Felly, wrth gwrs, wrth gwrs. Rwy'r gwrs iawn i ddim yn y sylweddau clyweddau ac yn mynd i'r ymgyrch yn gyffredinol. Felly, rwy'n meddwl i'r ystafell ar y gwrs iawn i gydag yma, rwy'n meddwl i'r cychwyn i gydag ffans, ddim yn ei fath o'r ddwyngol ymgyrch, os yw'n meddwl i'r hyffordd cyfgrifennidau. Mae'n meddwl i'r ystafell ar y gyrfa yn fwy o'r cychwyn i gydag ymgyrch yn y cyffredinol, ond. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. This first item is for the committee to decide whether consideration of its work programme, that is item 5, should be taken in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That being so, we will take it in private. Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation. The item is for members to take evidence from the minister on the pollution, prevention and control Scotland amendment regulations 2014 draft. The instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before provisions may come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider the motion to approve the instrument under agenda item 3. This morning I welcome the minister, Paul Wheelhouse. Good morning, with two of his officials, George Burgess, the Deputy Director for Environmental Quality and Rob Morris, SEPA sponsorship and pollution reduction team leader in the Scottish Government. Good morning, gentlemen. I wonder if the minister would like to speak to the instrument. I would, convener, thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to provide an opening statement on the draft, pollution prevention and control Scotland amendment regulations 2014, before you today. Along with other parts of the UK, Scotland is required to transpose article 14, paragraph 5 to 8 of the energy efficiency directive in Scotland by the 5th of June 2014. The energy efficiency directive establishes a common framework and lays down rules to promote improvements in energy efficiency. The specific requirements of article 14, paragraph 5 to 8, relate to a cost benefit analysis being carried out when a new or refurbished thermal electricity generation industrial or energy production installation is planned. Exemption thresholds and exclusions are set out in the draft regulations. Scotland will be consistent with the other parts of the UK on these aspects of the directive. For example, where there is too little waste heat available, no demand for heat exists, or it is too far distance wise for a viable connection to be made, there is no need to carry out a cost benefit analysis. Furthermore, certain peak loads and backup electricity generating installations, nuclear power stations and carbon capture and storage installations are exempt. The draft regulations make this clear, and this clarity will be of benefit to business. When a cost benefit analysis is required, this will ensure that high efficiency cogeneration, recovery of waste heat and connection to a district heating and cooling network are identified. Where the cost benefit analysis shows it is beneficial, CEPA will then issue a permit with conditions that will ensure the measures are implemented. We are late in transposing because we wanted to be consistent with our UK counterparts on the technical detail and to enable the responses to the consultation earlier this year to be fully considered. The timetable for transposition was tight in that there was just seven months available from the publication of the European Commission's own guidance on article 14. This guidance was important as it clarified aspects of the director's meaning and therefore what the draft regulations needed to cover. One other administration in the UK has laid the draft regulations, that being Northern Ireland, and I understand they did so last night. England and Wales will follow in October. The route chosen for transposition in Scotland is via amendment of the Pollution Prevention and Control Scotland Regulations 2012 or PPC. PPC provides a ready-made framework for implementation and is familiar to the vast majority of operators affected. This is because their installations already require a permit under the PPC regulations. They are also familiar with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or CEPA as the regulator. Whilst Scotland will be the first to transpose the requirements in the UK, we believe, or possibly overtaken by Northern Ireland given their last-minute move last night, we also made provision for the delay in transposition by issuing directions to CEPA. I propose to the committee that these draft regulations are the right mechanism to transpose the requirements of the directive and would ask for your support in agreeing them. Finally, the committee should be aware that the draft regulations make a number of minor corrections to errors in the PPC regulations. These introduce no new regulatory burdens. Members have any questions to ask about this just now? Dave Thompson. Good morning. I welcome to the committee. It's just a very general point, please, in terms of, you know, ensuring that the Scots English, Northern Irish and Welsh, you know, the criteria are the same. Is there a particular mechanism that is applied in relation to ensuring that these things are the same between each of the individual countries? Or is it a matter of the first country that decides that the rest fall into line? Are there discussions to agree a common approach? I just wonder how it actually works in practice. Certainly, in my understanding, it's usually the latter. I mean, there's very good engagement between officials and the four administrations about when a new directive comes out about, you know, okay, sit down, what do we need to do to make sure that we all comply individually, you know, how can we coordinate and actually learn from what's being done across the four administrations. So, there is good collaboration between officials in our administration and those in Northern Ireland, Wales and England to ensure that there's a common understanding and obviously share understanding of what the regulations actually mean and why it's so important that we have to wait for the guidance from the European Commission itself so we knew what the intent was from the Commission on how to interpret the directive. So, in this case, it's a good example of how that collaboration works and although I may have made light of it, I mean it's not a competitive situation with the administrations, we just happen to have been keen to make sure that we comply as soon as possible to be good progressive partners in Europe and be able to demonstrate that we are taking the directive seriously but other administrations similarly are trying to do their best to comply with the deadlines but it's been good collaboration between officials. I don't know whether George or Rob wants to discuss the actual detail how that works in practice but it's certainly a positive engagement between the departments. I don't think there's much to add to the Minister's comments, simply a lot of email exchanges and meetings between the various administrations around the UK particularly so that we ensure that the technical parts of the regulations are as consistent as we can make them across the UK administrations. Alex Ferguson. Thank you very much. I just wondered in the accompanying notes that we received on this bit of subordinate legislation there is a phrase in order to benefit businesses by having as much uniformity between Scots, English and Northern Irish law as possible which suggests that there might be some examples where that level of uniformity is not possible and I just wondered whether is that just a useful phrase or are you aware of any examples where we can't have a desired level of uniformity and if so how that might affect the legislation going forward? On the second point I may be asked to invite George to comment on the second but obviously the intent is to try and not create unnecessary differences where it could be avoided. Obviously we've got a European directive which in theory applies across the whole of Europe and I would hope it's being applied by all Governments in Europe so we try and work to make sure there's a common understanding and that there's not different interpretations of the requirements between different administrations and that might lead if you had a different interpretation to maybe having a different legal outcome in terms of how the regulations are applied so to avoid that unnecessary cliff edge between one administration and another I think that's essential but I don't know whether George wants to comment on any legal parameters as to if there are any legal differences in Scotland and England in that respect. There are as far as we are aware no differences of substance so for example the table on page 6 of the regulations setting out the search distances are going to be consistent across the UK. There are differences of form. We're using the pollution prevention and control regulations. Northern Ireland has very similar regulations to that. England and Wales some years ago moved on to a different set of regulations environmental permitting so their regulations will look different from those in Scotland and Northern Ireland but in terms of what they are requiring operators to do and requiring the regulator to do there is no difference of substance so operators that are perhaps operating across the UK will be able to use very similar guidance, very similar mechanisms for carrying out the cost benefit analysis. Thank you very much that's fine. Claudia Beamish.  I wonder if you could explain for me minister what connections there are between the actual planning system itself and the fact that a cost benefit analysis will be necessary in certain circumstances just in view of the fact that I would be encouraged if there was guidance in order to enable these developments to happen in places where they are indeed close to communities for the saving of energy and the use of combined heat and power. Just wonder if there was any comment on that across departments? Well I certainly am aware in respect of the regulations how they will be applied if you have a plant which is of the kind we describe perhaps it could be anything from a distillery to a power plant. I was just maybe needing to generate a significant amount of heat and I was using fuel therefore to do that. Obviously the tiny country planning system would take that into account and would work from the point of view of existing structure plans and local district heating strategies and plans that are available at a local authority level to take that into account as to whether in the first scanning filtering exercise to decide whether a cost benefit analysis is even needed it might well say in this area where this plant is being proposed actually the local authority has plans to develop a district heating network and therefore there's likely to be demand for district heat in that area that would then imply perhaps that there wasn't a failure of the test in terms of whether there's a market. There might not be a market now but there could be a market and therefore it might be necessary to deliver a cost benefit analysis to prove one way or the other whether that's actually a viable proposition for the plant to take on board but I don't know whether Rob or George want to add to that in terms but that's my understanding so there is a linkage with the tiny planning system and local district heating mapping and strategies which I agree with you is important that they talk to each other these processes but on the technicalities I don't know whether George or Rob want to comment. As the minister said there will be communication between the town and country planning system and the SEPA's permitting system. They are separate systems so for the majority of installations they will require planning permission, they will require a permit from SEPA and the operator can go about seeking those in parallel or one after the other. By setting out the requirements as clearly as we can in the regulations as to when a cost benefit analysis is going to be required the benefit there is that the operator knows from the outset that the analysis is going to be required and therefore the sensible thing to do is right from the start when they are beginning to design their installation that they have that in mind and plan with