Open-file by sdaferv

VIEWS: 95 PAGES: 30

More Info
									LOCAL AUTHORITIES

1. Fife Council (Planning and Building Services) 1. Comments on Scottish Executive Checking for Change discussion paper

We are pleased to provide comment on this discussion paper. There is a bewildering array of potential indicators and advice in circulation, which has perhaps only served to confuse, rather than clarify the issue of Sustainability monitoring. This paper represents a refreshing attempt to settle on a single, manageable set of indicators, which is of more widespread utility. It is useful for Scotland to have its own set of indicators for the following reasons –    The UK set is very large and for most potential users very difficult to use, mainly due to the formidable task involved in obtaining an overall picture of 147 individual indicators. Scotland may have issues and problems peculiar to it, which may need to be monitored separately. A small set of indicators might be of value more locally in developing local Sustainability indicators. Significant resources are required to produce a large comprehensive local set. A small, nationally agreed set could be adopted relatively easily.

We feel that the ENTEC set of 40 indicators, supplemented by natural environment indicators would be of value to specialists. However, a smaller set would be more widely accessible and is much more likely to be of use. We would have to agree with the general view that large and comprehensive overview sets of indicators are of limited use to non-specialists. While comprehensive sets of indicators are of undoubted value, there is a real need to provide a set of indicators, which broadly covers the relevant sectors and is small enough to be readily used by non-specialists. We do not believe that a single indicator approach, similar to GNP, would be of value. A small set of 2 or 3 flagship indicators might be of some limited use in generating public resonance, however there are also inherent difficulties in such an approach. Such an oversimplification would concentrate efforts on a single issue while other issues would be left out. For instance, the argument that Carbon Dioxide is central to Sustainable Development and the vigour of life is a gross simplification and as such badly flawed as an overall indicator of sustainability. Production of Carbon Dioxide does not address many issues, for instance the use of many finite resources, access to services or biodiversity (which is about more than the amount of living material converted to soil). A one-issue indicator of sustainability is certainly not in line with the broad cross-issue balancing act, which is Sustainable Development. GNP works of course because it is derived from a range of indicators and is distilled into a single figure, it would be less useful if it only concentrated on one aspect of the economy. We feel that the small set of indicators indicated would indeed ‗capture the state of Scotland‘ and would welcome it as a manageable and sensible approach. It might be useful to also include one or two indicators of water and soil quality, perhaps under a general quality heading with the air pollution emissions. We are pleased to note that there is an intention to build the indicators into the corporate processes of Scotland and its businesses. In terms of the public sector, these issues should be factored into the Community Planning, Best Value and Performance Management and Planning frameworks as soon as possible.

2. SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL

REPORT ON SEMINAR HELD ON 28 AUGUST 2001: LERWICK, SHETLAND

Introduction 1.1 This report forms the reply to the Scottish Executive from Shetland Islands Council on the above consultation process. 2. Background 2.1 Shetland Islands Council carried out a full consultation process within Shetland on the Scottish Executive document ―Checking For Change‖ and on the Entec Report on Sustainability Indicators for Waste, Energy and Travel for Scotland. 2.2 The consultation process consisted of an extensive circulation to relevant groups and organisations within Shetland of the documents concerned and also a seminar on the general topic of indicators held in the Town Hall Lerwick on 28 August 2001. 2.3 The Seminar, hosted by the Council‘s Sustainable Development Service consisted of a presentation on the general topic of indicators followed by an opportunity to discuss the Scottish Executive documents in a more informal setting through participating in discussion groups facilitated by local experts in that topic. The five discussion groups were:Energy and Air Pollution Resources Transport Nature Social/Community issues 2.4 Appendix 1 lists the parties consulted.

3

Findings 3.1 Consensus was clear in that the consultation documents were universally condemned as being obscure (see Appendix 2, typical replies) and unsuitable for rural and peripheral areas. Everyone agreed that they were

over complicated and some of the information was irrelevant and unsuitable for public consumption. 3.2 There was also a clear feeling that the chosen topics (i.e. WET) were not indicative of the full picture of sustainable development and merely reflected a political agenda of priority areas for the Scottish Executive. Indeed it was felt that using these areas alone could result in a skewed approach to sustainable development and a false understanding in the public mind as to what it is. Whilst sympathising with the feeling expressed that it is better to do something than nothing it was felt that the ―something‖ needed to cover the full agenda for sustainable development, particularly the social, health and community issues, which were not clearly reflected as priority areas within the proposed set of indicators. There was some feeling that the UK Indicator set provided a better starting point and that these could along the lines of the Welsh example be better adopted by Scotland with some minor amendments to reflect local circumstances north of the border.
— —

3.3

3.4

3.5

The very clear message from all groups was that the process needs to be taken back by the Scottish Executive and more fully thought through. As it stands many people had had extreme difficulty understanding the document let alone assessing the value of the indicator sets. This would make any attempt at public ownership impossible as the public need to understand the topic before they can support it. There was no support for a flagship indicator (particularly) CO2. It was felt that this was in danger of over simplifying the issue by over generalisation and could hide considerable variations in trends. There was also universal concern about the absence of any social/health! community aspects and a feeling that the economic data was weak. The development of a specific Shetland set of indicators at a local level was supported as a tool for monitoring policy implementation. However, it was suggested that these should be in line with any national set. On transport indicators it was stressed that comparing the differing needs of rural areas with little public transport infrastructure and a heavy reliance on private cars with those of the urban areas would make the formulation of an overarching set of indicators difficult to achieve. In a rural context transport links more heavily with social and economic factors. Therefore, any ―monitoring‖ of this aspect, which might in due course lead to targeted funding, would be likely to act against the needs and interests of rural areas.

3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9

3.10 It was further stressed that the Entec figures for transport had a number of inappropriate data sources that would marginalise the effect of a single area improvement in remote areas.

