Da, mwy fwy oes y tympaethau ddylch Cymru. Felly, ond y byddwch gwaith ar Aled Neil i'w Clywodd Abermysg. Mae'n ddif analyt i'ch gael o'r tympai. Fy fyddan i chi'n i'w ddigwyddol i gael ein bod yn ei thongydd, rydw i yn cael eu ddedigau i'ch gael ygafod— eu hun i gyfathu i ddw i'w bwlwch o'r dweud sydd yn gyfathu o bowd ei ffordd gorffodol. Fodd hyn o'r gwblwch o'i cwestiynau ff Davies. Felly mae'n d dalgogon gyda itsiag yng nghymru, sy'n bod nhw'n gwybod i'r I. Efallai doswch gan hyn os gwybod i'r I. Felly mae'n gwybod i'w ddegwch cymaint ben newydd 5 i gyfrifio gyda'u 4. Ieisnau hynny i gyfrifio gyda'u 3 i gyfrifio gyda'u 4? Hefyd. Roi ddegwch. The next item is to undertake the pre-budget scrutiny of the Scottish Government's budget for 2019-20 in a round table format. This morning, we are grateful to many people coming to support this session, and we are joined by Riddle Graham, who is the director of Industry and Destination and Development at Visit Scotland. We are joined by Ian Gunn, chief executive officer, Zero Waste Scotland. We are also joined by Johnny Hughes, chief executive of Scottish Wildlife Trust, as well as Ful Mackey, the lead consultant in public health, SMASH. If that is the right way of pronouncing that action and head of the Scottish Public Health Network in NHS Health Scotland. We are also joined by Francesca Osovasca, chief executive and accountable officer of Scottish Natural Heritage. We now move to this session, the question and answer session. If we just go straight to the questions, this is going to be a round table format, as I have said. Finlay, if you would like to kick off and get the discussion going. Thank you, convener. Good morning, everybody. What I would like to do is try to understand how our budget and this committee contributes to some of the national outcomes. My question specifically on what benefits for the economy and jobs is there of maintaining a high-quality natural environment, landscape and biodiversity, and to what extent are those benefits realised? I suppose that my initial question is to visit Scotland and SNH. Thanks very much. Just to set it in context, all the visitor surveys that we have carried out make it very clear that Scotland's scenery and landscape is the key motivation for visitors coming to Scotland. In fact, I have the figures in front of me. 50 per cent of the people who were asked about why they came to Scotland in the first place, it was the senior in the landscape. That is absolutely a key driver to bringing visitors to the country, particularly international visitors. The importance of the environment cannot be understated. We play a very important role in promoting that as part of our overall marketing activity, both online and through all the other partnership work that we do. We work very closely with Scottish Natural Heritage in a whole range of related issues that promote the countryside and scenery. We are part of the national walking and cycling network and we also promote Scotland's Great Trails, which is all about access to the countryside. Those two aspects are very important in relation to our overall activity. On the back of that, I declare an interest because I am very much involved in the campaign for a Galloway national park. Can you give some examples on how important the establishment of the two national parks that we have at the moment have been in attracting visitors? Obviously, again, we work very closely with both national parks. They are very different purely because of their size, scale and location. They suffer from different visitor pressures, depending on their actual location. The Loch Lomond park is hugely important for day visitors, particularly from the central belt. We have been working with them in helping to promote the new access agreements that they have brought into place. Obviously, in Cairn Gorms, we work predominantly through the Cairn Gorm business partnership, which is the industry group in relation to ensuring that the businesses in the park benefit from tourism in the most appropriate way. They have a very active group that promotes the quality of the visitor experience as part of their overall promotional activity as individual businesses. They are clearly different, but they both attract significant numbers of visitors in different ways. Are you saying that the national park has a positive effect on visitor numbers? The two national parks that exist at the moment clearly have. I am very aware of the campaign for additional national parks throughout the country. I live on the borders. I am part of the South of the South of Scotland partnership, and it is a key element of the activity down there. We have been lobbied fairly heavily by the group trying to encourage new national parks. I remain to see the evidence that they will significantly increase visitor numbers, but I recognise that there is an argument for that. Thank you very much, convener, for coming back to Finlay's initial question about the benefits of the economy of the environment and the natural world. I think that, as Riddle said, just to reinforce the point about Scotland's landscapes and how that helps market Scotland PLC. If anybody has watched the really powerful Scotland is Now film, you can see that Scotland's landscapes and natural beauty are ever present within that. Maybe looking a bit wider, one of the areas of work that SNH has been keen to promote is what is called a natural capital approach. That is about ensuring that we are able to quantify Scotland's natural assets and the benefit that can be derived over a long time horizon to the economy and see the environment in that way as an asset, but an asset, as with all assets in a business dimension, that needs to be protected or otherwise it will be depleted and will not be able to contribute long-term. Current estimates suggest that Scotland's natural capital is worth around £20 billion per annum to the economy, which includes tourism, renewable energy, food and drink and other sectors. I just wanted to come back, if I might, to the question that the committee is hoping to get some thinking on, which is how collectively the organisations you have in the room contribute to national outcomes and how we work together to do that. If I just pick two that are particularly relevant to SNH, which are we value, enjoy protecting and enhancing the environment, and then maybe pertinent to Finlay's question, we have a globally competitive entrepreneurial inclusive and sustainable economy. In terms of SNH's work, we've got examples, which we've submitted in the evidence of how we protect and enhance our environment. About 80% of our budget goes towards that, including protected areas, but beyond that, we lever in funds from elsewhere and I think an important message from today is the ability of the organisations in the room to lever in funds. For example, on the agri-environment scheme, we contribute £1.5 million in 18, 19, although those are our plans, but potentially lever in £47 million worth of benefits to the rural economy in terms of the second national outcome that I mentioned, the Central Scotland green network is really important again, and we're a contributor helping lever in funds to support both an economically sustainable model but green space.  Thank you. SNH have just helpfully talked about national outcomes, but VisitScotland didn't, and I'll be interested generally throughout the session to what extent the bodies who are here today feel the national outcomes, their existence, actually is part of their core planning process and how it directly influences, because there is much point in having them if it doesn't because delivery ultimately is in the bodies for our interests in the room, so perhaps I'd be interested from VisitScotland in hearing how that influences. I suspect there may not be much more to say from SNH because they've already covered that. Yeah, if I can respond on that, I have a copy of the graphic from it and I'm delighted to share that following the meeting of our current corporate plan, and seven of the national outcomes, we have a direct involvement in helping to deliver, and the others we are indirectly involved as well, so it plays a key part of our planning process without any question, and it sets the strategic context for the work that we do, and we're able to identify areas right throughout that framework that we're able to contribute to, so just to reassure you, it is a key part of our planning process, and I'm happy to share that. Mark Ruskell. Thank you. I just wanted to come back on something that SNH had mentioned there, Francesca had mentioned, in relation to Central Scotland Green Network, obviously SNH has got a range of tools that it can use in conjunction with partners to grow that natural capital and to grow that impact on the economy. What about a national ecological network? Francesca, if you'd like to ask that and make another contribution before we go back to finish. Yeah, thanks very much for the question. In terms of a national ecological network, that's discussions that are ongoing with the Scottish Government on how exactly that would work. I'm happy to come back to the committee at a later stage once we've concluded those discussions. Just back to Stuart's point about national outcomes, loads more to say, but I won't detain the committee. We provided evidence on our contribution to national outcomes both directly and indirectly, but also, like Visit Scotland, it's reflected in our corporate plan and also will be reflected in our not yet published annual report, because as well as seeing the framework of our work within the national outcomes, we also lead reporting on three of the indicators in the national performance framework, and we contribute to three others, so they're very much front of mind. Excellent, right. Mr Rowley, Alec Rowley first. That's a question that visits Scotland around working way other public bodies, and it's linked truly to the point where you're submission, you talk about rural tourism infrastructure funding and the £6 million investment, and one of the investments you highlight there is toilets, but in the Highlands right now, the Highlands Council has taken a decision to close many, many public toilets, and I just wonder, you're saying it's important to invest in public toilets for infrastructure, for tourism, and then you have the local authority across the Highlands closing toilets. How does that add up? Timie, your question is really good actually, because we're scoring the applications this afternoon, and in the first round we've had 29 formal applications. I think a couple include toilet provision in some shape or form. I think the important message there is that this is about capital infrastructure. There's been a bit of confusion certainly in the borders around revenue being provided to run them, and that's not the case, that's not the purpose of the fund. I think the point behind the fund is to improve the overall visitor experience, particularly in areas that are under a lot of pressure. Clearly, the most important criteria that we'll make the decision on is, is there clear evidence that there's a lot of pressure in a particular area with a lot of new visitors arriving and the facilities aren't there to cope with that, but also that there is a sustainable management in place thereafter once they're created to be managed and kept clean and open. And certainly, the two that I've been looking at, the evidence is pretty graphic, to be honest. I've had photographic evidence supplied, and I think we'll be looking very carefully at that. I can't comment on the decision by Highlands Council to close, but I know that there will be a provision within the decision making that we have to provide new and additional. Excellent, thanks very much. I'll now go to film, but if you just remain in mind that we're going to health on the next question. That's very clear, thank you convener. It was just to make a comment. The ecological framework is something that goes beyond simply those that are involved in either Visit Scotland or Natural Heritage or the Environmental Protection Agency. An ecological framework will actually help and support all of us being much more effective in collaboration and may well be much more effective in helping us answer the question at heart, which is, are there sustainable development goals being achieved? So I