that in mind. SEPA always encourage operators to discuss matters with them well in advance of submitting an application anyway so this is the sort of thing that can be well dealt with at that stage of the process. I think as George has indicated and I think it's probably implicit in this if not explicit that a good business doing a good business case for investment to their board or to other stakeholders' shareholders will actually look to maximise the financial return from that investment and it will be remiss in them not to take the opportunity if there was an opportunity to sell waste heat to a local market and that would improve the developer's yield if they were doing that so there's other drivers as well but this is just making sure I think George has made a very good point it gives transparency and a clarity about what they would be required to do and hopefully it allows them to design that in from the start. The only thing I'd add is that SEPA is actually producing guidance on how the regulations were working practice as well with flowcharts and with necessary information for operators to take on board and all of the regimes that apply so that would be useful I think in terms of setting out the kind of situations that you've described earlier. Nigel Don. Carry on where this is leading because I understand the regulations would require a business to look at the cost benefit analysis and therefore look at the combined heat and power or whatever it is this takes me back I have to say 30 years and what follows it follows directly from my experience 30 years ago you can demonstrate that thermodynamically it's a perfectly sensible thing to do you can demonstrate I did that there would be a cost benefit in doing it but you can still get a business that then turn around and say well actually this gives me some complexity I don't want it gives me some uncertainty I don't want therefore never mind your cost benefit analysis I'm not going to do it. Is what follows from here that the licensing authority, CEPA or whoever will actually require you to do it or is a business still able to say never mind the rest of you I don't want to do it it's too complicated? Well the short answer is that there would be a requirement for the business if there was a you know if the cost benefit analysis demonstrated that there was a sound case to be made for that in other words it wasn't a proposal that would destroy the business destroy the project and it would be entirely reasonable person looking at it would say well actually there's a case that there could be a district heating network here that could use this heat and therefore improve the energy efficiency of the plant and the whole project then CEPA would be able to require the operator to take that forward as to the mechanics of it then obviously there's a degree to which the company has a decision to make as to how they actually deliver that CEPA won't direct them as to how they do it but they would require them to make use of it but George wants to tell me I'm wrong there but that's my understanding of the regulations I'm interested in evidence that we have from another source about the increasing emissions from public sector buildings and wondered if there was any pilot planned by any aspect of the public sector to seek waste heat from nearby businesses so that it might be used and I don't suppose you can probably answer with a particular example just now but it would be interesting to know if we can set an example by showing how this will work where there are operators I believe I may be incorrect to you you may have a local knowledge that will tell me if I'm wrong about this convener but I think what general hospital might be looking at waste heat being used but there are obviously a number of projects involving distillers and other operators in Glasgow there's social housing and I think it's a college campus that are combined so there are precedents where there's already existing collaboration so we're not starting from a clean sheet and this is perhaps better developed in the continent as well so we've got international comparters where public sector and social operators will use waste heat from commercial operations to make them more energy efficient but certainly we can come back to your convener with some examples if that would be helpful to the committee for its further deliberations on energy efficiency measures. It would be very helpful indeed the Cathness General Hospital was one that I was aware of but I just thought it would be good to get some examples out there for people to see that we're taking this seriously from a governmental point of view and from the public sector in general. Absolutely and the point about the public estate is well made I mean we are constantly looking, SEPA are a good example of it looking to try and improve their own emissions figures well you know we can seek perfection it's difficult to deliver in practice but SEPA and other agencies of government are working extremely hard to try and bring down their emissions it's one of the issues that no doubt will be discussed and I'm sure Claudia Beamish is well aware that these are issues we're looking at in the Public Sector Climate Leaders Forum and how we can deliver on specific issues like this will be subjects of further discussion. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions members? If there are no other questions then we'll move on to agenda item 3 and this is to consider the motion S4M 10972 asking the committee to recommend approval of the Affirmative Instrument Pollution Prevention and Control Scotland Amendment Regulations 2014 draft. Of course there's room for formal debate of this for up to 90 minutes if there's a need for that. However I'm asking the minister to speak to and move the motion. Thank you very much. Invite any members to make any comments that they may wish. Nigel Dawn. Take up 90 seconds, never mind minutes. Can I say in view of what the minister has just said about the degree of compulsion that there is in this I think it's actually very welcome. I would however note wearing a previous professional hat that it's likely to be quite complicated simply because different bits of the heat input and output may well be in different hands and getting people to actually coordinate may be commercially very difficult. The spirit might be very willing but it actually might be quite difficult to make it work. So I don't envy SEPA this part of their job any more than I envy them much else that they have to do. I wish to sum up at the moment. Just thank Mr Dawn for his comments. I mean we do recognise the complexity and I think that's something that would be taken into account the cost benefit analysis itself as to the deliverability I'm sure would be something that would be considered on the cost therein, the complexity therein. So I have confidence that it will be proportionally applied but I thank the member for his comments about SEPA I know they work very hard and I appreciate his remarks. Thank you very much. Well I put the question on the motion that is that the question is that motion S4M10972 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed therefore the motion has been passed and I thank the minister and his officials. And we'll change over the groups and we'll take a little break just now. We now turn to agenda item 4 Scotland's climate change targets and this item is for the committee to take evidence from stakeholders on Scotland's climate change targets. The RACCY committee is one of four committees to look at the low carbon Scotland meeting our emissions reduction targets 2013-2027 the draft second report on proposals and policies which is also known as RPP2. RACCY is now going to take a broader view of the RPP2 and the climate change targets in the light of the three successive years of not meeting these targets. Next week the committee will hold an evidence session with the minister on Scotland's climate change targets but today I very much welcome our witnesses Dr Uta Collier, team leader, devolved administrations committee of climate change. Chris Woodgee, vice chair, sustainable Scotland network. Gina Hanrahan, climate and energy policy officer of the world wildlife foundation Scotland. Good morning. Jim Dencham, stock climate chaos Scotland. Good morning. Paulette Charlson, head of environmental strategy at SEPA. Good morning. I refer members to the papers that we've had and open the questioning by asking panel members about their views on Scotland's progress to date in cutting climate emissions, pluses and minuses. How do you think we're doing? Did you wish to start, Uta? Yes. I provided some additional evidence to the committee because obviously we did a progress report for the Scottish government in March but the new emissions data for 2012 came out in June so at the time we were doing the UK progress reports I provided some excerpts from the devolved administrations chapter. Now what that shows is that obviously as you all know Scotland has missed its target again for the third year running you're right but we outlined some of the issues around especially inventory changes which have been very problematic for some years but it's getting more difficult to meet the targets as they were set. We gave an overview of what's happening in different sectors as well. So our conclusion and what we did in this report as well so obviously we're looking at the UK as a whole and this was our report where we had to give our assessment of the first carbon budget at UK level which operated from 2008 to 2012. So the UK of course met its first carbon budget and our conclusion was on Scotland specifically that Scotland made an appropriate contribution to the UK's first carbon budget and did particularly well in some areas like renewable energy capacity, waste targets etc. So we said that Scotland is actually leading in these areas and certainly doing better than England and the other devolved administrations and that overall though for Scotland it's still very challenging to achieve future annual targets and I'm happy to go into more detail on any of those. I'm sure that our questioning will lead there. Others wish to speak up just to indicate and then we'll put you on right. WWF was of course disappointed to miss those first three targets that they were missed. What counts of course in scientific terms is the cumulative amount of emissions in the atmosphere not our percentage reduction on an annual basis. So in scientific terms Scotland has to deliver on its annual targets as much as on the percentage reductions. We absolutely acknowledge as Uta says that there were inventory changes that have made it increasingly challenging to deliver the targets and we know now as we move through 2014, 15 and beyond that the targets are getting increasingly challenging to deliver. For us that means that we need to see government come forward with intensified policy effort and we very much welcomed the package of new policy measures that were announced in conjunction with the third Miss Target in June that was welcome progress and we were pleased that it was cross-sectoral. We have seen variable progress across different sectors of the Scottish economy so we've seen excellent progress on renewable electricity particularly. We see a need to redouble effort now in other policy areas to intensify effort on for instance energy efficiency on transport, on areas such as renewable heat if we're going to hit those challenging future targets. Anyone else wish to go into this stage? Just to reiterate from Stop Climate Care Scotland's point of view much of what Gina has said that if you look at the position from 1990 obviously Scotland has made good progress a downward trend in emissions but of course disappointed, very disappointed to have missed those three recent targets and hoping for the next target that will be reported upon and as Gina said we are very pleased that the Scottish Government brought forward a package of measures to try and re-address that issue and continue to work to try to make sure those things are taken forward and are possible and help to achieve further reductions. I'll leave it at that for now. I understand that. Yes, anyone else? Nothing in particular that hasn't already been said I guess other than I do think, CEPA