Home » News and events » News

Jan Bebbington launches SDC's Second Assessment

29 January 2009

What's the Health of Our Nation, Launch Event, Edinburgh November 2008

Jan Bebbington sets out the findings of our Second Assessment and gives her own perspective on the challenges we face in getting to a sustainable Scotland

 

Tonight we are launching the 2^nd assessment by the Sustainable Development Commission in Scotland of the Government's performance.

Our assessment focuses on the extent to which the governance and performance framework developed by the Scottish Government to support its single purpose will allow that purpose to be pursued and whether or not that single purpose is consistent with the aim of sustainable development.

 

 

If all this talk of governance and performance frameworks sounds dull and dry, let me assure you it is not.  One of the key lessons that we should take from the recent economic turmoil is that if our information systems and the data we get about performance is faulty then we will undermine our society, with the attendant social, economic and ecological costs of that failure.

The same holds for sustainable development.  For example, in the area of climate change, if we fail to move fast then the social and economic costs (as Stern and many others make clear) will be devastating and our life support systems will be severely compromised and us with them.

In seeking to ensure that Scotland places itself on a sustainable development trajectory the provision of information about progress and the setting of a direction of travel is essential.

It is also relevant at this juncture to place this assessment in a broader context in terms of the Sustainable Development Commission's ongoing scrutiny of the Scottish Government.

Our first assessment was (on the whole) a review of the work of the previous Government.  This assessment is our first opportunity to scrutinise the current Government.  Although Mr Lochhead and his colleagues have been in place for some 18 months it is still too early for an in-depth and comprehensive evaluation of their sustainable development performance - hence (in part) the focus on whether systems of governance are fit for purpose.  And in making some of the points we do in the document we know that our concerns may well be addressed over the coming months, especially as Government puts into the public domain the ways in which it will seek to achieve the aspirations in the Climate Change Bill.

Looking forward to our 3^rd assessment (due late in 2009) we will evaluate sustainable development performance in more depth.  By 2010 when we deliver our 4^th assessment we will be reviewing the performance of the Government over its first term in office, that is, we will evaluate the extent to which Scotland is transforming its economy in a way that will allow its people to live within environmental limits in a society that is just and fair.

Of course, the policies, programmes and the performance framework to achieve this has to be in place now if we are to get there.

There is a considerable amount of detail in the full report so tonight I am going to concentrate on three elements:

1. The governance framework that government has put in place to manage its activities,

2. The potential problems of focusing on sustainable economic growth, and

3. Review the challenges that still face Scotland.

To move to the crux of our findings- we are encouraged by the current Governments' single purpose, the way it has organised the civil service in a more fluid and outcomes focused manner, by aspects of its performance (especially in terms of championing and supporting renewable energy production in Scotland) and its visions for the future (for example, in its soon to be unveiled Climate Change Bill).  Commitments to carbon assessment and carbon budgeting are also to be commended - to the best of our knowledge no Government world-wide has started the process of doing this, Scotland is in a leading position.

I would like to pause and make sure that you heard those points - there is much to celebrate in the work of this Government in terms of setting the scene for pursuing sustainable development.

Normally I don't like to use the word but - it is not in my nature.  There are, however, some buts in our assessment and it is to these that I now turn my attention.

Given that the single purpose of Government is at the heart of its programme of work, the articulation of this purpose and its links to sustainable development forms the basis for our work.

The shorthand that is most usually used to describe the Government's central purpose is the phrase "sustainable economic growth" - but this focus can lead to the actual central purpose being missed.  The purpose is "to focus government and public services on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth."  Sustainable economic growth is an enabler, not the purpose itself.

In our work we found that this distinction is not always made.  This is a problem because the distinction is an important one.

In addition (and leading from this lack of clarity in focus at times), we have detected that there is some cynicism among external stakeholders about "sustainable economic growth".  There is a fear that the phrase will be used to fudge a business as usual approach - in a world that many perceive is rapidly become more ecologically fragile, less equal and more economically volatile.

It is concerns of this nature that have lead us to urge Government to recognize that there are serious structural tensions (for example) in pursuing economic aspirations at the same time as decarbonising the economy.  No developed economy has decoupled their carbon emissions from growth to the extent to which our climate change bill aspirations require.  For example, Scotland has on average reduced carbon emissions by 1% per annum ... with an unreformed growth model, Scotland will need to reduce emissions by 9% per annum to reach its targets ... in a zero growth economy emissions reductions need to be 3% per annum.

To pretend we can have environmental and social resilience as well as a materially growing economy is not a sound strategy - it will be perceived as a fiction and will not lead to an informed debate how we are going to achieve our ambitions for Scotland and its people.

Having aired those reservations - we believe that the Government's single purpose may (with work) become compatible with sustainable development.

