Author: Joe Bindloss, The Guardian

It takes a certain confidence for a remote community of farmers and fishermen to push for independence from the rest of the United Kingdom, but the hardy inhabitants of the wind-scoured Shetland Islands have never been short of self-belief. These are, after all, the people with the highest levels of Viking DNA found anywhere in the British Isles.

Pull up a barstool in the Douglas Arms in Lerwick, Shetland’s capital, and locals will tell you they feel as distant from Holyrood as they do from Westminster. There’s no malice intended; self-sufficiency just comes with the territory when you spend 365 days a year being lashed by the wild waves of the North Atlantic.

Lying 110 miles off the north coast of Scotland – closer to the Faroe Islands than to Edinburgh – Shetland might not leap out as the most obvious holiday destination, but this former Viking stronghold holds an abundance of riches: epic landscapes; eccentric islanders; footprint-free beaches teeming with seabirds and seals; and perhaps the highest density of Viking-era sites found anywhere in Britain.

Indeed, it’s hard to walk more than a few metres without tripping over another ruin or standing stone. And while the islanders have taken a cautious approach to reopening post-lockdown (most outdoor spaces are open; many indoor spaces are restricted), there are few places where it’s easier to socially distance.

Arriving in Lerwick harbour on the slow ferry from Aberdeen (a 12-hour trip), the capital appears out of the weather like an Impressionist painting, a brushstroke of dour stone houses against a green swash of hills and a sky filled with steely blues and greys. But you need only stumble up from the quayside and step into the nearest public house for the austere facade to crumble.

Conversation doesn’t sputter out, Slaughtered Lamb-style, when a stranger walks through the doors. More likely, you’ll be invited to introduce yourself and quizzed on your family history, politics and the pandemic, before a band strikes up a chorus of Shetland shanties and reels. Curiosity, as in remote communities everywhere, is integral to the Shetland character.

It’s a scene as Scottish as Saltires, neeps and tatties, but you’ll soon detect a subtle strangeness to the accent and vocabulary, a waageng (lingering flavour) of the Viking language that was spoken here right up to the 19th century.

Words and phrases of Norn – a language which branched off from Old Norse in the ninth century – endure across the islands, though the last fluent speaker died around 1850. Locals are not tired at the end of a long day, they are debaetless, forfochen or pooskered. A strong wind can be a gouster or a vaelensi, and many Shetlanders feel a lifelong attachment to their bonnhoga – calf-ground, or childhood home. Linguists will have a field day.

The cultural identity of modern Shetlanders is a rich stew of factual history, 19th-century Romanticism, and 21st-century politics. But support for “financial and political self-determination”, as recently voted for by the 22-strong Shetland Islands Council, is as much about geography as genetics.

“Shetland is both Scottish and Norse, and the Norse element in Shetlanders’ identity sets them apart from other Scots,” explains Dr Andrew Jennings, lecturer in Viking, Shetland and Orkney Studies at the University of the Highlands & Islands in Lerwick. “But people feel different from mainlanders because they are islanders, rather than because they might be descended from Vikings.”

Perhaps the most celebrated expression of Shetland’s Norse identity – the bacchanalian Up Helly Aa festival in Lerwick held from January to March, which culminates in a parade of torch-wielding guizers and the immolation of a full-sized Viking longship – has been postponed until 2022 because of coronavirus. However, it’s still easy to see the physical marks that Scandinavian settlers etched into the countryside.

At Jarlshof, tucked in beside Shetland’s tiny airport at Sumburgh, a fractal pattern of stone dwellings emerges from beneath a green fringe of turf on the edge of the grey Atlantic. Crowned by the skeletal remains of a fortified haa (manor house) built by the first Earl of Orkney, the ruins span 4,000 years of human habitation, but the most striking feature is a complete Viking village erected by Norse invaders in the ninth century.

What made these isolated islands so suited to settlement? Well, the weather, for one thing. The wind may bellow like an angry Norse god, driving the rain sideways like hailing arrows, but the passing Gulf Stream keeps the islands pleasantly warm – at least compared with other landmasses at similar latitudes.

