February 20th, 2018 by ie-adminA guest blog by Glen Smith, a social science researcher and PhD candidate at UiT The Arctic University of Norway.
Diarmid Hearns is right to point to the importance of the Scottish planning system in determining how space is developed and, subsequently, how people live their lives (The Scotsman Opinion 18/01/2018). The National Trust for Scotland research findings that Mr Hearns discusses are indeed concerning. The sense of disconnect between citizens and a system that helps determine the use and non-use of space needs to be urgently addressed, as does the lack of trust in that system.
Much of the frustration towards the planning system stems from the limited opportunities for people to affect decision outcomes: around 60 per cent of those asked in the National Trust of Scotland survey felt this way. The planning system is plagued by instances of late or limited stakeholder engagement. Or, more worryingly, of no engagement at all. (more…)
The places we live, work and play in are fundamental to our health and happiness – and it is the Scottish planning system that has the single biggest influence on how these places are developed. The National Trust for Scotland recently carried out research on how well the planning system is working for Scotland, and the results are concerning.
The majority of Scots felt that they had no influence on the planning decisions affecting their local area. Less than half of Scots thought the current planning system was doing a good job of protecting our historic or natural heritage. Our research shows there is much that the planning bill needs to put right.
Set up in 1931 to help conserve Scotland’s places of natural beauty and historic interest, The National Trust for Scotland works with others to safeguard our heritage, to provide access and to encourage its enjoyment. As a member of the Scottish Environment LINK network, we have come together with like-
minded environmental organisations to champion our environment; we will work closely with them in contributing to the forthcoming planning bill.
Our survey covered a representative sample of more than a 1,000 Scottish citizens, allowing us to compare perceptions of the planning system by age and gender, by income, and by region. We found there was a consistent pattern of people feeling disconnected from the decisions that affected them. Worryingly, 60 per cent of people surveyed felt they had no influence on planning decisions affecting their local area. This needs to change. In order for communities to thrive – to invest in their local facilities, to feel a sense of place, to enjoy their local environment – they must feel they have power to influence how their local area is developing.
We asked respondents how well they thought the historic features and character of their local area had been protected or improved by the planning system. We found that only 41 per cent thought the current system was working well, or very well, with 28 per cent considering that it was doing poorly or very poorly. Twenty-five percent had mixed views, suggesting some simple changes could convert more citizens to a positive view.
We found a similar response when we asked respondents how well they thought their local greenspace and natural heritage had been protected or enhanced by the planning system. Here only 47 per cent thought that their local greenspace had been well or very well protected, compared with 26 per cent who thought it had been poorly or very poorly treated – and again there were mixed views.
Our respondents recognised that the planning system needs to deliver a range of benefits. In preparing for a future planning bill, the Scottish Government issued a consultation document in early 2017. This referenced “housing” some 75 times, but “greenspace” occurred only three times, and “natural heritage” only once, and the “historic environment” not at all. Yet when we asked survey participants what their priorities for development were, we got a very different picture. Outdoor areas and greenspace were the leading priority, at 49 per cent of respondents, with housing second at 47 per cent, and closely followed by public facilities and shops at 46 per cent. Improved transport was also important for 40 per cent of respondents. These findings show that the planning bill cannot be narrowly focused on housing, and must consider all the assets that are needed for a good quality of life.
Respondents were also very concerned about the balance of power within the planning system. Strikingly, 90 per cent of those surveyed thought that local communities should have a right of appeal on planning decisions, similar to that enjoyed by developers. This perceived imbalance could be addressed in a number of ways – by giving communities a stronger voice, limiting the developer right of appeal, or by making the local development plan more binding on possible developments – but the current balance of power clearly rankles with Scots.
Diarmid Hearns is Head of Policy at the National Trust for Scotland
This blog appeared in a Scotsman article on 18 January 2018
Whichever way you look at it, Scotland is a very special place for nature. Here you will find some of the most spectacular landscapes, pristine habitats and support the rarest and most threatened species of wildlife in the UK.
Scotland has approximately two thirds of the UK’s coast, supporting around 5 million seabirds – a third of the European Union total. All of the UK’s capercaillie, red necked phalarope and sea eagle populations, and at least 70% of black grouse and 80% of red squirrels are found in Scotland. The Orkney Islands which cover a mere 0.5% of the UK’s land area hold approximately 25% of the UK breeding hen harrier population. The richness of Scottish land and biodiversity is recognised in the sheer number of national and international designations it holds, such as Sites of Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Natura and Ramsar sites.