3.11 There was also a strong feeling that indicators of biodiversity, habitats and other natural resources such as fishing should be developed and included if we are to attain a full understanding of sustainable development within Scotland. 3 Conclusion 4.1 It is the view of Shetland Islands Council, following extensive consultation within Shetland, that the document as it stands is difficult to read, full of jargon and urban based. The public will be unable to take ownership of the figures proposed because of the over complicated nature of the language used and indeed they may well be led into a false idea of what sustainable development is if the proposed indicator set continues to rely on the three stated areas of waste, energy and transport. 4.2 The danger to the whole process of community understanding of sustainable development is considerable if the three topics of waste, energy and transport are retained. It is felt that it is vital to include indicators for social, health, biodiversity, habitats etc and to greatly raise the profile of the economic indicators. The future of Scotland depends on our economy and our environment linked to a healthy and vibrant population. This document does not reflect those priorities. List of parties consulted in Shetland Alastair Hamilton, Head of Transport & Environment Services, Shetland Islands Council (SIC) Austin Taylor, Section Leader, Sustainable Development, SIC Hazel Sutherland, Section Leader, Corporate Policy, SIC Alvin Bashforth, Director of Development, SIC Douglas Irvine, Divisional Manager, Development, SIC Alastair Cooper, Head of Development Resources Service, SIC Jim Henry, Divisional Manager Fisheries, SIC Susan Fogg, EU Officer, SIC Jacqui Watt, Executive Director Community Services, SIC M George Smith, Head of Community Development Services, SIC Malcolm Payton, Head of Education Services, SIC Chris Medley, Head of Housing Services, SIC Michelle Miller, Head of Social Care Services, SIC Andrew Matthews, Executive Director Corporate Services, SIC Deborah Lamb, Head of Central Services, SIC Sandra Pearson, Insurance & Risk Manager, SIC Jonathan Barrett, Head of Public protection Services, SIC John Leach, Principal Officer, Environmental Services, SIC Ian Halcrow, Head of Roads Services, SIC Fergus Murray, Service Manager, Development Plans, SIC Neil Robertson, Transport Policy Officer, SIC Karen Hall, European Marine Sites officer, SIC Gwenan Hughes, Planning Officer (Environment), SIC Mary Lisk, Environmental Management Officer, SIC Rick Nickerson, KIMO John Simpson, Energy Manager, SIC Stephen Cooper, Head of Waste Management Services, SIC Jim Grant, Waste Services Manager, SIC

APPENDIX I Thomas Stove, Convener, SIC John Nicolson, Vice Convener, SIC Robert Anderson, Member, SIC Leslie Angus, Member, SIC Dr Christine Begg, Member, SIC Robert Black, Member, SIC Alexander Cluness, Member, SIC Mary Colligan, Member, SIC Cecil Eunson, Member, SIC Charles Goodlad, Member, SIC Florence Grains, Member, SIC Iris Hawkins, Member, SIC Loretta Hutchison, Member, SIC James Irvine, Member, SIC Peter Malcolmson, Member, SIC William Manson, Member, SIC

APPENDIX I Gordon Mitchell, Member, SIC William Ratter, Member, SIC James Ritch, Member, SIC Frank Robertson, Member, SIC William Stove, Member, SIC William Tait, Member, SIC Andy Carter, Manager, Shetland Careers Service Ltd Lawrence Smith, Chair, Lerwick Town Centre Association Shetland Chamber of Commerce Tavish Scott, MSP Alastair Carmichael, MP Shetland Recreational Trust Katherine Howartt, Hjaltland Housing Association Ltd Betty Fullerton, Shetland Welfare Trust Allan Wishart, Chief Executive, Lerwick Port Authority Shetland Fish Producers Association Hubert Hunter, Employment Services, (Lerwick) Branch Les Irvine, Manager, CAB (Shetland) Chief Inspector Andrew Walker, Northern Constabulary Shetland Health Board Brydon Nicolson, Shetland Agricultural Association Dr Ian Napier, Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Maurice Mullay, Chief Executive, Shetland Islands Tourism Howard TowlI, Advisor, Shetland Crofting and Farming Wildlife Advisory Group Theo Smith, Environmental Officer, BP Amoco (Sullom Voe Terminal) David Sandison, Shetland Salmon Farmers Association Shetland Association of Community Councils George Petrie, Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Division Dave Okill, Manger, SEPA (Shetland) James Moncrieff, Chief Executive, Shetland Amenity Trust David Finch, Manager, Shetland Enterprise Agnes Leask, Crofting Assessor, Scottish Crofters Union Malcolm Hulme, Manager NoSWA (Shetland) Dr John Uttley, Manager, Scottish Natural Heritage, (Shetland Offices) Ronnie Eunson, National Farmers Union (Shetland) Pete Ellis, RSPB (Shetland Office) Jill Blackadder, Shetland Field Studies Trust Josie Simpson, Shetland Fisherman‘s Association Jill Hessian, Manager, Shetland Community Drugs Team Joe Searle, Shetland Youth Information Services Elizabeth Robertson, Shetland Health Promotion Services Manager, Shetland Alcohol Advice Centre Laurena Fraser, Clerk, Aithsting & Sandsting Community Council Sharon Anderson, Clerk, Bressay Community Council Joyce Adamson, Clerk, Burra & Trondra Community Council Vera Clark, Clerk, Delting Community Council Shirley Leslie, Clerk Dunrossness Community Council Brenda Thomason, Clerk, Fetlar Community Council Robert Jarmson, Clerk Gulberwick, Quarff & Cunningsburgh Mrs M Mcleod, Clerk, Lerwick Community Council Marion Stonehouse, Clerk, Nesting & Lunnasting Community Council Mrs F Williamson, Clerk, Northmaven Community Council Community Council

Laurena Fraser, Clerk, Sandness & Walls Commuity Council Rosemary lnkster, Clerk, Sandwick Community Council Sandra Reynolds, Clerk, Scalloway Community Council Marina Tait, Clerk, Skerries Community Council Josie McMillan, Clerk, Unst Community Council Hazel Simpson, Clerk, Whalsay Community Council Thelma Jamieson, Clerk, Whiteness, Weisdale & Tingwall Community Council Jacquelinne Smiles, Clerk, Yell Community Council

3. Glasgow City Council

Introduction
Glasgow City Council‘s response to the ―Checking for Change‖ consultation have been summarised below under the following three questions, as requested by the Scottish Executive: 1. ―Does Scotland need its own set of indicators? Should we, for example, adopt the existing UK set?‖ 2. ―If your view is that Scotland needs its own set, is the Entec proposal for 40 or so indicators closer to the mark? If not, what changes are needed?‖ 3. ―We probably need an overview set of some kind. But is there a place for one or two flagship indicators such as carbon dioxide emission?‖
—

In terms of the consultation exercise as a whole, there was concern on the lack of a Scottish sustainable development ‗conceptual framework‘ or overall strategy. The Entec report freely admits that its work does not fill this gap and that it does not provide ‗solutions to Scotland‘s sustainable development challenges‖. Consequently, introducing sustainable development indicators (SD l‘s) without a clear strategy on how Scotland wants to proceed could be premature. Whilst the WET (Waste, Energy, Travel) strategy is recognised as contributing an element of an overall sustainable development strategy, it can still only be considered part. On the other hand the United Kingdom government does have a strategy for sustainable development ‗A Better Quality of Life‘ from which it has developed its overview set of SDI‘s Scotland may be better to follow the UK strategy and initially adopt the latter‘s local indicators (see ―Local quality of life counts‖ DETR, July 2000). Additional indicators could also be identified to ensure the set is more ―Scotland orientated‖.
— — —

Glasgow has its own sustainable development strategy / LA21 framework which contains the City‘s commitment to produce a set of SDI‘s that will measure Glasgow‘s own sustainability performance. The Council recognises, however that a Scottish set of indicators is likely to be in operation from April 2002. It would benefit this authority, therefore, if the two sets of indicators were the same or as close as possible. This would minimise the input on collation and allow regional comparisons to be made. Like the Scottish Executive, Glasgow realises that ―there is little point in developing sets of indicators if they are not put into action‖. The City also realises that the indicators will not be used unless they have significance or importance to the general public. Unfortunately, sustainable development is not yet recognised, by Scotland‘s stakeholders as having this significance. This lack of importance was seen as stemming from the Scottish Executive and cascading down through all sectors of Scottish society. The development of a Scottish sustainable development strategy and a simultaneous concentrated awareness raising campaign could help to overcome these hurdles.

