Rio+20 Earth Summit
The next item of business is a statement by Stewart Stevenson on the Rio+20 earth summit. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
09:17
I would like to report back to Parliament on the outcome of the Rio+20 earth summit, which I attended and which was an immensely valuable event for the Scottish Government to participate in. Once again, we contributed to a major international conference in which the subject of debate was the vital sustainability and climate change agenda. While I was there, it became ever clearer to me that our actions, leadership and messages are well received and welcomed by other Governments, international organisations, non-governmental organisations and other actors including businesses and young people.
The wide range of stakeholders whom I met at the conference were keen to hear about what we are doing here in Scotland, and in partnership with other countries. There is support for our commitment to actively addressing climate change and sustainable development and, through our contribution to climate justice, to helping others to do the same. Even though we are, in global terms, a small emitter, we are acting big—we have big ideas, big ambition and a big message. We discussed that with Minister Lidegaard of Denmark, which is a similar-sized European country with big ambition, whose determined leadership of the European Union at the conference should be applauded.
At the conference, which came barely three weeks after the First Minister was joined by Mary Robinson to launch our climate justice fund with £3 million, our message was focused: it is that engagement with the agenda is not simply a moral duty that is born out of historical responsibility and the current economic position, because the path to a green economy that is now laid beneath the feet of the world’s leaders offers a substantial economic opportunity to countries around the world that choose to grasp it.
In Scotland, we have proved that the economics of low carbon are sound and that reduced consumption and smarter management of resources do not mean reduced productivity or economic decline, but quite the opposite. Given our competitive advantage and the excellence and experience of key sectors, our low-carbon sectors have experienced consistent growth in jobs and output and our technological base continues to expand and to be world-leading.
Our record continues to attract the attention of others in the international community, with which we are continuing to build alliances, including with the Inter-American Development Bank, which wishes to benefit from our expertise and innovation in low-carbon technologies—notably marine energy. However, such messages should be coupled with our equally key messages about the importance of strengthening support for developing countries.
In Rio, I had the opportunity to speak about our climate justice agenda at a United Nations Institute for Training and Research and CIFAL event. I talked about our new fund and its objectives of providing poor and vulnerable communities with projects that address climate adaptation solutions and which should result in climate-change resilient legacies in those communities. I was also able to confirm the latest funding, through the international development fund, of three new projects in sub-Saharan Africa, which will receive a total of £4 million investment over three years and will contribute to work in Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia.
I was also delighted to be able, with the delegation of the Government of Malawi, to build on discussions that we had at previous conferences. I took the opportunity to discuss strengthening our existing relationship and, following our provision of £3 million in recent years for community solar and community renewables, we made an offer—which was accepted—of practical assistance for the country’s development of climate change and renewable energy policies. That assistance will take the form of our providing short-term policy secondees from the Scottish Government to the Government of Malawi, and will offer an opportunity for some of its staff to come to Scotland and learn directly from what we are doing, as well as giving us a valuable insight into their work.
The conference’s overall programme was extremely full. I attended numerous events, participated in panels and programmes, met many people in the margins and held specific bilaterals with a number of important stakeholders, including the Inter-American Development Bank and The Climate Group. Building on a meeting between the First Minister and Ban Ki-Moon in Abu Dhabi earlier this year, I met United Nations Assistant Secretary General Bob Orr, who is responsible for policy co-ordination and strategic planning, and we discussed the contribution that Scotland can make to Ban Ki-Moon’s sustainable energy for all initiative. That meeting will pave the way to the development of a clear offer that we can make actively to participate in and to support the achievement of the three goals of sustainable energy for all: first, to ensure universal access to modern energy services; secondly, to double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and thirdly, to double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. Scotland will play a full and active role in that.
As for the conference itself, I was deeply disappointed that there was not more agreement on a more ambitious programme. Nevertheless, we are still determined to engage with partners and, over the coming weeks, there will be a process of analysing and thinking beyond the text.
The conference proceeded in a rather different fashion to many previous international conferences of this variety. After 12 months, there had been only limited progress on agreeing the text; indeed, by the end of the fourth preparatory committee in the week preceding the conference, only about one third of the text had been agreed. Significant differences remained over key elements, including the green economy, the process for agreeing sustainable development goals and the resources that will be required to implement the text.
