Briefings

Big numbers

April 19, 2017

<p>In 2003, the UK wide umbrella body for development trusts had one member in Scotland &ndash; Carluke Development Trust. Working on a hunch that Carluke was unlikely to be the only community in Scotland with a development trust or at least with the aspiration to have one, the first tentative steps were taken to form a Scotland wide body &ndash; DTAS. Fourteen years on and the steady stream of communities choosing to take more control of their own affairs shows no sign of slowing. Every three years, DTAS carries out a survey of members. Some big numbers in this infographic.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Briefings

Islands stand firm with EU

<p>For those who choose life on Scotland&rsquo;s islands, it must require some kind of trade-off &ndash; dealing with the particular challenges of living in remote locations in order to enjoy the most spectacular of settings surrounded by sea. Many of these challenges are common to all islands and for some years now, the Scottish Islands Federation has been linking with other island networks around Europe to build a collective voice in Brussels. Last month&rsquo;s signing of the Smart Islands Declaration signals another example of what Scotland stands to lose when Brexit really does become Brexit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: Alkisti Florou EU Affairs Advisor, DAFNI Network of Sustainable Greek Islands

28 March 2017 marks a strong comeback of islands in the European Parliament. The “Smart Islands Event: Creating New Pathways for EU islands” gathered over 100 European island representatives, stakeholders and policy-makers to officially present the Smart Islands Initiative, one that sheds light on the potential of islands to emerge as ideal territories for the deployment of innovative technologies in the fields of energy, transport & mobility, water & waste management and ICT.

During the event 36 island representatives from Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK signed the Smart Islands Declaration, cornerstone document of the Smart Islands Initiative.

The event was co-hosted and warmly supported by a group of 11 MEPs from Member States with islands, led by MEP Eva Kaili. Mrs Kaili also expressed her intention to table, in the coming months, a Motion for Resolution so that the Smart Islands Declaration is formally endorsed by the European Parliament.

In his intervention, Director-General for Energy Dominique Ristori pointed to the immense potential of islands to host innovative projects that can have a positive impact on local economies, all while helping Europe meet the goals it has set in a number of key policy areas, including climate, energy, transport and mobility.

The two roundtables, composed of experts from the European Commission, European Investment Bank, European Economic Social Committee, Committee of the Regions, Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions, FEDARENE and EURELECTRIC along with market and civil society representatives, provided useful insights on islands’ intrinsic characteristics, as much as on the smart technologies, financing instruments and policies available which, if properly combined, can boost local sustainable development on islands.

Revealing of the on-going work to bring islands on top of the EU policy agenda was the reference by Clive Gerada, Chair of the Energy Working Party of the Maltese Presidency, on the Political Declaration on Islands to be signed during the Informal Meeting of Energy Ministers on 18 May in Valetta.

The Smart Islands Event marks an important milestone on islands’ pathway to becoming smart, inclusive and thriving societies, contributing to an innovative and sustainable Europe.

For more information, please visit www.smartislandsinitiative.eu

 

Camille Dressler is chairperson of Scottish islands Federation

Briefings

Institutional anchors

<p class="MsoNormal">Since Scottish Community Alliance was formed, we&rsquo;ve tried to promote the concept of community anchor organisations and the key role that they play in leading community development and local regeneration. An interesting adaptation of this anchor idea has been imported from rust belt America by Preston City Council in a last ditch attempt to breathe new life into its ailing local economy. A wide number of anchor institutions operating within the community &ndash; hospitals, police, FE college and university etc &ndash; have been identified and concerted pressure has been applied to refocus their collective spending power. It seems to be working.</p>

 

Author: Hazel Sheffield, Guardian

As councils struggle with cuts, one Lancastrian city adapted a pioneering grassroots approach from America to tackling inequality and keeping profits local

Ted Howard looks out on a group of people drinking tea from styrofoam cups at Preston town hall on a Monday afternoon in March. The social entrepreneur and author from Cleveland, Ohio, is the special guest at the city’s monthly social forum. “What’s happening in this community is historic – it blows my mind,” he tells the city councillors and local business owners. “We’re working out how to build an inclusive economy.”

