House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Written Evidence

APPENDIX 2

Memorandum from Tim Birley, Adviser on Sustainable Development

1. Tim Birley is a former senior civil servant, now an independent adviser on sustainable development. From 1990 to 1995, he was head of the Rural Affairs Division of The Scottish Office whose responsibilities included advice on environmental education. From 1995, he was retained consultant adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development (AGSD, broadly equivalent to the UK Round Table) and to its senior sub-group, the Education for Sustainable Development Group (ESDG). These bodies reported to Scottish Ministers in 1999. He was appointed by WWF in 2001 and 2002 to report on sustainable development activity by the Scottish Executive. He is also adviser to the East of Scotland European Partnership on the mainstreaming of sustainable development in a Structural Funds Programme.

2. The purpose of this submission is to bring to the attention of the Committee some of the activity undertaken on this topic at Scottish level over the past 10 years. It is hoped that this will complement other submissions, and assist in indicating some of the key sources of reference as a basis for a comparison with experience in other parts of the UK. The submission is in 3 sections. Section A provides background information on education for sustainable development in Scotland, setting out, without commentary, the chronology of the key Scottish reports from 1990. Section B gives an outline assessment of progress by the Scottish Executive, drawing directly on reports undertaken for, and published by, WWF. Section C draws some conclusions from experience of engaging with this field.

A. BACKGROUND TO EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SCOTLAND

3. In 1990, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang, established a Working Group on Environmental Education, chaired by Professor John Smyth. In 1993, the Group's report Learning for Life: A National Strategy for Environmental Education in Scotland was published by The Scottish Office. The report made over 90 recommendations for action by a wide range of organisations in Scotland, and set out a strategy for taking forward environmental education in Scotland over the next 10 years.

4. Public consultation following the report overwhelmingly endorsed the proposals made, and in 1995 the Secretary of State published A Scottish Strategy for Environmental Education. This declared Learning for Life as the strategic base upon which to draw when developing specific policies in which environmental education should have a role. One of the central recommendations of Learning for Life was that there should be a national advisory panel. The Secretary of State decided that environmental education and sustainable development should be brought together towards securing an integrated approach, and invited his Advisory Group on Sustainable Development (AGSD) to provide that central point around which environmental education could develop in Scotland. AGSD established a sub-group, the Education for Sustainable Development Group (ESDG) to undertake this role.

5. Two main strands of work followed. First, the Scottish Environmental Education Council (SEEC), who had provided the Secretariat for Learning for Life, continued to champion the cause, and produced a further report in 1998, Learning to Sustain. In his foreword, John Sewel, Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries at The Scottish Office, reaffirms

Learning for Life

Learning to Sustain,

6. Learning to Sustain also records succinctly the progress being made by the second strand of work, that undertaken by ESDG (summarised in the report by Professor Bart McGettrick set out at Learning to Sustain, p12). ESDG's own work came to a climax in the run up to devolution, when Ministers requested both AGSD and ESDG to report on priorities and structures for sustainable development in preparation for a Scottish Parliament. Lord Sewel wrote to Professor McGettrick, Chair of ESDG, advising that the transition to the Scottish Parliament would be as important a landmark for the work of ESDG as it is would be for AGSD. He therefore thought it would be helpful, and widely welcomed, if ESDG were to produce a report, for publication early in 1999, on how the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive might support the push for sustainable development through education in all its guises. He considered that the Group, working with a network that provided access to the views of a wide range of interests, was uniquely placed to do this, and hoped ESDG would recognise that the report he sought would be an important step towards sustainable development in Scotland.

7. ESDG's report Scotland the Sustainable? The learning process was published by The Scottish Office in March 1999. Parallel to the main AGSD report published the same day, the ESDG set out a 10-point action plan. It is believed that there was no formal response to the ESDG report. Both AGSD and ESDG were stood down in the run up to devolution, with the expectation that they would be replaced by post-devolution bodies which would continue their work.

B. OUTLINE ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS BY THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Reality Check 2001

8. In 2001, I was commissioned by WWF (Scotland) to carry out an independent review of activity by the Scottish Executive on sustainable development. The review was based on, and reported, consultation with many of the key people involved with sustainable development in Scotland. The UK Sustainable Development Commission, DEFRA and the LDA were also consulted. A second and shorter review was undertaken in 2002 to report on the extent of progress. Both reviews are available on the internet.