Jarlshof is also important because it marks the end point of an architectural arms race that saw iron age wheelhouses – tiny whorls of dry-stone chambers clustered together around central, communal hubs – replaced by orderly Viking longhouses with square stone foundations and interlocking timber frames, capped by centuries-ahead-of-their-time living roofs of peat and turf. Homes were built this way in Shetland right up until the early 20th century.

Shetland’s other great Viking site is over on the northern island of Unst, reached by a succession of roll-on, roll-off car ferries from Mainland, the largest island in the group. But forget the axe-wielding

At Belmont, Hamar and Underhoull, the ruins of longhouses where Vikings gutted fish, raised sheep, sheared wool and smelted bog iron – and yes, perhaps raised toasts to Valhalla – emerge from beneath a frayed carpet of mud and marsh grass. There are at least 60 more unexcavated Viking structures pushing through the almost treeless grassland that hugs the island.

However, perhaps the best way to see Shetland through Viking eyes is to immerse yourself in the wind-lashed landscape itself. At Tingaholm, a tiny, grassy promontory sticking out into Tingwall Loch to the west of Lerwick, the rain scythes across the barely visible stones of a causeway leading to the site where Shetland’s Viking-era parliament, or Ting, convened.

Almost nothing remains there today but in this empty landscape, with only distant, lonely farmhouses to disrupt the organic contours of the ice-sheet flattened hills, it’s easy to imagine Shetland as it was when the first longships pulled ashore.

Pause for a moment and tune into the gentle swish of miniature waves breaking on the loch-shore, the whisper of the wind in the sedge grass rising above the almost-silence, and you’ll connect, just for a moment, with Shetland’s Viking soul.

Author: Martin Williams, The Herald

COSTS of centralising air traffic control for seven airports serving Scottish islands have doubled while the project has raised concerns over passenger safety, according to a new report.

Scottish Government-owned Highlands and Islands Airports Limited has been pushing ahead with plans to relocate air traffic work to one “remote site” in Inverness prompting fears that public safety is at risk.

It is expected to involve the removal of seven existing conventional towers at Inverness, Dundee, Shetland, Orkney, Wick, Benbecula and Stornoway. They would be replaced by a remote air traffic management system (RTS) supplemented by new IT.

Now an independent report by procurement expert Dave Watson commissioned by the Prospect union has said that implementation costs have already almost doubled to £33.5m.

It says the lifetime costs of the move would be £70m higher than leaving things alone.

Safety and operational concerns have been raised over the proposed remote tower system including, worries about a breakdown of data transmission systems, concerns over cyber-security and problems with weather assessment.

It said the project will take at least £18m of economic benefit from island economies. A proportionate loss to the Glasgow economy would equate to the loss of some 800 jobs or 600 in Edinburgh.

HIAL had to look further at winning the support of wider stakeholders, and managing the risks of the IT solution.

The report concluded that the project was a “high-risk procurement”

“In this case, the risks are not just financial; they are fundamental to the operation of airport services to the Highlands and Islands,” it said.

“Remote towers are not as yet proven technology in a setting as challenging as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Weather assessment, data transmission, and cyber-security are vital concerns that need long-term evaluation. These and other concerns have not been adequately addressed in project governance. As a consequence, the programme has failed to gain the support of staff or the communities HIAL exists to serve.”

It said that the Covid-19 pandemic and other regulatory factors constitute a significant change to the original business case, and that the “sensible approach would be to place a moratorium on the programme until a full, transparent programme review was undertaken.

Proposals for a single remote tower centre – said to be a UK first -were first mooted two years ago as part of HIAL plans to “future-proof” its operations over the next ten to 15 years.

Air traffic controllers would be moved to a central hub, the location of which had not then been decided.

David Avery, Prospect negotiator, said: “From day one HIAL have presented this as a done deal with negligible consultation, even less transparency, and bad faith.

“Prospect and its members in HIAL are not against reasoned changes to the technology and the operating procedures of air traffic control in the Highlands and Islands but these plans are not fit for purpose.