As the week of the conference opened and further negotiating days were added to the schedule, extraordinary events unfolded. Although certain of the tactics that were deployed by President Rousseff of Brazil were initially not universally welcomed, all the Governments that I met during the week ultimately expressed admiration for, and gratitude towards, the Brazilians for the strength and commitment of their chairmanship. Brazil’s achievement was to get an entire text delivered as agreed before the commencement of the high-level summit. The initial shock at not having to spend another three days locked in negotiating rooms quickly wore off as we all realised the opportunity to start focusing on the deliverables—in other words, the concrete next steps towards delivering on sustainable development.
The text has reasonably been criticised for not addressing resources and for setting a weak timetable and thematic list for delivery of the sustainable development goals. Others have described the agreement as “timid”; I must say that I agree. Although it builds on the Durban accord, which is to lead a legally binding agreement by 2015, and takes us forward to a discussion of the timetable and resources for delivering sustainability, it does not go as far as I would have liked and currently provides no certainty that either will be delivered.
The Brazilian text and leadership enabled heads of delegations and ministers to begin to address what each country in the world must now do and what resources might be made available in order to implement the programme and to build towards a complete post-2015 framework, which will now include the second phase of millennium development goals, a new legally binding framework on climate change and—as a result of the Rio+20 conference—sustainable development goals.
The world no longer needs to rely upon the traditional leaders of opinion. Although the role of the European Union and its member states continues to be important, we now can look wider for sources of progress. We are working on that by building on partnerships with colleagues in Malawi and the Maldives, among others, as well as continuing to work with our European partners.
When Parliament debated the Rio+20 summit on 30 May 2012, much was said about the preparations and expectations for Rio. I very much welcomed the unanimity of support that Parliament showed for my participation in Rio. I am also grateful to the many NGOs and businesses around Scotland that provided support to my programme by recommending side events, facilitating my direct participation in them and offering briefings.
In spite of our disappointment that the summit did not deliver more, it is vital that we maintain and build upon our work so far. I trust that all parties will join me in ensuring that Scotland makes a full and positive contribution to delivering the outcomes of Rio+20, which will support other ambitious nations around the world.
The minister will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow approximately 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I ask members to press their request-to-speak buttons now if they wish to ask a question.
I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. We are glad that he attended the summit, despite there being some unhelpful comments about carbon and financial costs. Meeting people matters, and meeting people face to face matters for this very important global issue. I hope that the minister managed to see some of Brazil, despite his comments in the members’ business debate last month.
While coming through the heavy rain and puddles this morning, it was not difficult to reflect on the responsibility that we all share—in the chamber and across Scotland with civic society, NGOs, trade unions, businesses and our communities—to make the necessary step change to living sustainably and, specifically, to reflect on the responsibility that we have as representatives, to seek to ensure that that is facilitated in a fair way.
We all recognise that Scotland is a world leader on climate targets, as the minister highlighted in Brazil. Scottish Labour is proud to have pushed those further than was initially intended. Targets are one thing, but what more will the minister’s Government be able to do to ensure that we actually meet those world leading targets, especially in the light of consumption and emissions concerns?
The Rio+20 text in the outcome of the conference document states:
“we encourage each country to consider the implementation of green economy policies in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”.
Please get to the question.
Will the minister please clarify how he will help all sections of society in that context, at home and abroad, to move forward on the issue? We share the minister’s frustration that the agreement is being seen as “timid”. What are the Scottish Government’s plans to engage with the agreed framework in the future?
The United Kingdom Government’s Secretary of State for the Environment, Caroline Spelman, and I visited a national nature park, which is actually inside Rio’s boundaries, so we did not have to go too far. That visit, on Monday morning, taught us a very illuminating lesson. The park had been a coffee plantation, but 150 years ago an environmentalist—someone who was well ahead of their time, I suggest—decided that it should be restored to something that approximates its natural state. The interesting thing is that, after 150 years, it is still not quite there. If that tells us anything, it is that we cannot simply reverse some of the adverse processes—to which we are all party—in a very short space of time. My visit enabled me to see a little bit that was not just another conurbation, and which had a very important lesson for us.
Claudia Beamish referred to targets. A key part of the message that we have been deploying is, “If we can do it, so can you,” which generally gets heads nodding. She also referred to consumption concerns. It is still genuinely difficult to measure consumption, because we rely on information from other countries about the carbon costs of goods that we import. We are leading the way on that, but internationally there is a great deal more to be done to allow us to have a standardised and normalised approach that enables us properly to understand the carbon costs of goods.
