Category:

On 13 November, 35 of Scotland’s leading environmental charities wrote to Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform urging her to commit to a Scottish Environment Act. The full letter, also available here, follows.

(more…)

No comments yet

From Michael’s twitter:

Great to visit #TheReef on #Tiree with John Bowler ,  @RSPBScotland rep on the island , looking for corncrakes in my role as their @SpeciesChampion.

Heard but didn’t see any but saw lots of other things including ringed plovers & some wonderful pyramid orchids.

No comments yet

Circular Economy

No comments yet

No comments yet

Some years ago, I was ­fortunate enough to be on a safari in Botswana and on a four-day trip by canoe in the Okavango delta. As we lazily lay back to view a sky of many birds soaring over us, our guide, an intelligent local young man speaking fluent English, said that we must be at home with so many eagles overhead, as this must be just like Scotland?

I tried to explain why we did not see so many eagles together. As his eyes widened, my lame explanation was that people killed them because eagles ate other bird’s chicks, because these other birds were raised in order for people to come and pay to shoot them. He kept returning to the ­subject during our stay because he just could not believe this. The point is, in other countries ­people recognise how wonderful, precious and enriching wildlife is – for people, and for the planet.

We all know that loss of wildlife and habitats is a symptom of loss of our life support systems on Earth, but many don’t realise that it poses just as big a threat as climate change. Living in harmony with wildlife is the goal other countries are pursuing and key to a modern sustainable Scotland. We often pay lip service to this in Scotland, but don’t actually change our perceptions – we need to see ­wildlife as having intrinsic value and to do something positive about it! Lest memories are short, it was just in the 60s and 70s that birds were in flocks and the skies were teeming, and the fields, woods, riparian ­corridors and damp hollows were moving with small and large mammals, amphibian, invertebrate, insect and bird life. Now, in far too many places, one experiences silence, and no life.It’s only relatively recent policies that have done such damage, ­leaving almost one in ten of Scotland’s species in danger of extinction. This damage is reversible if policies for wildlife restoration are introduced. A key ingredient is protecting species that are most vulnerable by making activities that lead to their ­persecution ­illegal. Unfortunately, to the disbelief of the public, many different types of crime against our wildlife go on all the time.

Some is outrageously public – in a Central Belt town, digging out of badgers has gone on in broad daylight and it is not stopped, nor the perpetrators brought to book. Scottish Badgers provides many volunteer surveyors to check this sett, and it is having an effect, but in the rest of Scotland, what happens? Possibly, in numerical terms, bats suffer most. Most of us think of bats as valuable in biodiversity, but ‘dealing with them’ is too often ­perceived as a delay in housebuilding and renovations and that “the wildlife will find somewhere else to live” – but what will be left when humans have ‘tidied up’ and ‘managed’ every scrap on the land? Only in May, several dozen freshwater pearl mussels were killed by poachers in the Highlands, looking for precious pearls. Scotland’s Highlands and islands are among Britain’s last strongholds for this critically endangered species.Overall, the number of crimes ­committed against badgers in Scotland is not accurately known, in part due to difficulties in detection. Members of Scottish Badgers find plenty of evidence of damaged setts but have great difficulty getting these investigated in a timely manner.

We receive about 500 calls for help each year and of these 60 or more are ‘apparently unlawful incidents’; although quite possibly offences, these rarely get recorded, far less get as far as a court. Readers may think that badger baiting is a medieval activity but we know that such persecution is still prevalent, mainly in the south of Scotland. The public are shocked when they find these facts out and they always ask us why it happens, by whom, and ‘what is the law doing about it?’. The truth is that laws work so long as they can be implemented. When it comes to wildlife crime, Scottish Environment LINK is clear that we can only protect against wildlife crime by reserving dedicated police resources to its investigation, by retaining the legal protection that is already there, and by strengthening legal protection for habitats. To be really effective, a Scottish Police Wildlife Unit is needed, composed of officers dedicated to the task and not taken off to other duties. It would use full-time detectives, ensuring there is relevant expertise; be adequately resourced, especially in equipment; and be led by a senior officer also only dedicated to this task.