Presently, however, we are a long way from sustainable performance and face challenges on many fronts.  This is reflected in the indicators reviewed in the assessment.  In particular the following areas are of concern:

1. First, fuel poverty in Scotland is on the rise and approximately one third of Scottish households are fuel poor. Since our work the Government has committed additional resources to alleviate fuel poverty. Their actions will have taken the edge off this problem, but not clear to us how many people this additional funding will pull out fuel poverty and 2016 target still remains elusive.

2. Transport indicators (specifically on congestion and use of public transport) are moving against the grain of sustainable development. Action taken (and not taken) now will have an impact on when we can get transport emissions onto a downward trend. And here is the key point in this area and also why performance assessment comes to the fore. We are yet to be convinced that the processes surrounding infrastructure developments fully incorporate carbon impacts or broader sustainable development impacts.

3. Finally, while some indicators of well being are improving, obesity levels are not. Tackling this area of concern is hugely complex, and relies not just on behaviour change but also on social infrastructure.

Returning to governance, one of the tasks that we undertook in the assessment was to evaluate the SMART-ness of the various targets, indicators in the national performance framework.

That is, we considered if the elements of the national performance framework were:

• Specific
• Measureable
• Appropriate
• Realistic and
• Timed

This was a difficult analysis to undertake because while specific, measurable and timed are aspects that are easy to identify the appropriateness and realism of these various targets and indicators provided more of a challenge.

Evaluating appropriateness and realism was challenging for two reasons:

Depending on what you assume sustainable development to be, you will have a different view of these two characteristics,

• When we were undertaking this work the economic environment was rapidly changing and what was realistic to aspire to also changed. For example, the aspiration to match Scotland's economic performance to the UK economy may be realistic but no longer appropriate.

I would like to base by my closing substantive remarks on that last point and also talk about the scale of the challenge that we currently face and the scale of response and transformation that we believe is necessary to achieve sustainable development.

The current economic situation and the focus on the threat of climate change has created the space for some fundamental questions to be asked with respect to how we should organize or economy and the aims we may have as a society ... and the ecological impact of those two choices.

There has always been a tension between economic growth and maintaining the integrity of the environment.  In a growth based economy and a materially closed system, sooner or later limits will be reached either in terms of the availability (and price) of resources, the ability of the eco-system to absorb pollution and/or the disruption of ecosystem services that arise from population pressure.

As an aside, it should also be noted that environmental pressures have contributed to the current economic problems ... with rising resource prices affecting economic outcomes.

In the environment-economy conundrum the key question is, how close are our limits?  And how can we create more space for our human flourishing?

In the past we have avoided hitting systems limits in several ways.  For example, centuries ago colonization of the likes of New Zealand was a solution.  Likewise, technology can buy space.  But in both cases, if the same model of expanding production and consumption takes place then limits will be experienced again.

There is a frightening amount of evidence that ecological limits are under pressure.  A trawl through the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, WWF's Living Planet report, the IPCC's reports, the Stern Review etc all point in the same direction.  The capacity of the earth to sustain human life at its current average level of consumption is again problematic.

I should be clear, however, that no growth is not sustainable development either.  We should not, as sustainable development proponents, be cheerful about the current economic crisis.  No growth or negative growth in an economy that functions on growth leads to unemployment, business closure and a loss of welfare to its population.

What we are seeking to explore at the Sustainable Development Commission (in a report that has been championed by Tim Jackson) is how one might get prosperity without growth.  This report is due out next year so I will not elaborate on it here - but what it seeks to do is to explore how we might transition to a very different sort of economic system.

We don't have all the answers to these sorts of questions, there are no easy answers out there ... but we do have some ideas about the kinds of discussions that need to be had before we could be in a position to reach for answers.  In particular, we are firmly of the view that if these questions will not be entertained, then we are in trouble.

The UK Government's response to the economic crisis seems, to us, to fail to grasp the nub of the problem that I have described above.  VAT cuts to encourage debt based consumption will not address the systemic problem.  In contrast, using government funding to create a ‘green' new deal that increases resource efficiency and reduces fuel poverty (for example) would be a more desirable approach.

The Scottish Government, in contrast to the UK Government, has signalled by its single purpose of flourishing that they are open to these points and our experience is that there is a willingness (albeit not a universal willingness) to debate and discuss these fundamental issues.

Before drawing this evening to a close, I would like to offer some thanks around the room.  First, I would like thank the SDC team (and Phil Matthews in particular) for all the work undertaken to create this assessment.  Second, my appreciation goes to our external advisory board for bringing their perspectives to the work and providing us with good quality challenge.  Also a number of other stakeholders engaged with our work and we found that valuable.

Of course, thanks also go to our colleagues in Government who also engaged extensively with us in this work and with whom we will be spending more time with going forward to see how we can (in partnership) build a Scotland where all its people may flourish, within environmental limits.

I would finally like to thank Iain Smith once again for hosting our event this evening and also Richard Lochhead for engaging constructively with the Sustainable Development Commission and championing sustainable development via the likes of the Zero Waste Think Tank and the Food and Drink Leadership Forum.

< Back