Yet, whilst Scotland might provide a refuge for the best of the UK’s wildlife, it is nonetheless still fragile and vulnerable. Climate change and biodiversity loss are major threats. For the thousands of species for which we have reliable data from 1978 to 2013, 56 % have experienced notable decline. One in 10 species is at risk of becoming extinct altogether. A combination of pressures on our marine and coastal areas has resulted in seabirds being one of the fastest declining groups of birds globally.
Scottish Environment LINK Partners feel a huge duty to halt this biodiversity loss and Scottish Government, as one of the first countries to sign up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals also clearly recognises the need to protect Scotland’s special wildlife. Environmental NGOs have a long and successful history of partnership and collaboration in Scotland including the “Flows to the Future Project” in Caithness and Sutherland, an example of landscape scale conservation at its most spectacular, delivered in partnership and made possible through the RSPB’s largest ever grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund of £4.6 million. The project will see the restoration of over seven square miles of precious peatland habitat, which locks up carbon and plays a significant role in our efforts to tackle climate change.
Saving Scotland’s Squirrels project is another example of fantastic collaboration that is having a huge impact, with thanks due again to the Heritage Lottery Fund. We are particularly proud of our joint work through Scottish Environment LINK to protect Scotland’s seas. Save Scottish Seas has been running now for 10 years, made possible by generous grants from the Esmee Fairbairn Trust and now the John Ellerman Foundation. The length of such projects illustrates that saving nature is not a quick fix!
Whilst caring for our natural environment in these times is challenging enough, we realise it is a task that can only get harder, as supporting vital nature conservation projects across whole landscapes is expensive and finding funding is getting noticeably more difficult.
Brexit not only threatens our current standards of environmental protection, it also means a possible end to one of the best biodiversity funding sources – EU Life. It will mean changes in the way we fund farming in our countryside, and many other EU funding sources (such as Leader and ERDF) that recognised the economic value to remote communities of nature based tourism and supported sustainable development will end or change.
Government funding available to Scottish Natural Heritage and to the Forestry Commission Scotland is now significantly reducing and affecting statutory grants to the sector. The Landfill Communities funding is reducing too, as we all get better at recycling and waste management. The Heritage Lottery Fund alarmingly has reduced funding too. Against this backdrop Charities are being challenged by the new data protection regulations (GDPR) which is imposing new rules about how we contact our supporters to ask for funds.
“Where the Green Grants Went Scotland Report” compiled by the Environmental Funders Network is further and independent evidence of the funding challenges. Launched yesterday at Edinburgh Zoo, it provides invaluable insight into the private trusts and foundations who contribute and we are immensely grateful to them; without their support so much of our work in Scotland would not be possible.
While it’s certainly worth reading the full report a few headline grabbing conclusions include:
- From 2012 to 2015, private foundation funding for environmental causes in England and Wales amounted to 20 times as much as that available in Scotland… £768 per square kilometre in England and Wales versus £70 per square kilometre of Scotland.
- We found 41 foundations that gave environmental grants in Scotland between 2012 and 2016. By contrast, 141 foundations supported environmental work in the UK as a whole over that period. Of those 41 foundations, only 6 are based in Scotland or focus their giving there.
- Though Scotland’s accounts for 56 per cent of the UK’s coastline, coastal and marine ecosystems receive just 3 per cent of grant funding from foundation, Lottery and LCF sources. Climate and atmosphere-related work receives even less – a tiny 0.4 per cent of all grants by value. This suggests very little available funding for campaigning work on climate change or air quality, though the latter is a particular problem in Scotland’s cities.
However, it also exposes how proportionately little of the total private environmental funding Scotland manages to attract, in spite of its immense value in UK terms. Rob Edwards in his piece in the Herald last Sunday emphasises in stark terms just how far we are we are losing out. We therefore very much welcome the publication of this report which will hopefully help Scotland’s environmental charities forge new relationships with many of the UK’s ‘green’ funders and offer them new and potentially exciting ways to have impact and make a difference to our natural environment.
Anne McCall, Director of RSPB Scotland
A major UK-wide coalition of over twenty-eight environment and wildlife organisations1, including Scottish Environment LINK members, are warning that despite welcome commitments on environmental protections, the UK Government could still create loopholes in environmental law as part of the Brexit transition. This could have damaging consequences for the environment and animal welfare.
The warning coincides with amendments being debated during ‘environment day’ (Wednesday 15 November) in the Committee stage of the (EU) Withdrawal Bill. These amendments could help close these legal loopholes if they are backed by MPs.