Question 1. “Does Scotland need its own set of indicators? Should we, for example, adopt
the existing UK set?” As indicated in the introduction, the lack of a Scottish sustainable development strategy that provides for the full spectrum of Scotland‘s sustainability aims, objectives and measures means that any indicators selected on the basis of the W-E-T strategy while relevant will not give a complete picture.

Consultation Questions
In general, however, Glasgow City Council does not support a Scottish set of SDI‘s. By developing its own set of indicators Scotland could lose measurability and comparability when presenting the Scottish sustainable development performance against other regions of Britain and Europe. The adoption of the existing UK set of indicators would allow such meaningful comparisons to be made assuming the other areas of Britain also intend to use these indicators. It is, however, also recognised that Scotland has its own distinctive set of economic, social, environmental and climatic circumstances and it would, therefore, be logical to have a Scottish subset to allow these circumstances to be accurately reflected but only if they are not included in the UK set. This is especially true in terms of the physical extremes of climate, the different opportunities for renewable energy and Scotland‘s individual health problems and levels of social deprivation. It is Glasgow City Council‘s view that the existing UK set, or a selection taken from them, should be adopted by Scotland. However, to meet the need for Scottish input on indicators a further selection of measures pertinent to Scotland‘s circumstances should be adopted where the UK set does not include them. It should also be noted that there is a danger that by creating an oversupply of indicator sets there could be confusion over ―which area or country was using which set‖.

Question 2. “If your view is that Scotland needs its own set, is the Entec proposal for 40 or so indicators closer to the mark? If not, what changes are needed?”
The response to this question should be considered in the light of Glasgow City Council‘s view that the UK indicator set is closer to the city‘s needs but recognises that the Entec proposal should also be critically examined. In the foreword to the consultation document, the Scottish Executive recognises the lack of social and economic indicators in its selection of a dozen indicators from the larger set. It attributes this omission to work being carried out in other parts of the Executive or that they are implicit in some of the selected indicators. Glasgow City Council believes that it is vital that such social and economic measures are included and analysed in the overall sustainability assessment of Scotland‘s performance in common with the approach taken by the DETR and its headline indicators. The absence of such measures would severely lessen the benefit of such indicators to Glasgow. The full Entec indicator set was viewed as a useful measure of the general sustainability issues facing Scotland but it was felt that there should be the capacity to add or delete indicators as circumstances change or progress is made. This broad set does contain some measures of economic and social sustainability which are closer to Glasgow‘s needs albeit they are at a ―high level status‖. This status suggests the figures would only be available at national level but not at local authority level. The Scottish Executive selection of 12 initial indicators from this broad set also provides a good initial spread but suffers from the aforementioned omissions. From these two sets of indicators it appears, however, that there is no explicit reference to ‗water consumption‘. This is considered a significant issue as water will become increasingly more important in the future as other areas of Europe experience forecast water shortages. As a result water can be viewed as a valuable national resource therefore it may be worthwhile to include an environmental/economic indicator that measures the amount of water exported from Scotland on an annual or seasonal basis A more immediately valuable indicator reflecting ‗domestic water consumption per head of population per day (in litres)‘ could be considered to raise awareness on the current levels of water usage. The development of the new unitary Water Authority for Scotland should be able to provide national water statistics.

Consultation Questions

If there are any plans to prioritise this set of indicators it is suggested that the ‗percentage of wastes recycled‘ could be given greater prominence as this is an issue that all communities or Scottish stakeholders could see, understand and take action on at a local level. Support is also given to the absence of financial considerations in the report such as capital investment in sustainable development projects. The focus on the outcomes of sustainable development actions rather than the amount of funding associated with the indicator sets is welcomed.

Specific comments on Scottish Executive proposed initial individual indicators Energy Greenhouse gas emissions for Scotland— no comment Percentage of total energy generation from renewables It is important that the indicator considers and reconciles any differences between the forthcoming EU Renewable Energy Directive and the Scottish Renewables Order.
-

The UK local indicator set does not contain any explicit measures of energy generation from renewables. As this measure could have a great significance to Scotland it should be part of the nation‘s indicator set or could be an additional indicator added to any selection taken from the UK set. Number of households where heating costs comprise over 10% of income the inclusion of a ‗fuel poverty‘ centred target is welcomed. This is an essential sustainability indicator as it merges all three strands of economic, social and environmental considerations. There could, however, be a difficulty in accurately assessing the heating element of energy costs. Therefore, energy costs rather than heating costs would appear to offer a more robust indicator.
-

Resources the paper fails to define ‗resource‘ and appears to assume raw materials. Proper definitions of all indicators must be presented
-

Total use of materials within the Scottish economy no definition of the types of materials i.e. metals, aggregates etc. No methodology to indicate how this would be measured.
-

Resource use efficiency- resource needs to be defined i.e. this could refer to water, raw materials etc. How will this be monitored? Transport a major impact on individual preferences for public or private transport would come via the financial implications of the choice then an indicator illustrating the ‗percentage of GDP utilised for private transport purposes‘ could be of benefit.
—

Total volumes of traffic no comment
—

Average distance travelled per person by mode no comment
—

Access to public transport no comment
—

Air Quality

Air pollution emissions there is some concern over the presentation of these statistics. The main locations for the majority of airborne pollutants are the large towns and cities and this issue is being addressed or monitored by the Local Authorities Air Quality Strategy. However, the different circumstances of different areas should be taken into consideration. For instance, rural areas are likely to suffer from different levels of emissions therefore by looking at the indicators nationally, results are likely to be skewed towards low emissions due to the fact that Scotland has vast areas of sparsely populated land.
-

Nature

Trends in Biodiversity Action Plan priority species this could link to existing work on Local Biodiversity Action Plans and the species that will be monitored.
—

Trends in natural habitats no comment
—

Question 3. “We probably need an overview set of some kind. But is there a place for one or two flagship indicators such as carbon dioxide emission.
—