“It is beyond belief that HIAL continue to press on with these plans, backed by the Scottish Government, when the risks and costs are so plain to see. And that’s before we take Covid-19 into account. The plans were already questionable but with the aviation industry in crisis the risks are even higher and must be rethought.

“If the Scottish Government and HIAL continue with the remote towers plans it will be remote communities that pay the price. It’s no wonder places like Shetland are looking into self-rule when their needs are paid so little regard.”

The report says that air traffic controllers nowadays often do weather assessment and the evaluation of the runway surfaces status. But in the case of RTS operations, these would have to be performed by dedicated staff or adequate systems and sensors.

“It is questionable how far weather assessment can be done by RTS controllers when being presented with a compressed or limited view of the airport. There is no evidence that [the project] will improve flight reliability or ability to land in fog, crosswinds or snow and ice conditions – a vital issue in the Highlands and Islands.”

A Prospect survey of members who work for HIAL showed that 94 per cent oppose the project and that 82 per cent would be more likely to leave HIAL if it was implemented.

“On this basis, HIAL is creating a recruitment crisis instead of solving one,” the report said.

A HIAL spokesman said: “Given that doing nothing is not an option the chosen approach is the only option that offers long-term solutions in terms of resilience and flexibility, both during normal and out-of-hours operations. Our position is clear and despite continued dialogue with the union we are compelled to challenge many of the points made in this report presented by Prospect.”

The Herald on Sunday revealed in February that illegal aid was found to have been made to HIAL-owned Sumburgh Airport on Shetland and Inverness Airport after both received a total of over £50m in past taxpayer support that had not been approved by the European Commission.=

Ministers had told the European Commission it considered Inverness, which carried over 600,000 passengers a year, and Sumburgh, which carries over 300,000, would close to scheduled passenger services without public funding.

Britain’s largest food bank network has warned that UK destitution rates will double by Christmas alongside an explosion in demand for charity food parcels, as coronavirus job and income support schemes are wound down.

The Trussell Trust predicts that at least 670,000 extra people will become destitute in the last three months of the year – a level of poverty that leaves them unable to meet basic food, shelter or clothing needs – if the government withdraws Covid support for low-income households.

Despite unprecedented demand for charity food since lockdown – 100,000 people used food banks for the first time between April and June – the trust said ending furlough in October would trigger a rise in food bank use of at least 61% – equivalent to a year-on-year increase of 300,000 parcels.

“Our research finds that Covid-19 has led to tens of thousands of new people needing to use a food bank for the first time. This is not right. If we don’t take action now, there will be further catastrophic rises in poverty in the future,” said Emma Revie, the chief executive of the Trussell Trust.

The trust said the impact of rising unemployment on low-income families after the planned winding down of the job retention scheme raised the prospect of a significant “reshaping of the landscape of poverty, destitution and food insecurity in this country”.

Its forecasts come amid rising concern among poverty analysts and campaigners about the dire consequences of an abrupt withdrawal of furlough at the end of October, together with a failure to retain the temporary £20 a week increase in universal credit and tax credit rates due to end next April.

The trust said withdrawing the £20 a week rise, which would leave millions of people £1,040 a year worse off overnight, would increase food bank use by 10%. This follows estimates by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which said last week removal of the uplift would pull 700,000 more people into poverty.

Although the trust welcomed the £9bn Covid welfare package provided by the government since March, it said rising food bank use indicated this was not enough to support people in crisis – 43% of people referred to food banks in April had an income that was “not at a level to sustain a minimum quality of life”.

Analysis of food bank use since lockdown suggested families with children and people who identified as “black or black British” were disproportionately likely to have to use food banks. Only 4% of food bank users were furloughed – suggesting the scheme had had a positive impact on poverty levels.

The income shock experienced by millions as a result of the Covid crisis was vividly reflected in Trussell Trust’s food bank data: 56% of people referred for charity food had reported a drop in household income since early March; 32% of people using its food banks had lost their job.

The trust’s food banks reported extraordinary spikes in demand: Hammersmith and Fulham food bank in west London said it normally gave out 110 vouchers a week, but at the height of lockdown it was delivering food to 150 people a day. Caernarfon food bank said its normal referral rate of 20 people a day quadrupled on peak days.