think if there is something which is clearly picked up early from the committee's response to government, is that type of approach is one which would be much broadly welcomed than just within the, quote, ecology related organisations? I think you're absolutely right, and that's one of my impressions just of reading the submissions as the development, the growing development of a collaborative approach across all the agencies in this portfolio, and I think that's absolutely vital. Finlay, if you would like to finish off your question on the circular economy perhaps, please. Thank you, convener. There's one very quick, and hopefully the required is a very quick answer to come back to the last section. At previous evidence sessions, I got the impression that the chair of SNH suggested that national outcomes were more easily delivered because of the national parks own and existence. Would you agree that national parks assist SNH in achieving their objective for the national outcomes? I mean, we work as, as Visit Scotland, we work very closely with the national parks to deliver outcomes in the boundaries of those parks, absolutely. We also have responsibility for delivery of those outcomes across the whole of Scotland out with the national park areas. Are there any more easily delivered because of the national parks framework? I wouldn't say that they were more easily delivered or less easily delivered. We work with a range of partners, whether it's national parks or out with the national park framework, local authorities and other partnership groups. Moving on, thank you, convener. What I'd like to ask now is, Mr Gullin, regarding, I understand, those 18 projects being delivered through the Circular Economy Investment Fund, which was set up back in 2016. Could you give us an idea of what the impact, again, going back to the economy and jobs that are maintained because of the high-quality natural environment? What role has the Circular Economy Investment Fund played in that? Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity to come along today. The Circular Economy Fund, as you know, is about investing in, I guess, new business to support our transition here in Scotland to a circular economy, so we use more of the materials more efficiently and effectively here rather than disposing of those materials. It's seen as, certainly, an innovative fund to support new innovative businesses and projects coming forward. The thrust of it is to improve or, sorry, increase the availability of jobs and, obviously, the turnover of existing businesses who are accessing the fund and also for new start-up businesses. So it is very much, I mean, the whole aspect of the circular economy, although very much the work that we do at Zareway Scotland fulfills the ambitions around, obviously, outcome six in terms of the environment, we're very much focused on outcome four for the economy and outcome seven around innovation and jobs. The fund itself, for those 18 projects at the moment, there's a pipeline of other projects. I think I have the number here around, we're working on another 21 applications at this moment who have submitted in, you know, for clarification and final assessment. So it was a huge appetite for those types of projects now, which is about real transformative change here in Scotland. I just thought, since the subject of circular economies come up, could I just extend that by perhaps asking if public procurement has a role to assist in developing the circular economy? That may be something for Mr Gillan, but it might be something others would comment on as well, convener. Indeed, Mr Gillan. Absolutely. We see, certainly at Zareway Scotland, we see the opportunities, some real opportunities, by using public procurement to almost become a pool for new circular economy businesses, particularly around business models like leasing and renting, rather than buying things, products and services. We could really realign the public procurement to be at use of current businesses that we're supporting. In fact, you know, some of the businesses we are supporting through our circular economy business support services were presently supporting over 80 businesses. Some of them could provide services and products to the public sector, but again, it's about how do we work with the procurement professionals to think about whole-life costing of products and services in a different way and look at the availability of those businesses here in Scotland? That's a challenge around all of public procurement working with them, but we have, over the last few years, worked with the public procurement people in government and in local government, providing training packages on not just sustainable development but circular economy and the opportunities that are out there, and that's something we're keen to build on. In terms, do you have specific projects in mind? Is the low-hanging fruit out there that you think could be picked in terms of improving our lot immediately in that regard? Well, the something that we're actually doing at the moment is doing a study across all of the public estate, trying to identify what that the low-hanging fruit would be as we speak with a number of public sector agencies. We have actually got a very good relationship going with NHS at the moment, actually looking at their opportunities. We did a study with them about a year and a half ago, looking at when they were transferring some of their hospital provision, the availability of assets, so basically the stuff that would naturally possibly have been thrown out in the past. Those were assets that could be used. Well, actually, more equipment, more surgical equipment and medical equipment down to beds and desks and all sorts of things in between, but actually how those assets could be utilised back into the health service, but also to other agencies as well. It is about some of the record-keeping understanding what those assets were, so it was tracking those assets, and on the back of that, we are now working with the NHS more widely on the availability of assets, but also looking at the procurement and the opportunities around possibly leasing or renting specialised equipment going forward in a different way, so there is more of a maintenance element to that and increasing the use of innovation rather than just buying things. Right, excellent. Before we go on to one last question from the princess. Copon, on the point about the role of other agencies in terms of circular economy and how we can, through our own corporate approaches, make sure that we are upholding the principles of sustainability. A few points in relation to SNH. Plastic and single-use plastic, we are taking steps to reduce that within our offices and undertaking an audit of that. Further, there are some initial steps such as trying to ban the use of single-use plastic coffee cups in our main buildings. We have reduced our carbon emissions by 27 per cent since 2015. We are looking to work collaboratively with partners, particularly on sharing space to enable a more efficient corporate and collective approach. Right. I will now move to question 2. Donald Cameron, if you would like to talk us through that one, please. Thank you, convener. I would like to concentrate on the national outcome of being healthy and active. We would all agree that there are clear benefits for health and wellbeing of maintaining a high-quality natural environment. The Scottish Government has suggested that if just 1 per cent of the sedentary population moves to a healthy pathway, then 1,000 or so lives would be saved and £1.4 billion across the UK would be also saved. But my question is, and I think initially to Phil Mackie, to what extent are these benefits for health and wellbeing actually being realised? That's a very, very good question. I think the issue is not so much are there. It's how do we manage to make sure that they are. We clearly have got costs estimates which we've shared with you, which others have looked at, in terms of the financial consequences to the healthcare system, particularly in Scotland from material that Health Scotland published following studies from Oxford University, which is the £94 million that's actually quoted in various documents. The degree to which that actually is going to automatically be a cost-saving is something that we hope and we can manage to achieve. There are many areas of necessary change and I think what we're hearing around the table already is the recognition of the necessary change in opening up the tourist environment, in opening up the natural environment, in looking at the way in which we encourage and support people to become more active of themselves and therefore take greater control over their own ability to make a contribution. But we have to manage it, we have to achieve that change, we have to ensure that simply ensuring that we've got more active travel as an example actually translates into things that people use and support. So I would use that word could rather than would. I'm glad to hear that because it's all very well to have high ambitions like well if we did this then we could save as much but actually it's the practical achievement of that that surely should be our focus and I think that's what you're saying. I think that's what I'm getting. My organisation to manage the sustainable health network that I'm representing here today is looking very much at how we achieve that core benefit. Core benefits don't happen automatically. Working together, collaboration, ensuring that many of the agencies around this table are working with health agencies to promote the element of potential well-being that can lead to potential health is an essential first step but actually we need to get more savvy. Many of these changes are generational changes not instant returns on investment. The degree to which we're looking at aging population now and the core morbidity that they experience is a consequence of activities 25 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago. We need to invest not just in the future but we need to invest in core benefit for the future. Can I ask about SNH? I think you reported a return on investment in the central Scotland green network that's likely to be £6 billion by 2050. Do you have any comments to make on the questions that I've asked in terms of health and well-being about what you can achieve? I mean, I don't want to repeat the evidence that we provided but we've highlighted in that the national walking and cycling network which we lead but obviously work with other partners on that and making available routes for people to either travel actively or to walk, cycle, run, jog, hop. Recreationally is a really important part of that and we've seen that a number of journeys have been generated through the use of the national walking and cycling network. The work that we're doing on green health partnerships in Lanarkshire, Dondin, North Ershawn Highland, again, it's about making sure that we are with partners presenting the opportunities for people to enjoy the outdoors, enjoy the green space and the green infrastructure fund we've also mentioned. I think just underpinning all of this and perhaps most demonstrated by the work that we're doing with green health partnerships but also work that we do wider is just being able to introduce whether it's by a planning, whether it's working with Sustrans, for example, on their developments. The concept of green places, green corridors is really important and that placemaking base and taking a placemaking approach which is about ensuring that the community are involved in those discussions is really important and I think the same report that you were mentoring also shows that having good quality local green space, that's local green space which people can regularly access and use could contribute to saving the NHS £94 million a year as opposed to direct health treatment. Can I take this opportunity to commend you for leading by example this summer by swimming across the Corrie Wreck and Whirlpool that I'm sure will have an impact on the national outcome of being healthy and active. Congratulations on behalf of us all for that achievement. Is there anyone else who wants to declare a similar achievement, Mr Russell? No, that's rather throwing me actually community. I'll ask you a question and then we'll come to Mr Hughes. I