The carbon dioxide indicator given its direct and indirect impact upon such a wide range of Scotland‘s circumstances (economic/social/environmental) could be an appropriate flagship. It could operate on both a domestic and international level. If the use of such a measure is to be taken up then the methodology would need to be clearly defined and a view taken on the contribution of carbon sinks as their inclusion would have an impact on results making things appear more sustainable than they actually are. Other problems could arise at times of recession, as economic activity would be in decline leading to a drop in carbon dioxide emitted. This lower figure could be perceived as showing increased sustainability when, in fact, the opposite was happening. Linking the indicator to the GDP figures may help to address this issue. Such a flagship indicator may also be weak in many areas of Glasgow where there are minimal carbon dioxide emissions because there are no industries and car ownership is low. There was also support for an overall sustainable development index that included a variety of measures similar to the index of human development (which is made up from things like literacy

4. Scottish Borders Council

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above report. The comments contained within this response are made on behalf of Scottish Borders Council after considerable internal consultation. The rationale and indicators put forward in the above report represent a very useful first stage in the development of a comprehensive and effective set of sustainable development indicators, which will form part of a sustainable development strategy for Scotland. It is hoped however that progress from this early and limited stage will be swift, and that the broadening out of the sustainable development agenda will be tackled rigorously, encompassing and integrating all areas of activity. W-E-T OBJECTIVES

This report represents first stage in the development of indicators for waste, energy and travel for Scotland. The report notes that this approach fits with the Scottish Executive W-E-T strategy, contained within ‗Scotland the Sustainable‘ unpublished reports. These reports are however unavailable to view on the Sustainable Scotland website. Therefore coming to this current consultation document without the benefit of an appreciation of the documents means that the justification for the scope of the WET indicators is not clear.
WET only addresses a limited component of the sustainable development agenda, with biodiversity and the environment, crime, cultural and health issues and education not covered. The justification given within the consultation document for the approach taken is rather subjective and could be seen to be based on limited opinion rather than comprehensive practical reasoning. APPROACH TO DEVELOPING INDICATORS The identified target audience of decision-makers within public and private sector organisations, but it is noted that ‗these people may or may not have roles directly related to sustainable development‘. Surely to think that some people may not have roles directly related to sustainable development misses the basic principle. Sustainable development affects everyone, and everyone no matter what his or her occupation has a responsibility to contribute to the pursuit of sustainable living. It is
-

not only the responsibility of decision-makers and planners, but of every individual, in every walk of life. By limiting not only the scope of coverage of activities, but also the target audience, a substantial opportunity to progress the sustainable development debate in Scotland has been missed. The evolution of sustainable development indicators, from high level national parameters to meaningful and measurable local indicators, which inform each other, could have been initiated by this current project. CHAPTER 1 Para 1.35

The consultation document notes that sets of indicators are being developed separately for biodiversity, social justice and education, and draft integrated transport indicators are also being developed, but all by different sections within the Scottish Executive. This would appear to highlight an issue over the way in which sustainable development is approached within the Scottish Executive. By housing sustainable development expertise within one department, which takes forward the development of one set of sustainability indicators, but does not at the outset link the development of these indicators with other indicators work, gives a n impression of a lack of integration between departments. This is rather unfortunate, as it does not therefore compel other organisations; Local Authorities included, to organise their approach to sustainable development in a more co-ordinated and cross-cutting manner. Para 4.5 It is difficult to tell whether the proposed indicators are intended to be used at national or local level. The areas considered are appropriate for measurement and will produce useful information, but many of the indicators will not be measurable at local level. It is therefore difficult to tell if Local Authorities for example should produce their own local sets of indicators which can feed information into the national set. CHAPTER 5 Para 5.3 The document states that ‗it is not the purpose of this study to develop a comprehensive set of indicators at this early stage of sustainable policy and strategy development.‘ The question which this approach raises is ‗How can a sustainable development strategy be developed, even at a purely aspiration level, without the establishment of a broad set of sustainability indicators, which can measure the impact of all activities, and tackle the full range of sustainability issues across Scotland?‘ Scotland must adopt a broad and fully integrated approach to sustainability if we are to make any progress at all. We must move away from the fragmented nature of operation which we have suffered from. At a local level, commitment to the principles behind Community Planning can address much of this problem. This commitment still requires some guidance at national level however. By broadening the approach to this important area of indicator work, by developing an integrated and inclusive process that fully considers economic, social and environmental activity, a lead can be given for action at the local level.

and life expectancy). An index of this type could be a more robust single indicator as it could include a balance of social, economic and environmental measures. SUMMARY The optimum solution to selecting Scotland‘s SDI‘s would be to adopt a multi-layered combination or mix of the different indicator sets. Initially, Scotland should adopt the UK local indicator set or at least a selection from them based upon the country‘s own sustainable development priorities. In addition extra indicators, either from the Entec set or the Scottish Executive sub-set, could be included to recognise the current W-E-T strategy aims and objectives. This combined ‗overlying‘ set could be viewed as Scotland‘s ‗sustainable indicator plus‘ set. Following the same logic, individual local authorities throughout Scotland will also have their own particular set of sustainability circumstances (e.g. rural versus urban) and the full adoption of any of the aforementioned sets of indicators may not meet all their needs. Glasgow has many sustainable priorities that are not explicitly recognised within either the full set of Entec indicators or the Scottish Executive sub set but are closer to the DETR UK local indicator set i.e. those aimed at measuring economic and social inclusion activity. The consultation paper states indicators will only be of value if adopted and made operational by significant sectors in Scotland‖. For this to take place all sectors within Scotland would have to be able to:
―

1. use the figures produced. There is some doubt over the usefulness of data collated via the Household Survey. The importance of the proposed data is accepted but the style of the household surveys mean that each survey may cover a different area and if not carefully worded may be subject to opinion. Data may, therefore, not be comparable year on year and could become meaningless. 2. adapt them to create their own indicators and

3. collate the necessary data. Some of the proposed indicators would be difficult to adapt to a local scale and could, therefore, only be produced nationally. For example waste data is currently collated nationally through SEPA with data collected from a number of bodies including local authorities. A local authority on its own could not produce the same area based data, so the cooperation of SEPA would be required to provide local or regional reports. Glasgow, therefore, supports the need for indicators and recognises that a Scottish perspective is important. It is, however, more important that Scotland produces it‘s own sustainable development strategy before creating a fully rounded set of indicators that reflects the national situation. In the interim, if the Executive is determined to proceed with the creation of an indicator set for more immediate implementation then the initial set should consider the full range of sustainable development issues. The dozen selected by the Scottish Executive do not meet this need unlike the UK set of local indicators.