The trust called on the government to rethink the impending cliff edge on furlough payments, lock in the £20 uplift to universal credit, and reinvest in local welfare schemes. Its forecasts were drawn up by Heriot-Watt University academics and the National Institute of Social and Economic Research.

A government spokesperson said: “We have provided £9.3bn extra welfare support to help those most in need, including increasing universal credit by up to £20 a week, as well as introducing income protection schemes, mortgage holidays and additional support for renters. Meanwhile, since mid-March we’ve supported 3.9m claims to universal credit and made 1.3m advance payments to people who could not wait.

“We have already taken steps to help ease the burden of universal credit debt repayments, including reducing the maximum deduction from 40% to 30% of a claimant’s standard allowance. From October 2021 we will reduce this further to 25%, and we will double the time available to repay an advance to 24 months.”

Author: Planning Democracy

When the Scottish Government were naming one of their latest consultations, they were hardly thinking of Clickbait. The title Housing technical consultation is not really designed to compel readers to click on the relevant link to find out more.

What it should have read was

Yikes! Four small changes that could change YOUR life!

or perhaps

You won’t believe it! Four ways to tackle the tricks of volume house builders.

Mind you the SG are ‘technically’ correct because this consultation is not for the faint hearted. It focusses on a particular policy area where you are required to have detailed understanding of both housing and planning, along with a degree in related acronyms (see poem at the end of this blog).

However, we know of several communities who can hardly be described as faint hearted, who are considering their responses. Over the years (for some it has been over 20 years), communities who live close to potential building sites that happen to be rather lucrative for house builders, have been subject to a deluge of housing applications. Many of these applications have been fought and won by developers on arguments based around housing land supply and how it is calculated.

“So what?” you may ask, “I don’t live in one of these areas, so these proposals won’t change MY life”.

Well they may not directly affect everyone but the way we plan future housing will ultimately affect us all in some way or other and these changes will help guard against the more unsustainable housing developments.

Currently house building in the UK is dominated by a small number of volume house building firms who acquire land and seek planning permission for large scale housing developments.

In fact “over the last 10 years, the top ten housebuilders have acquired over 2 million plots of development land, demonstrating the scale of their control over the residential land market in the UK” (Bob Colenutt 2020)

Indeed there is a monstrous powerful industry involved in acquiring land for housing. So we must congratulate the SG for attempting to take back control. We hope that the long term effect will encourage good quality housing developments to be built in places where they are needed and where communities want them.

Under severe pressure to deliver on crude housing targets set by the Government, it has become increasingly difficult for local authority planners to refuse planning permission, even on housing sites that they feel are not appropriate. But even if they do, many major developers pursue planning permission in a highly aggressive manner, by going to appeal after appeal until they succeed. These tactics are used on the more profitable sites, usually greenfield land in areas where people are prepared to pay a lot of money for executive luxury housing. The result is more housing sites are being granted planning permission, but not for the type of affordable housing in areas where there is housing need.

When challenging the local authority’s decisions, developer’s arguments frequently centre around local authorities not allocating enough land in their local development plans.

Local authorities are required (since 2014) to provide a 5 year supply of housing land in their development plans. How this ‘5 year effective land supply’ is actually calculated has not, until now, been specified by the Government. So local authorities allocate what they deem is enough land, only to be challenged by the likes of Homes for Scotland on the way that it has been calculated.

This is one of the reasons house builders are often successful at appeal. If a local authority has not provided enough land then their development plan is no longer considered up to date. An out of date plan triggers a rather tautological policy that gives “a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development”. Effectively this means that there is more weight given towards allowing the development to be given permission, whether or not it is actually sustainable. In this context any development is almost certain to be considered ‘sustainable’, if it adds to the housing land supply.

Local authorities are having to respond by ‘allocating’ larger and larger amounts of land for housing in order to prevent developers appealing. However, the developers have a number of tactics up their sleeves to ensure they can continue their practice of acquiring more and more land for planning permission.

Here is a quote from Gladman’s (a company who in 2014 were reported to be going after over 100 edge of town greenfield sites).

