“Money alone has never made man happy”, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. It is something that rings true with most of us but it is rarely recognised by our governments who continue to use primarily economic metrics such as GDP for measuring a country’s success.
Yet in 2007, Scotland put itself ahead of most of its European counterparts, when it introduced the National Performance Framework (NPF). This aimed to capture a vision for the Scotland we want, and guide policy making towards that end, through a number of targets and indicators. The NPF was hailed by civil society, which fully supported the government’s intention to measure prosperity through metrics in addition to GDP and therefore provide a more complete picture of a country’s state. Indeed, over the last few years a lot of progress has been achieved: data have been gathered, indicators have been added and developed – among others, access to green space, natural capital, and the pay gap – giving us a more accurate view of how our country is faring.
However, as we are approaching the NPF’s ten-year mark, it is worth taking a step back and asking ourselves whether it is living up to its true potential. The discussions around creating a Fairer Scotland should also make us pause and consider whether the NPF is fit for delivering the kind of Scotland we want.
First, the NPF sets out the Scottish Government’s vision for Scotland and a range of indicators to monitor progress towards that. The vision, captured in the Purpose statement, calls for “a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth”. This has justified a focus on sustainable economic growth as the means to success, and GDP as the way to measure it. LINK members agree that economic activity is an important contributor to wellbeing and, if decoupled from environmental degradation, it can be sustainable. However, how and what we measure to track our success should relate to both what we are aiming for and the means of achieving that. In this respect, a diverse and resilient environment must be key in our aims.
Second, for the NPF to have any impact, it needs to be used. Policy makers need to support and be inspired by the vision towards which they are working and be aware of the indicators on which success will be measured. Additionally, parliamentarians need to use the NPF to scrutinise Government performance. However, the NPF’s link with policy development is still tenuous. To address this, LINK members would support launching a discussion on how the NPF can be better embedded in the Scottish Government’s policy decision-making process and used to its full potential.
Third, despite a lot of progress, there are some areas where we still do not have an accurate picture of what is happening on the ground as data is not available. This is especially true for the environment. LINK members are calling for improvements in data collection, especially to enable us to better measure our biodiversity and ecosystems health.
LINK members hope that a discussion on the above can be initiated with the Scottish Government in the context of the upcoming review of the NPF and in taking the Fairer Scotland agenda forward through the publication of an Action Plan for Social Justice.
Matthew Crighton is Climate Job Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland and Convenor of Scottish Environment LINK’s Economics Group.
We Scots are rightly proud of our outstanding natural environment. It is also widely recognised as an essential part of our economy, as it frames our “brand”. At the same time, economic development proposals – or, indeed, conservation measures – can be controversial. Governments, businesses, and communities of both place and interest often take differing positions as to what is the best route towards achieving truly sustainable development.
Many decisions by Government and its agencies affect the environment – but there is a problem here. The environment has no ‘voice’ of its own in the debate. If there’s a dispute, it rests with concerned citizens -individuals, communities or NGOs – to speak up on the environment’s behalf. Across Europe, the rights and responsibilities of citizens in this respect are given legal form through the UN’s “Aarhus Convention”. The UK and the EU are signatories to the Convention, making it binding here in Scotland and providing for government “accountability, transparency and responsiveness”.
A key element of the Convention is access to justice and while the Scottish Government say they are in compliance with Aarhus, NGOs disagree and are supported by the Aarhus Compliance Committee in doing so.
The only way the Scottish public can intervene and challenge public decisions is to seek an independent review of a government decision by way of a Judicial or Statutory Review in the Court of Session. This process does not meet, unfortunately, the tests set out in the Aarhus Convention, for several reasons. For example, other than in exceptional circumstances, a Judicial Review cannot consider the ‘merits’ of an argument, only procedural issues. Then, the costs to the pursuants – the community group, individual or NGO – are very high. This makes the process prohibitively expensive for most and, as the respondents – the government, other public bodies and / or developers – are inevitably better resourced and more experienced litigators, the system is heavily weighted in their favour. While some modest reforms have recently reduced inequities, these are partial at best, and leave the fundamental imbalance still in place.