certainly thinks that the report and policies and proposals is a very detailed and should be applauded as a document actually in terms of the analysis that's undertaken to determine that roadmap it is disappointing that we've failed the targets and I guess that has to be down to how we deliver it Scotland delivers it it's not just about Scottish Government's delivery as well I think there's something to be said for it to spread that responsibility across other parts of Scotland, public sector, private sector and other sectors too and I think that's whether the concerted effort could be made in terms of delivery. So staying with Scotland Network I agree with all of the comments made about it is disappointing, it's a bit like school reports it could do better but where we are particularly focusing is trying to improve on the quality of reporting we work across the whole of the Scottish public sector now we've been working with local authorities with wider public sector to see what we can do to make sure we've got the absolute best quality reporting so when the information feeds into the RPP and aligned with the RPP we can actually deliver good quality data that helps to make sure we do fully understand and our politicians and management understand what the issues are. Are you getting accurate information? Improving I would say we've been doing work on the national scale to try and get a better understanding of what the data actually means there's an awful lot of data out there and you do need to have a decent understanding of how it's developed and what it actually means as an authority down in Dumfries and Galloway I think if you look at deck stats we're on about a third of a ton per person there's not a lot of agriculture down there and we don't have a lot of industry so we've still got a long way to go in terms of our housing stock we've got major challenges there and all that sort of thing so we do need to actually have that better quality data it's coming, we're developing it it's been developed from a range of other organisations so I think it will, I guess the national stats will catch up with what's happening on a local status we know what we do to the last killer what within the organisation and I think that's probably standard across local authority whether it's CRC driven or otherwise but the national stats are improving slowly and we will catch up It's interesting, we formulated these figures and targets in 2009 and agreed them then and this change in the measurements because of our better understanding has clearly made a big difference but whether we can hit those targets so can we get those misses of the targets in perspective at all I mean, people mention it all the time you missed your target and it's important for us to have these annual targets in order to gee people up but can we make sure that when we're answering questions and seeking answers that we're looking at the bits of the whole equation that are actually falling down and they're not doing as well as they should and taking the point that Paula made can we try and focus some of our answers on improving the delivery from some of these areas that are missing rather than just looking at the targets as such Yes, do you know? I would absolutely agree with you, convener I think while it's important to recognise the missed targets and to understand the accounting behind them what's crucial is that we're making real economy-wide momentum right across the board in Scotland so that we're seeing a linear reduction not necessarily at the same pace in transport in energy efficiency in our built environment in electricity right across the board and that we're concentrating as much on implementation and not getting distracted from delivery by obsessing around the minutia of individual targets while we think it's still critically important to meet them in scientific terms and political terms for the global process as much as domestically Thank you for that Claudia Beamish want to come in Good morning to you It was to follow up on Chris on your point about data and I'd like to ask about any work that you or other members on the panel today know about which is looking at the compatibility of data across the public sector and beyond so that figures can be pulled in because obviously it's very difficult to make any sensible coherent remarks about how we're going forward or perhaps less possible I'll correct myself if the data can't be inputted in a similar way We've been doing some work through SSN working with a company called Aether to get a better understanding of the top-line data but on the day-to-day basis all 32 Scottish local authorities return a report on our climate change declaration which has been going on for about five years and that's gradually evolving it's evolved over the last few years so it now reflects what's in the RPP this year's report which we're doing in November will be the first time that's properly in line with RPP and should start to give us a much more consistent approach to reporting from our local authorities in particular why do public sector have a similar mechanism to use so there is starting to be a consistent level playing field of reporting information and that picks up on things like CRC reports it looks at what's happening across the wider community some authorities are doing a lot of work on that others are doing less so it will need to change a little bit to reflect different priorities within different authorities and different organisations but yes, the aim is to have a much more consistent approach it's taken a few years to get there but we are starting to get there and I guess as RPP develops we'll still evolve towards a... not a... so we all have a sort of required standard to get to in terms of our reporting but recognising the differences in approach from different authorities and different agencies I want to develop some points for the other questions but Jim Densham, finally Thank you, yes In terms of compatibility it's something that SCCS has asked for and I know the committee had this in their last report but we really need to see good read across between the RPP2 and the figures within that and the budget which comes out and it's not always very easy to read across to know if we are achieving through the budget what is needed to achieve the RPP2 commitments I particularly look at the land use sector for... I was at work for RSPV Scotland for our partners in SCCS and I keep a focus on that and it's very difficult when the budget comes out because there is very difficult to see that read across and to know if there is the money in place to achieve what we want to see in the RPP2 in terms of the rural land use sector but those things as you would expect Graham Day It's accepted of course that hitting the initial targets was the easy bit and as we move forward it will become increasingly difficult to maintain that therefore how realistic is it to believe we will hit future targets and is there a justification in light of the impact of the baseline review for adjusting the targets or do we simply do as Paula Charleston suggested redouble our efforts and demand an appropriate contribution to this process from all parts of the public and private sector and pursue the wider behavioural change that we all want OK, let me... I mean I've been thinking about this and then some... Back of the envelope calculations this morning OK, I think one major problem we're going to see is next year because when we gave the advice for the targets we had to make an assumption about the EU emissions trading system and the share of Scotland's cap now at the time there was a accepted methodology which DEC had developed but really we didn't know anything we didn't know how this is a new phase that comes in in 2013 we didn't know how that would work out actually we still don't know exactly but it looks like we're going to end up with a cap for Scotland which will be quite different from the one we based our targets on now we'll probably lose another million tonnes or something like that I mean just ballpark figures in addition to all the inventory changes but let's just take one million tonnes we might be short of next year I think you would need to so take energy efficiency and compensatory measure you might have to insulate all of Scotland's solid wall homes and all the outstanding cavity wall homes to get one million tonnes of savings five to ten billion tonnes five to ten billion pounds maybe and obviously you can't do this kind of thing in one year okay that is just one measure and there could be other measures but I think it's a really really difficult challenge so we as the committee would be very happy to look at this in more detail and provide the Scottish Government with some independent advice on what should be done about the targets we haven't got a firm position we said in our last progress report it's something you might need to look at and we know that apart from the EU ETS issue there are more inventory changes coming it's like at the moment we're chasing a moving target I think we need to consider what's possible I'm just concerned that making up such a huge shortfall would be very very difficult as already alluded to this that what we have to remember is that we're trying to achieve a world with only a two degrees rise into the safe levels of climate change or hopefully less than that and that's about the absolute amount of carbon dioxide or equivalent in the atmosphere and our targets are all about actually amount, the fixed amount that Scotland can emit on a year by year basis it's not about how much we reduce in a percentage term because what's actual in the atmosphere is the really important thing and so it's vitally important that we try and keep to those fixed targets so that we're saying to the world we have the most ambitious targets we have fixed our targets about exactly how much we want to emit into the atmosphere but we're not going to change things as the accounting changes and after all as we just said the inventory is likely to change again and again in future years so in two years time are we going to keep changing it and keep changing the baseline level and say well figures rightly the figures show that 1990 was a different amount of carbon in the atmosphere but actually we're going to change our targets now so that we're totally right to leave the things as we are and to go for to have a real concerted effort after all more than 2,000 people marched in Edinburgh just the other week to say that we really need to have climate action and not change targets but to have real action to achieve those targets I do indeed because whilst I sympathise with that position given the comments that we've just heard from Dr Coyer to the point of how realistic is it now to achieve those targets living in the real world we can all aspire to do much better and we should but in reality can we hit the targets and given what we've just heard the answer is probably not to come back on that I think it may be very difficult it will be very difficult but equally we know that putting action in place now is easier to achieve target reduction than it is to do it in 10, 20, 30 years time as we approach 2050 it's much harder and more costly to do it at that point so the more we can do now and really aim to achieve then we should do that we know that after the last in June the government did come up with new measures to try and achieve more and that hasn't been factored into the RPP2 yet and there are other things that can be done and we would like to help Government to see new policies come forward and to move the proposals that we have in the RPP2 into policies as soon as possible to make that happen at the earliest possible point to try to close that gap is very important I think that before we start looking at changing the targets and saying can we do it is it difficult I think we should try to review the RPP2 and see exactly what we can achieve with what we've got Dave Thomson on this point and then he'll bring in Paula as well Thank you convener just a broader point in terms of taking the public with us because an awful lot of the public out there won't understand the intricacies a very complex subject that we have here and if you just stick to the targets knowing that it's virtually impossible