5. Coifihaire dad Eilead Siar CHECKING FOR CHANGE I refer to the recent Scottish Executive consultation paper “Checking for Change” and the invitation to submit comments on the proposals contained in it. The Comhairle has considered the paper and the following represents their views on the proposals. These are set out in response to the questions detailed in the paper. Question Does Scotland need its own set of indicators? Should we, for example, adopt formally the existing UK set? Response The holistic approach to achieving sustainability, as adopted at UK level, is preferable to the staged or piecemeal method now proposed by the Scottish Executive. The Comhairle recommends that the Scottish Executive does not develop a further set of indicators, but adopts the UK set of indicators and adapts them to reflect Scottish circumstances. Question If your view is that Scotland needs its own set, is the Entec proposal for 40 or so indicators closer to the mark? If not, what changes are needed? Response n/a Question We probably need an overview set of some kind. But is there a place for one or two flagship indicators such as carbon dioxide emissions? While recognising the limitations of single figure indicators, the Comhairle would support development of a single indicator to reflect the environmental state of the nation. However, a figure relating to the amount of energy produced from renewable sources might be a more positive factor to use rather than carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, the Comhairle suggests that the GNP indicator should be used along with an environmental indicator and one to reflect social well being (e.g. mortally), to provide an insight into the state of the nation.
—

The Comhairle considers that, of more importance than which set of indicators to use in measuring sustainability, is the ability to achieve progress using indicators, particularly to influence businesses and individuals to become more sustainable in their methods thereby achieving an improved quality of life for present and future generations. 6. South Ayrshire Council South Ayrshire Council welcomes this consultation paper as a concise summary and focussed approach to a key part of the sustainability agenda.

South Ayrshire Council believes its first responsibility is to meet the collective quality-of-life aspirations of its citizens in a locally sustainable way and that higher level considerations should flow naturally from that. The local community would therefore be our primary target audience in order to most effectively inform and engage them in the process. It is agreed that previous approaches have been too ―broad-brush‖ and while necessary to provide an understanding of the connectedness of sustainability issues, it has led to difficulties in delivering and measuring meaningful results in the community. It is expected that within the W-E-T agenda indicators would be focussed on those issues clearly within the remit of the local authority and its community partners, especially service delivery, choice and accessibility. These would be issues around the consumption of resources, the management of waste, energy policies, and transport and travel initiatives. We would also seek to reinforce these with strong linkage to wider issues of employment, health, economic development, and social issues including rural affairs.
There are presently a number of organisations seeking indicator data, notably SEPA who seek information on tonnages of waste landfilled, composted, incinerated, recycled etc, and which waste stream they derive from (household, commercial, industrial), and the Accounts Commission similarly. The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland also routinely requests data on waste management from the Council. Other organisations such as CoSLA, The Institute of Wastes Management, ADLO. RAGS ( Recycling Advisory Group Scotland), Tidy Britain Group and The Composting Association seek information on an occasional basis. The EC Landfill Directive requires the diversion of Biodegradable Municipal Waste from Landfill over a phased period up to 35% of 1995 levels by 2020, and any proposed indicators should reflect these requirements. In the Energy sector, South Ayrshire continues to deliver efficiency savings within the Council and the community following the establishment of the South Ayrshire Energy Agency in partnership with local businesses. Indicators are improvements to National Home Energy Ratings, kilotonnes of CO2 saved, and costs and consumption of energy per dwelling. This is delivered through energy efficiency programmes such as improved insulation, double glazing, and heating upgrades, and advice and financial assistance where appropriate. The overall effect of the programme as at the first report for the 2 year period ending 31 March 1999 was a 3.55% reduction in emissions. The South Ayrshire (Integrated) Local Transport Strategy has 52 targets to measure its success, with a considerable overlap with other Strategies being pursued by the Council. However, concentrating solely on travel and transport, the most relevant indicators to what this consultation is about are: General Transport

· Total volumes of traffic · Average distance travelled per person by mode · Access to public transport Reducing the Need to Travel - Distance travelled to leisure, work, shopping and education destinations - Mode of travel used to reach leisure, work, shopping and education destinations - Homes with access to the internet - Numbers of Companies adopting Travel Plans (ie. sustainable travel-to-work plans) - Accessibility of public transport Freight Transport - Total freight tonnage lifted, by mode - Total freight tonnage moved, disaggregated into different fuel types - Total freight vehicle-kilometres running 'empty' Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 (Statutory Requirements) - Constrain the 'rate of traffic growth' - Review and reduce the need to travel - Where travel is necessary reduce need to use private transport

Socially Inclusive Transport - Provide access to transport systems for those without cars - Reduce Accident and Casualty levels, by different classes and people-types

In response to the specific questions raised in the consultation document: Q1: What do you think are the main sustainable development issues facing Scotland? The main environmental problem facing the world at the moment is arguably the issue of climate change. Scotland has a responsibility to immediately cut CO2 emissions by moving away from a carbon fuel based economy. Other key sustainable development issues facing Scotland are the requirements for a transport and economic infrastructure that addresses urban/rural issues of accessibility and quality of life without unduly compromising either personal mobility or convenience. What are the key sustainable development issues for waste? Issues for waste are those around minimisation, reuse and recycling, disposal, and economic efficiency, and resources to deliver these to a significant degree. Development of suitable and sustained markets for recycled materials should be promoted. What do you consider to be the important links between waste issues and other sustainability issues? The key sustainability issues which link to waste are transport and energy use in collecting and processing. The production of methane gas from landfill sites and its contribution to global warming is also an issue. How can the overarching policies of the waste hierarchy and proximity principle be translated into measures that recognise the complexity and site-specific nature of waste management decisions? This could be best approached by distinguishing the various waste streams, identifying the reuse and recycling elements, monitoring costs and investment in waste management. Which issues are most important to the sustainable use of energy in Scotland? This is best served by encouragement of alternative technologies and the necessary infrastructure to support them, both in terms of development and delivery. The matter of development of appropriate planning guidelines for alternative energy developments is also important. The potential for energy efficiency in existing buildings is great and has been recognised for many years. No great inroads into this potential have been achieved with the information and incentive programmes that have been the basis of the policy to date. Even if this potential were to be tapped to some degree much greater cuts in CO2 emissions are required. This can be achieved through increased use of renewable energy or nuclear power. There are public concerns over the safety of nuclear power and the problem of accumulating radioactive waste with no way of disposing of it or safely storing it in the long term. Until these issues are resolved the only option is to significantly increase the amount of renewable energy generation capacity. The current targets (18% by 2010) are unambitious and could be increased significantly.

Q2:

Q3:

Q4:

Q5:

Q6:

How can barriers to energy efficiency be broken down? By appropriate financial incentives, examples of good practice, and their benefits.

The principal target areas should be among SME‘s and disadvantaged communities, who stand to gain most economically. The energy efficiency best practice programme does provide good information and limited help to businesses. It alone is not enough to get action. Greater incentives are required to make it cost effective and easy for people to implement measures. In addition to this legislation will have to be put in place to require existing buildings to meet minimum energy performance requirements.

