where are the consumers?
Identifying and managing needs: how much of each do we need to function? How can we manage that level of need? How do we meet that need given the constraints identified in 1?
Who meets these needs? Who has these needs?
How do we make decisions?
Agreeing that these priorities must come first: every decision needs to be cross checked against each priority and scored: a negative impact on one of the priorities is marked down and a positive impact is marked up. For any decision to be carried, a significant contribution to at least one priority must be made and no negative impacts can be made. Conflicts will inevitably arise in this system: which is why communities need to be engaged – and independent experts need to be engaged. Both groups of stakeholders would be required to offer evidence of the impact of each decision and offer mitigation solutions.
Could we adopt system approach in Scottish policy making?
In theory we could. It requires the maturity of approach to involve a diversity of stakeholders: from local to national levels. We can only achieve this if stakeholders can engage and want to engage. They need access to decision making processes and accessible processes in terms of language and finances. Above all, however, this approach requires buy in and support from government and politicians. That level of support is not clear: is Scotland’s policy making process mature enough to be able to put this in place and achieve our priorities? The languishing status of the Land Use Strategy suggests not.
If our natural environment is being harmed, and our government fails in its duty to protect it, who can we turn to?
In 2012, conservation group WWF complained to the European Commission that the UK government hadn’t set up any protected areas for the harbour porpoise.
With its chunky body, triangular fin and slow rolling motion, the harbour porpoise is found throughout Scotland’s coastal waters. But chemical and noise pollution both pose significant threats to our smallest cetacean. In British seas as a whole, more than 1,500 porpoises are estimated to die each year through entanglement in fishing gear.The harbour porpoise is protected under the EU Habitats Directive, which means the UK is legally obliged to set aside areas of sea where it will be allowed to thrive. Following the WWF complaint, the UK and Scottish governments have together proposed six new special areas for the porpoise, including one in Scotland, in the Inner Hebrides and Minches.
Environmental protections are only as strong as the institutions that uphold them. On leaving the EU, Scotland and the rest of the UK will lose the oversight and enforcement roles of the European Commission, European Court of Justice and other EU bodies.
These institutions have played an invaluable role in giving the public a voice and holding governments to account on environmental matters. As well as monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment and investigating potential breaches of environmental laws, together they can ensure enforcement and apply sanctions on governments that don’t comply. Their power stems from the fact that they are independent of national governments.
The Scottish Government has acknowledged that losing the oversight of these EU bodies will create a large hole in the defences with which we can protect Scotland’s environment. But so far it has said little about how that hole might be filled.
A campaign led by a coalition of environmental charities is calling for a Scottish Environment Act to ensure that any exit from the EU does not unravel these protections.
One of the key things we want an Act to do is establish a new watchdog to monitor Scotland’s natural environment and hold government to account in looking after it. Crucially, a watchdog must have what no existing body in Scotland has: the power, resources and independence to effectively police the government on environmental matters.
The Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign also wants an Environment Act to embed EU environmental principles in Scots law, and to set clear, legally-binding targets for the protection and recovery of Scotland’s nature, as well as making funds available to ensure targets can be met.
A Scottish Environment Act would help underpin the transformative action required to tackle the joint emergencies of biodiversity loss and climate breakdown.
Scotland’s people, as well as wildlife like the harbour porpoise, need strong, effective environmental protections. The quality of the air we breathe is one of the most obvious examples of a standard we need governments to uphold. But levels of nitrogen dioxide, mostly from diesel vehicles, have been illegally high in many UK cities and towns for almost a decade. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee all have streets that break legal limits. It’s estimated that air pollution causes 2,500 early deaths in Scotland every year.
Last year, following action by environmental lawyers Client Earth, Friends of the Earth Scotland and other organisations, the UK government was referred to the European Court of Justice for repeatedly failing to tackle air pollution. It could face substantial fines if it fails to comply.
At present, our air quality laws come from the EU. But after Brexit, in line with devolution, setting and implementing air quality laws would be the responsibility of the Scottish Government – making an environmental watchdog that is specific to Scotland all the more necessary.
Air quality is not alone. Most of our domestic environmental protections stem from EU laws, meaning that there is broad scope for citizens and charities to submit complaints to the European Commission where they see a failure to meet environmental standards. Unlike a UK court case, this complaints process is affordable. Another major advantage is that it allows cases to be judged on merit, whereas an appeal in UK courts can only look at procedural errors.