Howard’s infectious enthusiasm has made him the de facto spokesperson for “community wealth building”, a way of tackling inequality by ensuring the economic development of a place is shared more equally among its residents.

To do this, Howard harnessed the co-operative model, in which an enterprise is jointly owned and operated by members for their mutual benefit. In Cleveland, he helped set up worker co-operatives to supply local institutions – such as hospitals, councils and universities – in order to keep profit localised. Redirecting local spending for community wealth through the use of worker co-operatives has now become known as “the Cleveland model” – and cities around the world suffering the negative effects of globalisation are looking to it to help them recover.

This grassroots economic development approach originated in the Basque region of Spain, where the Mondragon Corporation, a federation of worker co-operatives that now employs more than 74,000 people in finance, retail and other sectors, was set up in 1956, based around the ideals of social responsibility and participation.

Howard and his organisation, the Democracy Collaborative, applied the idea in Cleveland by establishing the worker-owned Evergreen Cooperatives in 2008, in collaboration with the city government and the Cleveland Foundation, the world’s first community foundation, which dates from 1914. An industrial-scale laundry and energy business were set up as co-operatives to serve the biggest spenders in the city. Green City Growers, a co-operative urban farm, followed in 2012.

When Evergreen Cooperatives began, Cleveland badly needed change. Its population had shrunk by more than 58% since 1950 due to the decline of manufacturing jobs in the city. In 2007, Cleveland’s poverty rate was among the worst in the US: 27% of residents lived in poverty, a much higher proportion than the US national average of 12.5%.

While Cleveland voted for Hillary Clinton in last year’s election, 70% of Ohio voters chose Donald Trump, who appealed to the disaffection of workers feeling the impact of deindustrialisation.

Cleveland’s population had shrunk by over 58% since 1950 with the decline of manufacturing jobs. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Many US and UK cities are waking up to the power of service-based anchors as local employers and earners as manufacturing jobs move overseas. In the US, universities spend $400bn (£320bn) every year and have total endowments of over $350bn. Nonprofit hospitals have annual revenues of more than $500bn. Redirecting that money locally could have a profound effect, the Democracy Collaborative argues.

In Cleveland, the Evergreen laundry and energy company are now profitable and the urban farm is getting there. They collectively employ around 150 people, many with barriers to employment such as criminal convictions or low education. The plan is to increase the number of employees to at least 1,000.

The laundry was established in Glenville, one of the poorest parts of Cleveland, where adult unemployment was around 40% in 2010 and higher still for those who had been in prison. Evergreen was about more than just giving these people jobs. “A job is not enough. For people to stay out of poverty they need to be able to acquire assets,” Howard explains.

Around half of Evergreen workers own a stake in their company. They are eligible for pension payments, profit sharing and even help buying a home.

Claudia Oates, who works in sales and marketing for the laundry, tells the story of one worker-owner of the laundry and his wife, who works at the greenhouse, who got a home under the Evergreen housing programme. “The people here are good, they just need a second chance,” she says.

 The co-operative laundry run by Evergreen in Cleveland. Photograph: Evergreen Co-operatives

It was different when she started at Evergreen in 2011. “At that time, they were losing customers,” Oates remembers. But the laundry turned a corner with contracts from major institutions such as University Hospitals, and was in the black by the second quarter of 2014.

“Before, we were owners in name, but now we are learning how to really be worker-owners, with quarterly statements, profit-sharing and looking at how to reinvest our money,” Oates says.

Other US cities are learning from Cleveland about how to make co-operatives competitive as they implement their own iterations of the model. The mayor of Rochester, New York, commissioned the Democracy Collaborative to look into whether the model could work there. In Denver, Colorado, nonprofit funding has gone towards setting up worker-owned co-operatives for veterans and low-income families to grow food.