Eddie Palmer, Chairperson of Scottish Badgers and convener of LINK Wildlife Crime Group

No comments yet

At the moment, for only the second time since devolution, there is a Planning Bill before the Scottish Parliament.

Of course, you could be forgiven for not being too excited about this. Even if you were aware, you might struggle to follow the debate.

Planning is a world of often painful jargon which can seem more than a bit dry (think middle-aged professionals in suits discussing the finer difference between ‘have regard to’ and ‘take account of’).

But for many communities across Scotland, concerned about the quality, quantity or type of development, this is a crucial debate and inequalities in the planning system have become one of the issues most hotly debated by MSPs. Take, for example, the community in South Lanarkshire, which for nine years has opposed a proposed quarry on the banks of the Clyde at Lamington.

It’s a stone’s throw from nearby opencast coal mining and sand and gravel quarries, but one particular proposal for a sand and gravel extraction site has been a thorn in the side of many for too long and is hugely unpopular.

The list of objections raised by the community is long: it would destroy an irreplaceable area of rare, highest quality agricultural land; industrialise a popular scenic tourist area; increase flood risk and generate significant traffic.

The developers first lodged an application in 2009 that was refused by the local authority. In 2011 they came back with another application, which was again refused. They appealed to the Scottish Government, but the appeal was dismissed.

Not satisfied, the company then took to the courts, but the judges supported the government and local authority decisions. It was everyone’s hope and expectation that this would finally be the end of the matter but, incredibly, despite these repeated rejections, the developer submitted another new, almost identical application, due to be decided this month.

Such is the weighting of the system in favour of developers, they can, like the Terminator, simply say “I’ll be back” and submit a practically identical new application. Not only that, if permission is refused a developer can simply instigate a review of a decision or have a second go at getting consent at no extra cost.

This is in stark contrast to embattled communities, who have no such rights to instigate a review no matter how flawed a decision might be. At each stage the community is required to patiently and painstakingly set out their concerns and respond in the hope they’ll be taken into account but they know that, every time, the system is stacked against them.

For a community, and even for a local authority, planning can often become a costly war of attrition in which the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the developer. So far, fighting the quarry has cost this community £123,000, not to mention years of angst, effort and uncertainty.

Well-resourced developers can play the long game and doggedly pursue schemes with little concern for impacts on local people and how they want to see their local area develop.

Something needs to be done to prevent developers from simply resubmitting applications on the same site. However, the deeper injustice is that, in contrast to developers, communities have no rights to instigate a review of a decision.

Even if a local authority approves a development that completely undermines the ‘development plan’ for their area, a plan which takes years to prepare and involves extensive consultation and consideration, communities just have to live with the consequences while the developer reaps the rewards.

This is why Planning Democracy is pleased to see issues of equality and fairness finally become part of the debate about planning at Holyrood. In particular, an equal right of appeal, which we have been campaigning for, is now being seriously considered.

Particular credit is due to the Local Government and Communities Committee for giving the arguments a fair hearing, despite the best efforts of the government and industry to keep it off the agenda.

The Planning Bill provides a rare opportunity to address this deep injustice. We hope MSPs looking at the planning legislation will be able to cut through the dry jargon, see the importance of the issues before them, and help give Scotland a planning system which better reflects the sort of fairer country we surely all want Scotland to become.

Clare Symonds, Chair of Planning Democracy and Deputy Convenor of LINK’s Planning Group.

No comments yet

A 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…)

No comments yet

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

No comments yet

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

No comments yet

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.’

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).

****

1. 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.
2. See Michael Gove’s piece in the Telegraph.
3. Read the full statements made by the Cabinet Secretary here.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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//

No comments yet