Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Official Report 542KB pdf

---

National Performance Framework National Outcomes

The second item on our agenda is evidence on the Scottish Government’s national performance framework national outcomes. We are joined by Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and by Professor Colin Moffat, Dr Linda Pooley, Sara Grainger and Roger Halliday, who will be assisting her.

Do you wish to make any opening remarks, cabinet secretary, or can we move straight to questions?

I apologise for being a few minutes late, convener. When I arrived at Parliament, I realised that I had forgotten my pass. I am sure that everybody has been in that position at some point.

Indeed.

I do not have any opening remarks.

We will go straight to questions, starting with John Scott.

Good morning to the cabinet secretary and her team. How did the Scottish Government determine what the “communities in Scotland” are?

I think that, throughout a variety of different pieces of legislation, there is an understanding of the idea of community in Scotland. There are particular definitions for some purposes. In other parts of what we do, there are rather broader ideas. Are you talking about how we consulted?

I mean in relation to the key national indicators.

Yes—the question is about the consultation.

From a legislative perspective, some pieces of legislation have particular definitions of community, community organisation and representation, and other pieces take a slightly different approach.

In consulting on the national performance framework, we tried to establish the widest possible representation from a range of sectors and interests, including policy makers, experts, practitioners, academics and businesses. We also included the Children’s Parliament to ensure that that aspect of Scotland was involved.

Over 200 external organisations were invited to take part in the consultation, so there was a very wide range of groups. For obvious reasons, a significant number of those were organisations with a rural and/or environmental remit. In addition, the national performance framework round table included the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

We consulted as wide a range of communities as possible, consonant with being able to deliver something practical.

How were the groups that represented interests identified? Were there key criteria for identifying stakeholders?

Some of them were almost self-identified. There are a wide range of sectoral interests, third-sector interests, policy groups and so on that are almost self-identifying—we could hardly not have included them. As I said, about 220 external organisations were invited to take part in the consultation. I suspect that the identification process tried to include as many groups as possible that would be able to contribute sensibly, quickly and effectively.

I am looking at my officials, but I do not think that there was a definitive list at the outset that we did not depart from. We consulted a wide range of individuals and groups, but it was understood that, if it became clear that other groups might be required, we would look to them, too. We were working not from a set list but from a living list that changed as we went along.

Roger Halliday might want to say something specific about that.

I guess the starting point was Scottish Government colleagues’ networks of expert stakeholders. However, as was said, we also have the round table that advises on the national performance framework, which Claudia Beamish is on. It includes leaders from the public, private and third sectors, and we used their networks to try to get as wide a reach as possible.

In the consultation, we worked with Oxfam Scotland and the Carnegie UK Trust to go out to communities across Scotland. Our criteria were to ensure that we had coverage in each part of Scotland—certainly in each of the eight electoral regions—and in particular to ensure that, in our community engagement, we went to places such as social clubs, sports clubs and other existing environments in which people already met. On top of that, Oxfam Scotland did a set of street stalls. It looked across Scotland and, in thinking about the matter, ensured that we had a mix from the most deprived parts of Scotland and the most affluent parts, in order to try to build up as coherent a picture as possible.

Would it be fair to say that the process was ad hoc rather than formulaic? I do not mean that in a bad way.

To some extent it was ad hoc. It was opportunist.

We are saying that we did not set out to do the consultation with a prescribed list. There were some very obvious people to speak to, and as the process went on, it drew in others. There were various ways of doing things. At one point, there was an online survey as well as various kinds of conversations. To describe the process as “ad hoc” makes it sound as if people were just making it up as they went along, but that did not happen. There was not a prescribed list, and we pulled in other people as the process went on.

We have identified that 220 bodies, or thereby, were involved. To what extent has the Government responded to stakeholders’ views on the outcomes and indicators? Did you go back to those people, who gave the Government their advice, and respond to that?

There would be a continuing conversation. It was not a matter of their formally giving a piece of advice and our taking that away and using it to inform what we were doing. A more dynamic process will have been involved in a lot of the conversation.

So it is an on-going, interactive process.

There were two stages. As I said, at the first stage, we asked a group of people about the kind of Scotland that they want to live in and what is important to them in their lives. That helped us to shape the proposal, which the committee has seen, on 11 new national outcomes.

A second phase involved looking at the indicators that sit behind those outcomes. In doing that, we engaged with a similar group of expert stakeholders and played back the outcomes that we came up with from drawing on all the views. Things were revised slightly as a result of those second conversations about indicators. For example, following a suggestion about the environment outcome, we added the words “enhance our environment”. Those words were suggested by stakeholders at that event.

It may be worth adding that previous Scotland-wide consultations formed some of the foundation for this. In 2015 and 2016, there were two national public consultation exercises—one on what a fairer and more equal Scotland would look like and one on what a healthier Scotland would look like. Both of those exercises comprised substantial public engagement. There were over 16,000 participants in public events and over 400,000 people were reached online. That formed a basis for what we were doing.