was going to ask about a plain question really for SNH which is about whether you think there's enough investment going into our green infrastructure particularly around our urban areas. I mean I'm aware of the green infrastructure fund that you've established but is that enough and if not where should the money come from? Currently the green infrastructure fund as you know covers around 30 disadvantaged communities and we're levering funds from elsewhere to support those projects. I think when I was last at committee I was challenged on the amount of funding that SNH had and is it enough and no NDPB chief executive is going to turn down funding but at the moment we're very clear on the outcomes that we're seeking to achieve and how we maximise those and how we lever in funding from elsewhere including a number of EU sources. As you've highlighted it is a zero sum game. More money for SNH would be less money for somebody else and I'm not sure I'm in a position to say where that less money for somebody else should be. Right, thank you. Do you want any of Mr Hughes if you'd like to say something? Yes, I think yes. First of all just a little bit of strategic context because I do agree with Francesca that this idea that investment in stocks which are our natural capital, our natural environment, our natural ecosystems over time will tend to generate healthier flows of benefits be they health benefits, be they economic prosperity benefits, be they social cohesion benefits. So we were very pleased actually that in the economic strategy, the Government's economic strategy of 2015 there was a commitment there to protecting and enhancing stocks of natural capital which includes our air, land, water, soil and biodiversity and that being fundamental to a healthy and resilient economy and I would go further and say that's fundamentally linked to the delivery of health and wellbeing benefits and just to make that real because that's all very well in theory and I think Mr Cameron's question is you know where's the evidence for this. If we're going to make this investment how is it going to pay off? There's a huge body of research now that tells us that good health into old age is associated with access to biodiverse and accessible green space. I can give references to the committee if they so wish but you know there was a recent study actually in Scotland a Scotland based study that reported lower levels of stress and steeper declines in cortisol secretions which are associated with a range of health complications in individuals that were living in greener streets and greener areas in our urban areas and this is particularly the case for people living in areas of multiple deprivation. The effect is higher so the investment, the research base is there, the research base I think is very strong. The modelling is also very strong. Scottish Wildlife Trust in conjunction with Stirling City Council recently carried out a natural capital assessment of the net economic benefits that will flow from investment in green infrastructure in Stirling. We know that a modest investment there could bring net economic benefits of around £218 million over a period of five years and if for example a city park in the area was to be constructed that would bring an average of £280,000 in terms of tangible benefits every year to the people of Stirling. So there's lots of modelling, there's lots of research behind this. We probably are at stage in Scotland at the moment where we are still collecting data to feed back into that evidence base but you know the arguments are pretty compelling I think for that extra investment and if I can just maybe say what Francesca maybe couldn't say in that you know SNH's budget has been declining now for a number of years. It's fallen as a share of the total from £58 million in 2012-13 to an expected budget of £46.2 million this year. So that's a pretty steep decline and that does I think impair SNH's ability to deliver on a range of these preventative spend measures which actually could save Scotland money and deliver a whole range of national outcomes coming back to the point of this session over a period of time. So I would possibly go where Francesca can't because of her position and actually say that that investment in SNH is critical to the delivery of some of these national outcomes. I'll come on to the knock-on impact effects of charities like The Scottish Wildlife Trust hopefully later on in the session if I may. Okay before you do maybe Mr Rowley I have something to say. Just pick up on what Mr Hughes said and I agree entirely with the investment in the need for that but an example I love about I don't know a 10-minute walk fellow horn meadows country park and I was recently in a school primary school and asked how many the kids had actually visited the park and I was amazed by the number that didn't put their hands up. So where's the joint at work in terms of we have this beautiful countryside that certainly I love and it's surrounded by countryside. Where's the joint at work to get people to actually go out and enjoy the countryside because it just doesn't happen you know by by people doing that. Do you want me to come back on that? I'll quickly say that education policy is clearly has huge important here in mobilising teachers and children to get out into the environment and engage in so-called real world learning which has all sorts of all sorts of benefits for the children so I do think there needs to be joined up in terms of opportunities for kids to get out every week into their local natural environment their local green spaces unfortunately some of these green spaces are of such poor quality that they're not necessarily going to deliver the outcomes which the schools and we are all looking for so that there is some investment required in that local green infrastructure in particular but I have a half Norwegian daughter she went to school here and so she was eight years old and then she went to Norway for the rest of her schooling she's now 18 and there wasn't a week that went by when she was in school in Norway where they didn't get out for at least at least half a day normally a day a week into the natural environment and there's no such thing as bad weather in Norway it's just bad clothes so they went out every single week and that has had tremendous benefits I think for her and her peer group if I may indulge in a personal story. Many thanks, I'm going to indulge myself now and just ask anybody who wants to talk about crime reduction and mental health improvement and sequestration just and flood damage around these things with regard to the central Scotland green network the benefits just to broaden the conversation out a little to try and get a handle on the other benefits as well and Francesca you were wanting in anyway so. I was just going to comment on the point about joined up thinking in relation to young people accessing green space absolutely agree really important we've got a network of national nature reserves and meant much of the work of our staff on our NNRs is about engaging with primary and secondary schools locally to encourage visits and there are some barriers to that curricular time and transport and we try and overcome that and provide as much support as we can but it can be challenging for some schools in some areas and recognising that we've looked at other ways to engage young people in local green space so for example the learning in local green space project supports 100 schools in disadvantaged areas and encourages pupils to learn in local green space and ensure local visits and regular visits up to 2020 and we have just launched the outdoor learning in nature fund in March which again is to support young people to have regular outdoor learning experiences and 43 applications were received it was massively over subscribed and we funded at this point around 16 worth 410 000 and we have a second round later in the year in terms of your question convener in relation to other areas of benefit we talked about health and primarily we've focused on physical health but mental health as well I think is increasingly important and again that the study that we that the Scottish Government Rural and Environment Science Analytical Services conducted identified mental health benefits as a key factor in the central green network as well as justice crime prevention benefits I visited a project in the borders which was actually run by the the John Muir Trust which we're in partnership with which is obviously outside the CSGN but as an example this was a project which was working with people with alcohol and drug dependency issues and from the central belt took them to the borders and they're involved in a planting scheme and the feedback from that particular project was that the rates of you know recommitting to alcohol or drug dependency were much lower than other programmes and they've the evidence suggested that it was the outdoors that was the crucial factor in these better better rates of success brilliant thanks so much and mr mackay film very briefly the evidence in relation to well-being green space blue space the degree to which that impacts in relation to support for people with mental distress absolutely clear no question about it whatsoever the degree to which we are opening up access to help and support people in a much broader range of social and economic backgrounds to make use of that green space and blue space as I think as mr Olly has already highlighted an issue in itself we do need to recognise and why I brought up the issue of an ecological framework is the degree to which we focus on the individual behaviours of a person to be health seeking has to be set in the context of their social economic and cultural circumstances we've talked this morning around the 94 million potential cost serving attributable to physical inactivity that represents 17% of the total costs to the NHS of the diseases which are resulting from physical inactivity the 83% is therefore out there somewhere in other determinants of health and it is both within the environmental injustices the social and cultural injustices and maintaining the economic sustainability to reduce economic problems that people experience that we also have to look at to improve health particularly in relation to mental health as well as physical health thank you very much mr gililand thank you I guess this word referred to our work around litter in fly tipping tackling those issues particularly in relation to people's people's health I think there is a emerging work now in evidence around the impact of litter and fly tipping and general untidiness of where people stay in terms of their mental well-being I mean obviously our work has very much focused on the economic impacts of litter and fly tipping in terms of the cost of clearing up and the economic impact of potentially putting off tourism and a degree of inward investment so that's been our focus but through our work there's a growing sense that it is impacting on people's lives as well so I guess the work that we've been doing over the last couple of years certainly with government in terms of the wider strategy around tackling litter so adopting the new code of practice which has just gone through parliament this year which puts more of an emphasis on waste prevention or litter prevention rather than just simply cleaning the stuff up and that is about engaging with people in communities across Scotland on measures to reduce the impact of that obviously we can cite previous work that we've been involved in in terms of adoption of the single use carrier bag levy to reduce it and currently working with Scottish Government on modelling a deposit return system for Scotland which again will tackle elements of the litter stream so these are all really important things not just in terms of the economic opportunities in terms of materials that could be recycled and put back into productive use and business opportunities but they are part and parcel of making the lives of individuals here in Scotland much better. I couldn't agree with you more people behave completely differently in a litter-free environment to one that's overcrowded with litter from my own observations. Johnny, if you'd like to... I think you asked the question about flooding, did you not? What did you say? Did you ask a question about