Q7:

What are the implications of increasing the proportion of power from renewable sources? On the positive side this is likely to lead to stimulation of new technologies and economies, decentralisation of generating capacity, new stimuli for rural environment; on the negative, possible planning conflicts in rural and urban environments. Diversifying into a number of different renewable technologies over a large number of locations will improve the security of supply. This will also reduce the impact or potential of serious disruption if one or two generating stations were to go off line (through faults or deliberate attack).

Q8:

What are the attributes of a sustainable transport system? The key attributes of such a system are fuel efficiency, adaptability, affordability, accessibility, and overall low negative environmental impact. How does travel contribute to the economic and social development of Scotland? Travel increases accessibility to work, marketplaces and other services, enhancing social cohesion of the extended family. It can however undermine local communities by encouraging increasing centralisation of key retail and social services.

Q9:

Q10: How can we measure accessibility in rural communities? Accessibilty can be measured by the range and frequency of transport options at all seasons, and the range of facilities available within the community which reduce individual travel requirements . Q11: How can the Scottish Executive best describe the framework by which sustainable development will be considered? The framework should be robust, adaptable, capable of drawing from a range of key contributors in all sectors, recognised as important and easily understood by ordinary people. Q12: What are your views of the indicators used for the UK Quality of Life Counts report? More than half the QLC indicators are in the Social theme, which does include Travel, while Waste and Energy form less than half of the Environmental theme indicators. Overall 6 indicators are relevant to the WET initiative out of a total of 29. They are extremely broad-brush, (e.g. Household waste arisings, Energy use, Overall traffic volumes) and of little value for guiding strategy. They are however clearly understandable to the layperson, especially presented as trends.

Q13: How many indicators are needed to describe the important sustainable development issues for waste, energy, and travel? If these are to be used as part of the operational management of public bodies, then the following are probably the most relevant for local authorities: 1. Total energy use in public buildings, street and road lighting, vehicles and plant, private vehicles used for business, other transport used on business (train and plane). Total energy use for housing Energy ratings for housing (NHER taking account geographical position) Electricity generation mix CO2 from energy production Waste arisings by sector Management of waste streams Materials recycling Distance travelled by waste People using recycling facilities Freight transport per mode Congestion on selected roads Journey length Mode of transport Public transport accessibility Miles travelled per person CO2 from transport fuel EMAS adoption by businesses Public awareness of WET Modes of access to key services

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Q14: How can the relationships between indicators be presented? For public reporting purposes, degrees of linkage (strong, neutral, weak), whether enhancing/detracting, are most easily understood. For management purposes meta-indicators in some fixed relationship, (public transport availability and congestion; energy use and efficiency, Number of recycling points and total levels of use ) may be more valuable.

1.

KG September 2001

7. Aberdeen City Council 1. 1.1 Main Considerations Sustainable development is an overarching concept that seeks to create a situation where we are achieving a better quality of life for everyone, now and in the future, while respecting and not exploiting our environment and its resources. Scottish Executive Consultation The use of indicators has become a broadly accepted method to assess change and development across Europe. Sustainability indicators can serve a number of purposes, including showing what we have achieved so far and how much further we have to go. It is generally accepted that sustainability indicators should show the relationship between the environment, society and the economy. At a UK level, the Government produced a set of baseline sustainability indicators (1999). This established 15 ‗headline‘ indictors and 150 national indicators, and set targets for some of the headline indicators. As part of the Scottish Executive‘s devolved role to promote sustainable development, they are consulting on the need for sustainability indicators that relate specifically to Scotland. The Executive appointed consultants Entec to carry out a review of current practice and to suggest some indicators for consideration. During their review they considered Aberdeen City Council‘s Corporate Policy Indicators as an existing sustainability indicator set. Entec was asked to develop indicators based on the Scottish Executive‘s objectives for sustainable development, which are Waste, Energy and Transport – W-E-T. In conclusion they suggested about 40 indicators, which focus on efficient and sustainable use of resources and energy, and providing access for people and businesses to the services and markets they require. The Executive‘s consultation paper states that ‗The difficulty many people find in handling the full breadth of an overview set of indicators matches the difficulty many have in understanding the classic presentation of sustainable development – social, economic and environmental issues considered together‘. It suggests that ‗what is needed now…. is a set of indicators which will have a day to day significance for people going about their normal lives‘. It is also stated ‗that there is little point in developing a set of indicators if they are not put into action‘. It also proposes that it will concentrate its indicators on the priority issues of resource use, energy and travel. Generally the Executive seem to favour a set of indicators based on waste, energy and travel. It suggests that social indicators already exist through ‗Social Justice, A Scotland where everyone matters‘ and a single indicator exists for the economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). It suggests one single sustainable development indicator of carbon dioxide emissions could complement these. This current consultation is asking for comments on the following, by 28 September.

2. 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Does Scotland need its own set of indicators? Should we for example adopt formally the existing UKset?

 

If your view is that Scotland needs its own set, is the Entec proposal for 40 or so indicators closer to the mark? If not, what changes are needed? We probably need an overview set of some kind. But is there a place for one or two flagship indicators – such as carbon dioxide emissions? Response Does Scotland need its own set of indicators? It would clearly be more helpful to both professionals and the public to have a set of indicators that relate specifically to Scotland. However within the ethos of sustainable development as a global movement, indicators should also be directly comparable with the existing UK set. Also it is not clear if this proposal is to become a national set or will be broken down to local areas, nor is it clear if other existing sets will no longer be relevant. It would also be confusing and wrong if the Executive where to set indicators outwith those already being developed by Audit Scotland on ‗Indicators of community well-being‘. If they are not linked it will place too large a demand on officer time to provide different information for various indicator sets. Is the proposal for 40 indicators or so closer to the mark? Before any indicators are set, if at all, it would be more useful if the Scottish Executive published and consulted on a sustainable development strategy as this would at least allow for the indicators to be placed within context. At present the W-E-T objectives have been developed without widespread consultation with business, the community or the public sector. As the Executive has stated, there is no point in setting indicators if they are not acted upon to achieve measurable and effective changes in procedure and practices. It can further be argued that until there is general agreement within Scotland on what the priorities for achieving sustainable development are, we should not be setting targets that may not be a priority. Certainly we in Aberdeen City Council found that when we began developing our own indicators, it was far easier to use an indicator for which information was readily available rather that set an indicator for which a more qualitative value could be placed. It is also of some concern that the Executive has decided on resource use as the key to sustainable development. While it is obviously a key factor, it cannot stand alone from the need to view all the other elements that need to be integrated to achieve it – such as biodiversity protection, economic development, social poverty, ethical responsibility and leadership. The fear of ‗environmentalism‘ as a constrain on development has often overshadowed the reality of sustainable development as a catalyst for radical changes that will enhance our quality of life and open up new economic opportunities. Many countries have accepted sustainable development in this way, and the Executive should be urged to ensure that Scotland is not seen as an outsider when it comes to integrated sustainable development policy. Is there a place for one or two flagship indicators such as carbon dioxide? With reference to the above point, again the Executive seems to have misunderstood the overarching importance of sustainable development. No one indicator can show if we are achieving sustainable development. Similarly using GDP as an indicator of progress – is not a sustainable development indicator as it does not put a value on other factors such as unpaid and voluntary work, natural resources, costs to society for crime, healthcare and environmental damage. Similarly the Social Justice programme puts targets on social needs primarily on education, training and infrastructure, but it does not account for the wider impacts of globalisation where seemingly the rich get richer and poor poorer, nor on the relationship between health and environmental pollution and damage. In fact work has been progressed on an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare which may serve the Executive better if they are determined to have a flagship indicator.

