Draft Environmental Action Report
The next item is a report from Sylvia Jackson on the committee's contribution to the European Commission's proposals for the sixth environmental action programme.
I am conscious of time and of the temperature in the chamber, so I will try not to take too long.
First, it must be recognised that this is a draft and that we are at the first stage of a programme that will extend until the summer. We might need to follow up certain issues in relation to sustainability after that period if we are to be effective.
The deadline for sending our interim recommendations to the European Commission is in just over a week. We have to try to get our ideas together before the recess and to ensure that committee members feel that I am on the right track.
Because the interim report was put together quickly, it contains a few errors. For example, on the front page, "Vision 22221" should read "Vision 21". A number of meetings have been held. A meeting with the Scottish Executive, to get an overview, was followed by what in European terms might be called the stakeholders meeting in Stirling, where we tried to get as many of the different organisations together as possible. Those organisations brought their written presentations and made oral ones. However, we tried to make the meeting as informal as possible.
Robin Harper, the representative from the Transport and the Environment Committee, has been with me most of the time, while Tavish Scott has attended many of the meetings. I have not yet been able to meet Ken Collins from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, but I will do so shortly. He is a very knowledgeable person in this area.
The meeting in Brussels clarified many issues. Alan Huyton, who will co-ordinate the sixth environmental action programme, was most useful in outlining the context in which that is developing. The European Commission would like there to be as much discussion as possible. Alan would like to encourage a stakeholders meeting with the Commission in Scotland, as has happened in some other countries. We should be pursuing that—I will refer to that later.
I have tried to outline the changes that are taking place in Europe that will help policy making in Scotland. For instance, the internal review will lead to more partnership, more flexibility and more sharing of best practice, which can only be a good thing.
There is a move to more horizontal structures within the Commission itself. President Prodi told us about that and about how difficult it would be. The European Parliament, with its increased powers, might have an effect. I have reviewed where people think we are at here and in the rest of Europe. There is a general feeling that the fifth environmental action programme was a good start. However, we still have a long way to go. We have to consider targets, indicators and monitoring, which should be among our main aims. However, the most important aspect is integrating environmental issues into all policy levels.
We should be aware of the pressures upon the environment that will come from areas such as transport and industry, and of how to get the partnership discussing those issues.
Sarah Boyack, the Minister for Transport and the Environment, is making good moves by getting together an inner group of ministers with—if I remember correctly—sustainable Scotland, to consider development. The minutes of those meetings will be on the internet for everybody to see. Having said that, I am hoping to meet the Scottish Executive again in the not-too-distant future, to find out what happens in the civil service structure, and whether there is a need to consider horizontally those structures and to achieve a more holistic approach. Importantly, in our own work, there is the issue of whether we need consider our committees. A standing committee has been suggested in relation to drugs; an even better case might be made for sustainable development.
I have already mentioned the immediate issues of targets, indicators and the monitoring of targets. The second section of the report will be expanded. Helen Christie from the University of Edinburgh, who has been working with me, has amassed a tremendous amount of material for that section.
When we were in Brussels, we raised with Jim Currie, the director-general for environment, the problem of the whisky industry and the need for flexibility in the water directives. It seems that that issue will not be a problem, although we will have to keep an eye on it. That could easily have become a big problem, and it shows the importance for us of the networks that we have developed since the Brussels meeting.
I have listed education, at the school and community levels, as the third big priority. There are campaigns, such as the "Are you doing your bit?" campaign in England and Wales.
Another issue is biodiversity. Most of that section of the report is the work of Robin Harper, who has been extremely useful. He has pointed out the importance of the local biodiversity action plans, two of which have been produced already by Dumfries and Galloway and by Edinburgh. They are models for every other council area in developing their own.
When he mentioned possible orientations for the future, Robin Harper did not realise that the Commission is already trying to influence all its areas to address sustainable development. Nearly all the policy areas have produced a paper outlining how they will take the environment on board. If anybody is interested, I have a copy of all the papers that I received in Brussels.
I brought agriculture into that section; however, I would like to discuss it further with others, to ensure that I have not missed anything out. I have not yet addressed the issue of organic farming—that ought to be added. There is alarming information from Denmark, where organic farming has vastly expanded. Organic farmers there now have a poor standard of living as a result of falling prices and so on. Organic farming should be regulated as well as supported.
The next section of the report concerns energy, for example, renewable energy and how Scotland could be a leader in that area.
Finally, the idea of the eco-tourism industry and how Scotland might use it appeared in the paper a few days ago and attracted quite a lot of publicity.
That was the preliminary report to the committee; the work plan still needs quite a bit of work. I am hoping to meet Ken Collins as soon as possible and to share some conclusions with the Scottish Executive. The deadline for sending the report to the European Commission is around 14 April. At some point, if members agree, I would like to promote the idea of the stakeholder meeting. Christine Boch was at the meeting with Alan Huyton, who was very enthusiastic about having such a meeting and did not think that there would be a problem. The MEP Catherine Taylor was also happy to be involved. The final report will be submitted to inform the UK position, then the effect of the issue on Scottish Parliament policy will be considered.
Thank you, Sylvia. I congratulate you on an astonishing amount of work in a very short space of time. I am impressed by the amount of—to use the word Dennis Canavan referred to earlier—networking that you have been able to do. I know that that is jargon, but you have demonstrated how representatives of the committee can work in partnership with a huge range of organisations. You have done exceptionally well in that respect. Your exercise in Stirling, which from all accounts has been very productive, will, I think, be copied by others.
I am aware of the time constraints and suggest that we ensure that all members have the paper by tomorrow and that they give any comments to Sylvia by 10 April, to include in her final report. I hope that that will enable her to submit the report by 14 April. We will have the opportunity to return to the matter at a later stage.
I must thank my researcher, Paul Godzik, who set up the Stirling meeting.
I thank you again for all your effort.