Environmental disputes are resolved differently in other jurisdictions. In a number of countries across the globe such as European states like Sweden, or Chile and New Zealand; in devolved administrations such as US states, Canadian provinces and Australian States; as well as emerging economies such as China, the last few decades have seen widespread introduction of specialist environmental courts.
The common theme underlying these environmental courts is that they all provide a solid binding forum to resolve environmental disputes. Good environmental courts provide full access rights for those concerned to speak up for the environment. There is evidence that such processes are more consistent, speedy and cheaper than our Scottish mix of adversarial public inquiries, quasi-judicial Ministerial decision-making, and Judicial Review. Specialist environmental courts seem to more easily fit the letter and spirit of the Aarhus Convention.
Indeed, the existing Scottish Land Court (with limited environmental responsibilities already), means that such courts are hardly an innovation in Scotland. We could proceed either by expanding the remit and adjusting the procedures of an existing specialist court, or by examining the option of a separate specialist Environmental Tribunal.
Either way, the key tests for an effective environmental court should be that the court gives adequate rights of standing to affected members of communities of place or interest; has the ability to consider the ‘merits’ of a case, as well as procedure, and has access to appropriate expertise; and its procedures are efficient and affordable, creating a level playing field for pursuants and respondents and delivering speedy decisions.
Evidence suggests that this approach would enhance decision-making, and increase consistency, certainty and predictability. As judicial precedent built up, improved understanding of the laws would lead to fewer disputes and ensure that ill-founded appeals are not generated. Indeed, it was for these reasons that the business community welcomed the introduction of an environmental court in Vermont. In Scotland, the concept has already been welcomed by the Faculty of Advocates.
While LINK is convinced that an environment court system will secure better outcomes for the environment, the aim is not to stifle development or land management. Such a system will also be used to challenge decisions we approve of. Already today, the majority of judicial reviews come from developers rather than so-called ‘third parties’ in the public interest. The outcome LINK seeks is better decisions – both in quality and process – for all.
We hope the Scottish Government will honour its 2011 manifesto commitment to publish an options paper and that it will enable the promised discussion on environmental courts. Following such debate, we hope that all our political parties can commit to legislate for such a court in their manifestos.
Lloyd Austin is the Convener of LINK’s Governance Group and Head of Conservation Policy at RSPB Scotland.
Almost six years ago, the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the Climate Change Act. The Act included an important provision for a national deposit return system, where consumers pay a small deposit on drinks bottles and cans which is fully refunded when they are returned. This hasn’t been introduced yet, but the good news is that it’s now under serious consideration.
Deposit systems are used around the world, from Croatia to California, and as well as helping to tackle climate change they bring other benefits too. Most obviously, a deposit return system would help Scotland’s recycling industry. The system means that more containers of a better quality get recycled – better than everything being mixed up in kerbside recycling – which means more jobs across the country. And when more stuff gets recycled, it means fewer valuable raw materials sent to landfill
Household recycling rates are barely moving right now – in 2013 the Scottish rate went up just 1% to 42%. At this rate it’ll take us until 2043 to hit the 70% target Scottish Ministers want us to reach by 2025. There’s much more to recycling than just cans and bottles, but in Germany, which has had a deposit return system for more than a decade, 98.5% of plastic bottles are recycled. It just works.
The idea of keeping materials flowing around Scotland is also known as the “circular economy”, where businesses can reuse and repair old products, or recycle them more efficiently to cut costs and reduce waste. It’s essentially a modern interpretation of a prudent approach that previous generations would have taken for granted.
The next benefit is less litter. Many people recycle because they like to do the right thing, but others still don’t see the point. Paying a deposit means they’re literally throwing their own money into our fields and verges, and we know from elsewhere in the world that this changes behaviour. This is part of an attitude shift this country has already begun to embrace: seeing waste as an opportunity rather than a problem.