The EU has played an overwhelmingly positive role in safeguarding Scotland’s natural environment. But whatever our future relationship with the EU, Scotland can retain and build upon current protections through a Scottish Environment Act that sets us on a clear path to a sustainable future. An independent watchdog that holds government to account and gives citizens recourse to justice must be a central component.
Miriam Ross is coordinator of the Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign at Scottish Environment LINK.
If our natural environment is being harmed, and our government fails in its duty to protect it, who can we turn to?
In 2012, conservation group WWF complained to the European Commission that the UK government hadn’t set up any protected areas for the harbour porpoise. With its chunky body, triangular fin and slow rolling motion through the water, the harbour porpoise is found throughout Scotland’s coastal waters. But chemical and noise pollution both pose significant threats to our smallest cetacean. And in British seas as a whole, more than 1,500 porpoises are estimated to die each year through entanglement in fishing gear.
The harbour porpoise is protected under the EU Habitats Directive, which means the UK is legally obliged to set aside areas of sea where it will be allowed to thrive. Following the WWF complaint, the UK and Scottish governments have together proposed six new special areas for the porpoise, including one in Scotland, in the Inner Hebrides and Minches.
Environmental protections are only as strong as the institutions that uphold them. On leaving the EU, Scotland and the rest of the UK will lose the oversight and enforcement roles of the European Commission, European Court of Justice and other EU bodies. These institutions have played an invaluable role in giving the public a voice and holding governments to account on environmental matters. As well as monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment and investigating potential breaches of environmental laws, together they can ensure enforcement and apply sanctions on governments that don’t comply. Their power stems from the fact that they are independent of national governments.
The Scottish Government has acknowledged that losing the oversight of these EU bodies will create a large hole in the defences with which we can protect Scotland’s environment. But so far it has said little about how that hole might be filled.
A growing campaign led by a coalition of environmental charities is calling for a Scottish Environment Act to ensure that any exit from the EU does not unravel the protections we rely on. One of the key things we want an Act to do is establish a new watchdog to monitor Scotland’s natural environment and hold government to account in looking after it. Crucially, a watchdog must have what no existing body in Scotland has: the power, resources and independence to effectively police the government on environmental matters.
The Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign also wants an Environment Act to embed internationally renowned EU environmental principles in Scots law, and to set clear, legally binding targets for the protection and recovery of Scotland’s nature – as well as making the funds available to ensure targets can be met. A Scottish Environment Act would help underpin the transformative action required to tackle the joint emergencies of biodiversity loss and climate breakdown.
Scotland’s people, as well as wildlife like the harbour porpoise, need strong, effective environmental protections. The quality of the air we breathe is one of the most obvious examples of a standard we need governments to uphold. But levels of nitrogen dioxide, mostly from diesel vehicles, have been illegally high in many UK cities and towns for almost a decade. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee all have streets that break legal limits. It’s estimated that air pollution causes 2,500 early deaths in the Scotland every year.
Last year, following action by environmental lawyers Client Earth, Friends of the Earth Scotland and other organisations, the UK government was referred to the European Court of Justice for repeatedly failing to tackle air pollution. It could face substantial fines if it fails to comply.
At present, our air quality laws come from the EU. But after Brexit, in line with devolution, setting and implementing air quality laws would be the responsibility of the Scottish Government – making an environmental watchdog that is specific to Scotland all the more necessary.
Air quality is not alone. Most of our domestic environmental protections stem from EU laws, meaning that currently there is broad scope for citizens and charities to submit complaints to the European Commission where they see a failure to meet environmental standards. And unlike a UK court case, this complaints process is affordable. Another major advantage is that it allows cases to be judged on merit, whereas an appeal in UK courts can only look at procedural errors.
The EU has played an overwhelmingly positive role in safeguarding Scotland’s natural environment. But whatever our future relationship with the EU, Scotland can retain and build upon current protections through a Scottish Environment Act that sets us on a clear path to a sustainable future. An independent watchdog that holds government to account and gives citizens recourse to justice must be a central component of such an Act.
by Miriam Ross, Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign co-ordinator at Scottish Environment LINK.
This blog was published as a Scotsman article on 24 July 2019.
In June, the Scottish Government once again failed to take the opportunity to stop the unregulated construction of hilltracks, which is damaging some of Scotland’s most well-loved upland landscapes, when Ministers refused to support amendments to the Planning (Scotland) Bill which were put forward by Andy Wightman MSP of the Scottish Green Party.