Environmental groups have warmly welcomed recent commitments to a strong new environmental regulator and to consult on retaining environmental principles.2 Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham has also underlined the need to maintain EU environmental principles3.
However, environmental groups are concerned that the UK Government has omitted vital EU legal principles, which protect our environment, from the current Withdrawal Bill. They are warning that unless the full range of environmental principles are underpinned with legislation, we are at risk of drastically weakened environmental legal protections which could have major repercussions.
Elaine King, of Environment Links UK4, said: ‘Michael Gove has said that he wants to achieve a gold standard on the environment5, but the EU Withdrawal Bill without these principles is set to provide tin can protection. It is essential the UK Government offers the same or stronger legal protections as the EU if we are to protect the UK’s natural world.’
Jen Anderson, Chief Officer of Scottish Environment LINK, said: ‘Actions speak louder than words. So while we welcome commitments made by the Scottish and UK governments regarding the need to support EU environmental principles and address the environmental governance gap, what we now need is for MPs to make the relevant changes in the EU Withdrawal Bill. Similar action needs to be taken in the other parliaments of the UK. Members of the Scottish Parliament must prioritise the protection of our environment.’
Further quotes from the coalition of charities can be found here.
What environmental groups are calling for:
Around 80% of our environmental law and policy is currently based on EU law. Standards jointly adopted with our European neighbours have enabled the UK to meet national and international environmental targets. So it is essential that these EU environmental and animal welfare protections are completely translated into domestic law as part of the EU Withdrawal Bill. The Withdrawal Bill does not currently set out a clear pathway for this, and the risk is that essential environmental protections will be lost if amendments to the Bill are not made.
In addition to specific EU directives relating to environmental and animal welfare protection, the main principles guiding EU environmental action are enshrined in law, as part of the EU treaties. They are essential requirements for governments, statutory agencies, as well as businesses, and if necessary an aid to interpretation by the Courts, and include:
- the polluter pays principle; which states that those who cause pollution should pay for the damage. This acts as a financial deterrent to businesses and others polluting the environment.
- the dealing with damage at source principle; which ensures that the cause of any pollution or damage to the environment has to be addressed at source to prevent further harm, rather than just dealing with the resulting damage in the wider environment
the precautionary principle; which means where there is a possibility of serious environmental harm, the absence of scientific certainty can’t be used as a reason not to take action - and the animal sentience principle; that recognises animals as ‘sentient beings’ and requires that their welfare is ensured.
These legal principles have been responsible for massive environmental wins, such as:
- the largest ever UK marine area closure in Lyme Bay, protecting swathes of sealife from over-fishing
- playing a key role in decisions like the EU ban on imports of hormone-fed beef, and control of the release of Genetically Modified Organisms in the EU.
- instrumental in driving £8 billion of investment in UK waste water treatment since 1990
- helping to prevent the decimation of our native bee populations by non-native invasive Asian hornets
The current version of the Withdrawal Bill would fail to ensure all the principles from EU law are specifically brought across into domestic law. The coalition is supporting essential amendments to the Withdrawal Bill which include enshrining these principles into law. These amendments will be debated on Wednesday 15 November 2017 and the group urges MPs to give them their backing to help protect our much loved natural world.
On Saturday 11 Nov in an article in the Telegraph Michael Gove committed to ‘create a new policy statement setting out the environmental principles that will guide us’ and this would ‘underpin future policy making.’ The EU principles currently underpin law-making as well as policy and NGOs believe that they should therefore be founded in primary legislation.
Powers relating to most environmental matters are currently devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore essential for the UK and devolved governments to work together to address these concerns. 6
The coalition is calling for:
- Environmental legal principles to be put into domestic law through the Withdrawal Bill amendments to ensure that they are binding and enforceable.
- The legal principles which are translated across into domestic law should include the Lisbon Treaty Article 191 principles and the other environmental principles that have been incorporated into the EU Treaties – these are listed in proposed amendment NC28 to the Withdrawal Bill.
- These principles should apply across all parts of governments in the four nations, and should be applied as over-arching requirements to future legislation and policy as the current EU principles do.
For more information, please contact:
- Daphne Vlastari at Scottish Environment LINK (0757 211 33 79, daphne@scotlink.org)
- Emma Adler at Wildlife and Countryside Link (020 7820 8600, 07881785634, emma.adler@wcl.org.uk)
Notes to Editors:
- The coalition will be following each stage of the Bill which affects environmental protections carefully and are happy to provide media briefings, comment and interviews on any related issue.