flooding? Yes, I did, yeah. And nobody asked it so I'll try and say something about that because I do think this is important in the context actually of a lot of the general duties which have been passed in this Parliament in various acts over the period of its existence not actually being followed through and implemented properly and one of those was the natural flood management duty in the wildlife environment, the water environment and water services act I think of 2002 when the environment sector was very pleased to see a natural flood management duty included in that act but it just simply hasn't hasn't been delivered in terms of the green infrastructure investment in towns and cities and also investment in resilient landscapes I'm thinking particularly about peatland restoration, forest landscape restoration. In more recent years, yes, we've started to catch up on peatland restoration and that's very welcome, it's a very welcome move but really it's not been embedded, this idea of natural flood management has not really been embedded in the budget and investment hasn't been made to the extent we are still now seeing river flooding costs to the Scottish economy of around about 32 million a year estimated 32 million a year annualised over a period of time so you know if we can think of restructuring the budget in a way that more investment in green infrastructure is made both within towns and cities and their catchment areas I think that would be money well spent it's a very low hanging fruit it's a very cost effective cost effective way of reducing the impacts of flooding and the costs of flooding okay right thank you very much for all those contributions and that question and a final contribution from Phil before we move to the next question. I was just going to pick up on the question of flooding we should not underestimate the health consequences of flooding the degree to which mental health is lost as a result of loss of place the degree to which individuals may well be put at risk particularly if they're older people the water of leaf flooding a few years in Collinton showed just how risky that can be for older people we actually do need to recognise that in many of the day to day work of investment of capital expenditure the health indirect consequence of what's currently happening is something that is important as important as future investment and preventative work and with climate change marching on I couldn't agree with you more on having sat in the flooding bill some 10 years ago which we could refer back to that evidence the evidence we heard at that time about the consequences of flooding and in effect on mental health particularly are well documented. Angus MacDonald if you'd like to take the next question please. Thanks convener I'm keen to further explore the impact of budget reductions which we've already touched on so can I ask the panel where you see the greatest risks of future budget reductions having a negative impact on national outcomes and maybe for example by way of an opener to the discussion on this specific issue what are your views on the risks of reducing spend on enforcement regulations who would like to pick up on Angus's question from the panel Johnny thank you thank you again I'll I suppose I'll start with a quote from the the european commission on this who have said that investment in green infrastructure is a catalyst to economic growth it's usually cheaper than traditional grain infrastructure creates sustainable jobs and brings great returns on investment and you know so any any cuts to the investment in kind of fundamental health of our environment will have negative impacts on on the flows that we that we achieve from that investment. I'll go back to December 2017 when this committee received an update on Scotland performance in terms of the national outcomes and the scorecard the scorecards that were then received only one of the 11 examined had none of the indicators as assessed as improving and that was the that was the environment climate change and land reform committee portfolio in effect so we're not achieving those those environmental outcomes and by by by extension we're not achieving the the positive services and benefits that we that we gain from from a healthier natural environment so I think that's that's the context in in in which we're operating in terms of the biggest the biggest impacts of of not achieving that I think to to an extent they they lie with the risks to posed by climate change in the wider rural environment we need to make our wider rural environment much more resilient to the impacts of climate change the national ecological network has been has been mentioned I think investment in a national natural a national ecological network is essential for that climate change adaptation and similarly a resurrection really of the the land use strategy which has been put into abeyance for for several years but you know hopefully we'll now see something of resurgence in the coming years so these these are strategic priorities which have been identified by government and I haven't been followed through and there will be consequences if we don't if we don't make that investment now similarly I think the the biggest other priority where we where we will see negative issues emerging is is a lack of investment in green infrastructure within towns and cities and peri urban environments and getting the planning right not just in terms of new green infrastructure for new developments but the retrofitting of green infrastructure into our towns and cities and ensuring that people have regular access to to nature for all the health benefits and social cohesion benefits it brings so those for two of the big ones for me the the the big investments in rural landscapes um to to to better make them more resilient for climate change impacts and the investment of green infrastructure in towns and cities nature rich investment investment in towns and cities which i think it brings substantial benefits thank you Francesca would you like to talk about the threat of budget reductions yeah thanks very much um in terms of um kind of budget reductions and johnny's already outlined the fact that s and h budget has reduced um by 25 percent in the last five years um uh our greatest asset within s and h is our people so we have seen uh a marked reduction in um the number of staff working in s and h and that does impact on particularly our local engagement piece um what i would say is that it also impacts on the grants that we're able to give to other bodies such as swt rspb um nts and others but what we're trying to do because we recognise um that in terms of the medium term financial position that things are unlikely to improve is to look for different ways of working so whilst some of our funding um to other bodies via framework grants has decreased uh we're looking to establish funding streams which are based on uh agreed and shared outcomes and have a more challenge fund approach hopefully to lever in more funding from other sources we're also very conscious um that the public sector is not the only source of funding for environmental issues and i'm sure committee is familiar with the where the green grants went in scotland uh report published by the environmental funders network last year which showed um that scotland is not keeping pace with perhaps other parts of the uk in terms of the leverage from trusts and other sources of that type into the environment um and within s and h um we found that you know kind of really interesting report and have discussed that with sc link um and want to do some further work on how we can jointly think about um diversification of funding sources into the sector as a whole okay thank you very much mark if you want to is it a question then of creating discrete funds for investment in landscape or you know urban green infrastructure or is it about using the existing subsidy regimes say for agriculture more effectively because i think you mentioned earlier on this is a zero sum game if you argue for more money it's less money somewhere else but you know hey there's a lot of money floating around the system at the moment and it's being spent in different ways so how do we how do we get better outcomes from that yeah i'd really like to answer that one because you're absolutely right um the scottish while i trust last last year produced as a result of the brexit vote a model for a blueprint for government policy that how the common agricultural policy might be delivered in scotland around about 15% of the spend in the in the current Scottish Rural Development programme actually goes to our green environment spend so effectively green infrastructure and environmental outcome spend that's a tiny percentage and if we could up that percentage significantly in fact i would say let's let's let's use that money for public public benefits then we could start to see a turnaround in some of these indicators that we're seeing as amber and red in the in the scotland performance framework related to the to the environment so so absolutely redeployment of existing budgets which actually don't have a policy purpose in in in some circumstances francesca mentioned the the where the green grants go report the statistics there are pretty shocking actually only 1.9 million a year between the years of 2012 to 16 went into scotland from trusts and foundations from a uk level and that includes everything from climate to landscape to marine work we have 56% of the coastline in scotland but only get 3% of the total environmental grant funding in the uk from from trusts and foundations for climate it's even worse 0.4% of the uk total comes to scotland so these are pretty stark figures england and wales are getting 20 times the funding that we get and organisations like my own are getting 20 times the the funding that we are in scotland and this this one of the most important points i want to make today is that the knock on impacts of reductions in budgets from SNH obviously have an impact on charities like the Scottish wildlife trust leverage is is it means that we we cannot use that that funding for leverage to access these these grants sometimes from down south why do you think that's happening that there's a much reduced share i think well it's only six of the 41 trusts foundations that actually give to environmental work actually based in scotland i think that's one reason we are addressing this i'm going down to london next week to give a presentation to environmental funders on this very issue but i want to come back to this point about language we are still 15% yeah as roughly your figures are much lower than 15% in terms of the funding we're all okay but there's there's there's a leverage issue in the sense if we as an environmental charity and it's the same really for the environmental charities across the board don't actually have a a secure pot of money in which to match fund against some of those some of those pots that we could bid for down south we simply will not be in a position to do that because they don't fund 100% the intervention rates can be as low as 40 50% so without that without that unrestricted income in order to match those funds we can't actually pursue that funding so that's less money into scotland the less money that is transferred from agencies such as snh2 to charities means effectively less money into scotland from those sources so i think that's an important point because i don't think it's often realised that kind of lack of leverage going to go to you now so i guess figure about the recycling sector i guess in the circle economy i think i think we're really in a in a bit of a transition i guess from where we've been before particularly in scotland we've really attracted a lot of interest in what we're doing in scotland from demonstrating an ambition or certainly broadcasting our ambition around the circle economy and making funding and other support packages available not just through elixirs here with scotland but through other agencies as well that has attracted a lot of interest and not just for homegrown businesses and communities as well but from outside of scotland that that is money and investment has has helped at but it's all to some extent coming to fruition now with a lot of a lot of uh greater awareness both from the public and we can talk about blue planet