3. 3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

8. Stirling Council
‗Sustainable development is a relatively simple concept, but it is a highly complex process requiring action across all fields of human activity. As a result developing a set of indicators to capture such a complex process is in itself highly challenging. Before looking at the details of the consultation paper, it is necessary to highlight the weakness in this process, namely the lack of a sustainable development strategy. Given that the one of the purposes of the indicator set is to measure the effectiveness of a strategy, the lack of a published sustainable development strategy is a significant weakness. With reference to the indicators proposed, these will be a useful contribution to taking forward sustainable development in Scotland. The ‗target audience‘ of decision-makers within the public and private sectors identified in paragraph 2.5 is probably the most appropriate at this early stage, since this group can do most to promote ‗early winners‘ on action for sustainable development. This said, sight should not be lost of the importance of the general public as an audience. Sustainable development is a highly participative process, requiring the understanding, support and involvement of the ordinary citizen. The Scottish Executive‘s own current advertising campaign ‗Do A Little, Change A Lot‘ recognises this and as such has a popular focus. Accordingly, any indicators adopted should where possible help inform the public; in addition consideration should be given to developing where necessary indicators more specifically targeted to a public audience. Having adopted the audience of decision-makers within the public and private sectors, it is important that the indicator set is correct. It is stated in several places that the set selected reflects the W-E-T philosophy of the Scottish Executive. This by its nature appears to be too narrow and restricted to cover the generally issues encompassed within sustainable development. In this context the lack of a Scottish sustainable development strategy, comparable to ‗A Better Quality of Life‘ is a significant weakness in the Scottish Executive‘s approach. The narrowness of the indicator in section 4 is justified on the basis that „action on too broad a front risked no action at all‟ (paragraph 1.19). This is however contradicted in the document where it states that ‗a joined up approach will be crucial to achieving a consistent and comprehensive approach to addressing sustainable development‘ (paragraph 1.15). In addition, there are inherent weaknesses with this approach, namely:    as set out in ‗Quality of Life Counts‘, issues like employment, health and crime have very strong resonance with the community and are important parts of sustainable development. these are also issues of concern for decision-makers in both public and private sectors. By restricting indicators to W-E-T the Executive has divorced these important sustainable development issues. agencies with a role in promoting sustainable development, like the Enterprise network and the health service are divorced from the process as currently set out.

It is understandable that given the complexities of the sustainable development process, the Executive has sought to make this more manageable. It should not however beyond our ability to address and manage this complexity without introducing arbitrary or artificial boundaries to areas of concern and activity. A more constructive approach might be to admit the scale and scope of sustainable development, but prioritise areas for activity to make the process more manageable. The rather narrow range of indicators appears to be acknowledged in the report (for example in paragraphs 1.34, 2.16, 2.18, 2.44, 4.11 and 5.4, 5.7 and Figure 5.1). Sections 1, 4 and 5 however show a way forward from this problem. Paragraph 1.19 refers to ‗this first phase in the development of Scotland‘s sustainable development strategy‘; such a strategy would be a welcome focus for action to promote a sustainable Scotland. Section 4 (Table 4.1) identifies ‗High Level Status‘ indicators which ‗would need to be developed in conjunction with relevant stakeholders for these areas. In addition section 5 notes that ‗as Scotland‘s sustainable development strategy develops, the indicator set will develop to support it‘ (paragraph 5.2) and ‗as progress against W-E-T indicators is made, these linkages will increasingly form a backdrop for a comprehensive set of indicators of a sustainable Scotland‘ (paragraph 5.4).

It is urged that the Executive as a minimum adopts such an incremental approach and widens the scope of indicators, as modelled in section 5 (figure 5.1). There are a number of specific points relating to the text of the consultative document and these are listed below.

2.

Chapter 1 2.1 Paragraph 1.5

The Scottish Executive also has a role in creating the conditions for a more sustainable Scotland, for example through appropriate regulation and direction, and this role should be explicitly stated.

2.2

Paragraph 1.35

It is unclear what the relationship is between the ‗Checking for Change‘ indicators and integrated transport indicator set, and the ‗Potential Environmental Indicators for Scotland‘ referred to here.

3.

Chapter 2 3.1 Paragraph 2.14

The point on ‗paralysis by analysis‘ is well made and perhaps deserves more prominence in the report.

3.2

Paragraph 2.21

It would be very useful to find means of ‗nesting‘ indicator sets to allow inter-area comparisons. A standard methodology as proposed would assist this but it would be better if local sustainability indicators were required, using such a common methodology, as a statutory requirement and audited by an appropriate body such as Audit Scotland. This would also send out a strong message to local government and others that the Executive considered this a serious issue and expected a commensurate response from local government. This has already been done for some time by the Audit Commission in England.

3.3

Paragraph 2.31

The difficulties with integrated indicators are clear and their use could give rise to difficulties. However the sentiment that such an indicator could ‗alienate stakeholders whose views were not reflected in the chosen indicator‘ raises its own risks. Sustainable development requires a vision and an acceptance of significant change. If we are to adopt a ‗lowest common denominator‘ approach it runs the risk of losing this vision.

3.4

Paragraph 2.44

The proposal for a wider indicator set of indicators for Scotland is welcomed.

4.

Chapter 3 4.1 Paragraph 3.19

The importance of the planning system is acknowledged and this matter could be dealt with by means of stronger and more explicit planning advice on sustainable development. This should also be reflected for example, in building regulations and planning appeal results. The planning system can of course only deal with new development and sight should not be lost of the much larger area of existing development.

5.

Chapter 4 5.1 Summary of Suggested Indicator Set

As mentioned above, the ‗High level status‘ indicators suggest a way forward from the dilemma of the narrow focus of W-E-T. The inclusion of such high level indicators is to be welcomed, but these should also include indicators on heritage, crime and education.

6.

Chapter 5 6.1 Paragraph 5.2

The suggestion of a sustainable development strategy for Scotland is welcomed. This would match the commitment made through ‗A Better Quality of Life‘. There is currently no commitment to this however and a more definitive commitment could be made to this by the Executive, perhaps in conjunction with the final selection of indicators.