- Location filming can be carried out at case study sites where the environmental legal principles had big wins. Please use the contact details above if this is of interest and for further details of these case studies.
- For members of the public who would like to get involved in protecting environmental and animal welfare standards in the UK – Friends of the Earth and Compassion in World Farming both have actions you can take (see links).
****
- The coalition includes: A Rocha UK, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, The Angling Trust and Fish Legal, Bat Conservation Trust, Born Free Foundation, Buglife, Butterfly Conservation, Campaign for National Parks, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Freshwater Habitats Trust, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Humane Society International UK, Institute of Fisheries Management, Marine Conservation Society, Plantlife, The Rivers Trust, RSPB, Salmon and Trout Conservation, Scottish Environment Link, Wales Environment Link, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the Wildlife Gardening Forum, WWF-UK, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), Wildlife and Countryside Link, Woodland Trust, ZSL.
- See Michael Gove’s piece in the Telegraph.
- Read the full statements made by the Cabinet Secretary here.
- Environment Links UK brings together environment and animal protection organisations to advocate for the conservation and protection of wildlife, countryside and the marine environment. The network comprises the combined memberships of Wildlife and Countryside Link, Scottish Environment LINK, Wales Environment Link and Northern Ireland Environment Link. Taken together, Environment Links UK members have the support of over eight million people in the UK and manage over 750,000 hectares of land.
- One example of Michael Gove’s comments on this issue is from a speech given at WWF-UK on 21 July 2017 where he said that leaving the EU was an opportunity to be ‘a setter of gold standards in protecting and growing natural capital, an innovator in clean, green growth and an upholder of the moral imperative to hand over our planet in a better condition than we inherited it.’ See The Unfrozen Moment – Delivering a Green Brexit
- Powers relating to most environmental matters, including agriculture, fisheries, and aspects of energy policy, are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In fact, of all the policies areas where EU powers intersect with devolved competences, the greatest number relate to the environment. The loss of these common EU frameworks could risk significant regulatory divergence and a less coordinated approach to environmental governance. In addition, it could lead to an environmentally damaging process of competitive deregulation across the UK’s different jurisdictions.
//ends//
On 8 June, the people of Scotland will go to polling stations for the second time this year. This time to vote for their representatives in Westminster, for what is arguably one of the most important general elections given the UK parliament’s role in scrutinising the Great Repeal Bill and future relationship the UK will have with the EU. And while a number of important decisions lie ahead from migration to access to EU markets, one thing should be unequivocally clear: protecting our environment and rigorous actions towards a more sustainable and low carbon economy should be a common cross-party goal.
All parties should commit to that and work together to achieve those goals. It is with this in mind that Scottish Environment LINK members have put together their manifesto for the general election.
The rationale behind our asks is clear: EU law has underpinned our environmental protections and EU action has provided necessary impetus for sustainability. For most of our environment policy, as well as agriculture and fisheries, these laws have been applied across the UK in line with what the devolution framework prescribes. So, the upcoming general election needs to provide some much needed certainty on these points.
First, we need to incorporate existing standards and core principles of EU environmental protection into domestic law. All the legislation that protects our environment, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, in favour of which a fierce public campaign was recently mounted across the UK, as well as the preambles that shed light on the interpretation of these laws, need to be transposed into domestic law. This should not be seen as an opportunity for deregulation. Similarly, EU principles such as the precautionary principle or the polluter pays principle need to continue to form the basis of national environmental law in the future.
Second, with EU protections firmly part of our domestic law, there is still a need to build on those to meet our commitments under the UN 2030 Agenda. All policies, including agriculture and fisheries as well as our wider economic strategy, need to deliver towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Third, regardless of the future relationship of the UK with the EU, the UK needs to continue to uphold intentional treaties and agreements on biodiversity, climate change, marine protection and others. Given that for the majority of these agreements, the EU has functioned as the mechanism through which obligations were met, there is now a need to consider which domestic mechanisms will need to be put in place across the UK to continue to meet international obligations.
Fourth, given that environment policy is devolved, as is largely the case with agriculture and fisheries policies, it is important that in the context of negotiations with EU partners, any UK position reflects the interests of all four nations. Substantive discussions with all relevant governments and parliaments in the UK need to also be initiated in the context of the Great Repeal Bill process.
Fifth, there is a pressing need to ensure that EU funding that has helped deliver environmental benefits and promoted the uptake of sustainable practices continues.
