Draft Climate Change Adaptation Programme
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08732, in the name of Rob Gibson, on the Scottish Government’s consultation on its draft climate change adaptation programme. I call Rob Gibson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Mr Gibson, you have 10 minutes.
15:36
Presiding Officer, I crave your indulgence as I try to get all the detail in.
Change and adaptation are rarely easy. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? None—the light bulb has to be willing to change itself. Of course, it should now be an energy-saving light bulb. Change and adaptation are central to meeting the challenges of our changing climate.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recently scrutinised the Scottish Government’s draft Scottish climate change adaptation programme. We heard evidence from stakeholders and from the minister, and we wrote to the minister setting out our views and recommendations to inform the final adaptation programme. The committee thanks the minister for his prompt and detailed response, which enables us all to consider that in this afternoon’s debate. The committee fully agrees with the minister that the long-term sustainability of Scotland in a changing climate is the responsibility of each and every one of us. As Morag Watson reminded us in a behaviour change session last September,
“when people are given the time and space to talk through certain things all sorts of issues come to the fore.”
Culture change is possible.
The extreme weather that we have experienced over the last few weeks also reminds us of the urgency of a change of outlook. Can the minister confirm that planning for a changing climate is being comprehensively embedded into Scottish Government policies? The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s work programme will focus our scrutiny of the forthcoming draft third national planning framework on how it will help to deliver Scotland’s climate change adaptation programme. The committee is pleased to hear that the minister is soon to write to the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change to formally request that it carry out the first independent assessment of the programme in Scotland, and we look forward to seeing that report.
Further clarity is needed across all three adaptation programme themes with regard to project timescales, budgets and responsibility for development and implementation. Stakeholders want clarity on whether project finance is secure or is still required, on which is the lead organisation of implementation and, when a project is set to extend beyond the five-year lifespan of the programme, on how its progress will be monitored. The committee strongly agrees that a longer-term view would significantly aid the building of Scotland’s resilience. Will the minister consider how that can best be achieved in the final strategy?
The committee reiterates our appreciation of the vital work of our emergency and volunteer services in responding to extreme weather events. We would be interested to hear from the minister what lessons have been learned to inform the final programme. Evidence mounts on the risks that our infrastructure and built environment face from flooding, landslips and high winds. Also, our transport networks and energy, information and communication technology are situated in strategic corridors and can be vulnerable. Compromises on the speed and effectiveness of emergency responses could impact on the continuity of businesses, health boards and local authorities; indeed, they could affect the fundamental resilience of local communities.
We recommended that the final programme be strengthened to set out how the planning process could be used to embed climate change adaptation—for example, on the siting of new developments and infrastructure, particularly in housing, renewable energy and rural broadband roll-outs. The RACCE committee will inquire into how the planning process takes climate change issues into account in its forthcoming scrutiny of NPF3.
The importance of Scotland’s key economic sectors—food, drink, tourism and energy—and their value to our economy are well known. All are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, not only here in Scotland but at an international level, which affect supply chains. Our final programme must line up with the adaptation plans of other countries to protect supply chains for our businesses, including airports and telecoms. That will require international negotiation and discussion of the sort that our minister engaged in at the Doha round and later on the Kyoto protocols et cetera. It is essential that we make contact with other countries in which parts of our supply chains lie.
We welcome the minister’s assurance on how the travel information and flood and weather alerts that are provided by traffic Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, local authorities and the emergency services are being shared through the internet, social media and radio. That must continue to be improved and developed to serve our communities.
Especially in agriculture and seafood, smaller local businesses with shorter supply chains are of profound importance to Scotland. We agree that more attention should be focused on supporting smaller businesses to adapt to changes in the climate. We were pleased to note that the minister recognises that, and we welcome his confirmation that the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill will help small and medium-sized businesses to meet some of those changes.
The committee shares the strong concerns of stakeholders in the agriculture sector, for whom the negative impacts of climate change are very real. Growing seasons have changed, and farmers have already had to adapt what they grow. Farmers seem willing to make the changes, but there is a lack of knowledge transfer and they say that practical guidance and financial incentives are needed. I question whether those will be available. Forestry faces the biggest challenges through the loss of confidence in making resilient decisions, which is a result of the uncertain long-term effects of climate change and the invasive diseases that have been brought to our country.
The committee recommended that financial incentives, such as those in the new Scotland rural development programme and the common agricultural policy, be made user friendly and adaptable and that, wherever possible, they should have multiple benefits that help to deliver climate change adaptation and to improve biodiversity. The final programme should support people who are involved in making longer-term decisions. We are pleased that the minister has ensured that policies on land use that provide multiple benefits for our natural environment will be reflected in the final programme.
The committee was concerned to hear that 18 per cent of our coastline is highly susceptible to erosion. From that, coupled with the continuing rise in sea levels, it is clear that our coastal communities face significant risk. Regarding their protection, we need the minister to tell us whether the recent events have highlighted the need to accelerate that work. The statement that he made last week was helpful in letting us know that many people share our concerns on the matter. The committee heard about the new flood warning scheme that SEPA is operating. Can the minister tell us how effective that has been over the past few weeks?
In its letter to the minister, the committee sought an update on how the Scottish Government would prioritise investment in flood risk management. The minister confirmed in his response that the process would take place over the course of 2014 and that an update would be available towards the end of the year. Is the minister able to say whether the Scottish Government is still working to the same timetable or whether the events of the past few weeks have shown that the work requires to be accelerated? Many of my colleagues may wish to speak in the debate on some of the flooding issues.
We are pleased that the minister believes that more targeted support may be required for the most vulnerable in society, because equalities issues must be considered in the matter of climate change. People can be very vulnerable indeed because of climate change, not just in very shallow islands in the Pacific but right here in the heart of our cities. We must provide guidance to help them. Can the minister tell us more about how that will be taken forward, because we consider that social justice is part of climate change?
I hope that today’s debate will help to inform the final programme.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s response to the Scottish Government’s draft climate change adaptation programme.
I remind members who wish to speak in the debate that they should press their request-to-speak buttons. I call Paul Wheelhouse. Minister, you have seven minutes.
15:45
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I thank the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for its efforts in scrutinising the draft Scottish climate change adaptation programme. I welcome this debate and the opportunity to discuss how we can respond collectively to the threats and opportunities that Scotland is facing from a changing climate and increasingly unpredictable weather. The latest evidence from the intergovernmental panel on climate change sends a stronger than ever warning that human activity is changing the global climate. The events of the past few weeks are a stark reminder of the importance of action both in preparing for our increasingly unpredictable weather and in moving towards low-carbon living. Rob Gibson was absolutely right to pick up on those issues.
In November, I attended the United Nations climate summit in Warsaw, which took place against the background of the devastating Philippines typhoon. At Warsaw, the international community agreed what is now a very tight timetable towards a new climate treaty to limit global warming to 2° Celsius to be signed in Paris in December 2015. However, despite the global commitment to reduce emissions, climate change is already presenting challenges for Scotland’s distinctive biodiversity and habitats, our built environment and infrastructure, and our remote and, indeed, coastal communities, as Rob Gibson identified. The inertia of the climate system means that some degree of further climate change is inevitable over the coming decades.
The UK’s first climate change risk assessment, published in 2012, shows the risks to and opportunities for Scotland from a changing climate. We must prepare for those changes to minimise the impact and take advantage of the opportunities, although I suspect that in some cases the opportunities will be smaller than the negative impact of climate change. Our Scottish climate change adaptation programme provides the framework that will build Scotland’s resilience to the changing climate.