As well as making our towns and countryside less beautiful to live in, litter puts visitors off. Scotland is promoted as a clean green place to visit, but that’s quickly undermined if visitors see a beach or picnic site strewn with cans and bottles. That’s also why organisations like Surfers Against Sewage want a deposit refund system – they’re against all pollution of our seas and beaches, not just sewage.
The same Climate Change Act also included powers to bring in a charge for carrier bags, and this was finally introduced in October last year. When it was proposed, industry described it as “a frivolous distraction”, and fought it all the way. Six months on, though, disposable bag use is down by more than 80%, helping to tackle both litter and waste. It’s just a normal part of life now, as a deposit return system will be.
Unlike the carrier bag charge, there is no cost even to the forgetful consumer with a deposit return system. Leave a can at home when you go to the shops? Take it back next time and get your money back. Or save them up and do a lot at once – you still get your money back.
Over the next few months you will hear alarmism from parts of industry that oppose a deposit system. Confusingly, some will come from companies which operate successfully in the international markets where deposit return systems already work well. They know deposit return systems are basically self-funding, but they keep fighting them anyway. You will also hear grand-sounding schemes to deal with this issue that only amount to a bit more advertising and a lot of business as usual. You may even hear industry messages echoed by organisations with worthy-sounding names which turn out to be funded by industry – that’s how they’ve resisted progress elsewhere in the world.
We want a clean, modern, progressive Scotland, with more jobs and less waste and litter. The drinks manufacturers know deposit refund systems work well elsewhere, but they’d rather not bother. They’re hoping Scottish Ministers haven’t got the bottle. I believe they’ll be proved wrong.
John Mayhew
Director
The Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland
While our Indian summer helped Scottish farmers bring the harvest in, challenging times still lie ahead for farming. Lower subsidies for some, along with low commodity prices and a weak Euro, all put pressure on farm incomes.
Scottish Environment LINK brings together more than 35 environmental organisations to protect and enhance nature and wildlife on land and water. As most of Scotland’s land is managed by farmers, LINK members want to see farms working with nature and building our natural capital.
There’s a traditional perception that the environment and farming are competing interests – and that the ‘greener’ management policies advocated by LINK will inevitably make life harder for farmers. On this reading, one way to ease the pain for farmers is to go easy on the ‘green stuff’ until times are better. We think that’s shortsighted, and that the current crisis in farming is an opportunity to do some fresh thinking about what we expect of our farmers – and what our farmers can reasonably expect from society.
At the same time, the EU referendum will raise questions about how well the Common Agricultural Policy is working – and understood. In a recent survey, only 20% of British young people had heard about the support provided to farmers, compared to 46% on average. The UK public also saw the welfare of farm animals as the most important responsibility of farmers.
Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead recently published a discussion paper on ‘The future of Scottish Agriculture’. The paper calls for farms to innovate and prosper, and for Scotland to become a ‘world leader’ in green farming.
So is there a way forward which is a win-win for farming and for the environment? LINK thinks so. We’ve pulled together a broad-based ‘Scottish food coalition’ which includes trade unions Unite and Unison and organisations concerned with animal welfare and food poverty, as well as our core environmental groups.
We want to see a just transition to a new food system, with much closer connection between farmers and consumers. This is about more than individual consumers choosing Scottish labels on produce in the supermarket.
It’s about making food chains shorter, with consumers knowing, understanding, liking and supporting where their food comes from. It’s about cities and local authorities supporting farmers and local food businesses in their region. It’s about processing more of our own food in Scotland (currently 55% is processed outside Scotland, whether it’s buying our own potatoes back as crisps or having to send lambs on a lorry down to an abattoir in Wales). It’s about farmers getting a bigger share of the retail price. It’s about people who work in food being respected and getting a decent wage, and about young people who want to farm getting access to the land.
Last week on World Food Day more than 45 global cities signed the urban food policy pact in Milan: here in Scotland both Glasgow and Edinburgh are committed to becoming Sustainable Food Cities and working more closely with farmers.
It’s easy to think that farming can only go one way – bigger farms, bigger fields, bigger sheds. But bigger isn’t always better – for the animals, for the planet or even for the bottom line.