Equally critical is continued access to EU research institutes so that we can continue being part of the knowledge that is generated about our environment.
by Daphne Vlastari, Advocacy Officer at Scottish Environment LINK
This blog was published online by Third Force News on 22 May
Local elections taking place on 4 May risk being overshadowed by the UK General Elections on 8 June. But engaging and turning up for local elections is vital for good governance as local authorities are responsible for anything from education and social care to housing and leisure services. Most importantly as far as Scottish Environment LINK members concerned, local authorities are a key actor when it comes to environmental protection and pursuing sustainability.
So it is with some concern that we note a decreased turn out rate for local elections but also shrinking budgets for local authorities. This is not a sustainable practice. Citizen engagement at the local level and mobilisation to ensure local authorities are adequately resourced should be a key concern for all.
LINK members would therefore like to use the opportunity of the upcoming local elections to highlight some key pitfalls of the current trend of decreasing budgets for local councils in the face of increasing responsibilities. Our members reiterate their commitment to engage, where possible, with local authorities and hope to renew this engagement following the May elections.
For Scottish Environment LINK members, cuts in local budgets can be particularly damaging to Scotland’s environmental ambitions: faced with smaller budgets local councils will prioritise services considered essential. This means that some environmental provisions might be side-lined which in the long term leads to higher costs. More restrictive budgets also means that access to personnel or experts will be limited. This can further damage our environment, since environmental protection relies on the generation of science-based policy and experience. Moreover, there is less room for councils to pursue innovative projects to further a transition to a more sustainable society, such as decarbonising heat or encouraging the uptake of green vehicles through public procurement.
Scottish Environment LINK members would like to highlight three areas of particular concern.
The first is biodiversity. Scotland is home to many unique species which contribute to the resilience of our ecosystem and the natural beauty of our environment. Legislation at global, European and Scottish level mandates it should be protected. But a range of responsibilities falls with local authorities. One such crucial responsibility is the “biodiversity duty” –the responsibility to conserve biodiversity and report how this is done. This duty also covers climate change. It is therefore a critical element to ensuring progress on halting biodiversity loss, in line with international targets, is made on the ground. But shrinking budgets is having a serious effect on the ability of councils to respond to the biodiversity duty in a meaningful way. Dedicated Biodiversity Officers are not being replaced which has an inevitable knock-on effect to the ambition, insight and impact of Local Biodiversity Action Plans. Can we afford to neglect this when Scotland’s Biodiversity Intactness Index is the 36th worst of 215 countries measured?
The second issue refers to our land. Scotland’s Land Use Strategy aims to develop a regulatory framework that promotes the responsible stewardship, sustainable use and multiple benefits of land, including respect for the full range of interests in the land, both public and private. To achieve that the Strategy recognises the contribution of local plans and partnerships. Indeed, progress has been made in this respect with two Regional Land Use Pilot projects in Aberdeenshire and the Scottish Borders. But this piecemeal approach will not deliver for the sustainable management of our land. What is needed is a robust roll-out of Regional Land Use Frameworks that can cater to the specificities of geography, landscape and communities while also enjoying national support particularly in terms of funding.
The third issue relates to our marine environment and the sustainable management of our seas, an ambition which is to be met through the adoption of Regional Marine Plans. Regional Marine Plans aim to provide a much-needed planning framework by setting the foundations for coordinating all marine sectors and activities with an overarching duty to deliver sustainable development. For these to be successful, they need to involve relevant stakeholders in a transparent and inclusive way while also involving experts to ensure that plans are in line with available science and evidence. As with Regional Land Use Frameworks, while adapted for local needs, these initiatives need to be properly resources in terms of funding and expertise and need to be able to tap into best practice to create successful plans.
This week is a landmark for UK politics: it saw the triggering of Article 50 which initiates the process for the UK to leave the EU. In the wake of this decision and following the outcome of the EU referendum, a number of Scottish civil society organisations came together to assess how leaving the EU could impact our rights. Led by the Human Rights Consortium Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK provided views on how environmental rights could be impacted.
LINK believes that the results of the EU referendum put at risk a lot of our environmental legislation which has greatly contributed to the protection of our natural environment and resources. Environmental legislation is key to a sustainable future and tackling major challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, resource scarcity and pollution.
Most of Scotland’s and the UK’s environmental legislation has been developed thanks to our country’s EU membership. The EU has provided a level playing-field across its membership for environmental protection. This meant that environmental standards were safeguarded against perceived competition gains, and instead sustainable and low carbon investments were encouraged.
As such, there is a risk that withdrawal from the EU will mean a rapid decrease in environmental standards and a race to the bottom. Legislation that encourages business and other operators to adopt sustainable methods of production or support provided to key industry segments such as farmers to pursue environmental objectives, may be compromised outside of the EU.