Council leader Peter Rankin believed Preston could also benefit from these ideas. “We have a government that states this country is doing well economically – but we know as people in the community that’s not true,” he says. Preston voted leave in the EU referendum, like every other district in Lancashire. It sent a clear signal that a new approach is desired. “For too long we said social policy is separate from economic policy,” Rankin adds. “The inclusive economy’s time has come.”

Preston council committed to a co-operative initiative for economic development in 2011, but the following year invited Howard to talk about the Cleveland model, as inspiration for how the UK city could match the co-operative approach with a way of building localised wealth.

Howard had never heard of Preston before he was invited to visit in 2012. At the time, the city was in the depths of austerity and suffering from entrenched inequality, with a life expectancy of 66 in some areas and 82 in others. One in three schoolchildren lived in poverty. On top of this, the council has had its hands tied by severe budget cuts, and its community engagement team has been cut from 30 people to around 10.

“The system wasn’t working,” says Matthew Brown, Preston cabinet member for social justice, inclusion and policy – and the driving force behind many of the recent transformations at the council. “Something had to change.”

So in 2013, the council employed a thinktank, the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES), to help identify 12 large institutions anchored to Preston, including the city and the county council, the university, the police and the hospital. It looked at redirecting the £1.2bn total annual spending power of these anchors to local businesses. Preston city council has since spent an additional £4m locally, from 14% of its budget in 2012 to 28% in 2016.

Preston, like any city, has its own particular challenges that mean a straight transplant of the Cleveland model is impossible. So CLES adapted it. Rather than creating co-operatives from scratch, Neil McInroy, CLES chief executive, says they sought existing business that could win contracts, such as a £600,000 printing contract tendered by the constabulary and a £1.6m council food budget, which was broken into lots and awarded to farmers in the region.

After Brexit, it may become even easier for public institutions to pick local suppliers over international ones, without the European procurement law that requires contracts to be tendered widely. But other centralised services, such as the police and NHS, will still be tied to national systems for procurement.

Then there’s funding. Cleveland’s Evergreen Co-operative Laundry was set up with $5.8m in part from the city council and the Cleveland Foundation. Setting up co-ops could be more difficult in the UK, which has weaker city governments, less availability of philanthropic capital and the looming shadow of austerity.

Peter Rankin is aware of these limitations. The council is looking at setting up a local bank to provide loans to small businesses and becoming a municipal energy provider. Rankin sees the developments so far as a part of a wider programme of getting wealth to remain local that includes attracting outside investment from corporations that may take their profits elsewhere.

Julian Manley, a research fellow at the University of Central Lancashire, is in the process of establishing the Preston Co-operative Network. He is working on a curriculum that educates undergraduates about co-operatives and connects them to Northern Lights, the university business hub, where they can get support setting up their own. “We have growing interest from the university in supporting this network through educating students to have skills to fill gaps,” Manley says.

The Preston Co-operative Network already includes Link, the UK’s first educational psychologists’ co-operative and the beginnings of a local food co-op. Kay Johnson, director of the Lancashire and Region Dietary and Education Resource, is piloting an open food network to connect growers directly with local people in disadvantaged areas, where there is often little access to fresh produce.

“The co-op model means that as the the project scales we can create jobs at the hubs,” Johnson says. She has joined forces with Neil Hickson, who runs a community farm in nearby Burscough. “People in cities are the hardest ones to reach,” Hickson says. “For us, taking a vegetable box to central Preston might not be worth it, but if there was a food hub it might be worthwhile – not profitable, but economically viable.”

By creating an education system that promotes co-operatives and networks to support them, Preston, like Cleveland, is aiming for systemic change. While they realise this may take decades, there are already some signs it is paying off. Preston had the joint-second biggest improvement in its position on the multiple deprivation index between 2010 and 2015. In 2016 it was voted the best city in north-west England to live and work. The changes are profound enough that the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has used Preston as an example of how Labour councils can cope with hefty budget cuts.