“We normally only target local authorities whose planning is in relative disarray and … either have no up-to-date local plan or, temporarily, they do not have a five-year supply of consented building plots.”

In addition to targeting local authorities with out of date plans, these developers also use their own methods of calculating housing land supply to ensure there is always a shortage, which means that the Development Plan is deemed to be “not up to date”.

Now as the impact of covid will likely affect local authority’s ability to update their local development plans there comes a risk of multiple successful appeals by developers. In addition Gladman’s have just won a landmark case putting the balance even more heavily in favour of developers who are pursuing appeals using these kind of arguments.

So, the Scottish Government have decided to try to sort out the mess, and have come up with these proposals.

The Government is likely to meet strong opposition from the developers who are still cock a hoop about their recent success in the courts. Last time the Government consulted on this it was withdrawn due to lack of agreement between parties. Presumably this means that they were in some way held to ransom by the development lobby. We desperately need to counter this, so please do respond to the consultation.

We are very happy to help.  At the end of the article we have given a basic response you can send to support the proposals.

These policies have exposed numerous communities to excessive unsustainable house building that threatens the resident’s quality of life as well as our planet. This past month we have been in contact with a number of these remarkable people, who over the years have had to figure out, not only how the system of planning in Scotland is meant to work, but how it is being abused and undermined in order to satisfy the profit margins of a bunch of wealthy businesses. They will be responding to the consultation in detail, but we need others to show support for the proposals.

For anyone affected by the issues discussed in this blog please do contact us.

Here is a brief guide to the consultation with a suggested basic response

Guide and quick response

The Common Ground Against Homelessness Share Offer with be live soon, please join ethex.org.uk to keep up to date

The recent Corona virus has demonstrated it is possible to end rooflessness. By working together, charities, the Scottish Government and local authorities have put a roof over 500 homeless people in Scotland during the pandemic. This has been made possible by the availability of empty hotel rooms, as there has been no tourists to fill them.  But what happens when the tourists come back, and the rooms can command a higher price?

Right across Scotland, individuals and businesses have responded with generosity and kindness, recognising the profound inequality which sadly exists in our society. They have moved to offer whatever is within their gift to help. In my “day job” as chief executive officer of a homelessness charity, I am often asked by people, “what can I do to help?”. It’s humbling to receive donations, and we are very grateful for them. They do so much to alleviate the misery of homelessness.  Yet the one thing that has remained beyond Rowan Alba’s, and many other charities grasp, is to be able to provide a home for life at a reasonable cost to homeless people.    Rowan Alba, has endeavoured to replicate our home for life model, Thorntree, but has been hampered by unaffordable housing costs, as have many other excellent charities.

It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. To this end, by combining the Scottish virtues of community and  canniness with money, the idea formed to encourage those of us who have the security of having a safe, warm home and a little spare money in savings , to invest in housing for homeless people.  Thus, Common Ground against Homelessness (CGAH) came into being.  Our aim is to be in solidarity with homeless people, by putting our own money into buying the bricks and mortar, which will provide a home for life.  In return, you will be offered interest on your investment, though you may not want to claim this.   You will be helping individuals, real people, like Gerry, who was street homeless for 7 years.

In getting, and keeping people off the streets, you will not only help them, but you will also save the public purse literally millions of pounds. You will be helping in a very practical, pragmatic way to end homelessness. You will be part of the solution, and your investment will ensure that CGAH has the funds to buy the properties.  But a home for life isn’t just about bricks and mortar.   CGAH will partner with charities who have the expertise to keep people off the streets, and offer the dignity, choice and security we all aspire to. Our first share offer is around the replication of Thorntree. Please read our share offer, and become part of the solution to ending homelessness.

Author: Daniel Evans, Jess Davies

Since lockdown, public interest in growing fruit and vegetables at home has soared. Seed packets are flying off shelves and allotment waiting lists are swelling, with one council receiving a 300% increase in applications. Fear of food shortages will have motivated some, but others with more time on their hands at home will have been tempted by the chance to relieve stress doing a wholesome family activity.