There was immediate condemnation of the decision on social media, with outdoors writer and broadcaster Cameron McNeish branding it “absolutely bloody shameful”. Muriel Gray agreed the decision was “baffling”, with Chris Townsend commenting it was “disgraceful”. Snow specialist Iain Cameron asked, “Can someone explain to me why bringing hill tracks under proper planning regulations has been voted down in the Scottish Parliament? Can anyone give even one good reason why monstrosities like these are allowed to be constructed without any oversight or scrutiny? I’m speechless.” Climber Dave MacLeod commented it was “shortsighted and disappointing.”
So what is the issue with hilltracks? Partly it’s because tracks are often one cause of the environmental and landscape damage found on intensively managed grouse moors, though many tracks are also built for deer stalking purposes. The other issue, however, is that they symbolise the abuse of privilege by many landowners. While ordinary people need to apply for planning permission to build modest extensions to their houses, tracks are being bulldozed up mountainsides causing permanent scars and yet have no requirement for planning permission. A full planning application would enable local communities and representative bodies to make comments or even object, and for the public interest to be properly represented.
The underlying issue is that tracks built for agricultural or forestry purposes benefit from permitted development rights (PDRs), a situation dating from the post-war period when the priority of the government at that time was to boost productivity after years of privation. Over the next decades, many landowners took advantage of this planning loophole to construct tracks, even though it’s clear that often their main purpose was not agricultural, but instead to enable shooting and stalking clients to get up a hill more easily. Given that tracks are used for many purposes, including recreation, landowners were able to claim agricultural use for the tracks as it was impossible for the planning authority to prove otherwise, even when the track led to a row of grouse butts. Without the public scrutiny that the planning system brings, too many tracks were poorly constructed leading to landscape scars and environmental damage, often in areas much valued for their beauty and as a setting for outdoor recreation.
Concerns were first raised in the 1960s when Lord Dulverton bulldozed a track from Glen Feshie right to the top of the Cairngorm plateau. The late Adam Watson documented the proliferation of tracks in the Cairngorms over the following years, and many outdoor and environmental bodies have attempted to get PDRs removed from tracks.
In 2012, a government review of PDRs stated that there was “compelling evidence” of the problem and therefore proposed to change the law. However, the then Planning Minister, Derek Mackay MSP, then announced that he had changed his mind. This turnaround led to the forming of the Scottish Environment LINK hilltracks campaign in 2013 which started to build evidence of the problem, with its Track Changes report illustrated by case studies based on photos submitted by hillgoers. Problem tracks were identified from the Borders to Sutherland, including particularly horrendous examples in the Pentland Hills and within the Cairngorms National Park.
This effort led to a legal requirement for landowners to give prior notification of their intention to build a track, but not the full planning application sought by campaigners. LINK set out to monitor the new system and a further report, Changing Tracks, in 2018 made it clear that the adjustment had not made any meaningful improvements in practice.
The Planning Bill going through the Scottish Parliament then became a target to get the necessary change in the law and Andy Wightman MSP made great efforts to explain the reason for his amendments, both at the Committee stage and then in the full parliamentary debate in June. In this he was supported by Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues. However, SNP and Conservative MSPs joined forces to vote against these amendments and their greater numbers ultimately won the day. It was particularly galling to those campaigning for change, and many SNP supporters, that the SNP seemed to be siding with landowners to let this damage to the countryside continue. Climber Ed Douglas tweeted that it was “Bizarre, given the immense reputation the Scottish landscape enjoys around the world, that you would trash it so a few people too lazy to walk can shoot birds.”
The LINK campaign will continue, as the Minister has committed to considering the issue again during a forthcoming review of permitted development rights. Of course we’ve been here before in 2012, but we’re confident that the strength of public concern over this issue has been made clear to MSPs. Let’s hope that this issue will finally be resolved by next year.
by Helen Todd, Campaigns and Policy Manager with Ramblers Scotland and co-convener of the LINK Hilltracks Subgroup.
Members of the LINK Hilltracks Subgroup are: Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, Badenoch & Strathspey Conservation Group, Cairngorms Campaign, John Muir Trust, National Trust for Scotland, North East Mountain Trust, Ramblers Scotland, RSPB Scotland, Scottish Campaign for National Parks and Scottish Wild Land Group. Mountaineering Scotland, while not a member of LINK, also supports this campaign.
EU environmental principles have helped us effectively address environmental issues in a systematic way. They have been fundamental to ensuring consistent decision-making, and therefore providing greater certainty for business and others, as well as ensuring that the way in which we protect our natural wealth and seek to rectify environmental harm is effective and targeted. Whether we are dealing with air pollution, water quality or the protection of our wildlife, EU environmental principles, often stemming from international conventions, have been integral to setting and enforcing environmental standards.