Scottish Environment LINK members believe that we all have a right to a clean environment; we depend on our environment for our health and wellbeing and our natural resources often are the cornerstones of our economy. EU law has provided a number of protections for our environment as it specified that the EU will work for sustainable development, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. In terms of the key principles underlying environmental policy, it underlined that it shall be based on the precautionary principle and that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.
In addition to providing this overarching framework, the EU has led environmental policy delivering a wide number of benefits, from cleaner water and air to protecting unique habitats and mitigating climate change impacts. In so doing, new sectors of the economy that focus on circular economy models and eco-innovation have flourished.
By choosing to exit the EU, this progress would be put at risk. Even if EU legislation not already part of UK and Scottish law became incorporated in national law, there would be no legal recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure their proper implementation. In addition, the UK and Scotland would miss out on further legislative progress that is made at the EU level when it comes to transitioning to a sustainable future. Furthermore, important funding for innovative projects pursuing environmental objectives or eco-innovation would no longer be available to UK and Scottish stakeholders.
What is more, the EU has provided a legal framework that enables the implementation of important global commitments such as the UN Paris Agreement and its predecessors or the UNECE Aarhus Convention which provides citizens with important rights such as access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice. The EU has also been the vehicle for negotiating and applying a lot of other global agreements regulating the use, transport and disposal of chemical pollutants such as persistent organic pollutants or addressing important issues such as ozone depletion. While the international commitments of the UK will continue to apply, an exit from the EU will mean that other processes for complying with international commitments will have to be developed at national level. This is likely to create further confusion and delay implementation of these commitments on top of the overriding need to assess other implications of the UK’s exit from the EU. At a time when action is needed to ensure a sustainable future, focus will be diverted to disentangling legislation.
The importance of environment is clear when it comes to realising the UN Sustainable Development Goals, to which both the Scottish and UK government have signed up to. What is more, it is important to highlight that in a 2017 report, the UNHRC Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment emphasised the great dependency of the human rights to life, health, water and food on biodiversity underpinning healthy and sustainable ecosystems.
For more information please contact Daphne Vlastari (daphne@scotlink.org).
Further reading:
- Read the full report here: https://hrcscotland.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/rights-at-risk-report-march-2017.pdf
- More information about the UNHRC Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment can be found here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/Pages/Biodiversity.aspx
- For the relevant provisions of EU Treaties on the environment see here: http://ec.europa.eu/archives/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm
The above title was the subject of a recent conference organised by LINK’s Economics Group. The focus was on the What and the How and speakers and participants provided plenty of food for thought. In case any of us were in any doubt about the urgency of climate change, Graeme Maxton (Secretary General of the Club of Rome) told us that the 1972 Club of Rome book, Limits to Growth, was correct in its predictions and subsequent analysis has confirmed that we have gone into over-shoot, going beyond the capacity of the planet to sustain us. We must reduce human impact, which he directly attributes to the neoliberal economic system that has dominated since the 1970s. James Curran added that some of his recent analysis shows CO2 absorption capacity of our ecosystems is now in decline, hindering the planet’s capacity to sequester carbon emissions and exacerbating climate change.
Katherine Trebeck reminded us that our economy, as well as ruining the environment, is not delivering wellbeing (presentation). This is borne out by data and indexes that track wellbeing but also by Oxfam’s work in Scotland in which citizens were involved in discussions about the economy and what was important to them. The HumanKind Index came out of this work which both highlights what people’s priorities are and how well they are being met.
But what can we do to change the system? Graeme Maxton was clear that it is the economic system that is the root of climate change and inequality, but changing it is the hard part – partly because many ways one might want to intervene would lead to unemployment, but also because of the power of corporations and vested interests and the innate tendency of humans to favour the short-term. Cost is another barrier, although he highlighted that if we were to spend 1% of GDP on transferring our economy to one that is low carbon, we could avert serious climate change consequences in 20 years. He outlined 3 of the 13 proposals from his new book, Reinventing Prosperity: share out work more evenly; tax fossil fuel use and redistribute it equally amongst citizens; and, provide a basic income.
The conference then turned to what we could do on a Scottish level. Lots of ideas were put into the mix. Lady Susan Rice spoke about how progressive thinking should be realising that economies will be strong because they are sustainable. This was echoed by Maurice Golden, MSP, who highlighted that for businesses to be secure, they will need to adopt circular practices. Businesses will need to contribute to environmental aims and need to explore new models to take up these opportunities ahead. We heard from David Pearson of Start Renewables that 50% of buildings in Scotland are near large water bodies and could therefore be heated by heat pumps – significantly reducing fossil fuel use as well as providing jobs and reducing air pollution.