to meet them you're going to create a situation where a lot of expenditure is going to be needed to move forward the public are going to see money being spent on this at the same time as they're going to see money maybe being cut from local government services and various other things and yet the headlines every year are going to be Government misses target again so that's all very very negative and is there not a danger there might be a backlash from the general public to say look you're spending all these millions to try to meet these targets you're not succeeding so you're obviously not getting it right you've got something really really wrong here whereas if the targets were made more realistic given the changes and what's happened and we were meeting the target because of that or getting very close to it you're actually encouraging people to then know and believe that it's worthwhile what you're doing so is there not a great danger if you don't change the targets that you alienate an awful lot of the public who will say and rather have the money spent on schools and hospitals and so on than on something that's patently not working If I can come back on that I think you got it right at the beginning that the public doesn't really understand it I don't think the public really notices that the last three years when it said that we've missed our targets I'm sure most people just skim past that page on the website or in the little bit in the newspaper because it doesn't get the press coverage that it should achieve and that's partly the fault of all of us I think what the point that we need to do is to say we all need to agree to work together in the whole of Scotland and come together and say these targets are achievable we all need to chip in instead of just looking across budgets and departments and saying we think we can do this, we think we can do that we need to be a much more concertive bigger effort to say this is where we've got to get to what's the cost-effective approach to achieve that trend and I think that when we do that and if there are new targets that are missed the next one might be you never know then we need to be positive about it in the SCCS in the last in June when we did miss that target we're positive about we tried to focus on the measures that were that the government had proposed rather than saying this is terrible that we've missed another target we were trying to be positive to say this has been missed but government has strived to make a new package of measures to go about it not to keep saying that it's not doing enough, it's poorly functioning or it's poorly performing but yes, we all need to work together to make this happen Paul, I wanted to commend and then Gina so the question was how realistic is it that we'll reach the targets I think and I don't think we should beat ourselves up too much we weren't far off the targets and there were two good reasons for fulfilling the targets one was the setting the baseline through new data and also it's weather dependent and we know it will be weather dependent it's a challenge for Scotland because we do have annual targets and you are therefore subjected to that but the important thing is the direction of travel where we're trying to get to we're trying to get to 80% reduction by 2050 and we've got good reasons why we're doing that we're trying to control the global increase in temperature we're making our effort small what it is but it's still important so there's a couple of things I think Jim is right actually a lot of people are not that bothered we could do more in terms of raising awareness but I think we could also report it differently SIPA is a microcosm is in a very similar place we're an organisation who I try to show leadership but we find it very hard to reduce our emissions for all sorts of reasons being increased our role with IT storage of data there's all sorts of things that compound your tasks in terms of reducing your emissions I think we could the way we tell the story is very important so there are when you say we've just failed the target these are the reasons why if our contribution from EUETS changes we can explain that but we still have to make that concerted effort to achieve it and if you look at our PP2 all the policies and the proposals it does look like there's a way forward there are policies and proposals that you have to do the number crunching there is cost associated with that and I think we need more of that in terms of looking at what benefits can we get by bringing policies and proposals forward because you get that benefit for longer so for example in people in restoration if you bring that policy and proposal forward you get that benefit for the next 10, 20, 30 years and so I think we just need to have a good hard look at what we can bring forward and not get hung up on just missing the targets because if you change the target we're not going to get to the aspirational place we're hoping to achieve just to reiterate I fully support what both Paula and Jim have said I think the importance of a positive narrative around this can't be overstated this is all about society, government, opposition working together to achieve what is a common cross-party goal and it's a societal goal I think what people care about to address your point is that you know how does climate change impact their lives they're not obsessing about targets they're not obsessing about any of those kind of details that we obsess about here policies are impacting in terms of the warmth of their homes the health care costs things like that and I think what's really important is that we acknowledge that climate action shouldn't necessarily be about being a burden on society it's very much about achieving win-wins as much as possible so WWF just launched a report very recently which looks at the impacts of implementing the fourth carbon budget at a UK level and it looks at the overall macroeconomic effects of that and that shows essentially that strong climate action leads to more GDP growth than a business as usual approach it leads to more money in our pockets higher household income it leads to reduce pressure on the NHS and that's even leaving aside issues like cleaner air all those other benefits that it delivers aside from emissions reduction so this is a win-win in terms of all the agendas that we care about welfare about health care and everything else if I may just very quickly address the issue of changing targets I would support very much what Jim says but I think there are another a number of other reasons not to change those targets and a lot of that is about the perception that that would lead to externally I think firstly I think it's very bad timing to think about Scotland changing its course on climate action we're at a critical moment in the moves towards 2015 global deal in Paris we've just seen that the UN climate summit and I know that there's a debate happening in parliament about that today all the global leaders are talking about it it's very firmly back on the agenda Scotland is rightly lauded as being ahead of the posse and acting with the best in class on this and stop climate chaos recently released a film essentially promoting the Scottish example abroad so I think anything that would be perceived as weakening Scotland's ambition at this point would be problematic secondly the committee on climate change recently conducted the fourth carbon budget review for the UK government looking at the science and politics and economics of climate change whether things had changed enough to justify altering the fourth carbon budget and at a UK level they found that there was no reason to do so I'm not sure that it would say exactly the same thing at a Scottish level but what I do think is that that process created a lot of investor uncertainty in the green economy there was a sense that things were unstable, people didn't know where to put their money and I think if anything we should be providing a very strong clear trajectory for our green economy which is thriving in Scotland so that we can deliver all the benefits the climate action entails and not just worry about the downsides but just to come back I mean I agree with you Gina the timing you wouldn't want to change targets just now this moment in time in the run up to 2015 and all this however just to remind you we are going to advise the Scottish government next year by the end of December on the 2027 to 2032 targets my gosh so fine in the future and then the Scottish government will have to legislate them in 2016 we'll be doing RPP3 and all this so that there is an opportunity to then look again at the short term targets as well I think because we wouldn't necessarily say that the long term should change so at the UK level you're right we said the fourth carbon budget should stay the same however for the shorter term things well we're lucky that at UK level we have no problems with the current carbon budgets and we will meet them but it might be worth looking again at the trajectory to at the moment 2027 and then the future 2032 so I think it is an opportunity when the Scottish government looks at this in 2016 based on our advice to see whether it might be there might be a reason for changing the short term but the long term ambition yes should stay the same it might need to be more because as some of you may know the IPCC into government panel climate change recently looked at a cumulative global budget and depending on how you feel about historical responsibility countries like the UK may have to be more ambitious Cara Hylton wants to follow on from this point I think just on what's been said already particularly by Jim, Dentsham and Paula whether you think that additional policies and proposals beyond those set out in RPP2 should be brought forward to compensate for the government's failure to meet the emissions targets over the past three years and support the delivery for achieving our targets in future and I'd also be interested to know to hear more about to what extent you think that there's sufficient coherence across the range of government policy to enable the government to meet its targets better I haven't thought in detail about additional policies and proposals other than that are in RPP2 but I think there are some in there that we could certainly bring forward and possibly implement more vigorously shall I say one of the examples is restoration of peatland I think there's there's good evidence now that's come out to suggest that we understand how much carbon savings we can get of a carbon sink we can get from restoring peatland I know that there's money available 16.5 million has been made available and not all of it has been taken up which is disappointing so I think more action more concerted effort to get that money up to get that peatland restoration carried out I think it would be valuable and I also think you could think about applying that the requirement for peatland restoration further for example I've raised this before actually in a committee around wind farm developments there could be offset wind peatland restoration associated wind farm developments perhaps with any other development that might impact peatland so I think there's more we can do with what we've got another example could be on agriculture I know it's not a huge percentage in terms of the emissions savings but we have farming for a better climate which is a voluntary policy or guidelines I know that government have thought about thinking in some more regulatory rules we could work harder to do that the RPP2 depends on 90% of farmers up taking the recommendations and guidance in farming for a better climate see if there's experience in our work on priority catchments well we're walking the catchments we're talking to thousands of farmers you're not seeing the uptake that we might in some areas unless you continue to give them more advice, more guidance you follow it up so I think there's more concerted effort that could be do there as well and on energy efficiency where there's a potential huge saving you heard this morning about small change to the pollution prevention and control regulations implementing energy efficiency directive it's a small example of where organisations like CEPA could be seem to be promoting it far more I think we