The potential of the UK exiting the EU means that we stand to lose the protection provided by those principles. Unless action is taken, we may find ourselves in the midst of what is now openly acknowledged as a twin climate and nature emergency without key tools that up until now have helped us relieve pressures on our environment.
One such key environmental principle is the principle of ‘rectification at source’. This principle provides us with the ‘how’ in terms of addressing environmental problems. It seeks to ensure that policies and laws regulate pollution at its source rather than remedy its effects.
This may sound obvious, but a simple example would be our approach to improving indoor air quality. One option for improving indoor air quality, if pollutants were found in high concentrations, would be to invest in air filters. But that only masks the problem and does not tackle the underlying issue – namely that the air is unhealthy. In other words, it does not address the root of the problem. If the principle of rectification at source was applied in this instance, the logical thing to do would be to identify the source (whether an object or activity) which pollutes the air and regulate that.
Simply put, this principle guides the regulation of pollution from its source rather than in the wider environment. It helps us prioritise how we should best address environmental harm, and what are the top actions which we should take to redress it.
The concept of rectifying pollution or environmental damage at source also helps us trace back damaging activities to the actual polluter too. This makes it easier for authorities to ensure that polluters pay for the environmental harm that they have caused.
If applied consistently, this principle can drive cleaner processes and products which are inherently good for the environment rather than approaches which treat the problem as or after it occurs.
The principle that environmental damage should be rectified at source is embedded in EU treaties and often reflected in domestic laws. However, to ensure that this principle, as well as all other EU environmental principles, have the same practical effect in Scotland even if Brexit materialises, we need those principles embedded in Scots law. This could be achieved through a dedicated Scottish Environment Act.
Ninety-seven organisations from across Scottish society have written to Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon calling for a Scottish Environment Act. Download the letter here, or read the text in full below.
The First Minister The Scottish Government St Andrew’s House Regent Road Edinburgh EH1 3DG
27 June 2019
Dear First Minister,
As you recently acknowledged, our planet faces a climate emergency. Inextricably linked to this emergency is looming ecological disaster. Time is running out to tackle these huge global challenges. It will take concerted, radical action from leaders around the world to pave the way for transformative change in line with our sustainable development commitments.
We must not let Brexit derail us from tackling these twin problems head on. Whatever the outcome of the current political uncertainties we must set robust, binding targets for nature’s recovery, to safeguard both Scotland’s nature and its people.
This is why we, the undersigned, have come together from across society to ask you to bring forward a new Scottish Environment Act, a step which has already been supported by 22,000 members of the public through the Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign.
Ensuring our world is rich in nature is the best insurance we have against dangerous climate heating. Protecting, restoring and enhancing Scotland’s environment will help to limit temperature increases and help to adapt to some changes that we already cannot avoid.
Restoring Scotland’s natural world to its full potential would give us so much more than insulation against climate change.
Everyone has the right to a clean and healthy environment. Nature enriches people’s lives. It cleans our air and our water, improves our physical and mental health, underpins Scotland’s global image and exports, and improves the places we live.
For all of these reasons, we believe your Government should put forward a new Scottish Environment Act that makes Scotland’s vision to be an environmental world leader a reality.