9. Overall, the first review, Reality Check 2001, was critical of the lack of action. At the same time it reported:

"So far, there may have been little progress, but there is real potential. This is the main message of this report. All those consulted want to form a partnership with the Executive; existing commitments can form the initial basis for early action priorities; while further work should enable more radical change, all aiming to realise the potential set out in the 1999 Partnership for Scotland." (paragraph 6)

10. One of the main ways by which the lack of action was assessed was using the 10 action points of AGSD's 1999 report. The Scottish Minister, speaking in the Scottish Parliament, had acknowledged this as her "route map". Two of those 10 action points had been directly concerned with public awareness and education. They were:

AGSD's 3rd Action Point was "Establish a public debate on sustainable development:

The Scottish Executive should initiate a "raising the debate" strategy, bringing to the table business leaders, representatives of local government, NGOs and academics. The strategy should also draw in the media and ensure that the wider community knows about successes and experiments." (AGSD, 1999)

AGSD's 4th Action Point was "Put sustainable development at the heart of education, and education at the heart of sustainable development

The Scottish Executive should ensure that education in all its manifestations -formal and informal, and all for all sectors and ages-ia incorporated in all its policies. Equally, sustainable development should be embedded into the education system." (AGSD, 1999)

11. In the course of undertaking Reality Check 2001, it became clear the importance and complexity of education for sustainable development would ideally warrant a separate review (as it had with ESDG). Nonetheless, because AGSD had set the scene identifying the need for public debate and the centrality of education for sustainable development, the Reality Check 2001 review was required to comment on progress with these topics. The overall assessment of those consulted is recorded, in relatively neutral terms, in the main report:

"Progress on education remains fragmentary: the Education Minister's undertaking to include sustainable development in the explanatory memorandum to the National Priorities, but not explicitly in the Priorities themselves, is indicative: commitment remains hesitant." (paragraph 28)

12. The relevant sections of the supplementary material, presented with the main report, are set out at Annex 1. These indicate some of the frustration expressed at the time, and concluded that "The link between sustainable development and education has yet to become mainstream." (paragraph S33)

Reality Check 2002

13. Reality Check 2002, a review of progress 9 months on from Reality Check 2001, summarised the findings of the previous year noting that:

"Very limited progress had been made on the action points recommended by the Secretary of State's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development (AGSD, 1999). . . . Whilst priorities—of waste, energy and travel (WET)—had been identified . . . [as] early action priorities, they were not a sufficient or coherent basis for considering sustainable development as a whole. Vital topics such as health and education were being left out." (paragraph 8)

14. The report commended the First Minister's policy speech of 18th February 2002. It also welcomed the publication of the Statement and Indicators of sustainable development set out in Meeting the needs . . .; Priorities, Actions and Targets for Sustainable Development in Scotland published, very quietly, on 30 April 2002. However, it also noted that:

"What the Statement does not cover, and could be expected of a Strategy, includes setting out:

machinery of Government

work of other agencies

other levers of government:

Spending Review;

education and lifelong learning policies

15. As well as identifying these continuing gaps, Reality Check 2002 advocated "Ways Forward" under the headings of Building a Partnership, Redesigning Mechanisms, and an Early Action Programme. After discussion of the need for securing early action on the identified topics including energy and waste, and the potential of a "green jobs strategy", the report continued:

"But sustainable development is not about these topics alone. It goes much wider, and should reinforce the culture change from an obsession with inward investment to support for existing businesses, SMEs, and training to meet skills gaps, all linked to social inclusion and environmental improvements. This is the course many Scottish local authorities and structural funds partnerships are already on, and Reality Check 2001 identified how housing stock transfer might open up access to resources to enable a programme of joint delivery of economic, social and environmental benefits." (paragraph 44)

Raising awareness and communicating an understanding of the importance and benefits of sustainable development remains a very serious gap

Developments since Reality Check 2002

16. No further review has been undertaken since July 2002. However, it should be noted that in accordance with the First Minister's commitment, the achievement of sustainable development objectives was one of the priorities for the Spending Review 2002. The outcome is published in Building a Sustainable Scotland: Sustainable Development and the Spending Review 2002.