I am aware that the committee heard evidence from stakeholders representing a wide range of interests; to name but a few, they were the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Transport Scotland, SEPA, NFU Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK, Scottish Natural Heritage, the sustainable Scotland network and the Scotch Whisky Association. That emphasises the wide-ranging nature of the challenge, which presents both threats and opportunities for Scotland’s economy, environment and people. That is why we are committed to consulting on our first statutory Scottish climate change adaptation programme.
No one organisation can address that in isolation. There are complex interactions between and within sectors. Success will depend on organisations, businesses and communities across Scotland accepting responsibility and working in partnership if we are to create a Scotland that is increasingly recognised as an attractive, environmentally conscious and climate-resilient place in which to live, work and invest. In doing so, we will be helping to create a more successful country for all and supporting the foundations for long-term economic prosperity. Our adaptation programme provides a framework for everyone in Scotland to contribute towards the delivery of the objectives within their own organisation, business or community.
The programme reflects the cross-cutting nature of the climate change challenge in the Scottish Government. It draws on action across ministerial portfolios, and my ministerial colleagues were involved in its preparation. I meet regularly with my ministerial colleagues to discuss climate change, and that engagement will continue.
A number of issues were raised by the committee and respondents to the consultation, not all of which can be covered in the context of this short debate. I have provided a written response to issues that were raised by the committee, and the analysis of the consultation responses was published on the Scottish Government website on 10 January. I will respond now to some of the issues that were raised by the convener in his opening speech. I also intend to pick up on some of the issues that were raised by the committee in my closing speech. In particular, I will clarify in my closing speech the monitoring and reporting arrangements for the programme as well as key issues around flooding, ecosystems and our natural environment. I would welcome members’ views on those issues during the debate.
The recent festive period illustrated the pressures that severe weather can create. In general terms, the events, which we considered a number of times in the chamber last week, are examples of the adaptation programme in practice, as they involved dealing with issues such as flooding and disruption to transport and energy networks. The Parliament recognised the excellent work of responders, who were informed of and prepared for potential flood risks through the excellent SEPA and Met Office Scottish flood forecasting service. With the help of such systems, they were able to work together effectively to reduce and manage the impacts of the flooding on the affected communities. In addition, the public were directly warned and informed through the floodline direct warning service. I have asked SEPA to consider what more could be done to bring forward the published flood warning strategy.
Tomorrow, at a pre-planned flooding summit with local authorities, I will help to launch SEPA’s new flood risk and hazard maps. They are an essential tool in supporting the development of flood risk strategies across Scotland, with actions that will help to target efforts to plan and invest in reducing potential impacts in vulnerable areas. This is a long-term programme of work that involves people collectively taking an innovative, joined-up, multi-agency, strategic response to the longer-term challenges that climate change provides.
In addition, the Resilience Advisory Board for Scotland, which is the national forum that brings together Scotland’s statutory and voluntary emergency responder organisations to discuss cross-sector working, will meet on 22 January. Members will discuss lessons learned from the experience of activations in response to recent weather events.
The important role of the preparations that are made by individuals and communities is recognised, and the Scottish Government has published guidance for communities on community emergency planning on the ready Scotland website. An example of community emergency planning in action during the recent period of severe weather is the great work of members of the Eyemouth resilient communities group in the Scottish Borders. I am sure that Claudia Beamish is familiar with its work. When the community was threatened by flooding in December, the group took part in a multi-agency meeting with statutory emergency responders and it subsequently played an active role, in partnership with Scottish Borders Council, in checking on residents in the harbour area of the town. Through our adaptation programme, we will continue to develop and promote resources that support such capacity building in communities, and through our support for adaptation Scotland we will continue to ensure that there is wider engagement with communities on the objectives of the programme.
The convener picked up on social justice. Through the adaptation programme, we will continue to support measures to understand the effects of climate change on people, homes and communities and to build communities’ resilience against climate change impacts, and particularly impacts on vulnerable people. We will reflect progress in future adaptation programmes and in our annual reports to the Parliament.
Wider engagement will be key to delivering our adaptation objectives. Local authorities and other public bodies, businesses, voluntary organisations and communities will be central in helping Scotland to build resilience against the impacts of climate change. Our support for adaptation Scotland is a key mechanism through which we are building partnerships and support to deliver our objectives. We are also forging partnerships across the public sector. I chair the public sector climate leaders forum, which includes leaders from across the public and third sectors. Councillor Stephen Hagan is vice-chair of the forum, as well as representing the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Working together, the members of the forum aim to provide strong and visible leadership across the public sector and beyond, and to ensure that climate change action is driven more consistently across the sector as a whole.
We are also building partnerships to improve our understanding of the impacts of climate change. ClimateXChange exemplifies the partnership approach as it builds on the strengths of each of its partners, ensuring that our response to climate change is based on the best possible scientific evidence.
Minister, will you draw to a close, please?
I will, Presiding Officer.
I hope to pick up on some additional points in my closing speech. Suffice it to say that Scotland is well placed to respond to climate change through its rich natural resources, and we are already achieving a great deal.
15:53
This committee debate is extremely important and timely as it comes in the immediate aftermath of the recent severe weather and flooding. They focused all our minds on emergency arrangements and resilience, and, equally important, on the longer-term climate change adaptation process.
The overarching aim of the draft programme is:
“To increase the resilience of Scotland's people, environment, and economy to the impacts of a changing climate.”
Scottish Labour is solidly behind the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s motion, and I thank the convener and the Minister for Environment and Climate Change for their opening speeches in what I hope will be a positive debate.
Our committee took a wide range of evidence, as has already been said. The evidence was broad and deep in its range. We wrote to the minister and we received a detailed response, which has been helpful.
There has also been a Scottish Government public consultation, the result of which was out recently. That scrutiny has helped to hone the draft programme into a more focused way forward. We now have the opportunity to engage with one another and the minister and take into account everything in the final programme.
In his foreword to the draft programme, the minister states:
“Our climate affects people’s health, our road and rail services, water supplies, energy demands, tourism – the list is ... endless.”
It is indeed endless. I was very relieved to hear the minister reassure us today about speaking with different departments: that on-going dialogue is essential to tackle climate change.
It is impossible for any single speaker to touch on all the issues, but between us we have a chance to get it right. We should acknowledge that, importantly,
“The Programme ... sets out the arrangements for wider engagement in meeting those objectives.”
As the minister just said, it is a collective endeavour. Governance arrangements are at the heart of the way forward. In this rapidly changing world, it is essential that the climate change delivery board is a robust and effective body as it oversees delivery.
In the draft programme we see that the board will have a new reporting role for the programme, which relates to the meeting of annual emissions targets, which we all know have been missed in successive years. We have future challenges on that.
I turn to monitoring and assessment of the programme. The minister stated in his response to the committee:
“It is important for the evaluation of the Programme to be an on-going process to ensure the right measures are in place to address the effects of climate change. We are currently considering options for monitoring and reporting ... and the views of the Committee and stakeholders will be taken into account”.
I note that perhaps the minister will explain in his closing speech more about how that will work in practice, which would be helpful.
In its briefing for the committee, Scottish Environment LINK recommends that
“All wider policies which will make Scotland resilient and adaptable to a changing climate in the long-term”
should be addressed not just in terms of
“addressing risks in the next 5 years”,
but beyond. I hope that the minister will take that into account.