However, none of that difficulty means that we do not acknowledge that, if everyone in the world lived as Scotland does, the world would not be big enough. We know that we emit too much, which is why the steps that we are taking through the report on proposals and policies are important, and why the preparation of the second document that covers the period 2023 to 2027—and which Parliament will see later this year—is important in mapping out how we will deal with our domestic issues. I am sure that other questions will address international matters.
I thank the minister for an early copy of his statement and note his deep disappointment that a more ambitious programme was not agreed. That is echoed by The Economist, which suggests that the move to scrap fossil fuel subsidies, which have rocketed in recent years to a cost of more than $400 billion per annum, was buried, making it all but meaningless. The Economist also notes that the WWF has highlighted that the draft agreement said “encourage” 50 times but “we will” only five times, and “support” 99 times but “must” only three times.
Does the minister agree with those assessments and the assessment of the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard? She tweeted:
“Telling that nobody in that room adopting the text was happy. That’s how weak it is”.
On the positive side, there was political ambition for change. How will the minister ensure that that ambition is not squandered? Does he agree with the UK Government that the main sustainable development goals should cover food, water and energy, as well as his aim for climate change justice, which we commend?
The reference to fossil fuel subsidies is important. That issue is not universally understood around the world, and we and the other countries that understand it will continue to debate and discuss it and put it before decision makers internationally. Connie Hedegaard, who has played a fundamental role since she was one of the co-chairs of the COP15 summit in Copenhagen, is a key player in that regard.
Jamie McGregor highlighted issues around the question whether there is political ambition. I welcome the UK Government’s announcement in the past 24 hours—which we supported in advance—that sanitation would be included as a human right. It shows that, as part of the process beyond the conference, there is a continuing focus—which we welcome—on the responsibilities that we all have to people around the world who are less well off and are affected by climate change.
I remind members that time is very tight indeed. A large number of members wish to ask a question of the minister, so I ask members to ask one question and the minister to be as succinct as possible in answering. In that way, I hope to get through everyone.
Given that the international community’s commitment at Rio+20 to water as part of the international decade for action’s water for life 2005 to 2015 programme, what can our hydro nation ambitions achieve as a focus for deliverables to drought-prone nations?
Water is an extremely important issue for us—we have already recognised that. I had a very good meeting with UN Assistant Secretary General Bob Orr on Ban Ki-moon’s targets. It is clear that they see water as one of the next great issues with which we must engage.
I also spoke to South Australia’s Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Paul Caica, on the subject. He is keen to see what we are doing and to work with us, because South Australia faces significant issues. We are already engaging with countries—developed and otherwise—around the world, and we will progress that agenda.
The minister mentioned Ban Ki-moon’s sustainable energy for all initiative and the development of a clear offer from Scotland to help with the goal of doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency. The Scottish Government is revising the RPP. What action is it taking to ensure that its budget priorities meet its environmental ambitions? Will the timing of the RPP in relation to the Scottish budget ensure that they are able to influence each other appropriately?
The discussions on RPP 2 and RPP 1 are running in parallel with discussions on the budget, so there is interaction between the two. The budget is accompanied by a document that shows carbon impacts, which are important in relation to the budget. We must remember that the RPP is a much longer-term document than the budget and that it does not, of course, rely simply on Government spending. Substantial parts of it will be funded from elsewhere.
What further action can the Scottish Government take to inspire other nations and Governments to move ahead on climate justice? I include among those the Westminster Government, which, disappointingly, has to date failed to follow Scotland’s excellent lead.
We can do a number of things. There is certainly substantial interest around the world in what we are doing. I met Dr Navarro from El Salvador, whom I had previously met in Durban, to talk about climate justice. He is very interested in that subject. I met other people, including youth ambassadors—for example, a youth ambassador for the polar regions who is very interested in climate justice. We have a wide range of influences.
I am not giving up on the UK Government, on which we will continue to press the case for climate justice. I think that it accepts that case, but we must move it to action. We will continue to urge it to take action.
How is the Scottish Government working to promote access to information, public participation and access to environmental justice—which was one of the three key themes that were identified in the final version of the Rio+20 agreement—in Scotland and globally?
The Scottish Government’s record on access to information is quite substantial. Access to environmental justice is also important. The effects of climate change include flooding, for which I have ministerial responsibility. We have, in co-operation with local authorities—which are largely responsible for taking action on flooding, while we provide some of the funding—made good progress on the issue.