The seeds of enthusiasm for home-grown food may have been sown, but sustaining this is essential. Urban farming has much to offer in the wake of the pandemic. It could help communities boost the resilience of their fresh fruit and vegetable supplies, improve the health of residents and help them lead more sustainable lifestyles.

Here are four reasons why food growing should become a perennial feature in our gardens, towns and cities after COVID-19.

1. Growing greener towns and cities

More than half of the global population lives in urban areas, and this is expected to rise to 68% by 2050. For the UK, this is even higher – nine out of 10 people are expected to live in towns and cities by this time.

Weaving food growing into the fabric of urban life could bring greenery and wildlife closer to home. The COVID-19 lockdown helped reawaken interest in growing at home, but one in eight UK households have no access to a garden. Thankfully, the opportunities for urban farming extend beyond these: rooftops, walls – and even underground spaces, such as abandoned tunnels or air raid shelters, offer a range of options for expanding food production in cities while creatively redeveloping the urban environment.

Edible rooftops, walls and verges can also help reduce flood risk, provide natural cooling for buildings and streets, and help reduce air pollution.

Paris hosts the largest urban rooftop farm in Europe. EPA-EFE/Mohammed Badra

2. Resilient food supplies

Diversifying where and how we grow our food helps spread the risk of disruption to food supplies.

The UK’s reliance on imports has been growing in recent decades. Currently, 84% of fruit and 46% of vegetables consumed in the UK are imported. Brexit and COVID-19 could threaten the steady supply, while the problems created by climate change, such as water scarcity, risk disrupting imports of food from abroad.

Growing fruit and vegetables in towns and cities would help resist these shocks. The harvest labour shortages seen during the pandemic might not have been felt as keenly if urban farms were growing food right where people live.

Vertical and underground crops are more resilient to extreme weather or pests, indoor growing environments are easier to control than those in the field, and temperature and humidity is more stable underground. The high start-up costs and energy bills for this type of farming has meant that indoor farms currently produce a small number of high-value crops, such as leafy greens and herbs. But as the technology matures, the diversity of produce grown indoors will expand.

Read more: Vertical farms offer a bright future for hungry cities

3. Healthier lives

Getting out into nature and gardening can improve your mental health and physical fitness. Our research suggests that getting involved in urban food growing, or just being exposed to it in our daily lives, may also lead to healthier diets.

Urban growers may be driven to make healthier food choices for a whole range of reasons. They have greater access to fresh fruit and vegetables and getting outdoors and into nature can help reduce stress, making people less likely to make unhealthy food choices. Our study suggested that urban food growing can also help change attitudes towards food, so that people place more value in produce that’s sustainable, healthy and ethically sourced.

4. Healthier ecosystems

While urbanisation is regarded as one of the biggest threats to biodiversity, growing food in towns and cities has been shown to boost the abundance and diversity of wildlife, as well as protect their habitats.

A recent study found that community gardens and allotments act as hotspots for pollinating insects, because they tend to contain a diverse range of fruiting and native plants.

Vegetables, like this courgette, can produce flowers for pollinators to enjoy. Natakim/Shutterstock

If designed and implemented properly, allotments and community gardens can really benefit biodiversity. Not only should barren spaces be converted into green and productive plots, it’s also important that there are connections between these environments to help wildlife move between them.

Canals and cycle paths can act as these wildlife corridors. As we begin to diversify the spaces used to grow food, particularly those on our rooftops and underground, an exciting challenge will be finding novel ways of connecting them for wildlife. Green bridges have been shown to help wildlife cross busy roads – perhaps similar crossings could link rooftop gardens.

All these reasons and more should compel us to scale up food production in towns in cities. COVID-19 has given us cause to reevaluate how important local urban green spaces are to us, and what we want from our high streets, parks and pavements. Judging by the garden centre sales, allotment lists and social media, many people have decided they want more fruit and veggies in those spaces. The opportunity is there for urban planners and developers to consider what bringing farming to urban landscapes could offer.

Author: Severin Carrell, Scotland editor Guardian

The worldwide effort to combat critical levels of biodiversity loss will fail without far greater involvement from local communities, according to an international declaration.

