May 23rd, 2017 by ie-adminOn 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.
“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