In our letter to the minister, the committee said:
“The Committee will also consider climate change issues as part of its own scrutiny of the National Performance Framework 3,”
or NPF3. We will also consider climate change issues in relation to the national planning framework 3, which has the same acronym. The national planning framework has a fundamental role to play in this context. It had a fundamental role for the previous Administration and will have a role beyond this Administration, into the future. I hope that the minister agrees with me on that.
The responses to the Scottish Government consultation show the range and depth of understanding of and commitment to climate adaptation across Scotland. Although there was
“broad support for the Programme’s overarching framework, and its objectives, policies and proposals ... it was common for respondents to request more detail about certain aspects of the Programme and to suggest that there should be a greater emphasis on ‘taking action’.”
That is important for the final draft.
Significantly,
“there were requests for clarification about how”
the programme
“would be delivered, who was responsible / accountable for delivery, priorities and timescales, funding, and arrangements for reporting and monitoring.”
The committee’s view is that a lot of that is in the draft programme, but there are ways in which perhaps it could be sharpened.
Can you draw to a close, please?
That chimes with some of the committee’s recommendations. I ask the minister to take forward those fundamental governance issues in the final adaptation programme.
15:59
I am not a great fan of the phrase “adopting a holistic approach”, but one thing is for sure: if climate change adaptation is to be successfully mainstreamed across not just Government departments but also organisations, businesses, the public sector, communities and individuals, a holistic approach is exactly what must be adopted.
During the past year, each and every one of us has experienced the stark impact of our changing climate, whether it be through the damaging snows of last spring, the delights of a searingly hot summer, or the sodden aftermath of the excessive rainfall of the past few weeks. If ever there was a year that highlighted the fact that climate change impacts on us all individually and collectively, surely 2013 was it.
We therefore very much welcome the Government’s preparation of a climate change adaptation programme, and its recognition that a much wider approach is necessary if it is to be successful. To that end, it is difficult not to sympathise with those stakeholders who drew the committee’s attention to their disappointment that the programme looks at only a five-year timescale when most believe that a much longer-term approach is necessary. I fully understand and sympathise with the point that this is not an easy thing to achieve, but I whole-heartedly endorse the committee’s recommendation that the final programme should take a longer-term view and, when possible, assist stakeholders to develop longer-term approaches.
I also endorse the committee’s recommendation, as agreed by stakeholders, that the final programme should include a stronger focus on targets and set out a robust monitoring and evaluation system. That has already been referred to several times. Such a system is important if the programme is to be successful. Again, I understand the difficulties of setting targets in this policy area, but without them, evaluation and effective monitoring will be all but impossible. We would all agree that effective monitoring and evaluation are essential if the programme is to have a meaningful outcome, and I look forward to hearing what the minister will say about that in his closing comments.
I was pleased that the committee heard specifically from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on how it is already adapting to climate change. Such change was evidenced vividly during new year in my own constituency, where there was extensive flooding in the river valleys and an intense battering of the coastal defences from the sea, all of which required the emergency services to step up to the mark. They were certainly not found wanting in that regard.
It is also right that the importance of partnership working with local voluntary services, often individuals, is duly recognised. For example, farmers are increasingly playing a major part in post-snowstorm relief activities, and those partnerships are to be greatly welcomed and encouraged.
As the committee heard, extreme weather is everyone’s problem, and a collective approach is required if, as we all suspect, today’s challenges are to continue, possibly to an even greater degree in future. I for one would like to see the final programme be somewhat more explicit on the support that will be available to help to develop partnerships between emergency and voluntary services.
Time does not allow me to cover every aspect of the committee’s response to the consultation, so I will conclude with a brief comment on the impact of climate change on agriculture and forestry. As Rob Gibson mentioned during his opening comments, the committee heard that farmers, who I think are among the most adaptable individuals on earth, are struggling to keep pace with the need to adapt to climate change. In itself, that should be a pretty stark warning to us all. The fact is that agriculture has a major and positive role to play in tackling climate change, but it will need financial and practical support if it is to carry out that role effectively.
Similarly, we are all aware of the role that forestry has to play in combating climate change. Although I welcome the research that is being done on agroforestry, the fact is that the Government’s target of planting 100,000 hectares of new forest by 2020 is looking to be increasingly in question. Although this is not a recommendation from the committee, if it does not sound too high-handed, I recommend that the minister takes a long, hard look at the Government’s forestry policy to ensure that the sector does play its full part in combating climate change, while maintaining the critical mass of commercial timber production that the milling industry needs if it is to continue investing in the sector.
I welcome the debate and look forward to hearing further contributions. If I may, I will comment on the Government’s response when I wind up.
16:03
I say at the outset that I am pleased to contribute to the debate. It is an important issue that requires the attention of all parliamentarians and all committees in the Parliament, not just the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I am pleased to hear the minister confirm that he meets other ministers regularly specifically to discuss climate change.
We have seen at first hand, in all our constituencies, the evidence that Scotland’s climate is changing. Just last month, for example, we saw the wettest December in Scotland since records began in 1910, and the average winter precipitation in the 1990s and 2000s was approximately 23 per cent higher than the 1961 to 1990 baseline; in the 1960s, it was approximately 9 per cent lower.
As we have heard, the main aim of the climate change adaptation programme is to increase the resilience of Scotland’s people, environment and economy to the impacts of the changing climate. As the Scottish Government is leading by example, it is also incumbent on this Parliament, us as parliamentarians and local authorities to lead by example and to give this enormously important issue the attention that it deserves.
It is clear that preparing for unavoidable climate change and reducing emissions are both essential actions if we are to ensure economic growth in Scotland and protect our much valued natural environment. We must use every opportunity to get the message over that climate is changing and that key challenges lie ahead for our people, communities and the most vulnerable in society.
While the long-term framework for building Scotland’s resilience to climate change is being led by the Scottish Government, it is imperative that partnership working is encouraged and facilitated through the formation of new partnerships and collaborations.
There are good examples of that happening. I am looking forward to seeing at first hand the work of ClimateXChange—Scotland’s centre of expertise on climate change here in Edinburgh—which is a partnership that shares ideas of good practice across areas of common interest to help to increase the resilience of Scotland’s people, environment and communities, when our committee visits it in just over a week’s time. We will also have the opportunity to see at first hand the new Edinburgh centre for carbon innovation building.
Another good example of best practice is the fact that flexible adaptation is being built into long-term investment decisions. For example, the 2014 Commonwealth games village has built-in green-blue networks and sustainable urban drainage systems. The 2020 climate group is creating alliances across the public and private sectors by sharing knowledge and developing business awareness in tackling risk.
I was therefore pleased to see the minister’s response to the committee’s concerns regarding the potential vulnerabilities of small and medium-sized businesses, in which he pledged to continue to provide targeted support to SMEs,
“ensuring that businesses have a good understanding of the range of risks they may face from the impacts of climate change”.
However, it is worth reiterating that the committee heard concerns from stakeholders about the potential vulnerability of SMEs to climate change and extreme weather events. While the work of the 2020 group is positive and welcome, stakeholders were of the view that more attention needs to be given to smaller businesses. As the convener said, we welcomed the minister’s positive response on that issue.
Our committee report also raised the issue of climate justice and social justice and called on the Scottish Government to ensure that social justice aspects of the adaptation programme are given more weight in the final programme.