The “Edinburgh declaration”, published on Monday, urges leaders to work more closely with sub-national governments, indigenous peoples, national parks, local councils and wider society in meeting 20 biodiversity goals set out in the Aichi accord, signed in Nagoya, Japan, 10 years ago.

Those targets were due to have been met by 2020. None of them were, leaving global biodiversity in a parlous state, the statement says.

“The current approach is bust,” said Prof Des Thompson, principal science adviser at NatureScot, Scotland’s conservation agency, which contributed to the declaration process run by the Scottish government. “What we need to do is work with local communities, local governments and local communities – that’s how we’re going to meet those targets.”

Published by the Scottish government after a series of online conferences, the declaration has been signed by a core group of local politicians and conservation bodies from Scotland, Wales, Quebec, Germany, Sweden, the Basque country in Spain, and Japan.

The document was drafted for the latest round of talks on the Convention of Biological Diversity, which had been due to take place this autumn in China but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic. It has been rescheduled for next year.

The Aichi biodiversity goals for 2020 included removing all incentives or subsidies harmful to nature; halving the rate of loss of all habitats, including forests; managing all fish stocks and aquatic plants sustainably; cutting pollution, including from farming, to sustainable levels; preventing extinctions; and properly funding all the conservation projects needed to meet the 20 goals.

The Edinburgh declaration, which will now be opened to signatories worldwide, says its supporters are “deeply concerned about the significant implications that the loss of biodiversity and climate change has on our livelihood and communities. The impacts on our environment, infrastructure, economy, health and wellbeing, and our enjoyment of nature are already visible. Indeed, the Covid-19 global pandemic has reminded us how important it is to live in harmony with nature.”

The convention on biological diversity was first opened for signature at the Earth summit in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, in 1992. Successive multilateral global conferences have made modest progress in upholding the convention’s objectives.

Thompson said Scotland was set to meet nine of the Aichi goals.

These are chiefly focused on scientific, policy-making and political capacity, but the UK is not yet meeting the targets around adequate funding on biodiversity or phasing out harmful subsidies and biodiversity loss.

Author: Luthan Press

Join Lesley Riddoch in conversation with land reform campaigner and MSP Andy Wightman to launch her new book Huts: A Place Beyond – How to End Our Exile from Nature.

Victorian visitors had shooting lodges – Scots had trips doon the watter. Norwegian citizens had hytte – Scots had Butlins. Why have the inhabitants of one of Europe’s prime tourist destinations been elbowed off the land and exiled from nature for so long?

In this book, based on her recent PhD, Lesley Riddoch relives her own bothy experience, rediscovers lost hutting communities, travels through hytte-covered Norway and suggests that thousands of humble woodland huts would give Scots a vital post-covid connection with nature and affordable, low-impact holidays in their own beautiful land – at last.

This online event is free to attend. A limited number of tickets are available via Eventbrite to attend the event on Zoom. Once you have reserved your ticket, you will be sent the link to the Zoom event via email. There will also be an opportunity to buy copies of the book from Luath Press and pre-order signed copies from the Lesley Riddoch website beforehand.

Please note that you will only need to reserve 1 ticket per device that you will be attending on. For example, 2 people attending from the same device will only need 1 ticket, 2 people attending from 2 separate devices will need 2 tickets.

The event will also be livestreamed via YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Towards the end of the event there will be a Q&A with questions selected from those attending via Zoom, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Author: Scottish Parliament

Extract from Policy Memorandum for the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill

The member’s view is that over the past century the status, powers and freedoms of local government have been slowly eroded and marginalised. Governments of all persuasions have tended to concentrate more executive and fiscal power to the centre. At the same time, whole spheres of local governance (such as Scotland’s former 196 town councils) have been eliminated.

Over the 20 years since the Scottish Parliament was established, local democracy has been neglected and Scottish Ministers have assumed greater influence over local government affairs by exerting control over local tax rates and mandating specific policy outcomes in relation to the statutory powers of local government. That this has often been facilitated by local government itself does not in any way affect the ongoing erosion of local autonomy.