17. I am not aware of any analysis of the extent to which expenditure has shifted as a result of the spending review. Nonetheless, what Building a Sustainable Scotland does confirm is the First Minster's aspiration to engage with sustainable development across the range of government. This is particularly welcome, coming after a period when the focus of sustainable development was at risk of being presented as predominantly an environmental matter, or even more narrowly as "waste, energy and travel".

18. Of particular relevance here are the sections in Building a Sustainable Scotland on "Education and Young People" (pages 6-9), "Enterprise and Lifelong Learning"(pages 14-15), together with related material on "European Structural Funds" (pages 26-27). Taken together, these provide significant recognition of the importance of the relationship between education—"for all sectors and ages" (to quote the AGSD recommendation)—and sustainable development.

C. EXPERIENCE OF ENGAGING WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION

19. A consistent problem observed in trying to connect the worlds of sustainable development and education has been the difficulty of securing engagement, and of building a shared commitment and agenda.

20. Those active in the education for sustainable development field are frequently passionate advocates of their cause. Many are committed environmentalists, some with an evangelical zeal. On occasion it may have seemed to those in education that their aim has been to completely recast all aspects of education to make central the inculcation of new values and attitudes that adopt a "sustainability" ethic. In the policy arena, there is a gap to bridge to secure the attention of those whose primary concern has been with teachers' pay; higher education funding; oversight of qualification bodies; standards and league tables; denominational education, parental choice and the like. Those in sustainable development have not always appreciated to need to show how what they advocate can add value to—and not become simply an additional burden on—those in education who are already under much pressure.

21. My understanding of bridging this divide has also been shaped by working with the East of Scotland European Partnership (ESEP) on mainstreaming sustainable development into an economic development programme. It should be noted that when this work started during the 1997-99 Structure Funds Programme, ESEP was also responsible for European Social Funds in its area (this is now handled separately by a separate Objective 3 Programme, but close working relationships are maintained).

22. European Structural Funds Programmes have a catalytic role by working with a wide variety of partners to secure regional regeneration, including supporting the provision of training and skills development. This is a large scale activity, with significant economic and social inclusion benefits. ESEP consulted widely with its Partners in developing its approach to mainstreaming sustainable development, including with training providers. Their clear view, which accorded with the Partnership's view more generally, was that it while there might be merit in sustainable development training modules within courses, what was more important that sustainable development should be integral to the Programme and its projects. This included the way in which training provision was set up and provided.

23. For example, one of a series of participatory workshops on mainstreaming sustainable development was with training providers. Asked how they thought progress might best be made on integrating economic, social inclusion and environmental objectives, they outlined some of their concerns. One of their main concerns in training, especially with formerly unemployed young people, was to reduce the drop-out rates at the start and end of courses. In particular, practical matters such as transport provision, and child and dependent care arrangements, can be crucial.

24. One trainer from a college in Glenrothes, Fife, said that one of their main target areas of unemployed was in Leven (7 miles away), yet public transport between the two required two buses with poor connections, and this acted as a significant deterrent to trainees staying the course. A senior member of a college in Dundee told how she had recently admitted an unemployed young woman to a course on which she had shown great promise. But not only had the trainee to learn the discipline of getting to college every morning, but added to this she had to take a bus to get her child to a child-minder, then another bus across the city to college. This had proved all too much, and she had dropped out. Trainers also stressed how important were good linkages to local employers, both for work experience opportunities, and to enhance prospects for eventual jobs. Too many trainees "dropped off the ladder" at the end of their course, and re-entered cyclical unemployment.

25. There are several messages from these examples. One is that if we are serious about making progress with sustainable development it ought not to be a bolt-on—an optional module—but inherent in the way in which we do things. Another is that if sustainable development is to become normal practice ("common-sense becoming common-place" was the phrase that evolved) then it has to deliver benefits to those involved. Yet another was that those benefits should not just be aspirational, but practical action capable of implementation.

26. ESEP listened to its Partners, and took these messages to heart. It now assesses all projects on sustainable development criteria which encourage project applicants to consider how such practical issues — child care, transport, energy efficiency, equal opportunities, local added value—can be addressed as part of their projects. These criteria cover the full range of economic, social and environmental aspects of development, and have been commended by the Scottish Executive. The Programme is now achieving at least some innovation within existing projects, and some highly innovative projects have come forward for support. All these activities depend on multi-agency partnership, and even if progress seems slow, it is gradually happening.