Yours sincerely,
Aberlour Children’s Charity Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group Bat Conservation Trust British Dragonfly Society British Ecological Society – Scottish Policy Group Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust Bumblebee Conservation Trust Butterfly Conservation Scotland Cairngorms Campaign Carnegie UK Trust Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Clean Coast Outer Hebrides Coastal Communities Network Community Resources Network Scotland Dingwall Wind Co-op Dumfries and Galloway Badger Network EAUC – Alliance for Sustainability Leadership in Education Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust Fair Trade Scotland Fernaig Community Trust Fidra Fintry Development Trust Friends of the Earth Scotland Friends of the Earth West Fife Froglife Trust (Scotland) Greener Melrose Greenpeace UK Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust Human Rights Consortium Huntly & District Swift Group Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Islay Development Initiative John Muir Trust Keep Scotland Beautiful Learning for Sustainability Scotland Leith Community Crops in Pots Marine Conservation Society Mountaineering Scotland National Trust for Scotland North East Mountain Trust North West Mull Community Woodland Company Nourish Scotland Paths for All Permaculture Scotland Permeate studios Planning Democracy Plantlife Scotland Project Seagrass Ramblers Scotland Reforesting Scotland Revive Royal Scottish Geographic Society Royal Zoological Society of Scotland RSPB Scotland SCAPE Trust Scotland the Big Picture Scotland’s International Development Alliance Scottish Ahlul Bayt Society Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society Scottish Badgers Scottish Campaign for National Parks Scottish Communities Climate Action Network Scottish Communities for Health and Wellbeing Scottish Community Alliance Scottish Community Development Centre Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations Scottish Countryside Rangers’ Association Scottish Environment LINK Scottish Farming and Wildlife Advisers’ Group Scottish Geodiversity Forum Scottish Ornithologists’ Club Scottish Raptor Study Group Scottish Seabird Centre Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Scottish Wild Beaver group Scottish Wild Land Group Scottish Wildlife Trust Sealife Adventures Soil Association Scotland Southern Upland Partnership Stop Climate Chaos Scotland Sustaining Dunbar Sustaining North Berwick The Conservation Volunteers Transform Scotland Transition Black Isle Transition Edinburgh Trees for Life Ullapool Sea Savers UN House Scotland United Nations Association Scotland Whale and Dolphin Conservation Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Woodland Trust Scotland WWF Scotland
It’s an unavoidable truth that in nature conservation, success can sometimes produce intangible results. Much of what we try to achieve inevitably comprises stopping bad things happening to the environment. A successful bridge-builder has a bridge to look at where there was none; a fund manager, funds to help spend; a medic has well people, who were previously sick. The successful environmental campaigner might find that the output of years of effort is, for example, dunes and maritime grasslands that remain just as they were before. Nothing looks different – all that’s new is the invisible knowledge that these delicate and precious habitats have not been obliterated by the golf course or power station that someone tried to build over them.
Of course, conservation must also work to actively enhance the natural environment and make positive transformations. But this preventative work is and will remain a critical basis for our shared response to the unfolding global ecological crisis – and nowhere is that more important than in the challenge of invasive non-native species.
The recent report of IPBES (the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) confirmed both that nature and the essential services it provides for humanity are deteriorating fast across the planet. This deterioration is caused by 5 major direct drivers: land and sea-use changes; direct exploitation; climate change; pollution; and the introduction of invasive non-native species – INNS.
People moving any animal, plant or other organism from its native range and, deliberately or accidentally, introducing it into the wild, is a potential threat to wildlife. Geographic barriers such as oceans, mountains, deserts and currents have through geological time restricted the mixing of wildlife in different regions. Species develop independently in different parts of the world, and this generates much of global biodiversity. Non-native species introductions, in effect, break down these barriers. The rate of establishment of new species is increasing at world and UK scales. INNS effects are compounded by climate change and are predicted to worsen in future. The globalisation of trade – the most important vector of INNS – is increasing species movements and rates of release.
In Scotland, we already have non-native Rhododendron and conifers damaging our most important woodland and peatland habitats; non-native predators predating seabirds and waders on our islands; invasive marine organisms threatening internationally important marine ecosystems in our sea lochs.
The graph above shows a simplified, but all-too familiar, pattern of establishment of an invasive species. It’s clear that ecological damage increases with spread – but also, critically, the costs involved in terms of both impacts and the necessary responsive action escalate dramatically. Of course, we must work to strategically manage damaging INNS that are already established. But it is hundreds, sometimes thousands of times cheaper to prevent INNS establishing in the first place than it is to manage the issue after the event. Therefore, the Convention on Biological Diversity calls for a hugely elevated emphasis on prevention – often called biosecurity – when it comes to INNS impacts on nature and economies. It is also why the EU Environmental Principle of Preventative Action is a key guiding principle for effective, informed action to protect nature, and one that we must, as a matter of national priority, be enshrined explicitly in Scottish legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Do we really need to prevent every single egg, of every tiny non-native shrimp, from ever arriving here? Thankfully, no. Research is clear that the best predictor of INNS establishment in the wild is simply the rate at which non-native organisms are released. By taking sensible, proportionate, but effective preventative action we can reduce that rate, and thus reduce establishment probability. This became clear in New Zealand through the 20th century. Firm but proportionate biosecurity measures were introduced – and the results have been spectacular:
Non-native mammals establishing in New Zealand and in Europe over recent centuries. From Armon R.H., Zenetos A. (2015) Invasive Alien Species and Their Indicators. Armon R., Hänninen O. (eds) Environmental Indicators. Springer, Dordrecht
Across the UK countries, funding for INNS biosecurity runs at around £1 million per year. That is just a tiny fraction – less than 1/200th – of biosecurity investment protecting agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture. In Scotland we have important expertise and projects developing for biosecurity issues: on islands, for example, the RSPB is leading a biosecurity project for all our most important seabird colonies. We can be leaders in this field – but for that, we must protect our environment and our economic future by investing properly in biosecurity now – and we must legislate to bring the Principle of Preventative Action squarely and unambiguously into Scots law.