In addition, I understand that some of our delivery partners—the Carnegie UK Trust and Oxfam Scotland—held street stalls in communities. A lot of organic stuff went on throughout the process that has fed back, not just in a formal sense but in some cases quite informally as well.

Naturally, we want to identify that the process was robust.

I understand that. The more that I look at the notes, the more I see was going on.

I am pleased to see that you are reading them.

Absolutely. I have not got this off by heart, I am afraid.

There will have been lots of aspirations at the round-table events. How many of them were feasible, measurable and affordable? Can you give a ballpark figure? Was it 30 per cent of the ideas, or 50 per cent?

That is definitely a question for others to answer.

I will take that one. It is important to mention that, before the review, in 2015 and 2016, we reviewed the environment and rural indicators in the national performance framework—working with Scottish Environment LINK, which is one of our partners—and we introduced indicators on green space and the natural capital asset index. We then had 22 workshops with 250 stakeholders to look at the indicators last year. That generated about 150 ideas, whereas we had 66 indicators. Looking internationally, we saw that other systems that were trying to do something similar on environmental, social and economic measures had 50 or fewer indicators. We had to turn the total from 150 to 50.

The first stage was to look at the feasibility of the indicators, which Mr Scott asked about. The majority of the things that were suggested were feasible, but some attracted a cost for collection. That was one of the criteria for thinking about which indicators to bring in. The other criteria that had to be thought through were whether the measures were robust, whether they were based on good data, whether an increase or a decrease would mean an improvement or a worsening, whether they would help to measure each of the 11 outcomes and whether they would work together or would measure similar things. We wanted to make sure that we had as wide a set of measures of different things as possible.

Stewart Stevenson has a supplementary question. Please be brief.

This question is for Roger Halliday. Do you think that the final list covers every policy area for which the Government is responsible?

The list is not necessarily meant to do that. In my role as the chief statistician, I am aware that we have 79 indicators here, but we publish many more statistics, and—

Forgive me. I was just being very specific. I understand that there is a lot of detail underneath that. I simply want to see whether there are policy areas that are not included and not covered. I think that you are suggesting that there are. Can you identify what they are for us?

That is clearly not a straightforward question. Overall, we have worked to have outcomes for Scotland that are meaningful to people, that align with the United Nations sustainable development goals and Scottish Government policy and that help us to measure progress not just for Scotland but for communities in Scotland. The Scottish Government policies all feed into the outcomes. The indicators in the national performance framework will not necessarily track progress on all Government policies, but we collect a much wider set of data and evidence in order to do that.

10:00  

Good morning. I want to ask about the definition of “sustainable economy”. Does the term refer to economic growth that can continue indefinitely or to an economy that is in line with sustainable development, and how do those differ?

The Government regards those as consistent with each other. Obviously, our outcome is to have an “inclusive and sustainable economy”. That is in the overall purpose statement, but it is not the only element. In effect, we are trying to keep economic, environmental and social progress in balance. The Government believes that economic growth is still an important driver of Scotland’s ability to flourish overall and in making sure that opportunities are available, but that growth can only really come via inclusive and sustainable measures.

I guess that the issue is about what lies underneath people’s assumptions when they hear the phraseologies. The Scottish Government does not adhere to the notion of economic growth at any cost whatever. When we talk about economic growth or sustainable economic growth, underlying that is the understanding that things have to be kept in balance to ensure that we get the best possible outcomes for Scots. We do not see the two things as somehow inconsistent.

To use salmon farming as an example, is the target to double production by 2030 consistent with sustainable development? You acknowledge that there are tensions between the economic, environmental and social issues. Is that target primarily driven by indefinite economic growth, or does it have a sustainable development aspect?

Of course that target will have a sustainable development aspect. It will be achieved in a way that ensures that we balance the environmental issues. Indeed, we should remember that aquaculture has a social and economic aspect. The point is about keeping all of those in balance. No Government will say that any industrial sector can run out of control. All sectors are subject to the application of the same test, and we are looking at balance across the board to ensure that growth is sustainable. It would not do aquaculture any good if the growth was unsustainable, because that would end up leading to collapse. That is the case in almost any sector of our economy.

Is there a limit to growth in the aquaculture sector, then?

You would probably need to have that conversation directly with those who are involved in the aquaculture sector. I imagine—

I mean in terms of environmental constraints.

With respect, I imagine that any country in the world that has an aquaculture sector might feel that there is a point beyond which it becomes difficult to sustain growth. The issue is about the sustainability of that growth, and I cannot foresee what that might look like in the future, because the technologies, the understanding and the science change all the time, so what might look sustainable now may not look sustainable in five years, and vice versa. All that we can ever do at any one point with regard to any sector in our economy is to make our best estimate on the basis of our current understanding.