The poor and the vulnerable are the first to be affected by climate change and will suffer the worst through no fault of their own, having done little or nothing to cause the problem in the first place. The committee therefore welcomed the commitment from the minister to take a lead in ensuring that the vulnerability of communities and the social justice dimension of climate change impacts are addressed. We look forward to further responses.
Before I close, I want to touch on the need for more effective monitoring and assessment. In particular, the committee stressed that the final programme should include a stronger focus on targets and set out a robust monitoring and evaluation framework, as Alex Fergusson alluded to.
It is clear that climate change adaptation has to be tackled in an incremental way, with strong partnership working, knowledge transfer and the development of methods to support adaptation by communities themselves. Not all impacts require immediate responses. However, I am sure that if we all work together, we are going to get there.
16:08
I thank the committee and witnesses for their work in getting us to this debate today.
I want to focus on the processes and principles of adaptation in relation to planning decisions and the importance of flooding as a key test of the adaptation programme. As others have said, we can be in no doubt that our planning system should be able to ensure that decisions are taken that avoid increasing the risk of flooding. That is important in both human and economic terms.
The report highlights that climate change will increase the incidence of flooding and the risk that it entails of injury, impact on people’s mental health and even death. If nothing else, that should prompt us to act.
Over the years, colleagues across the chamber have related the catastrophic impact of flooding on their constituencies. The strategy is an opportunity both to learn from past problems and to set out the solutions that are needed. I believe that the review of Scottish Planning Policy and NPF3 provide us with the opportunity to incorporate flood management techniques routinely in every single planning decision, to contribute to the Scottish Government’s adaptation strategy.
However, adaptation measures in relation to flooding need greater priority and urgency than exist now. Sustainable urban drainage systems are now more than a decade old, so I would be keen to hear from the minister what is being done to evaluate the impact of early schemes and to measure whether the principles are being consistently applied in development proposals. I would also like to know what work is being done with developers to increase their knowledge and share best practice, and to inform householders of their responsibilities and of the practical measures that they can take.
SEPA’s analysis highlights the geographical areas that are vulnerable to flooding, and the role of local authorities in planning investment is crucial, because they are partners in the research that the Scottish Government carries out on best practice, but they also need support to build capacity in areas such as the project management of major flood prevention works. The same issue arises in transport and development projects generally; we need that capacity.
There is also the issue of local authorities’ capacity to implement the sustainable flood management duties that are in the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. Again, I would be keen to hear what research the Scottish Government has carried out since the implementation of that act.
One of my first acts as a relatively new MSP—and the Minister for Transport and the Environment—was to deal with constituents and businesses in relation to the impact of flooding on my constituency in 2000. Even then, people were concerned about not just the immediate support that they needed, but looking at longer-term planning for flood investment. The delays associated with the planning and construction of flood management systems would be an excellent case study for students, professionals and, indeed, ourselves of what can go wrong even with the best of intentions.
Although it is no consolation to my constituents, phase 1 has been completed, although it was delayed for the best part of a decade and costs escalated, but we are stuck and unable to get phase 2 going, and phase 3 is not even on the drawing table yet. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to talk to the minister about the financial gap, because we must work our way beyond the practical delays that occur when we have solutions ready, because they are not acceptable in flood risk management.
I started talking about the human dimension that the adaptation report highlights. Before Christmas, I met local community council members, who were exasperated that we—by which I mean politicians across the spectrum—had not collectively fixed that problem for them. When I returned after Christmas, I got incredibly moving correspondence from constituents relaying to me their anxiety about heavy rainfall. That happens every time we have heavy rainfall, and I am sure that I am not alone.
This is not a theoretical problem. It matters to our constituents, our businesses and our habitats. Although we cannot control or fix everything, we have to push climate change adaptation up the political agenda, to ensure that we get the right research, the right lessons learned, the right skills and experience and, crucially, the investment to make it happen. That is why today’s debate is vital and why the final climate adaptation strategy needs to be better. It needs to better reflect the role of local authorities in this agenda and it needs clearer targets, a greater sense of urgency and a greater political commitment from the Scottish Government. I hope that that is what the debate will deliver.
16:13
I hardly need to point out in the early part of 2014 that climate change is with us. We have clearly reached the point where it does not matter why it is happening; individuals’ views on global warning are now irrelevant.
The difficulty that we now have is thinking ahead. If we are going to tell members of our society that they must think ahead, we must ensure that we do it ourselves, and we must be careful that we think as far ahead as we possibly can. That does not necessarily mean that we have a written plan that goes as far as some people would like, but we must recognise that whatever we are doing now must be developed as it goes along and must be longer sighted as we go along, because this is a long-term problem.
If I heard the minister right, I am absolutely delighted to pick up on the news that the flood risk maps are coming out tomorrow. Is that right?
Paul Wheelhouse indicated agreement.
Yes; that is long overdue. We cannot do things with land without maps, so I am delighted to hear that we have got that far.
I must take issue with what has been said—if not with what has been meant—about targets and measurement, because it seems to me that we need to distinguish between them.
If you will forgive me, Presiding Officer, I am going to go on a journey. As most of us will know, getting around our constituency means that we have to drive a car. There is no alternative in practice for most of us. I have never had a very modern car, but if one has a relatively modern car, it has at the front a miles per gallon display showing the current miles per gallon—which does not tell us very much, apart from the obvious—and the average miles per gallon for the trip. If that is anything like accurate and reproducible, that is an extraordinarily useful number. I shall put on my factory engineer’s hat and tell the chamber once more that what gets measured gets done.
People have in front of them a number that tells them on average the fuel efficiency of their driving. Remarkably, it is still in miles per gallon, which I do not think are metric units, but never mind. If I knew what best practice was for a specific journey, I could set a target, but no target is any use if it is not relevant to what I am currently trying to do. If I am doing something for the first time, a target is totally meaningless. However, that measurement is crucial because, no matter what figure we start from, every single one of us instinctively will look at the miles per gallon figure and think about what we can do to get it to be bigger. We need to be careful not to come up with arbitrary targets, which are not helpful, and we need to be sure that what we measure and reproduce is accurate, because then targets will set themselves.
I am conscious of time, so I will move quickly on. Last year, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on construction had a presentation from Retrofit Scotland, which is an ad hoc organisation of professionals who are trying to put together case studies and examples of how we in Scotland should adapt our buildings for the future. That has climate change very much in mind, because we have to get fuel efficiency up for all the reasons that we now understand. I tell the minister that the group would very much welcome Government support and interest. It is a professional group of bodies that have come together entirely off their own bat and at their own expense. It would be very much appreciated if the Government would interact with that group.
Finally, I will mention flooding, because I just have to. I thank the minister for signing off the scheme in my home city of Brechin. As I understand it, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities now has to come up with the money, so we will twist as many arms as we possibly can. I also thank Aberdeenshire Council for coming up with a scheme in Stonehaven, which I know the minister supports. I encourage the minister to proceed with that as fast as is conceivably possible for the good of my constituents.
16:17
Like many other members, I was proud to put through the Parliament the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill back in 2009. Although at the time there were differences on how quickly Scotland should have to act, we came up with a world-leading piece of legislation. Under the act, there is a responsibility to ensure that we are as prepared as we can be for climate change effects. Basically, that involves a risk assessment.