The day after the social forum in Preston, Howard, Brown and Manley speak at a roundtable hosted by Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow cities minister, at the Houses of Parliament, to try to develop thinking about how co-ops and anchor institutions can work together.

 “There’s a real need in local government to understand what the benefits of investment are,” says Meg Hillier, MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, at the event. “The danger is that it gets easier for procurement officials to deal with big companies.”

McInroy says Preston will be seen as an early adopter as other councils catch on. CLES has already worked with Manchester city council to increase its direct spend to the local economy from 51.5% in 2008-09 to 73.6% in 2015-16. It has now started work with Birmingham city council.

Howard sees Preston as the most comprehensive, holistic application of the Cleveland model yet. “They’re creating an ecosystem of change that will be the engine for a new, fairer economy.” From his community farm in Burscough, Hickson agrees. “I feel like I’m involved in a new movement that’s building,” he says.

Briefings

More than sport

<p>For many people, sport is about elite athletes performing at a level which, while entertaining, offers little in the way of real encouragement to take part.&nbsp; But scratch below the surface and a very different story starts to emerge. While elite sport may grab the headlines it is only one, relatively small part, of a much wider and complex picture. Community run sport is where the vast majority of the action takes place and the motivations that lie behind it extend way beyond the sporting activity itself. In fact the &lsquo;sport&rsquo; is almost incidental. New research tries to pull this together.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: The Robertson Trust

This research explored how the ‘sport for change’ approach could be developed and supported within Scotland. It was commissioned by The Robertson Trust, Scottish Government, sportscotland and the Sport for Change Network Scotland. The research was undertaken by Research Scotland.

The research explored three main themes:

The existing evidence base for the impact of ‘sport for change’ as an approach

•             What evidence currently exists around the impact of ‘sport for change’?  Are there gaps and how can we fill them?

•             How can ‘sport for change’ practitioners be better supported to deliver impact and to evidence the difference their work is making?

•             Is there a broad set of outcomes that can be adopted for use by ‘sport for change’ initiatives?

The current ‘sport for change’ landscape in Scotland

•             What is the current scope and nature of work being delivered in Scotland under the banner of ‘sport for change’?

•             Can we identify and highlight common elements of good practice within ‘sport for change’ delivery?

•             What are the key elements of a ‘sport for change’ approach that make it different from other approaches delivering sports?

•             What barriers do practitioners face in trying to deliver ‘sport for change’ initiatives?

•             What support is currently available to organisations hoping to develop a ‘sport for change’ approach?

•             How does ‘sport for change’ align with both the Scottish Government Active Scotland framework and Scotland’s world class system for sport?

The future ‘sport for change’ landscape in Scotland

•             What needs to be done to raise awareness and understanding of ‘sport for change’ as an approach with both sporting and non-sporting partners?

•             What support needs to be provided?

•             How might ‘sport for change’ best support delivery of Scottish Government policy and priorities, including health, justice and education?

•             What would a robust, well networked sport for change sector look like and what support is required to help this develop?

Download the executive summary here

Download the full report here

Briefings

Debate and challenge is important

<p>Scottish Government&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00516611.pdf">3 year action plan</a> to support the growth and development of social enterprise was launched a fortnight ago. The plan contains 92 separate actions &ndash; some costed over three years, with others of a more short term nature. The plan is well thought through and ambitious in its scope. But with so many new developments being funded, it&rsquo;s vital that a level of healthy debate and challenge is maintained within the sector so that unintentional (or even intentional) drift doesn&rsquo;t take place. A few people, including myself, became a bit exercised about an example of this last week.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: Graham Martin, Third Force News

A backlash is building over moves to let private companies get their hands on third sector cash.

Lender Social Investment Scotland (SIS) has said it has Scottish Government backing to launch a new fund which will be open to the private sector.