Right now, Scotland’s organic dairy farmers are doing just fine, with rising demand not just from schools taking up the Food for Life challenge, but from McDonalds and from the growing export market.
Higher farmgate prices and lower inputs of fertiliser and pesticides more than make up for slightly lower yields (and organic yields can be good enough, with one Berwickshire farm recording 9.9t per ha of winter wheat last month).
Organic farms also produce more jobs, more bugs and beasties in the soil, more carbon captured and stored, more birds and butterflies. They have lower greenhouse gas emissions, no pesticide residues in the food, and use less antibiotics.
Organic farming is just one way of farming with nature. There are new smart approaches to biological pest management which are used only when the plants send out a chemical distress signal that they are being attacked. There’s agro-forestry, which combines trees and crops to increase overall production while improving the soil and reducing flood risk.
Does this all make food dearer when people are struggling to feed their families? In the current economic model, it means higher prices at the farmgate, so we need to close the gap between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays.
But we also need to recognise that for some families even cheap food is too dear. That’s a social justice issue – and making the environment poorer in Scotland or overseas is no solution.
In October, LINK member Nourish hosts an international conference on the future of the CAP – and over the next few weeks they are holding a series of conversations round Scotland on the future of Scottish agriculture. To join in, go to www.nourishscotland.org
Pete Ritchie Convenor of LINK’s Agriculture Taskforce and Executive Director of Nourish Scotland
Land reform is back on the agenda in Scotland with a new Bill now passing through Parliament. While most of the media coverage of this issue has centred around the inequitable pattern of land ownership in Scotland, it’s the use of our land, its management and stewardship, which is of more concern for environmental organisations.
In LINK we start from the position that much of the way we currently use the land in Scotland is not sustainable. Taxation and subsidy regimes have driven historic patterns of land use, and all too often this is for single or limited uses of the land with no reference to the public interest and the principles of sustainability. Decisions about the use of the land across huge tracts of our country are taken by a small number of people with little public accountability. There is often no opportunity for the local community, or national charities representing the wider public interest, to get involved in these decisions. However, we believe that huge economic, social and environmental benefits could be obtained from improving the levels of sustainability in the way we use the land.
LINK is tackling various issues related to unsustainable land use patterns through the combined work of our members. One strand of this work is our hill tracks campaign, which gives a clear example of how the public interest has not been well served by the existing system of land ownership and land use.
Since the early 1970s recreation and environmental organisations have grown increasingly concerned about the unregulated proliferation of such tracks right across Scotland. Landowners say these tracks are required for legitimate land management purposes; tracks built for agricultural or forestry purposes enjoy permitted development rights and so planning permission is not required. But this privilege has often been abused and many tracks are simply built for ferrying shooting and stalking clients up a hill more easily. Even our National Parks are not protected, with planning permission only required in National Scenic Areas. The lack of regulation has meant that many of these tracks are badly constructed and prone to erosion, causing much environmental damage.
The LINK hill tracks campaign was formed to try and bring these tracks into the planning system and we’ve had a measure of success, in that from 2015 landowners need to notify planning authorities in advance of new track construction or improvements they are making to existing tracks. Unfortunately this falls short of the full democratic scrutiny and the upholding of the public interest that the full planning process would ensure. Also, since the Cairngorms National Park Authority does not have full planning powers, it is not automatically informed about any notifications. But across Scotland it is now easier to know where new tracks are constructed or improvements made, and conditions can be set and enforced with regard to their construction.
We have been monitoring the situation by asking our members to send in photos of new tracks and then checking planning lists. We hope the prior notification process will lead to an improvement, and possibly a reduction, in the new tracks which are built. The signs so far are mixed. On the positive side, the forestry industry has accepted the changes and is streamlining its own forestry planning processes to encompass the new system. Also one proposed track in the Highlands has gone straight to a planning application, rather than simply being constructed as it would have been last year. The justification for this track is that the elderly shepherd can no longer easily tend his sheep on the hill – oh, and there are a few grouse butts nearby. It’s likely the main purpose for this track is for field sports and it may well be approved, but at least the public has an opportunity to comment on the plans and make suggestions.