Not many people do not think that there is a change in the world’s climate. Recently in Scotland, we have again seen amazing wind speeds, coupled in some parts with flooding. All of that is seemingly related to the extremes in temperature across the pond in America, where Arctic air has plunged parts of the USA into a deep freeze, with even the iconic Niagara Falls freezing.
The consultation on Scotland’s adaptation programme highlighted that the Parliament and the Government are aware of the work that is being done to make us better prepared in future. That is also the case for many public bodies, as is borne out in the list of respondents, more than half of which were public bodies that have defined duties under the act. Of the 67 responses, only three were from individuals rather than organisations and only four were from private sector organisations. It is disappointing that there were only 67 responses from the 600 or so individuals and organisations that were invited to respond.
To me, that highlights the duty that falls on us all to make climate change more relevant. We cannot deliver climate change targets and adapt to the changes that are happening without buy-in from everyone. My view is echoed by the respondents to the consultation who thought that the Government needs to make arrangements for better public engagement. In answer to question 5b, which asked whether arrangements for public engagement are sufficient, 58 per cent of respondents ticked no.
Having been a land user, I focused on who engaged with the consultation. Bearing in mind that land users are vital to help to deliver climate change mitigation and adaptation, I was alarmed that the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, Confor and the like did not submit a response, although some gave evidence to our committee. That is not a criticism of those organisations, which all have limited resources; it is a criticism of us all and of our ability to make climate change relevant to those who can help the most. I am therefore interested in hearing the minister’s view on how the issue can best be addressed.
Respondents also emphasised the importance of capacity building, which further highlights the need for much better engagement with the public and private sectors.
I further note that respondents noted that there was a heavy emphasis on flooding, which, of course, is a highly visual and damaging effect of climate change. However, an adapted Scotland will need community partnerships—such as the Eyemouth example that the minister mentioned—for emergency responses, care for the vulnerable and the use of existing equipment, perhaps private equipment, when there are snowstorms or there is damage from winds. Organisation will have to be in place prior to any event.
A good example of that is the memorandum of understanding between Scottish Borders Council and RAYNET—volunteers from the amateur radio enthusiast world. They and their like helped in the Lockerbie disaster, the Indian Ocean tsunami and hurricane Katrina.
I welcome the progress of the draft Scottish climate change adaptation programme and the consultation. I thank all who found the time to respond. There is much in the consultation responses that I and the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee will examine further.
I look forward to the minister addressing my points.
16:21
I welcome the debate, and I thank the committee for bringing it to the chamber and for the work that it has done in assessing the draft climate change adaptation programme. If I picked the convener up rightly, he said that that work will continue, which I welcome.
In the Parliament, we often hear members talk about the pride that they have in the legislation that we have passed to try to tackle climate change. It is clear why we need such legislation. Over the past few decades, our country has become warmer and wetter, with an increase in the amount of rainfall, especially in winter, and the occurrence of heavy downpours. That has very much been the case in recent weeks, which have given a vivid demonstration of climate change. Human activity obviously contributes to that, so it is clear that we must respond to the challenge. We can be proud of our legislation, but only if it is going to be effective in so far as it leads to any positive change.
Scottish Environment LINK, which provided a briefing for the debate and welcomed the draft programme, made the point:
“Scotland needs to plan now for the consequences and impacts of our changing climate. … Scotland must reduce”
greenhouse gas
“emissions but also adapt how we run our economy, our society and how we look after our environment.”
However, it is clear that the legislation that we passed with targets that we have to achieve is working to some extent. Scotland’s adjusted emissions have fallen by 25.7 per cent from 1990, so we are on track to meet the ambitious 2020 target.
Any climate change adaptation programme must complement and build on other efforts and make a positive contribution. The programme is, of course, a requirement in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I am confident that it will meet the test of complementing wider efforts to tackle climate change.
I will speak about a couple of areas in the draft programme and focus on some of the areas that the committee picked up on. Before I do that, I say that I am positive about the programme. Jim Hume was a little critical of the consultation, but I welcome the wide consultation that there has been. There have been efforts to engage with public, private and third sector organisations that work across a range of different areas, such as planning, energy and transport. That seems to me to be a pretty diverse group of respondents.
The first area that I will focus on is the effort to build resilience in responding to emergency situations, which is topical given the problems that we have witnessed recently. I note that
“The Committee considers local partnerships are vitally important in helping build the resilience of local communities.”
The Government responded to that, setting out some of the work that it has done, such as guidance on building community resilience, support for a number of mechanisms that enable groups to share good practice and the ready Scotland website, which the minister mentioned. It is clear that work is going on to build community resilience. I ask the minister to set out in his closing speech how those tools are used in practice in responding to emergency situations.
The other issue that I want to focus on concerns the idea of embedding in Government departments and society in general the wider approach to tackling climate change. The minister spoke about the dialogue with his colleagues, and I know that the committee made a recommendation about trying to deliver that approach. I ask the minister to update us on that, as it is an important issue. It would be good if he could set out how the Government is working to that end.
I close by re-emphasising that I am extremely positive about the adaptation programme. I look forward to this chamber returning to this subject matter in future.
16:25
We have robust evidence for global warming, as colleagues have already said, but there are still many unknowns and variables involved in predicting exactly how our climate will change as a result.
There is always a temptation to hope for the best when developing policy, but that must be coupled with planning and preparation for all possible climate change scenarios. From dealing with long-term changes in agriculture and energy to building sustainability into our economy and coping with the changing nature and frequency of extreme weather events, our policies for climate change adaptation must be capable of addressing all the challenges that we face.
For example, our assumptions about sea level rises might need to be reassessed following recent work by the University of Glasgow. Previously, it was thought that much of Scotland’s land was rising faster than the sea around it. Recent studies suggest that that effect is now fading, which means that our coastal areas will be more exposed to the consequences of climate change than we thought.
The most attractive adaptations are often those that deliver other benefits for households and businesses—mainly financial, to be fair. Although those might have long-term value, even without climate change, sometimes the benefits can take many years to outstrip costs, which is a big barrier to their adoption.
The Scottish Government and public bodies need to do a lot more to encourage and facilitate such changes. As a result of Labour amendments to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, they have a public duty to do that and more. One route for promoting better adaptation is through procurement. Public bodies should be doing a lot more to include climate change considerations in their procurement policies and ensure that the climate change consequences of public sector contracts are fully assessed with respect to the activities of not only public bodies but their contractors.
There are also great ways of combining adaptation with health initiatives. Food that is sourced directly from local production not only is fresher but travels fewer miles, which is good news for emissions reductions. Now in its seventh year, the Fife diet project is an excellent example of the important role that local food systems can play. The project has adopted a collaborative approach to the development of community food, in terms of its potential for improving health, affordability and sustainability. It is a fantastic project that is making a real difference, and we need more like it across Scotland.
Big business also needs to buy in to localised distribution to a far greater extent. How often does locally produced food travel hundreds of miles on a round trip in order to find its way back to local stores? It is also vital that the private sector’s role is developed alongside the role of the public and third sectors. As Angus MacDonald said, small and medium-sized enterprises have a crucial role to play in that regard. They are often locally based, serving local markets, and there is much more that they could be doing to reduce carbon footprints and to contribute to adaptation. However, they lack resources, and we need to ensure that they have the necessary knowledge and the incentives to incorporate climate change action into their activities.
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was passed with great fanfare—rightly so, as it was globally ground-breaking legislation. Unfortunately, however, we have struggled to match its ambition with action. It is especially disappointing that Scotland has failed to meet our emissions targets in each of the past two years. I would welcome the minister’s comments on how we are going to address that.