and the impact of plastics on communities and people wanting to take action and businesses as well not just in plastic but the idea of the circle economy now is a is a global trend everybody recognises that and other countries are are one looking to scotland as a leader but also identifying their own strategies and own infrastructure that they require so now for scotland to kind of pull back i guess from commitments to this field i think is you know it would be counterproductive now is the time to realise all of that ambition all of the learning all of the things that we've learned about investment and what we need the infrastructure the requirements the evidence base that we've built up now is the time to kind of push through and really make a realise that ambition that we've had it's like this and also the fact that other countries to some extent are catching up they are looking to scotland and they are already developing their own funding packages and their own support packages a lot of it very much aligned to what we've been doing in scotland and they are they are now seeing these opportunities in their own countries so for us to kind of not see that as our you know journey in terms of fulfilling that commitment i think might be counterproductive having said that i think there are things that we could be doing with public finance in terms of levering continual investment from producers and other manufacturers of products and things through extended producer responsibility there is a the other other aspect of this is as this becomes more mainstream in terms of the opportunities around investment particularly with our partnerships with the likes of scottish enterprise and highland enterprise and the new body in the south of scotland you know but their budgets are under pressure as well so as they are now coming to the table realising that they can bring their services and support to this endeavour they're under pressure as well so it is it is a really great time you know to realise from where i say five years ago we were trying to get people to take action now people want to take action businesses communities individuals recognised importance of this office work and really want to be able to be supported the other point angus made about enforcement absolutely i mean i'm obviously colleagues at SEPA are much more aligned to issues around criminal activity in in recycling and waste management but we do need a robust regulatory and enforcement framework if we don't it is completely unattractive for investment is it a robust or no i think we have a robust but i think sorry it was the point about enforcement if we if we don't enforce the robust framework that we have it is it is still waste you know unfortunately still is seen in the shadows sometimes and so if we're talking to people who are investors private sector investors who have other opportunities renewables and other things in scotland waste if it's not seen as a level playing field with a robust regulatory sorry enforcement framework around it then it is less attractive so it is something that i think we really do need to recognize relations fine we just sorry i didn't better enforce it no i think it was i think the question was if we start to reduce funding for enforcement that would be the input that could be the impact if we are seen if we are not able to enforce that regulatory framework that we have and support certainly the criminal support the tackling of the criminal activity in the waste industry which i know that SEPA is very much focused on then yeah it will it will be the detriment of inward investment excellent right just bring my angus back in an appropriate time to bring him back well it was just to to further explore that and i'm just curious if any other members of the panel have a view on what Ian Gullans just covered with regard to a reduced spend on enforcement of regulations if anybody has a view on that. Francesca you seem the obvious bit. Yeah thank you i mean in terms of the regulatory environment in which we operate that's largely derived from EU directives we have a commitment from the Scottish government that you know as we move through the EU exit process the standards of environmental regulation will not be diminished compared to the framework in which we're currently operating and from our perspective that's very welcome because ensuring that we have those high standards which will be enforced is important in the maintenance of our natural assets our natural capital and you know all the you know the things that we started this conversation talking about the landscapes that we enjoy so much in Scotland. Finally on this question Alec. That question again about the the working together in terms of local government who has the biggest function i would suggest in terms of environmental health and and so on and it's if you take Edinburgh council i've noticed recently i think they have put a five pound charge on for collecting green waste you've seen other local authorities five where i come from have put a they've closed recycling centres x amount of days to save money and then you have charges for different uplifts which all the evidence would suggest leads to more fly tipping more pressure would you agree with that and the question would be what can the collaboration do you have with local authorities in these areas when they're making these decisions and the impact that they have and one final question in terms of legislation because you talked earlier about about food waste for example and yeah there's behavioural change and we need to do stuff there but is there a need to start looking at how we regulate and for example the three for one two for one three for two buys etc that that there is evidence that that can lead to food waste. Mr Gillan you have the final answer on this question okay it's a few things so we do we work obviously directly one to one with all councils in scotland on supporting changes to their recycling services so we are in touch with a number of authorities and we do understand again the financial pressures that they are under and obviously we have in the past provided a great funding support for investment in new infrastructure particularly around food based collections of the last five or six years and we're currently supporting a number of councils who are who are adopting the charter for the the scotland white charter for recycling services to to kind of bring them all into an alignment in terms of a common system approach so we are we are well aware of the individual pressures that they have but and I think that comes back to the point about funding so it's not just about local government or central government it's how we can look at lever and other types of funding producer responsibility and bring together a different package of support for local authorities because absolutely I mean the question is how do you know recycling is the right thing to do there's loads of evidence now you know nobody's going to deny that you know keeping stuff at a landfill or disposal is the right thing to do there are economic savings to be made for councils and individual householders but there's huge economic benefit for repurposing these materials here in scotland we just need to understand how can we afford to extract them I guess out of the waste room to make this thing work because the benefits far outweigh the investment that we need to put in at the beginning but that that is of something that we need to think and talk about so who funds that is it down to local authorities is it down to central government or is there a mix here and what is the role of other private sector agencies involved in this particularly around producer responsibility to to shape that going forward and that's something obviously it's more about policy I guess but that's about what we've obviously in hand with Scottish Government colleagues because yeah in the current state local authorities are under those types of pressures and the systems that they're the systems that they're going to I'm not saying Edinburgh in any in as an example but I think councils would possibly admit they're not putting out the services that they would like to put out it's simply about affordability so how can they afford to do the things that they want to do to capture all these economic opportunities food waste I think yeah there is there is probably more we could be doing about food waste but a lot of the retailers have actually shifted away from two for one and three for five and all that sort of stuff there is much more of a growing participation by retailers and what they're putting out for people in terms of discounting they are much more involved in in that system I guess in trying to help reduce food but there is a lot more we could be doing particularly around education and working with consumers or citizens around the food that they buy and and how they use it back in the home it's not so much the two for one that's what they get do with the stuff when they get home or they leave it in the fridge and they don't forget about it so I don't have it as legislation I think that is a real behavioural change you know somebody said to me that you know we need all of the positive impact that came on the back of the David Attenborough programme we need something similar on food waste something you know we need a kind of brown planet type of approach so something that really captures everybody's imagination about the impact of food waste because it is in terms of carbon far more significant than the issues about plastic but not not dismissing the impacts of plastic there was a final question sorry I think I think you've done very well um and I move it now to the next question which I've volunteered to ask and I should declare an interest I should have declared an interest a long time ago in this session as a as a farmer but um so the question is how well do we understand the links between where we allocate public money in the budget and the impact on national outcomes and as part of the new budget process what can we do to improve our understanding of how budget decisions affect these outcomes because we're moving to a much more outcomes driven um reality who would like to pick up on that one the impact and the clarity between how we allocate public money and the impact on national outcomes thank you I'll start and again I'll try not to repeat um what our evidence our written evidence says and what I've said previously in terms of the national outcome framework and I think there was a question from Stuart Stevenson earlier about how real is it um the national outcome framework has been running since 2007 I think it is very real for public bodies and if you were to read any of the kind of corporate plans around the table you would see um that they're reflected and we have a duty to report through our various mechanisms on that in terms of the understanding of where our budget goes on national outcomes again I think you know certainly within SNH we can give you figures you know for example we think around 80% of our budget contributes to the we value enjoy protect and enhance environment outcome which includes our work on protected areas habitats and species um planning for great places work the question that you've asked I think is about what are the long-term impacts on each of these outcomes and we can track through the national indicators as Johnny's mentioned how those are changing the cause and effect between the spend and the impact on indicators is much more detailed work you've already referred to one report which does show um some rates of return around the central scotland green network but I think we would you know if we wanted to answer that question you know proper scientific way we would need to do um some further longitudinal analysis to deliver that we have a lot of information on outputs how many people were supporting what we're doing for nature I'm sure you know um Phil, Ian, Johnny um and Riddle could do the same um in terms of how we're supporting kind of different parts of Scotland's economic and social firmament if you like but we I suggest we would need to take to answer your question properly quite a rigorous analytical approach maybe a piece of work for a university somewhere sometime um um Phil just to to pick up actually on on that point financial votes actually are very