SIS currently provides cash – much of it public money – to charities and social enterprises.

A proviso for funding has been that organisations have an “asset lock” – which means profits are put back into the business rather than going to shareholders or into the pockets of individuals.

Now, however, it seems that SIS is set to bust the asset lock by setting up a new fund for private companies – as long as they use the cash to do social good.

It will still offer funds to charities and social enteprises in the old way, but a backlash is building over its plans to open the new fund – backed by Scottish Government cash – to the private sector.

SIS chief executive Alastair Davis told TFN: “SIS has been awarded funding from the Scottish Government under a programme of early interventions to support the delivery of the new ten year strategy for social enterprise.

“SIS is planning a programme of awareness raising and education with a range of stakeholders… in the future, this work is expected to include the development of a new fund to support mission-led businesses and entrepreneurs.

“Please note that there has been no change to the eligibility criteria for all existing SIS funds and these remain open only to those organisations with an appropriate asset lock. There are no plans to change the eligibility criteria for these funds. SIS will continue to grow its support for these organisations with new programmes of investment and support.”

However, this has caused a furious backlash from leading third sector figures, who questioned whether cash which could go to the third sector is now been offered to the private sector.

Angus Hardie, director of the Scottish Community Alliance, said: “Obviously SIS can do what it wants with its money. But if it’s not its own money – indeed if it’s public money that was given to it to support the third sector – then it is clearly unacceptable if that money goes to private enterprises irrespective of whether they are mission led or with social purpose or whatever other weasle words are used to get round the fact that they are not part of our sector.

“What’s going on here is a deliberate blurring of a line which should be very clear and unequivocal.

“It separates those enterprises that are for private profit and those that aren’t. The only reason I can see that people want to blur this line is because it suits their organisation’s best interests – and that is irrespective of whether it is in the third sector’s best interests.”

Aiden Pia, executive director of social enterprise network Senscot, was equally scathing.

He said: “Some of what we call social investment is too often driven by the pressure on lenders to get money out the door. SIS announced that it is to open products to profit for purpose private businesses.

“However, the third sector is a valuable brand which the general public associates with charities and asset-locked social enterprises – and which both eschew private profit.

“Simply widening eligibility to include unregulated private profit may get more money out the door, but at the expense of third sector clarity.

“SIS can obviously lend the funds it holds to whoever it chooses – but there is the question as to whether or not this activity should be supported by Scottish Government’s Third Sector Division.”

A Scottish Government spokesman stressed it is not currently backing a new Social Investment Scotland fund.

He said: “In December 2016, the Scottish Government published Scotland’s Social Enterprise Strategy. This ten-year strategy was fully co-produced with the social enterprise community and aims to build and strengthen the social enterprise sector. The priorities outlined in the strategy will be delivered through a series of underpinning action plans, the first of which is due for publication on 12 April.

“Social Investment Scotland delivers the £16 million Social Growth Fund, which is supported by Big Society Capital and Scottish Government. The fund provides loans of between £100,000 and £1 million to eligible third sector organisations. There are no plans to change the eligibility criteria for this fund.”

The Scottish Government announced a £1 million package of support for social enterprise in Febraury this year following the publication of its 10 year social enterprise strategy. Of that £25,000 was provided to Social Investment Scotland to investigate options to attract new private investment to the sector more generally. In addition, £50,000 was provided to deliver a programme of awareness raising activities, events and materials to raise the profile of social enterprise to aspiring entrepreneurs. 

“Earlier this year, Social Investment Scotland received support from the Scottish Government to raise awareness about social enterprise to aspiring entrepreneurs and to investigate options to attract new investment for the sector more generally. The Scottish Government has not been asked to contribute to the establishment of any new Social Investment Scotland investment funds.”