Is sustainable economic growth the only way to achieve a flourishing Scotland? Do we need to focus more on wellbeing? Do we have the appropriate basis on which to make judgments about our progress, through wellbeing?

From my perspective, wellbeing is so bound up with people’s economic and social lives that we cannot split them apart and separate them from one another. I know from a previous portfolio responsibility that being involved in good and productive work plays an enormous part in people’s wellbeing, so economic growth is absolutely fundamental to people’s wellbeing. I do not see a way in which we can pit the two areas against each other, and doing so would be a false way of looking at how Scotland, or any other country, works. Defining wellbeing as if it were somehow separate from economic growth or from how we work in terms of the economic aspect of our culture is not helpful. There are things around wellbeing that we can measure; I have just mentioned one that I know from a previous portfolio responsibility, which is that access to good and productive work is absolutely fundamental to people’s wellbeing. It is an indicator that would come out of the economic growth side, but would be fundamental to the wellbeing side. I do not think that it is easy to pick them apart.

Is the Government working on indicators beyond gross domestic product, which is problematic because it counts all the bad things as well as all the good things?

There might very well be interesting conversations going on elsewhere about how one measures. I know that there is debate about whether GDP is the best way to measure economic growth, and about other ways to do that. The point that I was trying to make is that we cannot just separate out things in a way that would allow us to point out indicators for wellbeing as if they were somehow not also impacted on by the state of the economy: we know that they are.

We have a basket of indicators so that we can see economic, environmental and social progress in Scotland. We have had in the framework for quite some time an indicator about mental wellbeing, and we propose to add an indicator on children’s wellbeing and happiness to the indicator on children’s physical and social development.

That moves us on to a line of questioning that I want to pursue. When going through the process for the framework, some things are considered but dropped and some things are not included, which inevitably means that some people will take issue with where we end up. We have gone down from 16 outcomes to 11. Can you give me the rationale for why climate change, in terms of adaptation and mitigation, is not included in any outcomes, and the rationale for why research and innovation have been removed from the outcomes?

Obviously, there has been a lot of movement backwards and forwards, and some things have expanded and others have not. For fairness, I will say that the outcomes that we have chosen stem directly from the consultation that we talked about earlier. That is an important broader statement to make.

It is a fact that outcomes do not fit into neat policy boundaries, so some of the discussion is around individual indicators as opposed to broader outcomes. If something does not sit in the outcomes list, that does not necessarily mean that it is not important or that there are not indicators that relate directly to it.

Our feeling about climate change is that there are already important indicators about it, on greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon footprint, so we have already encompassed it in the framework. The broader climate change outcome line fits into the sustainable economic growth part of the much broader outcome.

The difficulty with an exercise like this is that one can end up replicating everything through every stage in the entire process. That would result in an enormous document, which would mean that it would lose some of its functionality.

There is a conversation to be had about what is in and what is not in. However, the point that Roger Halliday made earlier about the number of indicators that we already have is important. We are at the top end in terms of the number of indicators, when compared to most countries, in this sort of exercise. Most countries set a limit at about 50; we have ended up with 79, which means that we are already pushing the boundaries.

As you say, cabinet secretary, the number of indicators has increased from 55 to 79. However, there are no indicators specifically on climate change mitigation and adaptation. An indicator on growth and the green economy was considered, but has not been included. There is nothing about resource efficiency, the circular economy, recycling rates and land ownership. All those are issues that stakeholders have highlighted and which are quite important in your portfolio. What is the general rationale for such indicators not being included?

I understand the point, but we have increased the numbers of other indicators that are important to the portfolio. Setting the indicators is a constant balancing exercise, in and of itself. ClimateXChange has developed indicators to monitor adaptation in Scotland, which cover the themes of natural environment, buildings and infrastructure. Those indicators are in the Scottish climate change adaptation programme, so we do not feel that separate indicators are necessary.

To go back to what Roger Halliday said, we are not trying to encompass everything that can be measured. That would become an impossible exercise. Everything that is measured is already public and available. In trying to inform the framework, we are trying to choose things that are, ultimately, more fundamental.

There were lots of suggestions from stakeholders for indicators that would have covered issues such as climate change leadership and demonstration of commitments internationally. However, a lot of what was talked about would have been extremely difficult to measure, and there would have been issues around comparability. Remember that we must be able to make real comparisons, internally and externally, through time, and that we measure ourselves against other countries. The decisions that have been made in our attempts to keep everything manageable mean that some things that some people wanted to be included are not included, although other things will be brought in that were not there previously.

How will the outcomes and indicators be measured in the future? What work is planned in that regard? Will the climate change indicators on greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon footprint identify a target against which to track progress, and will they be revisited after the forthcoming climate change bill?