could do more we're in a an organisation like ourselves we're there to apply regulation but we want to be seen as leaders as well in addressing climate change and if we had a little bit more of a push behind us I think we could do more that's just some examples to call you think about a couple of the big areas for abatement savings domestic energy efficiency and renewable heat you actually at the moment depend very much on GB level policies the energy company obligation renewable heat incentive and as we've shown in our reports there are currently big issues with those not delivering as much as they could we've said the energy company obligation should be more ambitious well I think in the current situation where you are discussing the evolution with Westminster these could be areas you could look at and in terms of if you want to really deliver in Scotland you might need to push for having more control over those because otherwise it is very difficult because at the moment you can't do much about the energy company obligation I know the Scottish Government has tried to influence DEC but they are not delivering at the moment thank you anyone else on this point Jim Dencham and then Gina from Stop Climate Care Scotland we're keen and we have various points to see in the transport sector more policies or actual policies on demand management I think it's one of the things if you asked our partners Transform Scotland to sit here in my place they would be keen to talk to you about that and it's not just about in transport it's not just about increasing active travel budgets and increasing money for other budgets but it's about policies which actually reduce car use so demand management is an important part of the policy mix to make those transport emissions savings certainly I reiterate what Paula said about people in restoration we do need to see that brought forward and whilst we've seen Government and SNH provide money and a really good support and there's a big ground swell of support for peatland restoration amongst farmers and we're very pleased to be part of that and move that forward and support Government in SNH in that we really want to make sure that the next stage happens as soon as possible the budget that has been put in place this year and for the next year this £15 million of money would be spent and that the peatland plan very quickly turns into an action plan for making that money to be spent and guiding how other pots of money such from the private sector from Scottish Water perhaps from landowners themselves from or how the SRDP money for peatlands is spent how that can all come together so it's achieving a common goal rather than just different bits of peatland restoration here and there I think that's very important so we're very supportive of that and we want to work to make sure that that drives forward in the right way again the fertilizer efficiency measures is an important one we must build on farming for better climate farmers must do their part and the proposal that is in the RPP2 for fertilizer efficiency measures even though in the narrative there's no date set in the tables at the back then there's emissions savings from that proposal are there to come in in 2018 and obviously in a way that we'd like to see that as the latest date that that could come in preferably sooner so that farmers are encouraged to take up as many measures as possible we've seen through greening grassland farmers having the requirement to produce nitrogen or nutrient management plans which is not the same as necessarily doing a measure we want to see the planning lead to measures and that's what we hope through the RPP2 that proposal turning into a policy would achieve to make farmers think more clearly that there needs to be some action on after doing those plans and then finally one thing that has been considered by this committee before and is in the RPP2 is coastal habitats salt marsh kelp beds sea grass are all excellent around the globe at sequestering and storing carbon we've lost a lot of our coastal habitats our salt marsh through the years due to development and agriculture reclaim and as we see the climate changing it's inevitable that we'll need those habitats back as a cost effective buffer against flooding and sea level rise so if we start to do the work now to understand the carbon savings from those and how much we need and where they're best placed and how they can provide many multiple benefits there will be a good place to plan those long-term investments around our coasts Other points Duna Yes Just to go back to the transport sector emissions are still around 1990 levels there and in the RPP2 at present how it's described is that essentially there's only one formal policy on transport emissions which falls into EU competence which is around emissions standards for vehicles so there are some things happening in the transport sector in Scotland things like smarter choices, smarter places funding for walking and cycling infrastructure we'd like to see those things become formalised in the RPP2 so that there's clarity about exactly how much is going to be rolled out on an annual basis how much abatement that's going to deliver we would like to see travel planning rolled out as extensively as possible across Scotland in the Atkins report of 2009 that was identified as a very cost effective abatement measure in transport so we would like to see smarter choices, smarter places and all the supporting policies that go alongside it rolled out as widely as possible there are also things happening on for instance intelligent transport systems speed reductions on trunk roads that's being trialled on certain roads in Scotland I think it's being trialled on the A9 and as I was up and down to Dunkeld recently that was you could see the speed cameras being put in place on the sides of the roads that is actually a very effective emissions abatement opportunity we need to think about how we can roll that out more widely and that delivers safety wins as well as emissions wins and of course as Jim said we do need to start having a conversation about demand management we can't simply just rest on our laurels and think that transport is somehow going to be covered off we need to do more on it we need to start having conversations perhaps about workplace parking levees about increased parking charges road user charging these have all been potentially politically difficult topics for a number of years but there is a huge chunk of emissions post 2020 in the RPP2 which is identified as described as additional technical abatement potential we don't really know exactly what that means but we need to start having the conversations about it now so that we can build public support for what might be potentially politically challenging things there's a lot of food for thought in there which we'll take forward a small point which was raised with me by a friend from France who couldn't charge his electric point because the mechanism is different in France in Britain and in Netherlands at least now tell me if you've come across this before you know we've got a lot of visitors who come here and we have the charging points now at 50 miles apart right up to the north coast so that's like the EU to sort out the charging mechanism for cars moving towards integrated how can it possibly be across Europe that we've got different methods of hooking up to the charging point something I will take up somewhere else so Jim Hume I was quite glad to see him a part this morning a car plugged in downstairs so good to see that at least one of us in the parliament seems to be was plugged in direct into a three pin plug all right hopefully that's safe enough with the parliament's electricity paying for somebody's car to recharge I think we better stop there then but it wasn't me it's just to really follow on from where Gina was talking about in our briefing we've seen some sectors already make some good progress since 1990 and the three that have been highlighted in our SPICE briefing is waste management since 1990 to 2012 reduced 58.6% the emissions business and industrial processes 37% in agriculture and related land which is mentioned obviously by Jim Densham as well but they've already reduced by 26.7% they've already heard about transport which hasn't reduced much at all I think it's 1.2% which is next to nothing just like to explore from your all today which sectors do you think really offer the greatest opportunities to further reduce our emissions I'd just like to pick up on the land use reductions that Jim Hume has mentioned 26.7% most of that has come from either reductions in cattle and sheep numbers across the country obviously the main thing that they produce has therefore gone down if there's less animals to produce it and also fertilizer changes reductions in fertilizer which are really there because the price of fertilizer has gone up but none of these things are guaranteed to go on into the future especially with I think actually in your evidence that you've got Dave Ray has highlighted some of these that actually especially fertilizer there is an issue where obviously as more food is needed to be produced for a growing world population or there are changes in say Russia has a bad harvest there's a need to produce more food in other places so that affects many costs it affects the cost of fertilizer as well and demand and all that sort of thing so it might be that level of fertilizer use could go up or down and therefore it would seriously affect that 26.7% it might go up so I think what I'm trying to say is that unfortunately RPP2 or government measures have not really made an impact as we see on the rural land use or the agriculture emissions reductions and if it has we don't know about it because unfortunately farming for a better climate and other land use or agriculture policies are not really well monitored as we've already heard issues to do with monitoring we don't know which farmers or who's taking up which measures for farming for a better climate emissions reductions from those measures at this point in time is something that we really must see government doing better on that there's better reporting and it's in farmers interests as well as everyone else's interests because as we know if they are doing it that's a great thing we should be applauding them and celebrating them as the monitor farms have done and I've shown that they can have good impacts so if they are not showing that and showing a big take up then unfortunately it might be that they have to have regulation placed on them but they might already be doing it and they might be having regulation that's not really needed so it's always better to have a voluntary approach which is well monitored, which is well reported and understood by everyone before we go towards a regulatory approach first of all we've got Chris and Uta before we have another question Chris I think one of the key ways or areas we can get a better reduction in emissions has got to be on domestic buildings I think Uta suggested 5-10 billion to sort them out and it must be said I was looking at numbers for our older properties in Dumfries and Galloway and thought 200 million was probably not out of the question just for very basic treatment but I think there is a need for changes in the sort of specifications listed buildings you don't want to externally clad if you start ripping out the inside you start to have problems with them so I think we need to have a more flexible approach to how we actually treat buildings so we get the right sort of building breathability etc etc but the other side to that is we're talking about we're missing a targets but these are one of the areas where you get good public buying we've got one of our local housing associations has put on about 1200s or seat thumbs and they're saving a huge amount of money for local people so that's tackling fuel poverty it's been a really positive thing so I think there's a very good way to get buying is by undertaking work like that but actually demonstrating it I think people are working really hard to do it but I think the numbers involved to bring our housing stock to a reasonable standard are pretty scary to say the least Yeah well full on from that I agree with you Chris I mean there's reduction