On the downside, a prominent Cairngorms landowner is busy ‘improving’ a track by felling trees to widen the route and resurfacing it without any prior notification. In fact, in this case, the track is in a National Scenic Area, so it should automatically require a planning application, something conveniently forgotten by the landowner.
Land reform should seek to balance the public interest, rights and responsibilities in land with the legitimate rights of all owners or managers of land. The way that land is held is a public matter and it is legitimate and proper for the public to seek to inquire, debate, reform and adapt it. If our monitoring of hill tracks suggests that landowners still aren’t recognising that public interest in the way they use their land, LINK will be pressing for full planning requirements for all new tracks.
Helen Todd is Co-Convener of the LINK hill tracks campaign group and Campaigns & Policy Manager with Ramblers Scotland.
There is sometimes a wee temptation to get carried away with good news, but this summer there are promising signs of change for Scotland’s seas – in the form of proposals to better safeguard 16 marine protected areas (MPAs) in our inshore waters, and thus help provide the breeding grounds for marine recovery.
When first mooted, MPAs were seen by some as a distraction. Better protecting parts of our seas would risk displacing activities elsewhere and only ever be a partial fix for the declining health of our whole marine environment. The reply from Scotland’s environment community was that, yes, we need ecosystem-based marine planning and improved fisheries management, but we strongly support MPAs also, as a significant tool to help start reversing the decline in the health of our seas.
We are well underway now. For the past three years, the Scottish Government has been busy prioritising the parts of Scotland’s seas that urgently need strategic management. It has been a complex, at times frustrating, process that has risked stakeholder fatigue – not least from fishermen, some of whom see it as an unwelcome addition to their regulatory burdens.
As environmental advocates, we have tried to understand this, and have aimed at being constructive within the process. We have pressed for meaningful areas to be protected, and for management for the long-term good of our seas, and all who depend on their health.
Accordingly, we launched our “Don’t take the ‘P’ out of MPAs” campaign, aimed at government Ministers. Our message echoed what many communities around Scotland’s coastline are also saying. The health of our seas is clearly failing and urgent action is needed. Over 4,700 people responded to the Scottish Government consultation. Communities up and down the country, from the Clyde to Wester Ross, contributed to a groundswell for conservation management. Their message was simple. The plans were too complex and lacked ambition.
The response from Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead has been impressive. He has heard these voices, listened and acted. The management proposals for the 16 sites are now simpler and stronger. Many will see restrictions on dredging, and have enlarged no-go areas for bottom-trawling gear.
A heartening example of where this will help sea life is in the Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA, one of the few remaining strongholds for the common skate. Tragically, this impressive two metre wing-spanned animal is no longer common, as a result of over-exploitation. This was due to its life-history making it unsuitable for targeted fishing. Committed sea anglers have since gone to great lengths to catch, tag and return the diminishing population, thus identifying the site’s importance.
Where previously the government’s proposal was to restrict dredging and trawling in just the deepest part of the Sound, now, following the advice of marine scientists and feedback from local communities, the proposal is to safeguard other deep areas and adjacent, shallower waters, where skate breed and feed. In short, this is an ecologically proportionate – and necessary – response to the urgent protection and recovery of a globally endangered species.
Progressive management like this is proposed for most of the other 15 sites, although there are still some exceptions, such as the waters of Loch Fyne, where improvements could still be made.
The response to the latest proposals from our fishermen has been incredibly significant – mainly because it is so mixed. ‘Mobile gear’ fishermen who dredge the sea floor, mostly for scallops, face new restrictions in 3% of our inshore waters, and are deeply concerned by the changes. But ‘static gear’ fishermen, who use creels to fish, and have a much lower seabed impact, have been broadly supportive.
Some creelers (whose vessels constitute 70% of the Scottish inshore fleet) even argue that the measures do not go far enough to resolve many of the contentious issues facing inshore fishery. Their representatives are urging more wide-ranging spatial management, similar to regulations long used by our Scandinavian neighbours.