often associated with current activity which includes an element of preventative activity we rarely cost for future return that's why investors save approaches whether they're in the NHS whether they're within uh waste management systems whether they're in natural heritage investment doesn't really matter what you're doing is you're trying to invest for a future potential cost response. Back in the day when St Eric Onless worked for UK Treasury in looking at the impacts of preventative spend on the NHS he recognised early on that the degree to which you actually have to budget for current activity as well as for future potential prevention and see a taper towards the two so you invest in your preventative work you invest in your current activity over time you should see a convergence between those two funding streams if that is true for health i suspect it may be true for other areas of public sector funding even without accepting there may be additional funding sources in the system we need to look at models for the longer term and actually be more sophisticated in understanding the finances attributable to those future outcomes that is a work for academics but let's not forget at the moment we have to estimate our current consequences of how much physical inactivity costs the NHS because we haven't got a direct measure of that our current systems do not allow us to even cost for our collaboration my director of strategy in health Scotland is the deputy chair of Scottish natural heritage it's absolutely fantastic the degree to which we can actually cost for our staffing contributions to the collaborative work we're currently undertaking is an exercise in its own right i think we need met greater sophistication to reflect the collaborations that are necessary to deliver the type of goals that are being given to us to deal with yes very interesting um ian all right i apologize i don't i don't really have an answer to the question i mean i'd see it is a bit more of a detailed exercise i think so slightly anecdotally i guess for us and it builds on the point that phils make about collaboration i think i think the success the success of last year and a half around these this outcome approach for us is is identifying our work across those 11 outcomes what what are we doing to ensure that we're aligned to them and what that actually does is it forces people to think of us in the organization but identifies new partnerships new collaborations with people like the health service not just in the obvious spaces but identifies other organizations who are possibly more aligned to some of these but then we can work with them and share share that activity in a way that is is more efficient and effective and builds that collaborative thing so in some respects that's that's something at the moment that is really pulling through to our work it's certainly something that um over my lifetime i've been involved in quite a few collaborative things and i know the experts in the rural field or saos um under the leadership of James Graham and since they've been doing it for a while they might have a way of measuring the impact on the businesses and the projects that they run in a collaborative way so it might be worth somebody just looking at that um in terms of measuring outcomes and value of collaborative approach i think a second go on that which is just to say and i think in terms of all of the evidence you've heard today um there's been a really strong theme about all of us tackling um the root causes rather than the symptoms and you know the evidence that's been presented in in written form certainly from SNH and from the evidence i've read from um other colleagues the work that we're doing together to try and for example um get green space in at the start of conversations in development via a kind of placemaking and play standards model and the work that we're doing collaboratively with the NHS on how our goals from SNH align with the NHS is and so on and so forth i think do show that there has been a shift towards that more preventative approach and invest to save now but we're not going to be able to track the benefits of that for some time but i think what we can see in the you know the central scotland green network research i think is probably one of the best examples at the moment is that there are going to be a number of benefits across different fields um which means that we feel we've got a clear rationale for continuing with that preventative approach and collaborative approach from this point onwards i'm going to bring in mark at this point um mark because that was sort of around but you're quick oh i beg your pardon i was going to bring in johnny first before i brought in mark thank you for reminding me i'll be extremely brief and just say you know you can you can model and you can use case studies and the you know the modelling would suggest that people living in in biodiversity natural near biodiversity natural green spaces are between 1.37 and 1.6 times more likely to have better health but we won't know until we've followed through on the delivery of some of our national outcomes whether that actually you know the model will will play out in scotland and exactly that way so it is a bit of a leap of faith making a preventative investment spend i would say that the the sustainable development goals are undergoing a progress review at the moment at a kind of global level and different countries are obviously trying to track the impact as they as they implement their various sustainable development goals in their countries that actually might be a very useful resource for scotland when that when that is published to see how other countries are getting on because some of those sdgs are very similar to our national outcomes in fact they've been mapped across to our national outcomes okay mark over to you yeah we started to discuss the preventative spend agenda and you know there was a number of examples that have been raised throughout this morning but i'm supposed to question is you know we're now you know seven years on from the christie commission um you know the first budget i think that was set after the christie commission had a particular allocation around preventative spend within it um and i'm sort of wondering you know where are we in scotland i mean i look at wales and they have a future generations act and there's a requirement under that act to consider preventative spend what do we have in scotland we have a budget process here right now which we're discussing this morning we're in the middle of this what is that adequate what are the kind of models we should be bringing forward to assess preventative spend and to build that into budgets are there other structures we could learn from elsewhere um i know you know philmack is already mentioned some of the potential modelling that organizations could use i'm trying to drill down as to what it is that will cannot can unlock this because it seems like we've been talking about preventative spend for a long time and yet it's not transparent and i'm sure every organisation here has got good examples of where they're doing some preventative work but i don't get a sense of how much you know what percentage of your own budgets you're putting into this agenda because that opened should i kick off for a change give the statutory agencies a break um so i actually think there's a good a good example of of where we're beginning to do this or the Scottish Government is beginning to do this through the mainstream of climate change through several portfolios of government maybe it's not gone far enough but using the the times model you know we now at least are beginning to try and understand how how different portfolios across government and their budgets will impact or not in a negative or positive way on on climate change targets now we could do the same so if we could if we could take a strategic approach to mainstreaming expenditure to achieve the environmental outcomes of healthy stocks of natural capital across scotland and within projects right across the portfolios i think using that kind of model that times type model but for wider environmental outcomes i think we'd be getting somewhere there is um something called a um a mainstreaming environment into budget processes checklist that the united nations have produced which i would commend to the committee um it's a one pager um there it literally is a checklist and i think that would be a pretty good start not going to kind of read it out but that would be a that would be a pretty good start you know it includes questions like has has the finance ministry uh included environmental or climate sustainability as a priority for public expenditure and it's a budget call line to to other ministries um and have projects undergone some kind of screening to assess their costs and benefits so that's a kind of natural capital type valuation um before budgets are then allocated so it's much more of an evidence-based way of uh of allocating funds okay thanks Francesca yeah i was going to pick up on the the natural capital approach that um johnny and i had already mentioned as as a key tool um in being able to model the benefits over a long period of nature to you know Scotland plc um and that covers you know as i said earlier a range of sectors whether it be renewable energy food and drink tourism agriculture um in terms of you know i think maybe the question you are asking is what evidence do we have that this is working and therefore can we base as you know the people around the room base our kind of funding decisions with confidence on a preventative approach and i think if i look at all of the work the SNH does and has been presented to you then it contributes to a range of the national outcomes and in that way by that you know hitting multiple um buttons if you like i think you can demonstrate that it is going to have a cost saving um elsewhere you know we talked about justice we've talked about mental health etc i think the other point just to pick up on something johnny said was international comparisons we you know finland for example has done a lot of work on assessing the impact on preventative spend so you know i think widening some of our horizons to look at international comparisons would be helpful and through those comparisons that gives me the confidence in terms of our spend i think that each agency was already doing that as part of their sort of daily brand and seeing where they might improve what they are doing but i think it's worth very much worth saying mark that describes the generality of of an organizational SNH's approach and understand that but how do how as a politician would i be able to drill down into a particular area so take non-native invasive species for example how would i have a knowledge that the investment that's being put into tackling that as a preventative spend issue is actually going to deliver at the end of the day whether the budgets that are being allocated with your organisation and others is actually going to result in in an outcome where the problem will be solved or at some point it will become worse because we failed to take action early on there isn't the perhaps lack of clarity on that so how do you how do you do that analysis do you present that kind of analysis rudendrums yes and giant rhubarb japanese rhubarb um if we do so in terms of and you know it's a shame in a way that this evidence session is taking place before the publication of our latest annual report because i think that would set out and when it is published you'll be the first to have it will you know does set out some of that cause and effect without wanting to go into the detail of our internal monitoring arrangements and the annual report gives the overview of that in terms of all of our corporate targets within SNH which include those national indicators that i've already mentioned for which we are the lead or which to which we contribute we analyse those both as senior leadership team and a board on a quarterly basis we look at progress and we look at where the impact of our work is supporting those corporate outcomes so we you know as as the convener said in a sense that's built into our day to day work to make sure that we're monitoring the progress against our corporate targets which includes the national outcomes okay thank you finlay