potential across all sectors and obviously we put a lot of focus on decarbonisation of the electricity sector where of course the Scottish government has very ambitious targets of 100% renewables so we know that can be done and there is really good potential here as you all know wind power and you've already got the hydro and biomass and various things but I mean of the other sectors just looking at the spice briefing buildings but it's just got residential in here which is homes 12% of current emissions I mean in theory you can reduce those by 80% if you do all the insulation and do renewable heat as well but that does come at a cost and obviously you do need to bring people with you so that was my point early on you can't just say to people we need to do all your homes in the next year I mean there are times in life when people more ready to do it say they're moving and if there is the right incentives available they might but I think also back to Gina's point about all the other benefits we often just talk in terms of how much does he cost to do and cost per ton of carbon but there are all these other benefits NHS saving money by people not ending up in hospital and all this so I would really like to see much more focus on actually looking at the other benefits the budgets for health might be applied to some extent in this direction as well that's why we have a cross cutting approach in the parliament that we're trying to instill in people Paula before we come to the question from Alex Yeah all sorts of things you could say there one of the things I wonder whether we need is stronger sexual targets we have them in some parts we have them on energy efficiency we have them on renewables but whether stronger sexual targets might help take waste management we've seen really good progress on that and there are targets and there are targets at a local level we still could do more we've actually missed the target but actually since then there's a lot of activity in place I understand particularly at cities to try and improve that improving green waste picking up kitchen waste etc to meet the ban on organic waste to landfill I think sexual targets can help around decarbonising our electricity which we are doing very well but of course we're still part of a UK so actually we're still dependent on the rest of the UK to decarbonise as well we're doing more than our effort and we have got lots of suitable land for a wind farm but I think we need to to get those wind winds if we decarbonise the grid we can then bring in electric vehicles you'll only get the benefits from electric vehicles if you're running them on a decarbonised grid so you've got a win-win there if you do that the other thing if you decarbonise your grid you've got low carbon electricity therefore what you do in homes should differ you wouldn't put a biomass burner because what you should be doing is putting in an electric heating if you've decarbonised the grid so if we put more effort there and we have to do it at the UK level encourage it at the UK level to get to a place where we have which is the aspiration to effectively decarbonise the electricity supply we can then get the benefits from these other policies Alec Ferguson had a question one of the critical areas of land use in relation to what we're discussing today is the subject of forestry and we have again returning to the subject of ambitious targets there are very ambitious planting targets and that we are not meeting and I wondered if anybody felt able to comment on two aspects of this one is the fact that we're not meeting the targets on planting but sort of in subsidiary to that a concern that while it is visually very desirable that much of the replanting that is done is of natural native species, forgive me would you agree that they are not as efficient in carbon capture as the commercial species that we need to keep the industry the forestry industry going and that there is an argument to be made for revisiting the percentages of native woodlands and commercial woodlands that we are replanting the second point on forestry is that where wind farm developers have established wind farms in the forested areas thousands of hectares have been cut down to make way for wind farms they are supposed to undertake compensatory planting and my understanding is that the figures are way behind on what they should have been doing now I don't know if anybody is I want to put these points to the minister obviously next week but I just wondered if anybody wanted to comment on that aspect of land use it is disappointing that the target is not being met I know that there have been plenty of discussions I forget what the title is the we are group with a woodland expansion advisory group so that was a group brought together by government to look at how that target could be met to avoid conflicts which is really good we should have those sort of conversations more often about different issues to do with land use and that really has been useful obviously I think with the new SRDP coming in hopefully there will be a boost to planting targets with farmers going to bring to have an opportunity it may not do enough like you say there is need to have much larger scale and from RSPB's point of view it is good to have native broadleaf trees being planted and not all non-native conifer trees I think because it provides so many multiple benefits which are not costed in the same way as purely having the timber from commercial forestry so we must see that there are other benefits from planting native broadleaves even if they are not as efficient in terms of turning or sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and I am not too sure about the compensatory process in terms of as you say I am taking your word it is not keeping up with the removal but in the round hopefully by planting or making space for wind turbines that is having a good balance in terms of in the atmosphere of greenhouse gas emissions one thing we would like to see is that I think I have made some point to what is in the submission is that on areas of peat and deep peat that we are careful about where we site turbines and wind farms but also where we remove trees from deep peat there should not necessarily need to be there should be a requirement not to restock and there are some issues there in terms of how deep peat is and what I am basically saying is we should have a calculator to understand the carbon balances for all these different activities on peatlands and forestry removal and wind farms so that we can really understand what the atmosphere is seeing not sure we can be able to answer the exact questions but in terms of planting, forestry planting I think there are more opportunities than perhaps we are taking up I think the Woodland expansion advisory group did some good work I think there are opportunities through SRDP to encourage more farmers to do it I think the benefits there are multiple benefits from that planting as well from pollution and flood risk management so I think we could probably do more I think there are some conditions associated with some of the planting through SRDP where there is a minimum depth and I think we could revisit that to encourage more planting because it becomes quite expensive I think farmers are happy to give up 2 or 3 metres but if you are asking them to give up 20 or 30 metres they are less inclined there has been some good work with FCS Forestry Commission and Forest Research looking opportunity mapping for planting across I do not know whether they have looked at particular species I do not know the answer to that I could find out if you wish but this is to find where is the best place to plant and maybe it is not on deep peat if you are going to disturb the peat it is actually completed the work around the take-hatchment area already identified places so it increases the time maybe in terms of how quick you can get the planting done if you know where is the best place to do it on the compensatory planting I do not know what the up takes like but I agree that it should be followed up I think SEPA still has involvement in giving guidance and we are going to probably restart the validation process for looking at the carbon balance for wind farms actually with an improved tool and it takes account of forestry so that should be taking account in the tool it is taking account into the tool so the carbon balance is calculated and I think what we have not got really is mechanism in place to make sure that they do what is expected either whether it is compensatory planting or peatland restoration so I think it is a trick we are missing ok we are going to move on to another question now from Graham Day and possibly Claudia Beamish thank you convener in a general sense I absolutely take Jim Dinsham's point about properly monitoring measured voluntary approach being the way to go before we move to becoming more prescriptive however if we look at agriculture the government has introduced carbon audits for this sector within the new cap but it is on a voluntary basis given that time is marching on in terms of tackling climate change isn't there an argument for making this mandatory and perhaps with future cap payments linked to measured performance over a period of years Jim Dinsham Simplants is yes it will be great to have mandatory carbon audits for all farmers it is really to help them to see what they are doing and then see over a period a year or two what difference is making absolutely ok fine can we move on to the next question which is Alex Ferguson's question next one of the things we have discussed before on this committee is the problems with the time lag in getting the data from Scotland's efforts if I can put it that way coming to us and I just wondered if I know we have raised that before I think when Uta was here before and I just wondered if any progress has been made in improving that process answer unfortunately not in fact that was something our committee was very frustrated with because obviously we are trying to do a progress report for Scotland and it is such a time lag so we went back to DEC who are the keepers of all the statistics and who do the breakdown for the devolved administrations and they said no it is absolutely not feasible so unfortunately I think we are stuck with it I think there are some problems for when some of the sector data comes in and how long it takes to do it does the same apply on the UK basis are these time lags across the UK so what we have at the moment for the UK we have provisional data for 2013 already and I remember now so what DEC does we have provisional data but the final data which is also what we submit I think to the UNFCCC so only comes out the year later so in March 2014 we got the final data I think for 2012 and it is on that final data that DEC then does the breakdown for the devolved administrations so that is why in June this year we ended up with the 2012 data whereas for the UK we already have the provisional 2013 data and I guess they don't want to do double the work effectively because otherwise they would have to do the work for the provisional data and then the final data again so yes we are always a year ahead for the UK as a whole but unfortunately for everything else we are a year behind I can understand the increased workload but it doesn't make life any easier for us frankly Thanks for that first of all before Gina Graham Day I hope I didn't misunderstand it is what you are saying that they actually have the provisional data but they don't want to commit the resource to breaking it down to devolved level or they just don't have it Well I know they have I don't really understand how the statisticians do the breakdown so we wouldn't need to check with DEC exactly how it works I just know there is UK provisional data and I don't know what it then takes to do the breakdown but is that entire UK or rest of the UK data that they release So the provisional data is for all the entire UK So in other words they have the provisional data they just don't commit the resource to breaking it down to devolved level they wait until they have the confirmed data and then do it is that essentially where we are at I think that is the case but I don't want to commit myself to that because I think that's that matter that