As you are aware, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 contains a target for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The indicator on that is one of the key indicators in the framework and is staying in it. The precise formulation and the target will need to be updated in the framework, following the passage of the forthcoming climate change bill.

The carbon footprint has been in the framework for several years and will remain there. It remains to be seen whether anything to do with the carbon footprint indicator will happen through the bill process; if so, the national performance framework will need to be brought up to date, in that regard.

10:15  

Is the framework a live document, in many ways?

It has to be; there is a constant process. Obviously, there has to be another iteration of the NPF at some point; at no point should it be seen as a final document, for good and all, because that is not how we are working. We look constantly at the issue over years. I have referenced things that happened before the review because they were important for the review, but the document will keep moving.

Recycling rates appear to have been considered, but were ultimately not included. Why is that?

Are you looking for specific reasons why?

Yes.

Right. Give me a couple of seconds.

There is no circular economy indicator. Are you talking about that or about waste recycling, specifically?

I am talking about recycling rates. They appear to have been considered but are not included.

We have a measure of the waste that is generated, which is very similar. Should we have a second measure or do we accept that the figure for waste generated is similar enough to address that? That takes us back to the point about replication of indicators.

We chose the measure on waste generated rather than a recycling measure because waste prevention is further up the hierarchy than recycling. Claudia Beamish and I have had conversations in the chamber and privately about what we are actually talking about in relation to food waste; our targets on food waste are about prevention, not recycling. In a sense, we chose the measurement that was hierarchically higher. Because prevention is higher up the hierarchy, it fits better into the broader discussion about sustainability, which I mentioned.

There are many indicators of waste. I dare say that if we legislate for a food-waste target people will argue that it should be in the document. There are lots of things that we could put in, but if we put everything in we would not have a functioning document.

I hope that I have explained why we went the way we did. There is logic to it; it was not random.

Forgive me for not knowing this; it is probably my own stupidity. What are the criteria for identifying what should and should not be an indicator? The process seems to be rather arbitrary. How is the committee to judge whether the Government is getting it right? Is there an identifiable list somewhere that we can check, so that we can say whether the Government is doing a good job?

We benchmark; we look at what happens in other places, to ensure that we are not missing things that are done internationally.

I see that Roger Halliday is itching to comment. Before he does, let me say that what is really important, among other things, is that robust information is captured that can be compared with what has gone before, chronologically—because otherwise we cannot show performance—and can be compared against broader international benchmarking.

It is a case of picking indicators that are meaningful. How meaningful they are cannot be determined subjectively; they must be meaningful in an objective sense. That is important, because there is no point in picking an indicator, on publication of which there would be too much dubiety about what it measures.

I have a comment to make before Mr Halliday comes in. It is evident that we are evaluating whether the Government is doing a good job in this process, but it is not easy to know how to do that, because the criteria against which you are working are not entirely clear. Therefore, it is hard for us to get a handle on the issue.

It is not easy, because it is a large and time-consuming process that we are going through. Ultimately, however, indicators must be objectively robust. As well as being measurable in time—backwards and forwards—they must, from Scotland’s perspective, be capable of being looked at across the board and in comparison with international comparators.

The Government produces a vast amount of data and a huge amount of statistics. Some of that information is singular to Scotland, for obvious reasons, and if an element of that information were chosen as an indicator, it would not give us much of a perspective on where we were, from the point of view of our national performance in comparison with performance beyond our boundaries. We are looking at that aspect, as well as at the ability of the data to be tested and to be considered to be highly robust and very understandable.

I do not want to stray into other people’s portfolio areas, and I have not looked at the justice performance stuff, but I know from my days as a justice minister that the fact that there is a difference between, for example, the number of incidents reported and the number of crimes reported—both of which are important—can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. We do not want such confusion here; we want the indicators to be straightforward.

I have a few points to make. First, the review is being undertaken under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which requires us to present the outcomes, but we have decided to go beyond that and to present the whole of the national performance framework, including the indicators. The criteria that we used for the indicators are outlined in the consultation document that we submitted to Parliament, but I will go through them.

There is a technical assessment, which was based on international best practice as laid out by the Royal Statistical Society. As Colin Moffat said, that involves making sure that the data is consistent over time and between areas, and that the data on which the indicators are based is precise enough to make it possible to identify change.

There is a criterion about the meaningfulness of the indicators. We wanted to make sure that the indicators have meaning, so that was part of the work that we did at our workshops.

We wanted to be able to measure progress against each of the 11 outcomes, and to avoid any major gaps in measurement. We wanted to be as consistent as possible with the United Nations’ sustainable development goal indicators and, finally, we wanted to make sure that progress would be described not just for Scotland as a whole but, where we have the necessary data, for the various equality groups and for particular areas, which would be identified using the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. When it comes to reporting, we publicly report progress against each of the indicators on our Scotland performs website. If we had good wi-fi in here, any of us could go through that data and check the state of it. We will move from having to report on progress for Scotland overall to reporting on different equality groups and on area-based inequalities.