Briefings

Flow of guidance

<p>The sheer range of issues that need to be considered when developing a community building can be overwhelming. With ever increasing numbers of communities entering the fray, it&rsquo;s as well that the support for this type of enterprise is coming thick and fast.<a href="http://www.dtascommunityownership.org.uk/"> COSS</a> has published an array of help sheets and guidance and 30,000 downloads in the past year stand as testimony to the demand. But there&rsquo;s always room for more. Longstanding support body, <a href="http://www.cadispa.org/about.html">CADISPA</a> have recently distilled their many years of experience into a basic guide for community groups. Should be worth a download.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: Geoff Fagan and Drennan Watson, Cadispa

REDEVELOPING YOUR COMMUNITY BUILDING – A BASIC GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY GROUPS

 

 

Briefings

Bottle of Ginger

April 5, 2017

<p>It&rsquo;s impossible to turn on the news just now without being berated for taking the least amount of exercise, eating all the wrong foods and drinking way too much sugar-laden fizzy drinks. Now a community enterprise from Glasgow&rsquo;s Bridgeton area has decided to tackle one of these three pillars of poor health &ndash; Scotland&rsquo;s &lsquo;juice culture&rsquo;. Taking over and cultivating derelict land, the group plan to grow their own ingredients on a series of urban micro-farms for a range of drinks free from sugar and artificial ingredients.&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: Nan Spowart, The National

A social enterprise aimed at transforming Scottish “juice culture” hopes to reach a £10,000 crowdfunding target by tomorrow night.

Business start-up Bottle of Ginger plans to use derelict land to set up a community drinks company based in Bridgeton in the east end of Glasgow.

It would consist of a micro-brewery and a series of urban micro-farms producing ingredients for a range of locally-made drinks free from artificial additives and refined sugar.

The crowdfunding campaign managed to raise £1250 within two hours of launching and also has won a pledge of £1750 from the Santander Changemaker Fund but is short of its stretch target.

The company hopes to change the local “juice culture” by encouraging the local community to become involved in growing ingredients and developing, designing and producing better drinks.

“We know that economic poverty and food poverty are linked,” said a Bottle of Ginger spokesman. “Bridgeton is a food desert. Families and individuals on limited budgets, with limited cooking skills and limited access to affordable fresh food, have often no other option than to turn to processed convenience food. ‘Juice culture’ is representative of this.

In Bridgeton, we consume twice the national average of sugar from soft drinks per person per day than the national average. Increased levels of obesity, diabetes and heart disease are reflective of this diet.”

In 2011, Bridgeton was classed in the top five per cent of most deprived areas in Scotland meaning that the community faces complex socio-economic issues.

Living near derelict areas has been found to have an impact on health and a lower life expectancy. In Glasgow, 60 per cent of people live within 500m of derelict land. In the east end, this figure is even higher.

“Post-industrialisation and de-population of the area have left voids in both the urban fabric and the community,” the spokesman added. “We believe a community drinks company has the potential to drive local change.

“Our aim is to change local juice culture by challenging local habits and perceptions of juice, by redefining the product and by rethinking the processes involved in soft drinks manufacturing. We also believe that by getting the local community involved in the discussion around soft drinks, and in working together to grow ingredients, develop, design, manufacture and distribute better drinks, we will begin to see a shift in consumption habits and a strengthened sense of community. By transforming derelict land and disused gardens we will also see an improvement in the wellbeing of the individual, the community as a whole and the place we live.”

Before launching the crowdfunding campaign, the company looked into the east end’s soft drink manufacturing heritage, then began growing ingredients locally and experimenting with drinks-making. Using a previously derelict piece of land, herbs, cucumbers, melons, roots and flowers were grown then juiced, infused, extracted and brewed learning the basics of making drinks with natural ingredients.

The company also began to experiment with natural fermentation, which has allowed it to produce ginger beer that is completely free of artificial ingredients and refined sugar.