needs to be taken up with DEC but when we checked with them they said it wasn't feasible to do I mean maybe there is some specific items of data for specific sectors that are not available which are needed for the final data Given that we have that time lag it seems to be pretty much set in stone and there's not a whole lot we can do about it I wonder if there is an argument for perhaps Euta might kill me here but delaying the CCC annual report on Scotland you inevitably end up in the CCC having to be forward looking because you don't have the data yet and I wonder if it was possible to slow things up by a couple of months and in that case then you would be able to deal with the data that is verified and that we are confident of I don't know just throwing it out there is a possibility and I don't know if there are many many practical reasons why that can't be done I think that's a discussion that needs to be had with the Scottish Government if it's something that was suggested say by the committee because I think there are issues about when we can do it but also when the Scottish Government does its response so it's not something we have explored I mean at the moment it's always been well end of the year or early the next year Government's got to pay for the breakdown figures that DEC does Oh I don't know how that works sorry But that might be You can ask the minister next week We'll find out but I just thought you might have a view on that I think did you want to raise a point at this stage? In that case we'll try your next question then Claudia Thank you convener It's been quite a wide-ranging discussion already about turning proposals into policies in a number of sectors Could we Could we ask a little bit further about how this process has been and is likely to work if we took the Peatlands as an example that in the first RPP I understand that they weren't they were only mentioned not mentioned but they were highlighted but then in the second there's been proposals about Peatlands which are being turned into policies but I wonder the degree with that and other issues that how how far should Scottish Government be really directing where these policies are going and asking for comment on it such as in Peatlands where it would but in that consultation understand it was quite open you know rather than directed from the centre and I just wonder to that degree I also wonder just to open up the discussion even more broadly about the funding for research into future transformation of proposals into policies and if we take marine issues for instance this followed a it's helpful I think to see a pattern going through the different RPPs but in this in RPP2 we have perhaps a parallel with what happened with RPP1 with the Peatlands with marine issues and then that is going to be going forward but is there really the opportunities to take these issues forward in a way that is constructive I wonder if there are comments on that on that thank you on Peatlands as I've already said we're very pleased with what's been achieved so far and actually for this committee to have a lot of sessions on it and push it and that's been fantastic I think that we would like to see the proposal that is in RPP2 made into a policy and really that's to have the target that is in that document really to be made a policy to say Scotland is going to try to achieve that and it was the feeling that the Peatland plan would give us the direction of how that would happen how that target would be achieved so that then that could become a policy and also the 15 million and any other money that comes in you know how that would be spent in an organised coordinated way as you say unfortunately we feel that the Peatland plan document wasn't as not totally directive we don't necessarily want that but we wanted some options for SNH to show us how they felt a process could go ahead to make that happen in a timeline which allows us to spend the 15 million in the budget years that has been put forward and unfortunately it was more broad than that a good document we can't fault really what was in there but it didn't really suggest option A is to do it in this way option B option C which do you prefer or what comments do you have it was really what would you like how do you think this money could be spent or implemented to make Peatland restoration happen and I feel that that is a bit of an opportunity missed and we need to shoot on now quickly and get money spent in the budget around and also the target made into a policy as early as possible on funding for research I agree that in terms of blue carbon and marine carbon as I've talked about salt marsh habitats and other blue carbon habitats we are at that point where we need to gather the science in to understand exactly what carbon benefits there are from restoring and protecting and creating new new habitats of those which you can do what carbon benefits there will be and therefore have enough information to turn it into a policy as soon as possible so it's a policy not just for wildlife and not just for adaptation but also so we can definitely say if you create 10 hectares of salt marsh in the fourth it will give this much in terms of carbon benefits to our inventory Before we develop any of this at the moment do you understand that the reason for not making peatland plan into a policy was that the science is being established at the moment about what the emissions controls actually are in different forms of peatland and that the reason why it is a proposal is awaiting the outcome of that science you need to have the clarity to know that you actually have that and understand that that's why the government made it a proposal so therefore it's not about having a more detailed plan at the moment about how to implement it's awaiting the result of the figures that show what the different emissions are from different depths of peat and different conditions of peat we do know that the indications are that peatland restoration is carbon beneficial and we know that indications are very good indications and the IPCC are clarifying those figures but IPCC are also have agreed and it's in it was agreed in Derbyn I understand that you can back date the savings that are made from peatland restoration so any peatland restoration that is done now and the savings made which we know the savings now and in the future from anything that money is spent now through the peatland plan you come back date that so any activity that we have now if we did it now because it was a policy it would be a beneficial thing in terms of our inventory so I don't see any problem in bringing that proposal into a policy now and even though it may be next year that we understand exactly what carbon benefits it will accrue that for sure did you have another point to Claudia or is that fine just now it was only convener about the area of farming and new technology which came up in committee before because beyond 2020 concerns about what the technology will be and whether there is the research money there for ensuring that we can take forward proposals and put them into policies so in farming there were a range of points in the RPP2 about new technology which hasn't yet been hardly even invented so I think it's beyond the green cow but parallel with perhaps okay Paula can I just make a general point on your points Claudia about asking advice and should we ask I think the answer is yes and I think the consultation on the peatland plan was an example of that where you did ask and you sought advice and while SIPA thinks for example that it does set a very good strategic plan for where you want to go it needs to be directed by RPP2 in what we do and there is research they ask about research and there are gaps in the research that you can fill but you don't want it shouldn't be a reason for inaction and I think there's enough evidence out there to say yes peatland restoration works it probably works better and more degraded and less degraded we've got some evidence it shouldn't be a reason for inaction unless the consequences are detrimental and I don't think there'll be there's something else I've forgotten the other point but I think consultation is the right way forward for sure I'm sure the minister will be listening to what you've just said and other points here we've got Gina first briefly I just to agree with you that I think where there are some areas where we need to improve the evidence base and consult on that we also know that there are certain things where there are political barriers to making progress I think one of the really great things that we saw in the summer was the establishment of the cabinet sub-committee on climate change which we hope will very much allow the government to resolve those kind of political barriers we saw five new policies across different areas so there was very much a sense in June of where there's a will there's a way and I think it would be worth exploring with the minister when he comes in next week how the cabinet sub-committee will work with the climate change delivery board and right across the civil service to understand what the evidence base is, what the barriers are and how we can accelerate those turning proposals into policies Chris, what's wrong? Did Chris want to say something there? No, I was I just can't hear you Jim, briefly as long as we're not reiterating points That's fine, just quickly on Claudia Beamish's other point about the agriculture research and that is in the RPP too without a lot of explanation as to what it is it could be all sorts of things for example the likely uptake of precision farming in the future and that's being looked at as a saving in terms of emissions it could be other things too what it would be good to find out from the minister is how a future agriculture research budget does match up to achieving this Chris, did you have anything to say about the other parts of the public sector that can help in this respect? Public sector I think committed I suppose to be an issue on a lot of these things we're turning tankers around and I think that's one of the real challenges the technology is developing we've got a guy in the north of our region who's somewhere near market with an electrolysis boiler burning water effectively and we'll use electricity there's a lot of technology and things out of there to get the policies on on board and everything in terms of our if you like the economic benefit 10 years ago I think we had a couple of people sticking solar panels up in Dumfries in Galloway we've got probably 12 in Dumfries most of those of them spreading to biomass and other technology so we are developing the expertise to deliver the targets we need but it does take time to do it and we've found the same thing within our authority it takes time to change the attitudes to get the policies in place to deliver that and there is a catch up and I think what will probably happen we will start to see better progress in time but it does take an awful long time to get the right support we're really fortunate we've got cross party support for what we're trying to do in terms of climate change but it still takes a long time to fit that in with financial savings within local government restructures and all the other things and to keep it up there at the right level within the agenda that will be the case across the public sector there are fixes out there technical fixes, they're coming up there's some really exciting technologies capturing wind energy when we don't need it etc but it will take time for those to actually fit into the system and become more mainstream so I think that's good, thank you for that we have the implications the wider implications for Scotland of meeting our future annual targets for example with the EU's climate target remaining if it does at 20% all of our calculations in 2009 and since have been on the EU getting to 30% so what are the implications for Scotland then what can we do if these circumstances internationally pertain do you know it was something that I think the committee has reflected on before but there's only one instance where we do hit our targets which is if the EU moves to 30% and we implement all proposals and policies as planned so there is a big gap there that 30% target is effectively off the table now the EU debate