The document that we are discussing contains many worthwhile proposals but, as ever, good intentions will not be sufficient. It is absolutely essential that Scotland has an effective adaptation programme. We have a moral responsibility to take every action possible to mitigate the impact of climate change in Scotland and across the world. We have a duty to our children, to their children and to their children’s children.
Climate change is the most important and most challenging issue that we will ever face. The bottom line is that we must not only promise radical action but also commit the time, money and resources that are needed to achieve that action.
The minister’s letter responding to the committee’s points was encouraging, and I therefore hope that the Scottish Government will strongly consider the committee’s recommendations on how the draft programme can be strengthened and will include our recommendations in the final programme.
16:29
It is probably fair to say that climate change adaptation often plays second fiddle to the mitigation agenda and the urgent need to reduce our emissions. That is true in relation to public perception, media coverage, political debate and institutional knowledge. To be fair, it is even true in relation to the environment movement and the issues that people campaign on.
Although I am sure that all the contributors to the debate understand the difference between climate and weather, when we see—either at first hand or on our television screens—images depicting the impact of extreme weather events, flooding, wind and rain, drought and heat wave, and when we experience those things in our lives, it is an opportunity to consider both sides of the coin: adaptation and mitigation.
There is some overlap between the two. Changing land use patterns are raised by both agendas. There is overlap in issues of infrastructure and a just transition. That particularly applies to Scotland, where, as the minister said, a great deal of our economy is reliant on issues to do with land use, whether that is agriculture for domestic consumption or export, tourism or other uses.
I would echo some of the points that have been made, such as Sarah Boyack’s argument on the need to consider flood management in every single planning decision that is made, or Alex Fergusson’s argument that a longer-term approach needs to be taken to these issues rather than just a five-year cycle. I think that the latter point was echoed in Scottish Environment LINK’s briefing to members.
The area that I want to focus on is one in which I feel that more work needs to be done. It was not until page 53 of the draft programme that we started to hear about the impact that climate change will have on the wider world and Scotland’s need to adapt to that. Scotland adapting to climate change is not just about adapting to the extreme weather impacts that climate change will bring in Scotland; it is about adapting to a wider world.
On page 53, the draft programme says:
“The Scottish economy may be affected by the impacts of climate change overseas. These effects may be considerable, and possibly larger than the immediate impacts of climate change in Scotland.”
It does not unpack that argument and the range of scenarios that we may encounter in any great detail. I can see very little in the list of actions that relate to that. The programme goes on to say:
“At a global scale, the impacts of climate change could also lead to restrictions on food supply—leading to higher prices and lower availability in Scotland. This would exacerbate food-related health and social inequalities in Scotland.”
That is true, but it is only really the beginning of an attempt to engage with that argument.
In continuing to develop the strategy, and as it moves from a draft into a final document, I would strongly encourage the Government to do more work on that aspect. We are living in such a globalised world that there is no one in this room who cannot immediately lay their hands on products that arrived on these shores in a shipping container. If the projections about sea level rise that we are hearing come true, every piece of port infrastructure in this globalised world is at risk.
What happens when that infrastructure starts to fail? What happens to crops in a globalised world? We have seen in the recent meat crisis just how complex and convoluted our food supply chains are. What happens when crops fail in developing countries? What happens when Governments fail and when conflict arises over access to land and water? What happens when populations migrate? I urge the Government to give greater consideration not just to the adaptation that Scotland needs to make to changing weather patterns at home but to our adaptation to a changing global climate, economically as well as in absolute climate change terms.
16:34
The debate has seen a fair amount of consensus throughout the chamber, which is very much as it should be in a debate of this nature. Climate change presents a very real challenge—possibly even a very real threat—to us all. While we might differ occasionally on the minutiae of how best to tackle it, the need for every sector of our society to adapt to meet that challenge is one on which we can all agree. I welcome the consensus that has been shown this afternoon.
The debate has also shown the value of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s scrutiny of the Government’s draft programme. There is no doubt that the committee sessions with stakeholders have served to highlight a number of concerns about the programme while emphasising the compelling need for it.
We all support the aim of increasing the resilience of Scotland’s people, environment and economy to the impacts of a changing climate, and I think that we all share the minister’s vision as stated in his response to the committee:
“My vision is that the overarching framework set out in the Programme provides the basis for everyone in Scotland to contribute towards the delivery of the objectives within their own organisation, business or community.”
I could not possibly disagree with that vision.
An aspect that has not had much of an airing in the debate is the impact of climate change on the marine environment, which nowadays includes the aquaculture sector. That sector faces a number of challenges—some from invasive alien sources but others as well, such as sea lice, amoebic gill disease and algal blooms. All those are influenced by climate change, and I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the ministerial group on sustainable aquaculture will keep those issues under consideration. I hope that the minister will update the Parliament regularly as those issues are progressed.
On sea fisheries, we have seen the example of mackerel and herring stocks moving north, following their food sources, which has resulted in international problems with Iceland and the Faroes overfishing in an unacceptable and irresponsible manner. Regulatory and trade agreements must be kept flexible in order to support our fishermen as they seek to cope with changes in the stocks of existing species or the potential movement of new species into our waters.
It came as quite a shock to me when taking evidence in committee to learn that almost 20 per cent of Scotland’s coastline is highly susceptible to erosion. I have no doubt that much of it was further eroded on 30 and 31 December. We therefore welcome the fact that the Government will make further assessments of the risks of coastal erosion, so that some of our most vulnerable communities can be properly protected. Some of those were very close to not being protected at all in the recent storms.
No one can doubt that we live in precarious times as far as the impact of climate change is concerned. However, there is only so much that any Government can do and, at the end of the day, it will fall to each and every one of us as individuals to ensure that any climate change adaptation programme is successful. The Government has made a good start in its draft programme; it will be up to all of us to help to deliver it.
16:38
I stress that a thread running through the adaptation programme is the value of interconnections and partnerships, showing the need for clear paths of communication. Making the programme mechanisms clearer will surely help to make that thread stronger.
Multiple benefits are also a win-win. In the agriculture and forestry section of our letter to the minister we state:
“The Committee recommends that the Minister undertakes an evaluation of the extent to which the SRDP has delivered multiple benefits, for example for biodiversity and for climate change adaptation.”
Alex Fergusson stressed that evidence showed that farmers are struggling to keep pace. In his letter to the committee, in relation to farming for a better climate and future proofing Scotland’s farming, the minister states:
“One of the key objectives of these programmes is to raise awareness”.
I argue that it is important to raise awareness across all the sectors with regard to climate adaption.
The committee heard interesting evidence on agroforestry, and I am pleased that the minister acknowledges in his letter that that will play a part in the future of SRDP.
I was very pleased to hear both Rob Gibson and Alex Fergusson mention marine issues. Indeed, the committee welcomed
“clarification from the Minister that the assessment of the risk of coastal erosion is an area that is actively being considered by the Scottish Government”.
It would be helpful to hear more about that as soon as possible.
A lot of research into marine climate change issues is at its early stages, as has been emphasised on other occasions at our committee. It is essential in relation to the rapidly developing aquaculture industry and sustainable fisheries that climate change research is well funded for Marine Scotland, which works with other partners such as the marine alliance for science and technology for Scotland. Research funding will be essential in and across all sectors, building on new partnerships, if we are to use science-based evidence in our approach to climate change adaptation.