I want to ask about the indicator on lives lost through poor air quality that you considered. The Scottish Parliament information centre’s briefing says that the Government rejected the measure because it

“wanted more whole systems measures”.

There is perhaps no better indicator of whether the whole system is working than to measure through a multiplicity of air-pollution sources whether people’s health is being impacted. Why was that indicator rejected? What replaces it?

First of all, a difficulty with that area is that it is not possible to ascribe cause and effect precisely. I know that a lot of figures are being bandied about, but an awkward aspect of such a measure is that the effect varies enormously depending on individuals’ responses to air quality.

A 2010 report produced UK-level estimates of the burden of added mortality associated with ambient fine-particulate pollution—the indicator was measured in months—but that was based on particulate levels in 2008. That shows another problem with such a measurement: the time lag creates an issue. That UK Government departmental report noted an enormous variation across the UK. In fact, the attributable lives lost in Scotland were fewer than in England and Wales.

We did not consider that such a measure was a useful way to proceed. The UK Government department that instructed the report advised against using the statistics because they are not precise enough to be helpful. That does not mean that we will not continue to look at this area, and see whether there is a better and more effective way to measure it. However, at the moment, we do not consider that using such an indicator in the national performance framework would help us across Scotland. That is partly down to the very particular and localised impacts of poor air quality for certain populations. As a national indicator, it is not particularly helpful.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and team. I need to declare an interest. As Roger Halliday has highlighted, I represent Scottish Labour on the round table on the national performance framework, which is convened by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, Derek Mackay.

You should be sitting here. [Laughter.]

I would be quite happy to, cabinet secretary.

Feel free to ask her questions.

As my colleague Mark Ruskell says, feel free to ask me questions, although that is not the point of this session.

I emphasise that I have stepped back a little bit from the broader questions about the indicators deliberately because of my role on the round table.

My questions are about the marine environment. My colleague Stewart Stevenson will be asking about the fish stocks indicators, so there should be a pause in responding to that area until then.

What was the process for developing the new indicators? Who was involved in that?

That is probably for Roger Halliday, or perhaps Colin Moffat, to answer, because I was not involved at that granular level of the proceedings.

Over a couple of years, Marine Scotland has been looking at the indicators that have been required for things such as the marine strategy framework directive and at how we can best meet the requirements of those aspects, particularly with regard to servicing and being able to answer questions on the delivery of the vision of having clean, healthy and biologically diverse seas.

Marine Scotland went through a process whereby it considered the existing indicators and the fact that we want indicators that will tell us something that we can act on, as the cabinet secretary said. Our review concluded that we will develop indicators that are associated with the cleanliness of our seas, their biodiversity and the sustainability of our fishing.

10:30  

Which groups were consulted in the discussions with Marine Scotland about the marine indicators? I know that Scottish Environment LINK was involved, for example. Concerns have been expressed about those discussions, which I will highlight in a minute.

I saw something in my notes a few minutes ago. I ask you to bear with me.

Would it be helpful for me to ask—no, it would not be helpful.

I apologise for the delay. I saw the information during our earlier discussion of a different subject.

Here are some of the people who were involved: the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which I dare say would have had a lot to say about the issue, Scottish Environment LINK, the Marine Conservation Society, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the WWF and Friends of the Earth. Claudia Beamish will have known about the Marine Conservation Society because it was also a round table panel member—she said, pointedly.

I am asking for the record.

The Scottish Wildlife Trust was involved in indicator workshops, the online survey and structured conversations; Friends of the Earth was involved in the online survey; the WWF was involved in indicator workshops; and SEPA was involved in the indicator workshops and the sustainable development goals workshops.

That list probably covers the organisations that you might think would have issues about some of this stuff, with the Marine Conservation Society being the most prominent of the third sector witnesses.

Thank you; that is helpful.

Could you help us with a question about the development of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem health indicators? Our committee notes say that they are “To be developed.” I would welcome greatly a diversity index for both land and marine environments. Does the cabinet secretary or anyone else have any comments on the decision not to include the marine and terrestrial ecosystem health indicators?

The ecosystem health indicators that SEPA currently publishes are too limited in their coverage of the marine environment, particularly with regard to the state of the offshore environment. That is why Marine Scotland went for the marine strategy framework directive indicators instead. A new biodiversity indicator is proposed, which aims to capture the state of both terrestrial and marine biodiversity. I think that it is in development.

That is right.

That is helpful, because I understood that previously the indicator focused only on terrestrial biodiversity.

Yes. We are looking at how it can be more widely drawn.

Moving on to the contaminant-region combinations assessment, can you or one of the panel give a short explanation of that?