did you want to come in to lock up a lot about cost savings preventative spending and the impact on future budgets but there's been a perceived shift within SNH towards supporting more green urban plans whatever is there a conflict of interest or a conflict in pressures on the budget with regard to actually the other remit of SNH which is to to ensure by diversity and protection of habitats and whatever because we all know there's there's habitats where there's not a lot of voters and there might be a crested newt in the middle of a southern land that costs enough lot to protect how do you balance that when it comes to looking for funding excuse me so um in I'll come on to the looking for funding bit um if I can sort of deal with our priorities and this was obviously a feature of um the you know the last committee appearance that both Mike and I attended and then previously I attended with Alan Hampson in terms of our budget we're able to to apportion that um across the national outcomes and I've as I've said earlier 80% of our budget is contributing to we enjoy protect and enhance our environment so that includes the statutory responsibilities to which you're alluding in terms of an urban rural split and this is based on our project budget because I think there was a sense at the committee the last time I was here that you know we'd we'd gone all urban and deprived and rural didn't matter um 88% of our project funding is for rural projects and 12% is for urban funding and a lot of that is levered in from EU sources in terms of biodiversity and that is I mean that is our raison d'etre and one of the um you know one of the issues that the board is very clear that they would like SNH to look to to do in the future is be seen more as leaders on on biodiversity on improving nature if that's you know the more accessible language than perhaps we've been seen to be doing in the past we were the first country to report against the aichi targets we've reported against the 2020 route map so I think you know we've got a lot of activity and a lot of reporting in place to to support that the work that we're doing on biodiversity and we're about to engage in a conversation with both public bodies and ENGOs on what comes after the 2020 route map because that's going to be crucially important in terms of Scotland's future biodiversity in terms of how that kind of split of responsibilities from you know statutory from our core business in terms of supporting biodiversity and then what may be seen as new activities although I don't think they are in relation to urban and disadvantaged communities what we're a SNH is about at its core is improving nature across Scotland and improving access to nature on a sustainable basis for everyone and we will you know shamelessly chase sources of funding that do that that you know will help us do that if that means that we have to adjust in terms of you know some of the stipulations on our funding you know kind of our own funding to make sure we're delivering for the whole of Scotland then then we will to quickly address Mark's question about non-native invasive species I mean that is a that is a really really good example actually of where at the moment the impacts of invasive non-native species in terms of economic costs that damage the forestry crops and infrastructure in Scotland are estimated to be 200 million a year now if we make an investment in it in a kind of one-off or multiple-year hit in in solving that problem we're going to save ourselves 200 million pounds a year if we if we go for a mend and make do approach it'll continue to cost us 200 million pounds a year so that's the answer that question I think just in terms of this question of the conflict between pure nature conservation and nature conservation for for the benefits it brings to people I don't really I think it's a false dichotomy actually I think what you're doing by recovering the natural environment investing in species conservation investing in protected areas is actually securing a healthy environment for the future generations biodiversity and and the range of native species that we have in Scotland that we are undertaking I mean that's the raison d'etre of my organisation as well that we're undertaken to protect are the foundations for a healthy economy so by looking after these species and looking after these protected places we are that's the underpinning framework for a healthy environment so I don't really see the two as as being separate there may be certain circumstances where you know particularly rare protected species may need to be protected from from from public disturbance but there are ways and means of doing that they're rare I would say but but we managed to do that across our suite of 120 nature reserves across Scotland where we have you know 30 000 people school kids you know crawling across our nature reserves but we managed to manage that in such a way that there's not an impact on the environment but we are delivering for people as well but it's fundamental species conservation habitat conservation protected areas are fundamental to our future generation as Mark pointed out and we'd be I think selling that future generation down the line if we didn't make that investment now in securing that resource and while that in itself is going to be hard enough it's just getting more difficult I think with with climate change and increase in temperature because the snapshot that we're by and large seeking to preserve in terms of environment is is change is coming because of climate change and temperature rises and that problem was just getting so much harder I think too as it appears that the investment gets less alec you wanted to say something talking about my the question I was going to ask it question eight now because I link it to this because I was going to ask is there is there more room and potential for closer working together between different agencies and organizations but I'd like to use this example because in the submission paths for all which is an organization that receives funding from SNH and is about physical activity they state increasing the number of people in Scotland walking every day thereby improves well-being physical mental social well-being as well as reducing health inequalities and preventing ill health and that's a fact and we know that the question as opposed is how do we therefore encourage people and support people to actually take up the walk-in so if any FSNH have put the money in to create these groups support these groups for walking so is there opportunities like for example social prescribing being one the links where we local health centers the links where local community centers with youth organizations is there a bit is there a way that we can have better joined up government to actually because these are all well meaning and they are if if they're taking up then the preventive spending in this case they claim 91 million pound but somehow it doesn't all seem to link together is there better opportunity there and should we be looking more at joined up working around preventive spending Francesca yes please and I think that the collaboration is there so paths for all you mentioned and paths for all as well as providing some of the infrastructure also do you know work with partners to have local walk leaders for example we in working with green health partnerships support health walks the national parks and also support a range of health walks we have our ranger services both at our own hands but also through local authorities national parks you know third sector groups and I think there's an interesting tension perhaps between a a nationally driven solution which is the same for everybody and one which is more community based and is dependent on local circumstances and you know using the place based approach again one which involves local communities in thinking through what is going to help them enjoy their local space you know as much as possible and we tend to particularly given we do have a really rich asset in terms of our network of local asset local offices which are plugged into local communities we tend to respond in that way and so the joining up that you're talking about is often done on on the ground working with local partners be it local authorities increasingly community groups community trusts to put in place that type of provision I think I can answer your question in a very simple way yes but then how do you create an infrastructure to sustain that for the longer term the type of collaboration that we're identifying here is a generational change collaboration it's not something that's funded on four year five year votes to then be repeated to then be carried forward so in answer to the earlier question about about budgets budgets that reflect the necessary contributions from different agencies working in collaboration would be an incredible step forward I think for all of us working in this field without too much trouble what you say that I think that the normal stand in fact it might be difficult to do I think there is a pressing need for that to be done and I'm reasonable to suggest that some an organisation like safari with under Graham Cooke's leadership that part of that role might be enhanced a little because I am myself aware and I'm not particularly well informed but first admit that you know there are different people doing research in their own silos in the same areas whereas if there was a collaborative approach being given to the benefits that we're all seeking to achieve and that was better understood where everyone was in that regard it needs a body to oversee that which might be something that safari might be in a position to look at or another body perhaps one better known to you I'm not in a position to comment on safari I can point out that we're slap bang in the middle of a major reform of the public health system across Scotland with the creation of a new national public health Scotland agency which will have vested interest in a range of these areas from environmental sustainability through physical activity through obesity reduction all of which have a major impact in the areas that we're talking about the point I was going to make though was we had to be clear that the doing of an activity is of itself important but it may not be sufficient physical activity necessary on an individual basis to promote cardiovascular health is actually at a much lower level than to see weight management physical activity or the levels of population physical activity that could give rise to changes in environmental support through carbon reduction in active travel all of those issues are part of what that nature of the collaboration needs to understand and why that generational change even within the context of translating the research that we're all talking about here very passionately is converted into the types of everyday sustainable actions by individuals and the organisations that create the social economic and cultural environments around that these people this year we've seen a major report on the Scottish burden of disease study which has looked at the impact of inequality it's very clear individual behaviour change of itself will not be sufficient to overcome the changes that need to be inherent in health inequalities associated with the social inequalities and which many of us around the table and the panel have been touching upon throughout today that's the sort of collaboration that's needed not partnerships which reflect each other's budgets and reflect each other's activities right well that sounds almost like the last word but we're going to give the last word to to Richard if you want to a candy candy thank you very much we all agree and I think what we've been just discussing this morning that if we want to do anything that always comes down to money and funding so in that context in the context of budgets do the panel have views on the opportunities or indeed the risks of increasing the proportion of income for ECCLR public bodies from charges and fees who else who else can we get money off it that sounds like a real budget question um Francesca if you're up for that yeah we're pleased to hear from you yeah thanks very much um i mean i mentioned earlier work that SNH has done on diversification of funding and we've broken that down into four categories