has very much moved on to 40% for 2030 no one's really talking about the 2020 conversation anymore unfortunately we would like to see that more ambition to 2030 I think it's about doing precisely the kind of things that we've talked about identifying new policy areas accelerating proposals into policies and I think what we have to be aware of is that the RPP2 can't be a static document just taking one point in time and having one plan it has to flex and improve as technological advances happen as we improve our understanding of climate economics and technological economics as we get a clearer picture of the scale of the challenge so what we would really like to see is the RPP2 strengthen and flex over the next couple of years and moving into the RPP3 so that it's very much a live document Paula please it's controversial and don't drill down too deeply with me because I don't really understand the process in terms of the trading scheme but up to now government has taken a position where we haven't bought any certificates we could buy and destroy certificates also we haven't really explored offsetting wider offsetting options Indeed all these threats hanging over our heads I suppose we can't manage to meet our targets by the means that we've agreed just now unless there's anything very specific apart from that gym is there something you're going to add? Just one of the implications if we don't move which seems that we're not to the 30% is the climate change committee some time ago said that because the shortfall would be down to the non-traded sector which is the agriculture sector another non-traded to try and achieve that shortfall which is a big stretch so that is the implication for the rest of Scotland that other sectors have to do much more to meet that challenge Fain, Nigel Don your question please I'm just obviously sitting here listening as everybody else is to all the things they said and I encourage folk not to repeat anything they've said there may be no answer to what I'm about to ask you but I'm just thinking there's an honest on government and we'd all like to spend more money if we work on the assumption that the government is trying to do the right things and we've discussed that and if we work on the assumption that we don't yet have a forest of money trees so that is not the answer is there anything else that we as a committee or the parliament and I guess we're the relevant bits of the parliament can do to make progress on this that we haven't previously talked about about that, that's fine I thought that was the answer and that's fine can we turn the question round slightly wait a minute just before you if I may, I'm not having a go at Jim Densham or Gina Hanron but can I turn this reverse this you both represent mass membership organisations and at the root of everything we're trying to achieve the requirement for behavioural change across society so can I ask what your organisations do given the size of your membership to actively facilitate or encourage behavioural change I think we'll try and take those two bits together but if you want to come in who wants to start off then was Jim going to say something first of all I can I think we need to look for the wind I know that's an easy thing to say we need to look for those positives but we do all need to work together and look for those really good things obviously I understand more of the rural land use the agriculture sector it helps a farmer to do a nutrient management plan and then think about the efficiency savings it makes sense for their business not just for the climate so if we can in some ways encourage or propel them to do that then that's the sort of thing and that's the sort of thing we need to work on it does mean that we as organisations not just government needs to be involved in having the conversations and saying we support this and being in partnership with others having partnerships with people we don't usually have partnerships with and saying let's work together because no one is listening to RSPB on this but they'll listen to a business sector or they'll listen to the NFUS better at finding out well resolving our differences and working together for a common good see something Puta? there isn't a money tree that is true but just thinking about building's energy efficiency there's quite a big campaign going on at the moment which I think your organisation certainly WWF is signed up to about looking at this whole issue of improving our building stock differently as an infrastructure priority and there is of course infrastructure money and if it becomes an infrastructure priority it's easier to raise money at cheaper rates etc it seems an interesting angle which seems to be gaining traction so I don't know how much that has been discussed here in Scotland but I know that UK wide some of the parties are now signing up to it so it's an option Anyone else? Yes? Precisely I think it's about getting creative with how we do things it's about looking at budget lines that we wouldn't necessarily have looked at before to achieve those win-win so precisely as you say looking at the NHS budget perhaps to deal with issues around warmer homes looking at how we invest our capital budget and other things that WWF is doing in Scotland as an organisation over the coming year is looking at how we can start to shift from high carbon infrastructure investment to properly transformational low carbon infrastructure projects looking at identifying what those projects should be and working right across the entire infrastructure life cycle everyone from unions to academia to industry to the green investment bank to the institution of civil engineers to government and bringing those people together to look at what are the projects that Scotland needs in future that we can invest billions of pounds in so that's just one example of the kind of things that we would like to see we absolutely would like to see energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority I think you know we see the scale of the challenge and it can only be tackled if we approach it from lots of different angles it's quite an interesting point to kind of to finish up on because it comes back to our wish to have a cross cutting approach in the parliamentary committees with regard to budget and so on and you know there are big questions here for our minister in environment to ask the other ministers about what actually they're doing about these things and the infrastructure clearly is a very big part of that I think that's a message that's come over loud and clear as Paula you wanted to Of course your committee considered how well NPF and SPP delivered on climate mitigation and adaptation, I think there's more we can do on there I think it fits into exactly what we've described it's about creating those low carbon places it's about creating the opportunities for people to change their behaviours by changing the way that we move around and we work and we play in our environments and it's got to be a way of telling the story so that people in different sorts of parts of the country understand this because where I come from with the huge amount of rural poverty where it's caused by poor insulation old houses and the need to travel in order to get services you know it's got a very different solution to those that are related to the cities where a lot more stringent measures can be done about ensuring that transport is very different from what it is just now we're glad to have all of these points don't need to be musing we'll be asking these questions very much of the minister and it's an on-going situation and Graham Day's point about behaviour changed very important we've highlighted this we'd like other people to think about that one in the organisations that talk about our targets and whether we meet them are your organisations doing your best to make sure that people's behaviour has changed some of it's not the blame culture some of it's about we're all in this together indeed, well thank you very much panel that's excellent it's refocused us we also have a debate this afternoon in the chamber the 2014 UN climate meeting which I think will be interesting to follow on from this and if you're around we welcome you to come to the gallery thank you for your evidence we'll be moving into private so we'll try and clear the place fairly soon so that we can move on, thank you and that ends the public meeting just now sorry at the next meeting on the 8th of October the committee


My name is Sam Vakny. I'm the author of Malignant Self-Lover, Narcissism Revisted. Can anyone diagnose a narcissist? Can you diagnose your narcissist? Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a disease. It is defined only by and in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM. All other so-called definitions and compilations of criteria are irrelevant and very misleading, often times. People go around putting together lists of traits and behaviors, usually based on their experience with one person who was never officially diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. They decide that these compilers decide that these lists constitute the essence and definition of narcissism, but often they don't. People erroneously use the term narcissist to describe every type of abuser or obnoxious and uncouth person that is wrong. Not all abusers or jerks are narcissists, although all narcissists are abusers and jerks. Remember, only a qualified mental health diagnostician can determine whether someone suffers from narcissistic personality disorder in these following lengthy tests and personal interviews. It is true that narcissists can mislead even the most experienced professional, but this does not mean that laymen possess the ability to diagnose mental health disorders. The same signs and symptoms apply to many psychological problems, and differentiating between them takes years of learning and training and exposure to case studies. So, here's a list of the diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM, augmented by findings from recent studies and research. The narcissist feels grandiose and self-important. He exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts and personality traits to the point of lying. He demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements. The narcissist is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequal brilliance, bodily beauty or sexual performance. The narcissist believes in ideal, everlasting, all-conquering, love or passion. The narcissist is firmly convinced that he or she is unique, and being special can only be understood by and should be treated by or associated with other special, unique or high status people or institutions. The narcissist requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious. This is what I call narcissistic supply. The narcissist feels entitled. He demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favorable priority treatment. The narcissist is interpersonally exploitative. In other words, the narcissist uses others to achieve his or her own ends and goals. Most importantly, the narcissist is devoid of empathy. He is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, wishes and choices of other people. The narcissist is constantly envious of others and he seeks to hurt or destroy the object of his or her frustration. The narcissist suffers from persecutory, paranoid delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly. Narcissist behaves arrogantly and hotly. He feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, above the law and omnipresent. This whole complex is known as magical thinking. Narcissist rages when he is frustrated, contradicted or confronted by people he or she consider inferior to him or her. Narcissist regards other people with contempt. This dame is unworthy. So this is an exhaustive list. It is enough for five of these criterias to coexist in a patient for that patient to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. But remember, you cannot diagnose people. You cannot go around labelling them. It is not proper. You are not qualified. It is true that narcissists rarely attend therapy and they rarely subject themselves to diagnostic tests. But that does not mean that it grants you the right to label them.