This document relates to the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 70) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2020 3 9. The European Charter of Local Self-Government was designed to provide a guarantee of minimum constitutional safeguards for the status of local government across member states of the Council of Europe. As an international treaty, however, it can only have full effect in law once it is incorporated into domestic law, which is what this Bill is designed to do.

Scottish Parliament is consulting until 17^th September

Author: Glasgow University

As is the case for other sectors, the global pandemic will have significant impacts on the third sector. However, it is likely that it will disproportionately affect the third sector, just as the 2010 UK Government austerity measures did. The demand for services is ever greater in a time of need, and at the same time funding is increasingly constrained. This perfect storm will exacerbate the existing core challenges facing third sector organisations (e.g. chasing funding stream after funding stream), leaving them in a position where they can only really be reactive, unable to plan for the long term (including creating long-term strategies and writing business plans).

Universities and their campuses influence the economy, for instance via retail growth and providing skilled workers to the job market, and generally universities are important for creating prosperity in the communities they operate in. As a civic institution and as one of the largest organisations with charitable status in the city, the University of Glasgow can place greater, coordinated emphasis on its social impact; specifically with the local third sector.

The University of Glasgow’s Third Sector Knowledge Exchange Collaborative (The Collaborative), funded initially by the ESRC Impact Acceleration Account COVID-19 funding call, focuses on improving the sustainability of Glasgow’s third sector, pivotal to community resilience, as organisations adapt, recover and transform from COVID-19. The Collaborative aims to become a sustainable cross-discipline hub for pro-bono advice and expertise for Glasgow’s third sector organisations that marshal University expertise on a variety of pressing issues in all phases of their lifecycle. This project will also benefit the University of Glasgow staff members and students who participate – increasing collaborations with organisations for research development, data collection and impact, and increasing opportunities for experiential learning for students.

The Glasgow Third Sector KE Collaborative consists of a network of academics at Glasgow who have an interest in bringing their expertise to bear in solving the pressing concerns facing third sector organisations. This expertise could come in the form of business or strategic planning, HR and recruitment, social return on investment, evaluation and research, computing and digital tools, or lobbying and advocacy (to name a few). A core set of academics interested in this work would serve as key champions and advisors to the third sector organisations alongside students who work with the organisations on projects via integrated coursework modules, internships or collaborative dissertations.

The Collaborative is organised by Dr Paula Karlsson-Brown (Adam Smith Business School) and Dr Sarah Weakley (Policy Scotland), with research assistance provided by Dr Jane Cullingworth.

In collaboration with project partner, Glasgow Council for Voluntary Sector (GCVS), we aim to get an understanding of the training needs of Glasgow’s third sector during the COVID-19 crisis and recovery, thus being better able to address those needs.

In the pilot phase of this project we aim to understand these needs, build the network of academics and third sector partners and organise two workshops. This initial engagement will provide the basis for more intensive one-on-one collaboration between academics and third sector partners in 2021.

Who will benefit from the project?

Impacts for third sector participants

All of the work undertaken at the Third Sector Collaborative will be pro-bono and at no cost to the third sector organisation, and the expertise provided (including real solutions and recommendations) by the University of Glasgow will be responsive to the needs of the organisation. This engagement will be for as long as the organisation deems it necessary or as long as mutually beneficial activities are found between the organisation and academics/students.

Impacts for individual academic research and teaching

Benefits to academic research comes from working with real clients to solve problems, which can be used both as research data (e.g. action research projects) and evidencing impact of one’s research. The production and development of teaching materials (e.g. teaching case studies) can also improve by creating greater connections with third sector organisations and maintaining a close ‘touch’ with practice, increasing the ability to create an ‘applied’ experience to teaching that many students are looking for.

Impacts for students

Benefits to students include gaining experience working with real clients to solve problems, work related learning opportunities to apply course topics and skills, and building connection with potential organisations for collaborative dissertations at undergraduate or postgraduate level. Involvement with The Collaborative offers students opportunities for invaluable professional and personal development; developing all of the University of Glasgow graduate attributes; and getting fulfilment from engagement in social action.