27. In my experience, working with people, working out with them what sustainable development might mean for their activity, does not encounter the stand-off that can arise seeking to convert people to a sustainable development perspective. In discussion with dozens of people concerned with business and skills development ranging from high technology to community economic development, at no stage has resistance to sustainable development been encountered. Sometimes this is a matter of language: business development colleagues advise that in approaching companies, one should not use the language of the environmental litany, but the language of business: bottom-line cost savings, rather than resource efficiency or reducing waste. Engaging with professional groups, there is almost always a collective understanding of what needs — or ought — to be done. The difficulty remains turning that potential into action, and doing so consistently.

Conclusions

28. It is possible to draw a few conclusions from this experience. First, a vital aspect of moving towards more sustainable development is action. Such action should be practical and add value to other activities. While there is a role for "pilot" or "demonstration" schemes, it is notoriously difficult to subsequently make these normal or mainstream practice. For example, a consequence of rising car use, exacerbated by concerns over child safety and by the exercise of parental choice (resulting in children potentially travelling further to school), has been significant increase in the school run. The Director of City Development for Edinburgh advised AGSD that in decade up to the mid 1990s the school run was the journey experiencing the fastest growth in car use in the city. While local "green transport plans" and "safe routes to school" initiatives should be encouraged, the report for WWF recommended that a more significant approach should be taken. For these reasons, the main recommendation of Reality Check 2001 for early action in education was:

Implement a school transport initiative throughout Scotland

29. Second, even such apparently straightforward "first step" actions will need leadership, political will, partnership and innovation to carry them through into implementation. As a parent, I tried to secure better co-ordination between a 2,000 pupil school and the bus service that runs closest to it. Despite support from the head teacher and council officials, the bus operator declined to consider any adjustment to services. This should not be dismissed as anecdotal: it is too often the outcome experienced by individuals trying to make change.

30. Third, for these reasons, the Scottish awareness campaign "do a little, change a lot", with its symbolic butterfly logo, appears misconceived. It can be argued that it signals empowerment: that the actions of individuals matter and can make a difference; and the result could be significant cumulative change. In my opinion these factors are outweighed by the probability of being marginal and frustrated. It makes too much of individual, rather than collective, responsibility. Urging people to reduce car use will be ineffective while people perceive public transport to be unattractive or deteriorating; urging recycling will be of limited value until there is investment in the productive use of recycled materials. Little that is significant in sustainable development can be achieved by individuals acting alone.

February 2003

Annex 1

Extract from Reality Check 2001: Supporting Material

In the supporting material for Reality Check 2001, progress was reported against the 10 action points of the 1999 AGSD report in the following terms:

AGSD's 3rd Action Point was "Establish a public debate on sustainable development:

Consultation for Reality Check 2001 included two workshops, and interviews with former AGSD members. What those consulted said was summarised:

"S27 The debate has not been raised. The two debates in the Scottish Parliament have received little publicity or comment; the sustainable development paper was withdrawn. It is suggested that you "can only debate what Ministers are confident they know about; [they are] not consistently and coherently briefed." The response to the launch of `Do a Little, Change a Lot' is limited and lukewarm, ranging from "maybe the new awareness campaign is the start of this process" to "Do so little nobody knows about it". Similarly, the Scottish Civic Forum consultation as an input to the Johannesburg Summit, ten years on from Rio, may be another starting point, but this is also seen as too late, with no media strategy or raising of the debate."

The report commented:

"S28 There has been no "raising the debate" strategy, and AGSD advice that business leaders, representatives of local government, NGOs and academics be brought to the table has not happened.

S29 It is welcome that there is now an awareness raising campaign, and right that it should focus on climate change as a priority. However, the "Do a Little" approach, based on marketing advice of a low level of public understanding and capacity to assimilate, carries severe risks. Will the message convey that the issues are urgent and important, central to all of the Executive's policies? And the idea that the general public, unaided, may be able to "Change a Lot", is the environmental equivalent of telling the unemployed to get on their bikes. This was well expressed in one of the workshops as "you can't empty CFCs yourself". The evidence of public use of recycling facilities, for example, is that many people want to "do their bit", if they are supported and enabled to do so.