I can tell you what I have been given as an explanation; if it does not suffice, perhaps one of my colleagues will come in.

I am interested to know how it will fit into the marine environment assessment, because it is a complex assessment arrangement. Will that be part of the overall indicator for the marine environment?

As I understand it, there are five groups of contaminants that are monitored annually in four regions around Scotland, covering both fish and shellfish and sediment. For the animals, if you like, and the sediment in turn—this is where we have to have some understanding of how the science works—we are talking about the mean concentration of each contaminant group. There are five groups, four regions and two measurements: one for the animals and one for the sediment. The mean concentration of each contaminant group in each region is compared to a threshold, which is typically called the environmental assessment criterion. If the mean concentration is below the threshold, the contaminant group is unlikely to cause harm to marine life, which means that the specific contaminant and region combination has good environmental status.

We can see that, with five contaminant groups, four regions and two measurements, the combinations are quite extensive; in effect, there are 40 assessments of environmental status. The indicator will be the proportion of those that show good environmental status, and it will therefore be a broad brush indicator across those 40 assessments. For example, if more than 20 show good environmental status, the indicator goes up; if fewer than 20 show that status, the indicator goes down.

However, that overlies myriad different pieces of information. We therefore need to adapt it to assess Scotland’s marine environment by focusing on the four regions around Scotland of the northern North Sea, the Scottish continental shelf, the Minches, and the west of Scotland and the Irish Sea. We will try to provide an overall indicator out of all that underlying information to give an indication of the cleanliness of Scotland’s marine environment. An overall assessment of the marine environment will need other indicators, such as fish stocks and biodiversity.

I hope that that reproduction of the explanation that I was given is helpful, but more technical bits of information might be required.

Perhaps we have gone as far as we need to on this one.

Is that more information than you wanted? I think that that demonstrates the complexity.

It is very helpful. I hope that it answers, in some sense, a point raised by my colleague John Scott, because we want to know that such things are measurable and how they are measured.

Finally, before I hand over to my colleague Stewart Stevenson on the fisheries issue, can anyone clarify how regularly the testing that has been described will be done, so that we can see any differences?

We take samples every year. In January we undertake a cruise right round Scotland that covers all four regions, and we collect the samples annually.

If it was in July, I might ask if I could come with you. [Laughter.]

Let me start by asking about a couple of things for the record. First, am I correct in saying that the area that we are looking at in relation to fish stocks goes out to the 200-mile limit or as far as an adjacent jurisdiction’s boundary?

Yes.

Secondly, how has the indicator that is being proposed changed from the previous one?

That is a little outside my comfort zone.

The key point is that we wanted the new indicator to relate far more to the sustainability of the actual fisheries. The current indicator relates to the proportion of stocks that are within the total allowable catch, which does not directly tie in with the sustainability of the fisheries and the fish stocks. In the new indicator we will move to using fishing mortality, which directly ties in with the sustainability of the fish stocks.

The TACs, of course, are set politically and therefore they may or may not relate to science—I think that we all accept that—whereas maximum sustainable yield is a scientific measure, so I suspect that that move is a good thing.

However, the different fishing areas around our coasts have very different sustainabilities and MSYs for different stocks. How is that fact reflected in the way that we look at these things? Certain stocks that are under a lot of pressure in the Clyde, on the west coast, are relatively abundant in the North Sea.

Basically, we are working to determine what we call the F_MSY, which is the fishing mortality rate that will give us maximum sustainable yield and which is determined for specific stocks in specific areas, such the North Sea, the west coast or the Clyde. The key thing is that we measure those stocks to try to ensure that each of them is sustainable. Then we will look at the percentage of those stocks across the whole area that are within F_MSY.

Before you proceed, you said “the whole area”. Are you referring to the whole of the Scottish waters or to particular fishing areas, such as divisions IVa and IVb, et cetera?

Particular fishing areas are what we are looking at.

So you are looking at each area, but we are ending up with one indicator.

Yes.

If, for example, divisions IVa and IVb are doing well for haddock, but subarea VII is doing incredibly badly for haddock, how would that be reflected in the indicator?

We will have the basic data for each of the areas—let us say, for example, haddock data for the west and for the east. That data will give us the specific value for those areas. The final indicator that appears will be the percentage of those stocks that are within F_MSY, but we will have the data for the specific stocks in the specific areas that underlie the final indicator that is quoted.

I understand that there is a huge amount of data and I am confident that it is being measured, recorded and published, but I am back to the fact that we end up with one indicator. In other words, if the haddock stocks on the west coast of Scotland were to vanish to far below F_MSY, would that mean that the indicator would go red, even though the haddock stocks everywhere else—were the west coast area not being considered—would certainly be green?