7.

Checking for Change – Summary Document

General Questions Does Scotland need its own indicator set? Yes. This is needed to inform policy makers and the community of Scotland, as distinct from UK, European and local indicators. Indicators should as far as possible ‗nest‘ to allow aggregation, disaggregation and comparisons between areas. Is the Entec proposal close to the mark? As set out in the above comments, the set is too narrowly focused and needs at least the additoona of ‗high level indicators‘ to more fully embrace the concept of sustainable development. Is there a place for one or two ‘flagship indicators’? The suggested indicator of carbon dioxide emissions would be a valuable tool to measure Scotland‘s performance against our treaty commitments on greenhouse gas reductions. It would also serve the useful secondary purpose of raising awareness of the issue in the broader community.

9. Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan and Transportation Committee 7.1.1 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise the Committee of the ―Checking for Change‖ initiative being undertaken by the Scottish Executive which seeks to establish a set of indicators to measure progress toward sustainable development in the spheres of Waste, Energy and Travel (W-E-T).

7.1.2 2

BACKGROUND

In January 2000, a Scottish Ministerial group on Sustainable Development was established to take forward the Governments commitment to Integrate the principles of sustainable development into all government policies and to raise an understanding within Scotland of the benefits that sustainable development offers now and the future. In a parliamentary debate in February 2000 the then Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack announced that in pursuit of these objectives Scotland would establish a set of sustainable development indicators covering waste, energy and travel. Following from this announcement the Scottish Executive commissioned the consultants Entec to review the many existing set of indicators within Scotland and elsewhere in Europe and for these to be brought forward for discussion.

7.1.3 3

COMMENT

The initiative by the Scottish executive is to be welcomed. It seeks to establish at a national level a set of indicators that take forward sustainable development and is relevance to the Scottish people within the context of resource use, energy and travel. In this respect it complements the work already undertaken by this Committee in the preparation of the baseline indicators within Monitor 2000 and which was circulated last year. The Entec Report suggest around 40 indicators based around a number of common themes relevant to Waste Energy and Transport. It is however felt that this ―long list‖ of indicators would if adopted by the Scottish Executive ―dilute‖ the message that requires to be conveyed. If the Scottish Executive wishes to present sustainable development in a way which makes it more of a day to day concern a more focussed set of indicators is necessary. These indicators should focus on and reflect real concerns such as traffic growth, access to basic services and the steps being taken to recycle waste. It is therefore suggested that the ―long list‖ indicators is replaced with smaller set of indicators (between ten to fifteen) which would establish a baseline around which programmes of action and targets can be presented. A smaller set of indicators, if properly formulated, would have the advantage of being readily absorbed at a regional level and allow the progress toward sustainable development to be measured at a sub – national level. This process would also highlight spatial variations across Scotland and highlight whether more targeted action and resources would be appropriate. The current proposals only cover resource use, energy and travel. This falls short of a need for comprehensive set of indicators for Scotland. It is hoped that a number of additional key indicators that can encompass the economy, social inclusion and the environment can also be developed and brought forward for wider consultation and comment.

4

5

6

7

The Scottish Executive have suggested that they would bring the chosen set of indicators into use in the financial year 2001-2002. This is welcomed. It is hoped that the opportunity to present specific targets and action can also be brought forward at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS 8      It is recommended that Committee: welcome the initiative by the Scottish Executive to prepare a set of indicators for waste, energy and travel for Scotland but suggest that they be limited to between ten or fifteen; seek the Scottish Executive to accompany the chosen indicators with specific targets and an action plan; seek the Scottish executive when formulating the indicators to ensure those chosen are readily applicable at a sub-regional level such as Ayrshire as well as Scotland; seek the Scottish Executive to publish annually a review of progress; and forward a copy of ―Monitor 2000‖ as illustrative of the work undertaken in Ayrshire and of the importance in ensuring the indicators chosen have meaning at a regional level.

Ian Johnson Manager Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan and Transportation Committee Person to Contact: Ian Johnson – (01292) 673767 APPENDIX 1 7.2 Checking for Change - Sustainability Indicators for Waste, Energy and Travel for Scotland

In the consultation document ―Checking for Change‖ the Scottish Executive sought comment on a number of specific questions. 7.3 Does Scotland need it‘s own set of indicators?

The preparation of a set of indicators for Scotland is strongly supported. Should Scotland adopt formally the existing UK set? No- but there is clearly a relationship between the 15 headline indicators presented in ―Achieving a Better Quality of Life‖ and any future extension of the proposed set of indicators to cover economic, environmental and social inclusion issues.

7.4

Entec proposals for 40 or so indicators

This is a large set of indicators to cover the topics proposed particularly so if the indicators were extended to cover the other issues referred to above. The number proposed would be difficult to incorporate at a regional level and would involve substantial resources in their collation. A more focussed group of indicators would seem appropriate (see below). It would offer a number of advantages that would include greater awareness amongst the public of specific issues, greater ease in their use and allow for the development of more specific targets and action to be formulated. Flagship indicators The use of flagship indicator such as carbon dioxide emissions has much to commend it. The mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions is a key driver in much of policy formulation (traffic growth, energy efficiency in housing, etc). It also has the advantage that programmes such as and vehicle taxation can readily be formulated around it‘s reduction. However if progress on this flagship indicator is to be tracked at a regional level energy audits similar to that undertaken by South Ayrshire Council would be necessary to establish baselines within which progress can be measured. The following comments relate to the more limited set of headline indicators being postulated in the ―Checking for Change‖ consultation document. 7.5    Energy

Greenhouse gas emissions. Indicator supported- further work would be necessary if this indicator was to have application at a regional level. Percentage of total energy generation from renewables. Indicator supported

Number of households where heating costs comprise 10% of income. Indicator supported - within Ayrshire 30% of households fall within this category 7.6 Resources

  

Total use of materials within the Scottish economy. It is unclear which indicator is being proposed here. Resource use efficiency. It is unclear which indicator is being proposed here Percentage of waste recycled. Indicator supported 7.7 Transport

  

Total volumes of traffic. Indicator supported Average distance travelled by mode. Not supported- this is difficult measure at a regional level Access to public transport . Not supported the variation of this indicator across Scotland may make it meaningless for use at a regional level.

It is suggested that the latter indicators are replaced by one which measures access to facilities and services. (While this indicator is largely subjective it can readily be obtained from the Scottish Household Survey and takes account of an individuals perception of accessibility).

7.8 

Air Quality

Air pollution emissions. Indicator supported

A wider set of indicators would also seek to incorporate water, land and soil quality. 7.9   Nature

Trends in biodiversity action plan priority species. Indicator supported Trends in natural habitats. Indicator supported


								
To top