S30 The involvement of the Scottish Civic Forum in the debate leading up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg is a positive initiative, in terms of engagement with civic society. But there are two reservations. First, those who attended or had observers at the 3 meetings organised by the Forum commented on the low profile, and questioned how representative were those taking part. Second, and more significantly, civic society has many dimensions—IUCN describe it as "the many and varied interest who are or ought to be stakeholders". NDPBs (including SNH and SEPA with statutory responsibilities, and Scottish Homes and the Enterprise Network) and local authorities, which were seen at Rio as pivotal to achieving sustainable development, should be central to the conversation and not be ignored. The Civic Forum initiative, while welcome, is not on its own seen as providing an adequate preparation for any Executive submission or Scottish chapter of the UK report to the WSSD."

AGSD's 4th Action Point was "Put sustainable development at the heart of education, and education at the heart of sustainable development

The Scottish Executive should ensure that education in all its manifestations—formal and informal, and for all sectors and ages—is incorporated in all its policies. Equally, sustainable development should be embedded into the education system." (AGSD, 1999)

Those consulted in the preparation of Reality Check 2001 said:

"S31 There is no sign of significant progress. The ESDG report was ignored. There is some progress in some schools with various initiatives ("in bits and pieces in senior schools"), and some activity in the university sector, though no clear Scottish Executive role in this. The box may be ticked, and sustainable development may be implicit, but it's not explicit in national priorities or Lifelong Learning. It needs to be more explicitly embedded. Jack McConnell is not taking this on board. Ministerial involvement in education [for sustainable development] would be valued by those working from the bottom up; other developments in education (eg education for citizenship) may be an entry point to this.

The Report commented:

S32 This is a topic where much of the machinery has been dismantled, and engagement has proved difficult. ESDG was stood down prior to devolution with no response to its report, and the end of the Scottish Environmental Education Council (SEEC) was initiated by a withdrawal of funding from the Executive's Sustainable Action Fund. A basis does exist in Education 21 Scotland, a consortium of organisations with relevant interests, but this may need capacity building to enable it to undertake the wider role of being the mechanism for dialogue.

S33 There are a number of worthwhile initiatives, ranging from aspects of 5-14 guidance to the track record of SNH, but children can still leave school "without knowing meaning of ecology, biodiversity, sustainability". Work on Safe Routes to Schools should also form part of the picture. However, this is another aspect where the impact of sporadic initiatives is not cumulative, embedded or endemic. The link between sustainable development and education has yet to become mainstream."

Annex 2

REFERENCES (IN ORDER OF PUBLICATION DATE):

Working Group on Environmental Education 1993 Learning for Life: A National Strategy for Environmental Education in Scotland The Scottish Office ISBN: 0 7480 0707 5

The Scottish Office 1995 A Scottish Strategy for Environmental Education: the statement of intent by the Secretary of State for Scotland The Scottish Office.

SEEC (Scottish Environmental Education Council), Editor John C Smyth et al 1998 Learning to Sustain SEEC, University of Stirling. ISBN: 0 948773 23 5

AGSD (Advisory Group on Sustainable Development) 1999 Scotland the Sustainable? 10 action points for the Scottish Parliament The Scottish Office for AGSD ISBN: 0 7480 7275 6

ESDG (Education for Sustainable Development Group) 1999 Scotland the Sustainable? The learning process The Scottish Office for ESDG ISBN: 0 7480 7276 4

Birley, Tim 2001 Reality Check 2001: A review of Scottish Executive activity on sustainable development and Reality Check Supporting Material WWF Scotland, Aberfeldy

These reports are accessible at:

http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/realitycheck.pdf; and http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/realitychecksupporting2.pdf

The Scottish Executive 2002 Meeting the Needs . . . : Priorities, Actions and Targets for Sustainable Development in Scotland Paper 2002/14, The Stationery Office, Edinburgh ISBN 0 7559 2210 7

Birley, Tim 2002 Reality Check 2002: Review of Scottish Executive activity on sustainable development WWF Scotland, Aberfeldy

This report is accessible at:

http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/reality—check—02.pdf

The Scottish Executive 2002 Building a Sustainable Scotland: Sustainable Development and the Spending Review 2002 The Stationery Office, Edinburgh ISBN 0 7559 0656 X



© Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 31 July 2003