Angus MacDonald emphasised the need for leadership. The public sector climate leaders forum, on which I serve for the committee, will be essential in that regard, but we are all leaders, in the Scottish Parliament and in our communities.
Sarah Boyack explored the importance of local government engagement and the implications for the planning system. According to the analysis of the consultation responses,
“Local authorities ... thought that their role in the delivery of the Programme was missing or understated.”
Will the minister look again at the issue?
Cara Hilton drew our attention to the necessity of businesses adopting the programme and considered food issues. The committee heard from Nourish Scotland about the need for shorter and regionally integrated food supply chains. Will the minister say today how work in that regard might be taken forward on a Scotland-wide basis?
Many of the recommendations highlight how essential the localisation of resilience is. Communities are at the heart of the way forward, although Patrick Harvie was right to say that further analysis of global changes is essential and is missing from the programme.
We need robust structures, and perhaps most important is the social justice dimension, which Rob Gibson mentioned. The committee heard stark evidence about the concerns of vulnerable island communities, challenged urban communities and households on low incomes.
Jim Hume asked about relevance: how relevant can the issues be to people who are struggling from day to day? How will the Scottish ministers ensure that the adaptation Scotland and climate challenge funds—and other bodies—engage with the communities that are most in need of support, in the context of flooding emergencies and longer-term resilience?
Our committee welcomes the minister’s comment in his letter that the Government is considering how it can better understand the equalities impact of climate change, but we are keen for him to give information on equalities issues in his closing speech.
16:42
I thank members. I agree with Alex Fergusson that the debate has been consensual. It has been rightly so, because we are talking about a matter that cuts across party-political boundaries.
In my opening speech I promised to talk about monitoring and reporting, so I should focus on that, because time is tighter than I anticipated it would be. I appreciate that a number of members said that the issue is significant. The reporting requirements for the programme are set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Progress will be reflected in annual reports to the Scottish Parliament, and an independent assessment will be provided to the Scottish Parliament within two years of the programme’s having been published, in order to give feedback on how we are doing in respect of achieving our objectives.
We are currently considering arrangements for the independent assessment. We are talking to the adaptation sub-committee of the UK Committee on Climate Change in that regard, and I will provide further detail in due course.
Do targets have a role to play in monitoring and evaluation?
I think that they do. Nigel Don made valid points about that. It is important to have a focus that drives effort, and the maxim about what is measured being what gets done is probably fair. We need to look at the matter. Where we can build in measures that provide some spine for what we are trying to achieve, it will be helpful to do so.
I want to pick up briefly on as many as possible of the points that committee members made. I take on board what Claudia Beamish said about the national performance framework and the other NPF, which is the national planning framework 3. Those are important; we need to consider how the planning system can help to reinforce our intention to make Scotland as resilient as possible.
Claudia Beamish and Alex Fergusson touched on issues that relate to the farming for a better climate programme. I have written to the committee about that extremely important programme. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment wants our efforts in that regard to be enhanced, which will not only help with mitigation but make our farming sector resilient to events such as those to which Alex Fergusson referred. He was right to say that it is about not just flooding—on which we have been focusing recently—but heat and, in some areas, severe snow, as my constituents and those of Alex Fergusson and Claudia Beamish know well from their experience last year.
On the SUDS issue that Sarah Boyack raised, we feel that we have a reasonably good track record on those issues in Scotland at least, but we are not complacent. I plan to meet key stakeholders to consider what more can be done on sustainable drainage systems. I have taken the point on board.
Patrick Harvie referred to the international dimension. He is absolutely right that this is not just about a domestic agenda. Much of our economy would be vulnerable to impacts on the food supply chain. As consumers, we must all take that on board. The next climate change risk assessment that will be undertaken at UK level will focus more on the international dimension; that will feed through to the Scottish Government’s planning. We will get the evidence on that. I have had some interaction with the Met Office on impacts that might be felt in our key international development partner countries, including Malawi, in order to understand what impacts they face. Those impacts will be severe on the current trajectory on which we are as a planet.
Angus MacDonald made important points about partnership working. He was absolutely right. In respect of equalities, in the climate justice agenda at home and abroad, we know that often lower-income communities are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. They are usually in lower-quality housing, which is sometimes built on flood plains, so they are at risk. We must take into account equalities issues in reaching conclusions on what strategy we should use, and we must prioritise and target our help at those who are least able to help themselves.
Jamie Hepburn asked how we are using data in our resilience programme. Ready Scotland’s, traffic Scotland’s and SEPA’s floodline services are absolutely vital in informing the public about the actions that they can take, such as avoiding journeys where possible, taking alternative routes to work or to meet relatives, or preparing their property for the imminent risk of flooding. Those services are crucial, so we will do as much as we can to ensure that take-up is enhanced. If there was a silver lining to the cloud that came over the festive period, it was the increased take-up of the floodline service, which I was delighted to see. Up to 18,200 people are now registered with the service; that compares to up to 125,000 properties that are known to be at risk from flooding. We are getting there slowly but surely, so I encourage all members to make as many of their constituents as possible aware of the services and to get them to sign up to them where possible.
I am conscious of the time, so I will close.
We know that Scotland has to become a more resilient society; that is a key priority for the Government. We are working closely in partnership with local authorities, SEPA, Scottish Water, power companies and the emergency services to ensure that we are doing all that we can to target our efforts and to reduce the risks to our society from changing climate.
Our adaptation programme will continue to support activities such as SEPA’s flood risk awareness-raising activities, including floodline. Our natural environment is vulnerable to changes in climate—it is not just about people—and we know that many species are threatened by climate change. Some impacts may be irreversible, but we will do what we can as a society to address them. We estimate that Scotland’s natural environment is worth up to £23 billion per year to the country. That puts in perspective the importance of protecting our environment from the impacts of climate change.
A number of members mentioned land use. We have a lot of work going on on the regional land use framework pilots; I hope to report back to Parliament on that in due course. We have a solid evidence base, which will continue to develop, for understanding the impacts of climate change on our society. We are already working with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations to develop a further climate change risk assessment, as I mentioned in relation to Mr Harvie’s point, and we are working with ClimateXChange, which Angus MacDonald mentioned, and the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change to take forward our strategy.
Obviously, we are aware that the issue of climate change will become more and more significant for our country, and we are developing our adaptive capacity. I thank organisations, including Adaptation Scotland, that play an important part in shaping some of that work and which will continue to support our activity.
The consultation responses and the committee’s work are very valuable to the Government, and we have taken on board many of the messages. We will work on finalising our adaptation programme in the near future; I will seek to show the committee and members that we have listened to the points that have been raised and that we will do what we can to ensure that we have a strategy that makes Scotland the most resilient country we can make it; that helps us to adapt to the effects of climate change; that helps us to protect Scotland’s much-loved natural environment; and which—of course—makes us a more resilient country to live and work in.
16:50
My preparing for the debate prompted me to re-read in detail the evidence on the draft programme that was given during two stakeholder meetings that were held on 30 October last year. I remember at the time sitting in committee and feeling quite invigorated by what I had heard. Going over the Official Report ahead of this afternoon’s debate had a similar effect. The evidence that we received was as constructive and detailed as it was wide ranging, so on behalf of the committee members I record our appreciation of the contribution that witnesses and stakeholders made to our deliberations. I also concur with the minister who, in his letter responding to the committee’s report, said that the process had
“provided valuable insights and raised useful questions”.