The point that you have picked up is very relevant, in that, with any indicator for which we take data and are trying to get it down into one specific outcome, there is a chance that we would lose some of the underlying granularity. Based on the percentage as it is, the indicator would not necessarily go red if one of the stocks went down so that its spawning stock biomass was below the acceptable limit. However, in planning and developing the indicator, we will look at its granularity.

10:45  

Do forgive me. I am absolutely content that Marine Scotland will manage at a granular level and will respond to granular problems. I understand that and am not trying to suggest otherwise; on the contrary. It is just that we are trying to produce a relatively small number of indicators—albeit that we have more than what appears to be the international standard of 50 indicators—and I wonder what the value of the indicator actually is when it might be green but you have very significant problems that are geographically constrained. That is my issue. I am perfectly persuadable, but I just do not get it at the moment.

I suppose that, at one level, our response is similar to the one on contaminants. We have so much detailed information that any one of those indicators—or any handful—could drop below what could be considered acceptable. However, the overall picture remains good. From my perspective, that would apply equally in the situation that Stewart Stevenson has talked about. In a sense, a little bit of the same conversation was had on air quality as well, because we know that, for vast parts of Scotland, air quality is fine, but there are small areas in which it is not. In such circumstances it is a question of having a national indicator and trying to find the right way of expressing that. That applies on this point as well. To a certain extent, even some of the regions that we are talking about are artificial.

Oh, yes.

We could change the regional boundaries for measurement and come to completely different outcomes, so they are a bit arbitrary to start with.

I would have thought that it remains the case that, if haddock stocks, for example, are good in all but one region, the picture is good. Clearly, that does not mean that, as a Government, we will not look at the problem that is in that one area. However, it does not pull down the whole of the national picture unless there is more than one area with the same problem. I guess that that is where we are with a lot of that. A lot of the indicators will have very detailed, granular information lying beneath them. However, at the end of the day, almost every bit of statistical information that we put out is compiled from a set of myriad things that are good, middling and bad, which we amalgamate to produce a picture.

Cabinet secretary, I am perfectly content with that. The philosophical point is that it touches on all the indicators.

Probably.

I want to ask a little bit about fish mortality and how we assess that. Many of the landings are not at our ports, even though the fish might have been caught in our waters. Indeed, 60 per cent of our catch is in foreign vessels; many of them land at our ports, but many do not. If they are up at the top left of the map, it may be much more convenient for them to go to Norway, for example. How do we deal with that mortality? Are we looking only at commercial stocks or at things that are not commercial stocks but are part of the mortality of the fishing process? How do we account for that?

As the committee is probably aware, mortality per se is quite difficult to measure. Therefore, first we have to measure the abundance of the different stocks in the different areas. We do that through our classical fisheries surveys.

You make the point that some of the fish that are caught within our waters are landed elsewhere. That is the reason why the assessment is done through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. We use data not just from Scotland but from Norway and other countries round the North Sea, for example to work out the abundance of the fish. We then work out the catchability of the fish to allow us to calculate the fishing mortality rate. As I say, we do that in conjunction with other countries. The surveys are common to Scotland and the other ICES member states—indeed, the ships that we use are calibrated.

Across the ICES area, scientists pick up fish at the landing ports. We try to measure 200 fish per 1,000 tonnes of fish that are landed across the fishing communities, which means that we analyse 1.6 million fish a year across the ICES area. We take a huge sample of the population, not just from Scottish ports but from the whole area that we analyse. That is how we determine fishing mortality in the areas where multiple countries are involved.

Is MSY precautionary enough for all fish stocks? I have heard arguments that, with pelagic fish, we should aim for a target below MSY.

MSY is set, but we have precautionary limits relating to the spawning stock biomass, which we call B_pa—the biomass precautionary approach. We do not just look at fishing mortality; we look at the spawning stock biomass, because one of the challenges that we have is that the fish year class may vary significantly in any one year. That is why we assess the current state of the population. We can see year classes coming through the system. If we have a particularly good year when a lot of little fish are born, in a few years’ time, that year class will become very large, and therefore we know that the abundance will have increased. Actually, we have a very fluid picture.

Mark Ruskell mentioned the pelagic stocks, which we assess in a slightly different way. We assess the demersal stocks—those that are on the ground—through trawling and capture but, with the likes of mackerel, we do a mackerel egg survey. We have to measure the stocks in slightly different ways to come up with the required information. To go back to fishing mortality maximum sustainable yield, the key thing is that we do not just take that particular value when we do the calculations. It is a good indicator for providing information for the national performance framework but, as part of the overall picture, we also take account of the spawning stock biomass.

My question is on the change in the biodiversity indicator, which, as we heard, has been broadened to include terrestrial and marine biodiversity. I will put two or three questions together, to make it easier for you to answer them. Why is there no clear descriptor for the biodiversity indicator? Can you provide more details on what the marine biodiversity indicator will be? Is monitoring activity in place to provide baseline data for that indicator, or will new monitoring activity need to be developed?