Here at Have You Got The Bottle? we’re fighting for Scotland’s nature. We know about the negative impacts that litter has on wildlife; from insects and small mammals getting stuck inside bottles, to seabirds and creatures feeding plastic to their young. Evidence suggests that more than 140,000 bottles and cans are littered in Scotland every single day. That’s why we’re delighted that the Scottish Government have committed to introducing a deposit return system for most PET plastic bottles, steel and aluminium cans, and glass bottles before the end of this parliamentary session.
However, there’s increasing scientific evidence of the critical state of Scotland’s wildlife and habitats, and a deposit return system will only address a small part of the problem. That’s why we’re supporting Scottish Environment LINK’s Fight for Scotland’s Nature campaign. We want to see a Scottish Environment Act that protects Scotland’s wild places for the benefit of people and nature; one that gives clear ambitions for an environmental policy and a positive direction towards a more sustainable future for people and nature in Scotland.
Scottish Environment LINK has noted that while recent consultations on Environmental Principles and Governance have been a step in the right direction, there is much still to be done.
At Have You Got The Bottle? we’re particularly interested in ensuring that Scotland commits to the European Union’s environmental principles. The “polluter pays” principle is especially close to our hearts as it expresses the commonly accepted notion that those who produce pollution or environmental degradation should bear the costs of redressing it. This is exactly what happens in a well-run deposit return system, which is funded in part by a small producer fee for items placed in the system, and also through unredeemed deposits if the consumer chooses not to reclaim their money, thereby increasing the chance of their empties ending up as litter. This is a sound principle that can be applied in many other areas, and has already helped drive up the quality of our drinking water and beaches. Find out how you can support this important campaign at: https://www.fightforscotlandsnature.scot/get-involved/
The Scottish Seabird Centre is supporting 37 of Scotland’s leading environmental NGOs in calling for the principles of environmental governance to be spelt out in Scots law.
Without a doubt Scotland’s land, seas and iconic wildlife have benefited from the EU ‘Nature Directives’ – the Birds and Habitats Directive and other environmental pillars such as the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The EU Bathing Water Directive has also encouraged countries to innovate and tackle pollution around our coastline. The protection, monitoring and management standards we have benefited from are, however, at risk of being rolled back years when we leave the EU. That’s why the Scottish Seabird Centre is supporting 37 environmental charities, all members of Scottish Environment Link, to call for the underlying principles of environmental protection to be explicitly set out in Scots law.
Scotland has over 18,000 kilometres of coastline, almost 6 times the area of sea to land (764,678 square kilometres to the 200 nautical mile limit), 61 percent of the UK’s seas and 13 percent of the EU seas. This supports important marine habitats such as cold-water coral, kelp forests and flame shell beds, and iconic species including dolphins, porpoises, seals and basking sharks. Our seas also support a third of Europe’s breeding seabirds and we are proud of the international importance of these breeding colonies.
Much progress to protect our seas and iconic marine wildlife has been made under EU legislation, but the recent IPBES Global Assessment on the state of biodiversity brings into sharp focus the threats that still need to be tackled – climate change, invasive non-native species, changes in the use of the seas, exploitation of our seas and pollution. The global assessment states that 66 percent of our global marine environment has been affected by human action. A stark reminder of this is the visible presence of plastics in our marine environment, which have increased tenfold over the last 20 years, and are impacting on 267 species, including 44 percent of seabirds.
Whilst we welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform’s – Roseanna Cunningham MSP – stated ambition to ensure the important underlying principles of environmental protection (precaution, prevention, polluter pays and rectifying pollution at source) will continue after we leave the EU; there are no certainties this will be the case. Certainty will only be achieved by embedding these principles firmly in Scots law. Appropriate and effective mechanisms also need to be in place to monitor the health of our seas, to scrutinise performance against commitments and to hold the government of the day to account.
Collective cross-parliament support and action, rather than just words, are now required to demonstrate that the ambition is real. That’s why the Scottish Seabird Centre supports the Fight for Scotland’s Nature core recommendation that the environmental principles should be embedded in Scots law.
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.