As stakeholders across Scotland contemplate their response to the proposals, we entreat them to keep their eye on the grand prize. If we introduce management that encourages ecological bounce-back, inshore fish and shellfish productivity will be improved, lower impact fishing opportunities can be boosted, and marine tourism will be supported.
In addition, the measures will help address a much broader challenge that we face. Kelp forests and seagrass beds lock up millions of tonnes of carbon in the seabed every year. In protecting and encouraging the recovery of these “blue carbon” stores, MPAs can play their part in tackling climate change.
For all of us, the prize to keep in mind is the enhanced sea life which sustains us all.
Calum Duncan Marine Conservation Society Convenor of LINK Marine Taskforce
For decades now, Scotland has managed activities within its seas, such as renewables, oil and gas development and aquaculture, through separate, sector-specific planning guidance – but now things are changing. Serious declines in the health of our marine environment as a result of human activities at sea and around our coasts became an urgent driver for a much more coordinated approach to management. Following ground-breaking legislation (the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010), the Scottish Government developed the first National Marine Plan (NMP), which serves as a definitive statutory guide on how to plan developments at sea, to conserve and enhance the marine environment, reduce conflict and simplify current systems. The novel challenge of marine planning is not just to prevent further decline but to enable ecological recovery, whilst guiding development. Since the Plan’s adoption in March, the focus is now shifting to its urgent delivery via a series of Regional Marine Planning Partnerships (RMPPs), each with their own regional plan over the coming years.
But what does this actually mean for Scotland’s planning culture? Marine spatial planning is an emerging discipline defined by UNESCO as ‘a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process.’ It is something of an unknown quantity to scientists and planners alike – not least because much of the area requiring management lies underwater and is not easily seen or surveyed. There is therefore simply less of the data required to inform good planning compared to the interlinked terrestrial system.
There is also a growing awareness of marine environmental issues in Scotland, with many community interests seeking to be proactively involved in the management of their local sea area. How do planners go about communicating complex policy processes to interested members of the public who wish to participate, but don’t always know where to start? This presents an overlapping challenge to the Scottish Government’s stated ‘Community Empowerment’ agenda currently in the Parliamentary pipeline.
The challenges we now face for effective implementation of the NMP in Scotland are inevitably the same as those for terrestrial planning 50 years ago, but in that respect we have the opportunity to learn from those processes and apply principles of good practice to marine planning. Significantly increased resourcing will be needed to support regional plans and those with the responsibility to develop and deliver them. This will mean ensuring the Marine Planning Partnerships and local authorities have access to the right expertise, funding, data and tools to make informed and appropriate decisions about developments in the sea. There is also an urgent need to improve mechanisms for cross-boundary collaboration, not only across political and geographical boundaries, but also between terrestrial and marine areas, as activities in either domain have the potential to affect the other. Communities, particularly in coastal areas, must be part of the planning process and significant awareness-raising efforts are required to improve the level of understanding of marine issues so that our communities can be effective agents within the planning system.
Above all, the principles of sustainable development must underpin the development of marine plans, with environmental protection and enhancement the key focus, to ensure the protection of our seas and the flow of goods and services they provide for future generations.
Esther Brooker, Marine Policy Officer, Scottish Environment LINK Published in Scottish Planner, Summer Issue/#162/June 2015
Dr Phoebe Cochrane, LINK’s Sustainable Economics Policy Officer
GDP figures released today for Scotland show us that the Scottish economy grew by 0.6% during the first quarter of 2015. GDP is the most widely reported metric and to increase GDP is a central aim of many governments, including the Scottish Government. However, GDP is very limited in what it measures – essentially measuring how busy our economy has been, with no regard to the social or environmental impact of that economic activity.
As Robert Kennedy famously stated in 1968, ‘it (GDP) measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.’ We need to remember our economy is a means to wellbeing, not an end in itself, and a measure of the scale of economic activity alone is not an adequate proxy for how well Scotland is really doing. Additionally, both wellbeing and the economy are intimately linked to our natural environment on which we all rely and which we have a duty to protect for future generations of all species.