The new indicator is in the process of development, so it would be difficult for me to answer very specific questions about it. We are trying to develop it so that it covers both marine and land. An idea that we are looking at—Claudia Beamish referred to this—is expanding the current indicator, which is based on terrestrial birds, to cover both sea birds and wetland birds. However, we do not want to close off our options at this stage. Another possibility would be to select a number of key species from each environment—terrestrial and marine—assess the direction of travel for how healthy they are and make an overall assessment. We are still looking at how we will develop the new biodiversity indicator. Do we have a timescale for getting something that is more definitive?

We do. We want to have the indicator developed by 2019. A key point is that there are already indicators relating to marine birds—marine bird abundance and marine bird breeding success or failure—that are reported for the greater North Sea and the west coast. We currently have a data stream that allows us to report on the status of marine birds. The OSPAR Commission reported on this as part of its intermediate assessment 2017. The commission used 25 individual biodiversity indicators to try to assess biodiversity in our seas. That gives an idea of the number of biodiversity indicators, and the commission will probably increase the number to about 40 different indicators. The good thing is that, for birds, cetaceans and seals, we have a significant amount of data already.

My next question was going to be whether there is enough scientific knowledge about the biodiversity. Who are you consulting on the indicator, and will it be aligned with European Union and international biodiversity strategies?

I have already read out a number of the relevant groups involved in the consultations. I expect that they will have been involved in the consultation on biodiversity. Some of them, such as the Marine Conservation Society and WWF, will have been more interested in this indicator than others. They are already actively involved. I do not know whether the intention is for consultation to be more specific and to go beyond those groups. I imagine that a lot of the individuals we have talked about, such as the academics providing input, would be relevant here too. Professor Moffat may want to add to what I have said. That indicator will have been discussed, along with others, as part of the work that has been done already.

There has just been a workshop at the UK level on biodiversity indicators and it covered a significant range of organisations, such as the joint Nature Conservation Committee, SEPA, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Environment Agency and Marine Scotland. As part of the UK’s commitment to the marine strategy framework directive, the report on the UK position relative to the indicators will go out for general consultation later this year. All the biodiversity indicators that we have used to date will be put out for full public consultation.

On the international side, we are a contracting party to the OSPAR convention. We are involved in those international organisations and that is part of our thinking. I have frequently indicated that I want to ensure that Scotland continues to perform in relation to its international obligations, notwithstanding any word beginning with B.

It could be a fascinating work in progress. Can I secure a commitment from you to update the committee in due course as that progresses, because we are obviously going to take an interest in it?

11:00  

Do you want us to update you on the specific issues that the committee has expressed an interest in this morning or to do so in broader, more general terms?

I would like you to give us general updates, but we will obviously be particularly interested in hearing about progress on the specific theme of biodiversity that we are exploring at the moment.

This is a very general question, but one of the issues that have emerged is policy coherence. There is an endeavour that we all share, which is that different policy areas are able to work together. How will the framework support the development of a coherent policy across the Government and the wider public sector? Where do you see it helping?

First, it is about building up an objective picture of economic, environmental and social progress. In and of itself, getting that objective picture of where we are is important when we are developing policy. As ministers, we will continue to use the data alongside other evidence. As we have already explored, there is a great deal more information out there that can be added to specific policy areas. We take the national performance framework information but we also look at a lot of other evidence that we have already discussed here to ensure that we are making progress in a coherent way.

That is an on-going process, as you would expect, and I assume that almost any Government would try to do precisely the same thing. The indicators are available to ministers and the wider public at the same time through our website; we get advised of progress against the national performance framework at the same time as the rest of Scotland. We see straight away whether areas within our Cabinet responsibilities are improving or otherwise or are simply level pegging. We are constantly getting updated on that. There is probably a cycle for that, but they seem to come through relatively frequently. The indicators are put in front of us as the cabinet secretaries responsible for particular policy areas so that we can look into them. That then leads me to respond by asking, “Why is this going down? What is the story behind that? Should we be doing something different?” In a sense, that is really what this is all about.

I would expect parliamentary colleagues to use the national performance framework for the same purpose—I do not know whether they do. If the national performance framework indicators were going in the wrong direction in any particular policy area, as well as expecting that the cabinet secretary involved would be looking at that area and asking, “How has that come about?”, I would expect parliamentary colleagues to be looking at those indicators and using them as a tool with which to explore the issues in that area. That is the sum total of what the national performance framework is there for.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That has been useful and you have undertaken to update us in due course as matters progress. Thank you for giving evidence. I will suspend the meeting to allow for a change of officials and then we will move on to the Scottish Crown Estate Bill.

11:04 Meeting suspended.  

11:09 On resuming—