Several suggestions related to the structure of the Scottish economy and issues that need to be addressed in order for it to respond to the current challenge in a way that contributes to wellbeing. George Kerevan, MP, noted that there is a need for better physical integration between elements of the economy and the need for more medium sized, family owned businesses which typically have long time horizons. Richard Leonard, MSP, said we need an industrial policy to make sure that we have the capacity in the economy before policies are introduced, otherwise Scottish people lose out as they have done with many of the renewables projects to date.
We also heard about ways to redirect investment into enterprises with social and environmental objectives, for example through a social stock exchange which would include a list of vetted companies and enterprises. The use of existing regulation was suggested – for example, under Section 82 of the Climate Change Act Scottish Ministers can specify the recycled content of anything used in Scotland. Building regulations and planning, and the use of Natural Capital accounting to provide a case for green infrastructure, could do much to put us on the right track. We need to be aware of the extent of public money in the economy and demand that it is spent in a way that contributes to wellbeing, and we must get better at scrutinising investment, for example the City Deals.
These ideas and many more were discussed in a fruitful day. A full conference report will be available soon. In the meantime you can view contributors’ presentations on the Circular Economy, New mechanisms for investing in woodlands and the National Performance Framework.
Phoebe Cochrane, Sustainable Economics Policy Officer, Scottish Environment LINK
These are worrying times for those of us concerned about the health of Scotland’s natural environment but perhaps, during uncertain times, making a longer term plan could help us find solutions. Environmental challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss often seem too difficult or painful to deal with in the short term, particularly when other issues seem more pressing, but in the long term we know they need to be tackled. Setting a long term spatial vision and putting it at the forefront of government policy-making could help us tackle these issues.
It may have received little publicity (and been completely overshadowed by more recent events) but on 31st of May an independent panel published their recommendations for reform of the Scottish planning system. The panel was formed by Ministers in September 2015 and tasked with carrying out a “game changing review of Scotland’s planning system”. Planning is familiar to most of us as a regulator of development, and many of the panel’s 48 recommendations focus on procedural changes to the way development is controlled.
However, planning can be much more than that. At its best, planning can work with communities of place and interest to provide a common long-term vision for what our places should look like in future if we are to improve quality of life. And critically, it can also provide the regulatory framework to ensure that we get there. Frustratingly though, despite this massively influential role in how we will live our lives in future, planning is often seen as a minor function by local and central government. The disjointed nature and mediocre quality of much new development and other infrastructure in many parts of Scotland is unfortunate testimony to this. It was therefore very welcome that the review panel recognised the need for planning to take on a higher profile, assuming a central leadership role in Scottish Government and local government, and with enhanced funding.
Another key recommendation is for an enhanced role for the National Planning Framework which, the panel suggests, should be more integrated with wider government strategies such as the National Transport Strategy and the Infrastructure Investment Plan. This is also very welcome. Scotland has had a National Planning Framework since 2004. It is a Scottish Government document intended to provide a vision for what sort of place Scotland will be in 20-30 years’ time. It already provides a useful national context for planning decisions – but we need something that is much more than this if we want Scotland to be a genuinely sustainable place in the future.
The Scottish Government has now made an initial response to the panel’s recommendations, which is broadly supportive. However, on the role of planning in wider Government policy making at least, Scottish Environment LINK members would urge them to go further than the panel advise and create a long term spatial vision and put it at the heart of government policy-making. The current National Planning Framework already goes some way to providing this vision, for the built environment at least. It has always been clear, though, that Ministers consider their Economic Strategy as Scotland’s overarching policy document. A robust economic strategy is, of course, essential but how can sensible economic objectives be set without first considering what we want to achieve in the long term, whether there is the space to achieve them or whether environmental limits may be exceeded? This type of policy-making, dominated by economic growth aspirations and without consideration of the spatial and environmental capacity available, is common practice but it is also at the root of many of our environmental problems in Scotland and globally.
We need to create a vision for the sort of place we want Scotland to be, based on a realistic assessment of the capacity of our environment, and the Economic Strategy should then identify the economic tools required to achieve that vision. The current National Planning Framework is described by Ministers as “the spatial expression of the Government Economic Strategy” but this hierarchy is wrong. The Government Economic Strategy needs to be the economic expression of the National Planning Framework, which in turn expresses our spatial vision for Scotland in the future, and economic policies need to be recognised as a means to an end, not an end in themselves, before we can really make progress towards making Scotland a better place.