Across the panels, there was absolute unanimity on the fact that the impacts of climate change are being felt right across society. Professor Des Thompson of Scottish Natural Heritage told us:
“We are now seeing in our seas and mountains and on the coast rapid changes such as have never been witnessed before in a similar timeframe.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 30 October 2013; c 2822-23.]
Andrew Bauer of NFU Scotland told us:
“From a farming point of view, the impacts are already here ... The growing seasons have changed, and farmers are already adapting what they are growing because extreme weather events are making potentially higher-profit crops more risky to plant.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 30 October 2013; c 2823.]
Jim Densham of RSPB Scotland revealed that, across various RSPB sites including some of Scotland’s “most special places”,
“every day issues and impacts”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 30 October 2013; c 2824.]
are being seen that cannot be disentangled from climate change.
David Goodhew of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service admitted that the past decade had seen recognition that the impacts of climate change are more variable and wide reaching than was previously anticipated. He explained that the Fire and Rescue Service is now having to purchase more four-by-four vehicles with differential locks on rear axles and exhaust pipes set higher than 18 inches in order to meet the challenging range of circumstances in which the service must operate.
It is widely recognised that we have significant challenges to which to respond. Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary of state, Owen Paterson, has sought to portray the consequences of climate change as offering an opportunity for agriculture, Andrew Bauer revealed that the sector in Scotland does not entirely share that viewpoint. He told us:
“we can foresee the benefits. However, the uncertainty could wipe them all out; you might be okay one year in five, but for the other four years you ... could suffer significant problems. ... I am not betting my house ... on the benefits outweighing the negatives that we have to deal with.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 30 October 2013; c 2837.]
One specific downside that he predicted was that, in the future, we will see a decline in areas that are fit for production in some of our farming heartlands.
What is going on out there as we react to the impacts of climate change? What are we as a society doing well, and what do we need to do better? Let me deal first specifically with the adaptation policy. We were told that the Government had made good strides in implementing and developing the existing framework. The move away from a sectoral approach towards an integrated package was welcomed—albeit that there was a call for that to be built on. Jim Densham rightly made the point—as Alex Fergusson and Patrick Harvie have—that we need to think beyond five-year programmes of objectives, proposals and policies, which give us a short-term look at, and control over, what needs to happen, but do not consider the longer term. As Mr Densham said, we need to be clear about where we are going and how we will deliver a resilient and adaptable Scotland. That is something that he feels does not quite come across in the draft programme.
I thank the deputy convener for taking an intervention and I apologise for interrupting. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 specified a five-year time horizon and that is the predominant driver for our approach. However, we will take on board the points that members have made about the need to consider the longer term as well.
I thank the minister for that input. We are aware that they are five-year programmes, but there is a general point that we must look as far beyond that timeframe as we can.
I turn to areas in which the Government and other public sector bodies, the utilities and the private sector are already responding. We heard from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service how experience has taught it to work closely with partner agencies in response to flooding predictions and to forward deploy equipment and personnel. We were told that amalgamation of the police forces and fire brigades into national forces has “invigorated” the process of ensuring that assets are aligned to risks, and that the right resources are in the right place at the right time.
We were advised that, building on publication of the national flood risk assessment, SEPA has moved on to the new flood risk and hazard maps, which are to be launched tomorrow, as the minister revealed. Next year will see the development of risk management strategies, which will look at the biggest risks in each local authority area. Gordon McGregor of Scottish Power revealed that the power companies are working daily to monitor weather and its impact on power assets, which is making those assets more resilient, especially in areas that are subject to frequent storms. They are also building stress testing into the process of designing future infrastructure.
Some areas were highlighted as needing to be improved or addressed. We were told that there could be better joined-up working between agriculture and local authorities, with farmers planting low-value crops in fields that could be utilised for flood-plain storage rather than planting high-value crops that would have to be written off, out of necessity for the greater good. It was also suggested that, in pursuing woodland expansion, we should not see large-scale reversion from farming to forestry but should actively pursue the establishment of pockets of forestry and agroforestry systems.
We were told of upcoming problems with drought in the likes of Angus and Fife, with their short coastal rivers and areas of intensive agriculture. Indeed, the committee was advised that, in some parts of the country last year, we came within a week of restrictions being placed on irrigation. It was suggested that offline and winter storage in reservoirs should be encouraged.
The committee also heard of the need to support the research community. Professor Thompson summed up the situation when he said that
“rapid, risky things are now being thrown at our environment, and unless we have the science and innovative techniques in place to try to combat them, we will simply be folding our arms as those changes happen.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 30 October 2013; c 2842.]
Anna Beswick of Climate Ready Clyde suggested that we need a national heatwave plan, which I think is mentioned in the draft—England already has one—hard though it might be to imagine Scotland requiring to implement such a plan.
Transport Scotland is currently recruiting chartered engineers who must have an MSc, and it was suggested by Stephen Thomson of that organisation that introducing the concept of adaptation in MSc courses—whether for engineers or anyone else—would have benefits.
What came over loud and clear in evidence was that the various sectors generally realise—as they must—that they must play their part in adapting and becoming more resilient to the impacts of climate change. I thought that David Goodhew of Scottish Fire and Rescue best summed up the way forward when he told the committee that
“Extreme weather is not anybody’s problem; it is everybody’s problem. If we do not take a unified approach with real joined-up working ... we will fail ... it is a question of partnership, partnership and partnership.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 30 October 2013; c 2858-9.]
We need widespread engagement on responding to the challenges that we face, and we need leadership—not just from Government. Therefore, the formation of the public sector climate leaders forum is welcome, as is Claudia Beamish’s involvement in it, given that Scotland’s 2020 climate group focuses mainly on business.
There can be no doubt that, as the minister highlighted in his letter to the RACCE Committee, we need exemplar bodies from the private and public sectors. There are good examples. I visited the Kingsway campus of the new Dundee and Angus College last Friday and was delighted to learn how that building has been made to rise to the challenge of tackling climate change. Worcester Bosch has sponsored the installation of a ground-source heat pump, which is used for training that company’s technicians. A solar power room provides a training facility for students, as well as meeting the building’s energy needs, and rainwater is being harvested for toilet flushing in the catering block. Through strategically positioned monitors in the building, the college is advising students and staff of the performance of measures such as the solar power unit, with the aim of creating a culture of awareness of the need to save energy and to promote renewable energy use.
Graeme Dey has made an extremely useful point about the capacity of institutions to provide practical examples of what we can all do. Institutions such as colleges that have significant land can make a significant impact in minimising flooding by putting in a surface of grass or one that uses plants and trees instead of concrete. That point is worth bearing in mind in relation to householders and businesses.
Sarah Boyack has made a very good point. I do not think that there is anything that I can add to that.
There is so much more that can be done, as Sarah Boyack indicated, especially by local authorities. I am not convinced—from experience or from the evidence that the committee received—that councils are, in the first instance, making full use of existing drainage infrastructure to cope with increased instances of excessive rainfall, because they are failing to clean gullies as often as they should.
The debate has been an excellent one that has reflected the justified importance that Parliament, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the Government and stakeholders attach to the subject. The adaptation programme is a work in progress. On behalf of the members of the committee, I say that we look forward to participating further in its development. I am sure that colleagues would welcome, in particular, an opportunity to consider further at some future date how Scotland is adapting to climate change, once the strategy has been progressed and if parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, I ask members to support the motion at decision time.