Briefings

Wynken, Blynken and Nod

<p>Love them or loathe them, wind turbines have become an increasingly ubiquitous feature of Scotland&rsquo;s landscape. While they all contribute towards the country&rsquo;s transition to a low carbon economy, the backstory to each windfarm remains unknown to the casual observer - and they&rsquo;re all very different. &nbsp;For instance, any windfarm that calls its three turbines Wynken, Blynken and Nod, plans to pay over &pound;1 million to the local community, uses all its profits to build 500 new social homes and to support communities in developing their own energy projects sounds like one worth knowing about.&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: CES

Community Energy Scotland and Berwickshire Housing Association  welcomed Paul Wheelhouse MSP to officially launch their joint venture windfarm, now known as the Fishermen Three.

The opening ceremony at Hoprigshiels near Cockburnspath in the Scottish Borders also saw the three turbines given affectionate names – Wynken, Blynken, and Nod – that reflect the local fishing heritage through the nursery rhyme by Eugene Field.

CES and BHA have come together as Berwickshire Community Renewables, whose new turbines are able to export a total of 7.5MW of clean electricity to the National grid. That is equivalent to powering 5,900 typical households.

The development is a first for a UK housing association, as BHA intends to use its share of the revenue to fund construction of new social rental homes. The estimate is 20 houses a year over the 25-year project lifetime.

CES will use its share to support its charitable work, in effect using one renewable energy installation to help other communities take similar steps.

The total estimated revenue is £30m. The direct community benefit paid to local people over the period is index-linked and set to exceed £1m. The benefit funds will be provided to Oldhamstocks Community Association and Cockburnspath & Cove Community Council, to invest or distribute within their areas.

Mr Wheelhouse, South of Scotland MSP and Scottish Government minister for Business, Innovation & Energy, welcomed The Fishermen Three’s contribution to his department’s target of 1,000MW of locally-owned renewable generation by 2020, saying: “This project shows locally-owned renewables have the potential to help drive social, economic and environmental change through investment in essential community infrastructure.”

Community Energy Scotland Chief Executive, Nicholas Gubbins, explained the multiple benefits the development will bring: “CES has helped hundreds of community groups take forward green energy projects but, like many charities, we struggle to cover our own costs. We are delighted to have worked with BHA to develop our own joint project.

 

“The UK energy system is changing and we want to make sure that communities are at the forefront of the opportunities that this will create for low carbon energy developments. This project helps us do that, whilst providing an initial community benefit payment of £37,500 per year to the communities closest to the wind farm site, to be spent on whatever they identify as their priorities.”

Briefings

Highland thinking

<p>Early discussions are beginning to take place around the country with regards to what the Local Democracy Bill might seek to address. &nbsp;At this stage it seems as if nothing is ruled in or out other than the broad intention &lsquo;to decentralise local authority functions, budgets and democratic oversight to local communities&rsquo;. As the Scottish Government consults and develops its thinking, others are doing likewise. Some really interesting ideas emerging from the Commission on Highland Democracy which has just published its interim report.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: Commission on Highland Democracy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of Interim Report. For full report click here

The Commission on Highland Democracy was established to continue conversations locally about the kind of democracy we want to have in the Highlands. We have had thousands of conversations with people across the region to better understand what the current state of local democracy is, and what people want to happen about this. Our key findings so far are: 

1. Decision making is exclusive. Decentralisation/ centralisation is not seen by local people to be primarily a geographical issue although it does encompass some spatial aspects. People consider decision making to be centralised not because it takes place a long distance from them. Rather, they feel that centralisation occurs when a small group of highly empowered individuals take decisions in a way that has little reference to anybody outside the decision making group and in an exclusive way. With this view of centralisation, it matters little where decision makers are situated and much more how they go about their business.  

2. People want involvement and engagement. People have told us time and again that they want a relationship with decision makers in which they are involved and engaged on an ongoing basis. In this situation, decision makers can regularly ask communities for their views for a variety of subjects but equally communities can decide to make their views known on the issues that concern them. 