The scale and type of economic activity we engage in continues to erode our natural environment, so increases in GDP need to be considered in the context of other indicators.
For example, a Scottish Government press release on May 14th celebrated the ‘record high’ volume and value of fish landings and the importance of fish to our economy. However, the Scotland Performs indicator for the marine environment shows us that fishing rates are unsustainable with only 38% of our total catch consistent with scientific guidance (2014 data).
Latest figures for breeding seabird populations also suggest that the health of our marine ecosystems are under threat with numbers of 12 key species declining by 42% since 1986. Terrestrial breeding birds, the Scottish Government’s own indicator for biodiversity, show a decrease of 10% between 2012 – 2013, during which time the economy grew by 1.7%.
And latest figures on our carbon footprint (which includes emissions associated with imported goods) shows that, despite our reduction in domestic emissions, our climate change impact is still increasing – Scotland’s carbon footprint increased by 5% between 2011 and 2012.
As the above examples show, one of the main challenges we face in promoting the use of wider indicators in parallel with GDP is the time lag between the reporting period and the release of data. There needs to be a concerted effort to address this and to report and discuss these indicators more widely.
Scottish Environment LINK is promoting a suite of indicators that can adequately reflect the health of our environment, the wellbeing of society and the state of our economy to the Scottish Government through the National Performance Framework review process. There are plans for a public consultation on the National Performance Indicators this summer, giving you an opportunity to tell the Scottish Government whether you think what they are measuring gives us the full picture.
THIS is an issue that needs to be confronted, says Kevin Dunion.
What has Europe ever done for us? Depending on the outcome of the general election, we may be assailed with claims that it is interfering and wasteful, with others stoutly defending its role in lowering trade barriers and upholding commonly agreed standards from Limerick to Limassol.
For example, it was through an EC directive, passed back in 1990 (and further strengthened by a new directive in 2003), that we acquired rights to access information on the environment. This was well before domestic freedom of information laws in Scotland, and in the rest of the UK, came into effect some ten years ago.
Now, at a time when there are real concerns that public services are being privatised or contracted-out, and consequently escaping from the obligations of FoI, these European-derived rights may prevent citizens’ rights to information being undermined. A particular feature of the directive is that it applies to private companies, if they are performing a “public administrative function”.
But what does this actually mean? It was only late last year that the European Court of Justice issued a judgment clarifying that it applies to entities “entrusted with the performance of services of public interest”, (including but not exclusively those in the environmental field) and which are “vested with special powers”.
This test recently led to an Upper Tribunal ruling that privatised water companies in England do have special powers, which include making compulsory purchase orders, powers to enter land and imposing hosepipe bans, enforceable through criminal sanctions. As a result, they must comply with environmental information requests.
Scottish Water remains in public ownership and so it has always been subject to the environmental information regulations and also to FoI law in Scotland more generally. But the point is the tests laid down by the European Court can be applied to the operators of other privatised services, including railway and energy companies (and perhaps also to some of the arms-length bodies set up by public authorities).
However, the information commissioners or courts cannot come to a view on the law without a request for information being made in the first place. It required dogged persistence by an angling organisation, Fish Legal, to force its request to water companies all the way to the European Court and back to a judge in England before the law was given effect.
It is difficult to recall a similar example pursued by a recognised voluntary body in Scotland, which is not to say significant requests have not been made by individual citizens and groups. It took a local shop steward to request the PFI contract that exposed the full costs of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. A handful of parents used FoI to challenge the closure of rural schools, leading to a change in legislation. Questions from bereaved relatives helped expose the high levels of C difficile at Vale of Leven hospital.
However, it has always surprised me how few cases have been championed by third-sector bodies. The most recent annual report by the Scottish Information Commissioner shows only 3 per cent of appeals to her came from voluntary organisations, virtually unchanged from my time in the post.