funding sources investment natural capital income generation and cost reduction and you know income generation through charges and fees is is what you're kind of talking about there Richard so that third category we have looked at that we could charge for planning services we could charge for the licenses that we issue we could charge for some of our advisory services um there are risks in that in terms of um you know how we would engage with the public if we were in a fee paying world um but actually and we're still kind of working through the risks and opportunities on that actually even if we set our fees uh uh you know probably the extreme end of what the market might take in relation to our £47 million budget the return would be relatively low um probably the um you know low hundreds of thousands maybe up to a million whereas the potential in some of the other categories that i mentioned so funding sources you know if we were able to access you know trusts foundations in a way that for example happens in england and wales the potential there is is much bigger now that's not to say we won't progress looking at kind of fees charges other ways of generating income at our own hand you know sponsorship is another one but i would want to be realistic on the scale and also just mention that that does change the nature of a public body offering services for all excellent thank you very much um anyone else want to make a contribution on that or indeed any other point before we finish um johnny first and then uh yeah i'll i'll suppose i'll wrap my point up with the with the last discussion as well and that's i think if a set of now national outcomes are agreed then there needs to be budget allocation to deliver those national outcomes um and i that's the nature of this conversation today but it seems a very obvious thing to say but that is it's sometimes not the case so my fear in in saying to public bodies um can you look into ways of generating income from your services is that we'll simply shift costs you know it'll just be a cost shifting exercise so they'll save money or they'll raise money and then the budget will be cut in the future and there won't be any kind of reward i suppose for bringing in those extra funds i think it's probably very different for seaper than it is for snh and the snh are providing um a very different kind of service for seaper i think you know they may may well be areas in which they could charge um extra funds or or monetize certain aspects of their work but i think for snh it's very different i think it would also potentially create an awful lot of bureaucracy and you'd have to set up all sorts of bureaucratic systems for modest gains so i would be slightly nervous actually about um seeing snh moving into a more uh uh charging for their services type model um i think that's all i have to say i'll stop there um ian did you want to say something this or indeed any other matter because it's sort of closing opportunity for you all i mean i was always reflecting on uh yeah the opportunity possibly to to charge for some of the things that we do i think obviously from our point of view that that is difficult because i guess the evidence why we do stuff was to there was a barrier i guess supporting businesses in terms of resource efficiency and and even the what we're doing in the circle economy because it's such an early stage there was identification that people weren't willing to do that or pay for that even go to private consultants or other ones so as long as the evidence base is there we continue to do it but obviously if that shifts we would we would expect other people to fill the markets so to speak rather than a direct substitution but it's still it's still something we we actively evidence annually around are we still needed in the space uh what what is the impact of our work etc but could we charge as well and the the answer is still seen as it is seen as a barrier if you start to charge people for some of this this early work that people are involved in but some of that could change of our time but i think i think the the answer though for us is more i think how you shape the system the policy space as well around that and i think you begin to see that i've already mentioned things like producer responsibility where you're actually it's not so much us charging people but actually there is a charge on the production and management of materials through the supply chain that becomes it becomes something that's responsibility of the producers i think that's where you start to see the impact on preventative spend i guess or spend in the space and i think that's something that we should all be thinking about in terms of not just scotland but across the world so obviously the obvious thing we're working on at the moment is the deposit system deposit return system for scotland which is an example of that where the system will be till on denser purposes self financing once established and there will be on the back of that there will be economic and environmental and social opportunities that we can all get out of the back of that so it's how we change the system not so much the mechanics of the system but actually how we fund the system that i think is the real shift that we need to move to rather than thinking it is just a case of somebody paying directly for what they're already getting that answer that question and also going back to another point about procurement which was raised at the beginning again changing the system around procurement would create a market for a lot of the businesses that that are interested in coming into the space they don't see the market opening up yet so if you could shape public procurement particularly around some of the service opportunities that are around now for leasing and lending and stuff like that again that would change the way that the money flows within the system and to some extent decrease the dependency on subsidy so i think there's a yeah i think there are huge opportunities it's very interesting just when i come here and share the committee with my other environmental colleagues how even the language is very similar we talk about assets natural assets and we talk about resources in our economy as huge assets for us here in scotland but unfortunately we we are very good at collecting these assets and bundling them up into with respect other containers and shipping them out of our country and not realising the real economic potential so yes we're diverting from landfill so there's a huge environmental benefit to be had but we are missing the obvious economic opportunities so goodbye to the collection question from alec about you know for every one job there is in the collection of materials for recycling there's a fuller eight jobs in the reprocessing remanufacturing repurpose resupply of those materials back into the economy so that's what we really need to start thinking seriously about so the investment in the right collection infrastructure the way that we manage those materials in our economy the way we manage our assets just as johnny talks about in terms of the natural assets does will reap huge economic and social benefit for us here in scotland and that is we are seen as a leader in the world in terms of that policy in terms of that ambition and in terms of how we're focusing our efforts particularly around funding and that's something i think we really need to realise that the money that we can put in at the start of that process in terms of collection both at local authority level and at business level and things like deposit system in terms of changing the way that people will recycle their cans and bottles in the future has huge economic opportunity for us so very much about that preventative spend or spending money for future investment and benefit to economy are also polluted beaches with plastic covered in plastic are actually a resource they're what you're saying is there are an opportunity waiting to be harvested out there to be turned into a new business and should people should be encouraged to go and do that absolutely if you shift the if you shift the car the price point i guess it's quite and it's not something probably the labour too much but last week when the initiative i can't remember the name of the initiative with the flying over all the coastline and taking pictures of all the plastics fantastic initiative but the day that was it was on the bbc news i was i was down south with a company who we are investing in to produce a plant people will know project beacon in persia they will have a facility to turn that plastic that's lying on the beaches into a benefit economic benefit jobs product high value product they can be used back into the scottish economy that's a fact and and that is so there is a resource lying on our beach although at this moment in time it's a shock to the system so we can change the system both we can clean up the beaches and there'll be an outcome from that but also we need to stop it in the first place because there will be a valid plant in persia which will be able to tackle that plastic and i can only imagine that visit scotland would be happy with such an effort as well and seems an appropriate moment to bring you in riddle thanks very much we've been actively looking at alternative sources of revenue to excuse me to both the organisation but also to support our activity our partners in scottish tourism alliance who represent the industry tell us very very clearly that tourism businesses are struggling because of increased costs and so that's not a major source but i think we need to be a wee bit more creative in terms of looking at potential sources of of income csr budgets for organisations that are not necessarily directly involved in the environment or in tourism and also some of the really big players that can see a commercial benefit themselves from working with the environment or tourism i can give you a good example we we're just about to kick off a fairly major study on data and how it can help us make decisions and we're looking at what are people saying about the current visitor experience in scotland on social media and working with the big social media companies who see a benefit in getting the result at the end of the day so we're talking to the likes of mastercard and ibm and amadeus and Expedia who are really big companies in their own right that have a lot of data and mining that data to get the information that we need sometimes means that they don't necessarily are going to spend money but actually we can tap into their huge resources so i think it is about being more creative rather than just simply thinking about charging people or going to the same source of revenue all the time businesses certainly now experience that we charge for our quality assurance scheme but only to cover the cost and through European state aid regulations we're not enabled to do very much more than that so that's forced us to be a wee bit more creative so i think the answer to your question is look beyond the usual suspects and be more creative because i think there is money there everyone had their say fine francesca i mean one final point in the sessions being about preventative spend and i mean in terms of snh and you know i think swt would echo this i hope we've been able to demonstrate the investment in nature is a great investment in terms of preventative spend and more than delighted to follow up on any of the points today to to help with that evidence right very much appreciated thank you all for your contributions johnny francesca phil riddle yun we're very grateful to you for taking time to come and inform this committee today of your thoughts on the budget process we're as you can tell particularly interested in the preventative spend and the health benefits of all this as well so your information has been much appreciated and very valuable to us so thank you very much for coming and we'll now talk about the future meeting details and at its next meeting on the 11th of september the committee will hear from stakeholders and from the cabinet secretary for finance and the constitution on the scourge government's draft budget for 2019-20 and as agreed earlier the committee will now move into private session and the public gallery be vacated please and i know the clear this part of the meeting closed thank you all