3. Empowered consumers. Almost nobody has said they want to take decision making from their elected or appointed representatives and make them themselves. Quite the reverse, most respondents want to be empowered consumers of services and decisions rather than deliverers or decision makers themselves. And they understand the importance of having elected and appointed representatives to take the final decision in important and difficult matters. They do, however, want decision makers to arrive at their decisions in a much more open and involving way. 

4. Integrated local democracy. People want engagement and involvement in the democratic process to happen as part of their day to day living rather than as a separate thing. The Commission takes this to mean that conversations about community aspirations, public services and infrastructure are taking place in communities throughout the region. There seems to be a demand that these conversations are captured and used in decision making, rather than a separate consultation exercise being contrived around these same issues which it is unlikely many people will have the time or inclination to participate in. 

5. Balanced decision making. Communities hold the view that for good decisions to be made there is a necessary balance between three different inputs. They recognise the need for high quality professional officer advice. They understand the role of the elected and appointed decision makers and the important perspectives this brings. However, they want to see a third component which is a strong element of community input. The view is that if any one of these elements is missing, less good decisions will be made.  

The Commission will now test and interrogate these key findings, and will publish a final report with a final set of conclusions and recommendations which reflect the views and opinions of people across the Highlands in May 2017.  

 

If you have any comments or to keep updated with the work of the Commission please visit our website: www.highlanddemocracy.wordpress.com; follow us on Twitter: @Highland_Dem; or email us at: Commission@highland.gov.uk

Briefings

Talking Fracking

<p>Depending on who you believe, the discovery of fracking as a new means of extracting oil and gas has been the best or worst thing to happen to the world&rsquo;s energy markets.&nbsp; The Scottish Government decided on a cautious approach, waiting until the evidence was conclusive one way or the other. The energy industry has been champing at the bit and are no doubt applying enormous pressure behind the scenes. Environmental groups and community campaigners, with significantly less resource, have been working equally hard to lay out the counter argument. Make sure your voice is heard.&nbsp;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>

 

Author: Concerned Communities of Falkirk

Overview

The future of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland has proven both complex and controversial, and deeply held, sincere views have emerged on all sides of the debate.

The Scottish Government’s position is to take a cautious, evidence led approach while we gather and consider evidence.  In January 2015, the Scottish Government put in place a moratorium on unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland, which prevents hydraulic fracturing for shale oil and gas, and coal bed methane extraction taking place while the Scottish Government investigates evidence on potential impacts.

To support this consultation, the Scottish Government has compiled a comprehensive evidence-base. This has included commissioning a report by an Independent Expert Scientific Panel, and commissioning a series of research projects to explore certain issues in more detail.

A dedicated website, will run for the duration of the consultation.  The website provides user-friendly information on unconventional oil and gas, and the findings of the research commissioned by the Scottish Government.

Discussion tool-kits have been created to help communities and other groups participate in the consultation.  These can be accessed at www.talkingfracking.scot.

 

Why We Are Consulting

Studies have shown that Scotland’s geology, and in particular a stretch of land through Scotland’s central belt (referred to as the Midland Valley), contains significant quantities of shale gas and oil, and coal bed methane.  The central belt is also one of Scotland’s most populated regions, supporting important industries and business.

Accessing these resources would require the use of technologies such as hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as ‘fracking’).  This has led to a widespread debate on potential environmental, health and economic impacts, and on compatibility with Scotland’s ambitious climate change targets.

The Scottish Government’s approach to unconventional oil and gas is therefore one of caution while we gather and consider evidence, encourage dialogue, and give you an opportunity to set out your views.

This consultation does not set out or advocate a preferred Scottish Government position or policy.  Instead, this consultation is an opportunity for the people of Scotland and our stakeholders to consider the evidence, and to present views on that evidence and the future of this industry in Scotland.

Talking “Fracking”: A Consultation on Unconventional Oil and Gas

Closes 31 May 2017

 

Begin consultation