Our support for projects around the world, which include a water project in southern Africa, are focused interventions that address the environmental justice agenda. We will maintain that focus.
In the light of the lack of international progress in Rio and the fact that Scotland is partly reliant on EU action—which is not always forthcoming—to achieve climate change targets, what ambitious domestic policies does the Scottish Government have up its sleeve or is it considering in order to achieve our ambitious climate change targets?
Our emissions represent one seven hundredth of the world’s emissions. Even if we zeroed them, that would not deal with the issue. International engagement is vital. I met again a minister from the Polish Government. Poland is one of the EU members that has greatest difficulty and I fully acknowledge that it is in a difficult position. We will continue to work with countries in the EU that have the greatest difficulty, and to show them the economic and other opportunities that exist for action, and the benefits that can be gained from engaging with the agenda.
Given the recognition, in a recent letter to the First Minister, by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that Scotland is in an “excellent position” to provide global leadership on sustainable energy, does the minister agree that it would be much better if Scotland were a full member of the United Nations, which would allow us to make the case for international agreement directly, working in partnership with our partners across these islands, in Europe and internationally?
I can add to my agreement with the sentiment expressed in that question by saying that one of the people whom I met was the ambassador to the United Nations from the country of Bhutan, and he gave me a copy of a document on the UN summit that it hosted on 2 April 2012. Strangely, it is a small country with a big neighbour to which it supplies a large proportion of renewable energy, and it is in a currency union. It has a whole range of analogues with us; its people even wear the kilt, as we do. We can look elsewhere, but of course Bhutan’s action and its ability to influence others is greatly enhanced by the fact that it is an independent country.
I thank the minister for his statement. If Scotland had been at the top table, would the minister have signed this “timid” and disappointing agreement?
We have to see beyond agreements and words on the page. Although the agreement is disappointing—I have said that, as others have done, and I will continue to say it—it had an interesting effect on the dynamics of the conference. It was the first time that this has happened at one of these big conferences. Because we went into the high-level political segment, which was on the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, with the agreement basically on the table, the ministers were then not involved in the minutiae of discussing an agreement on a piece of paper, which is not a particularly fruitful activity. Instead, they started to engage in a series of bilaterals about taking real action.
With the discussion about the agreement out of the way—however “timid” it might be, and I will continue to say that it is—the nations and their senior representatives talked about real action. That was not a bad outcome, albeit that we will need to see what comes from it.
The minister spoke of new alliances to share expertise and innovation in low-carbon technologies. With that in mind, what is the Government doing to ensure that the technologies not only benefit Scotland but are exported to developing countries so that they, too, can access environmentally sound technologies and the corresponding know-how, particularly on how initial development can be sustained?
That is an excellent question, and it is something on which we are focused. Part of the support that we have been giving to Malawi is precisely to provide energy, particularly to rural areas. In Malawi, which is not untypical in Africa, even the cities do not have 24-hour electricity. When there is no electricity, how can people build the businesses that are important to the economy? In rural areas, the position is even worse. Our interventions are geared towards village developments that will enable constant electricity supply. That is an example of what we are doing in practice.
It is interesting to note that a single photovoltaic array of 100km by 100km in the Sahara desert would supply the whole of the world’s electricity, if we could but build it.
I thank the minister for his statement. I share his disappointment that there was not more progress made at the Rio+20 summit. My question is on a similar subject to the previous one. Does the minister agree that the move towards a non-nuclear low-carbon economy is positive for jobs and growth, as our fast-growing renewables and low-carbon sector is delivering jobs and investment in communities across Scotland?
Yes. I agree that going renewable is the way forward, particularly as we move to tidal energy, which suffers much less from intermittency than wind power recognisably does. As part of our visit to the Rio+20 conference, we had a meeting with the Inter-American Development Bank and ministers from Chile, who are interested in working with us on tidal energy because they have substantial opportunities off the Pacific coast of Chile, as we do off our coasts. It is the way to go.
Given Scotland’s climate change ambitions, does the minister agree that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that 10 per cent of journeys in Scotland are made by bicycle by 2020? Does he agree that a step change in funding and political will is required at local and national levels if we are to meet that ambitious target and achieve climate justice?
I know of Jim Eadie’s long-standing engagement in that issue. I was happy recently to go to the Bike Station and see the excellent work that it does in rebuilding existing bikes. I share with him the ambition to see more journeys being made sustainably; cycling should be an important part of that sustainable travel.
I thank everybody for their co-operation.