Scottish Environment LINK members urge the Scottish Government to review options for how a holistic spatial vision for Scotland can inform government policy and help us realise ambitions for a sustainable future. This discussion will help inform discussions ahead of the proposed Planning Bill announced in the SNP manifesto and expected over the next few years.
Aedán Smith is Convenor of LINK Planning Group, Head of Planning for RSPB Scotland and is a Chartered Town Planner. The views expressed here are his own.
by Mike Robinson
A debate is raging about the merits or otherwise of cutting Air Passenger Duty (APD) in Scotland – a tax levied on each flight dependent on how far the destination. The Scottish Government has made clear their intention that, further to this tax power being devolved, they will see this tax halved beginning in April 2018 and eventually scrap it altogether ‘when circumstances allow’. But I don’t believe this is affordable, environmentally or economically.
APD was established by the UK treasury in response to reports from the IMF and the World Bank which made it clear that aviation remained one of the least taxed industries in the world. It remains so, and yet for some reason, reports commissioned by the airline industry itself have persuaded the Scottish Government of the riches that await if APD is done away with. This despite the fact that APD is cheap to collect, and raises around £3Billion/year for the UK exchequer. This equates to more than £300 Million in tax revenue in Scotland, so this is a large amount of money to give up.
Giving one of the least taxed industries in the world a tax break during a period of great austerity and recession feels inequitable in the extreme. Especially when all other transport modes are taxed far more heavily – and train travel particularly is expected to compete. But cutting APD is also counter intuitive when we are trying to reduce our climate impact. The Scottish Government’s own report recognises that this change will increase carbon emissions through increased flights, by as much as 60,000 tonnes CO2e/year.
Their hope is that this cut would positively impact the economy more widely despite its evident carbon impact. But there is little real evidence to support this. In fact aviation has continued to grow despite APD and is currently at record levels in most Scottish airports. So APD is not a significant factor in decision making. Additionally when APD was reduced in Belfast because of concerns about unfair competition from Dublin, it has had little discernible impact. And yet the whole case for a reduction is predicated on increasing traffic. Obviously everybody accepts the environment will suffer, but to be honest this is not being taken seriously.
The best the aviation industry can offer is that eventually they will introduce a variety of efficiencies which will help keep GHG emissions steady after 2020. According to one aviation representative aviation can increase by 60% without increasing emissions from 2020 onwards. But this is not good enough. Many of these efficiencies are currently only promises. But most critically as a society we need to cut back climate emissions before 2050 by 80% of 1990 levels, not hold them steady at 2020 levels.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this approach, are the economic arguments sound? Well this is hugely debatable. The biggest factors affecting flight demand are around the state of the economy, safety, alternatives, time saving and fuel prices etc. and so these will always be the primary drivers. For instance, the only significant dip in aviation demand came on the heels of the financial crisis of 2008/9 because of the failings in the wider economy.
But if it does increase traffic will this bring more money into Scotland? Again, probably, but not as much as will leave. We are a relatively rich nation, so we tend to spend more abroad than visitors spend here. We also travel more than they do. In 2014, according to the UK Government Office for National Statistics, earnings to the UK from overseas residents was £21.8 billion whereas spending abroad by UK residents was £35.5 billion. So the UK economy lost £13.7 Billion net in 2014 from overseas travel (probably around £1 Billion in Scotland). ABTA insist that this is more than offset by sales of sun-cream and cheap t-shirts but this is stretching credibility to breaking point.
Business travel more specifically seems to be driving this case for change, and yet in a recent report from CommonWeal “According to both Edinburgh Airport and IATA, business travel of all kinds is particularly inelastic with regards to pricing as business requiring the physical presence of a worker will generally occur regardless of cost.” The main government premise for cutting APD we are told is to promote business travel and thereby trade. But business travel is less price sensitive – after all many business people choose to pay more in what is after all termed ‘business class’ seats. So are they really going to be swayed by a reduction in APD?
Cutting Air Passenger Duty does not make sense. It is no more affordable economically than it is environmentally. It is inequitable, driving high carbon transport over lower carbon. And I believe it misses a wider point. Many of the people in the half of the population that do fly are clearly prepared to pay this particular tax. So in our efforts to move towards a more sustainable and low carbon economy, cutting APD is, in every sense of the phrase, simply the wrong direction of travel.
Mike Robinson sits on the Scottish Government’s APD forum, representing Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and Scottish Environment LINK.