Research by the University of Strathclyde suggests some reasons for this apparent inhibition. It found “almost half of all respondents stated that they would be discouraged from making a request because of a fear that it might harm working relations or funding relations or both.” The correlation was clear – the higher the level of funding an organisation receives from a public authority, the more likely they are to believe that using FOI could harm relations with the public authority. Given that almost all the organisations which responded were funded either wholly or in part by public authorities, such fears can have a chilling effect.
Many voluntary organisations were in the vanguard in pressing for freedom of information laws at a European and national level, and could be expected to be prominent requesters. We need to openly discuss why some are reluctant to be so, and consider who, without fear or favour, is willing to explore the potential of these hard-won rights.
This article was first published by The Scotsman on 5th May 2015
Kevin Dunion is honorary professor at the University of Dundee’s School of Law, was the first Scottish Information Commissioner and is a former director of Friends of the Earth Scotland.
OWNERSHIP is less important than stewardship, says John Thomson
In obvious respects, a nation’s land defines it, and helps to shape its culture.
So it is hardly surprising that questions relating to land have come to the fore in the continuing ferment of debate about Scotland’s future. Unsurprisingly, given the remarkable concentration of landownership in the country, much of this discussion revolves around the issue of ownership.
Far-reaching as the social and economic implications of differing patterns of ownership may be, the most fundamental question of all is surely whether it is being looked after in ways that maximise its value to the nation and the species we share the land with.
This is why Scottish Environment LINK sees it as vital that the discussions about land ownership proceed with parallel deliberations about future land use. The goal must be to strike the right balance between the public and private interests in land, taking particular care of the needs of the natural world.
The Scottish Government’s current consultation is therefore right to focus on the contribution that land reform can make to sustainable development – if this is defined in the way set out in the Shared UK Principles of Sustainable Development. These require harmonisation of social, economic and environmental objectives within environmental limits, informed by sound science and with active citizen involvement.
Equally crucial, in our view, is the responsible stewardship of land. Landholders of whatever type should be regarded as holding land “in trust” for the wider community – including both future generations and all the other species.
To have a truly sustainable future, Scotland must banish notions of exclusive possession – and of human dominion over nature. Any benefits, legal or fiscal, that society bestows upon those holding land should be conditional upon their safeguarding the public interest in its use and condition. Reciprocal rights and responsibilities are enshrined in the access provisions of the existing Land Reform Act; the time has come to extend the approach more widely.
We therefore welcome, in principle, the Scottish Government’s proposed Land Rights and Responsibilities Policy Statement. But we see it as vital that this vision and these principles are conjoined with the Land Use Strategy required by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act. Together, they should be at the top of the hierarchy, and integrate all the other relevant government strategies and plans for land.
The practical implications of all this might be best teased out in a code of responsible stewardship. Such a code might provide guidelines for the everyday management of land, taking account of the varying conditions across the country.
To be effective, a code would have to be complemented by a country-wide system of indicative land use strategies, of the kind prefigured by the pilot Regional Land Use Frameworks being prepared in Aberdeenshire and the Scottish Borders. Though not prescriptive, these documents might constitute the starting point for any attempt to identify the public interest in the management of any specific area of land.
They could also become the key to the allocation of public funds in programmes such as the Scottish Rural Development Programme and all land subsidies.
Such a regime would, of course, apply as much to communities (whether of place or of interest) as to individuals. While we enthusiastically support the goal of bringing unused physical assets into use for the benefit of local people, we have no doubt that, in their use of land, communities should be expected to meet exactly the same standards as all land managers.
Such a comprehensive and cohesive approach might go far to set Scotland’s treatment of its land on the more sustainable path that it so badly needs.
If land reform does not lead to major changes in attitude and behaviour, a unique, and possibly unrepeatable, opportunity will have been missed.
On the other hand, an ambitious, Scotland-wide effort to re-set the rules of the game could yield huge dividends, and could make Scotland the envy of much of the developed and developing world.
John Thomson is convenor of the Scottish Environment LINK Landscape Task Force
This article was first published by The Scotsman on 10th March 2015
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.
