Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Craig Dalzell, head of policy and research at Common Weal. To receive the newsletter direct to your inbox every week click here.
“NATURAL capital is our geology, soil, air, water, plants and animals.”
Remember that definition, for it is the one that the Scottish Government uses to introduce its “Market Framework for Natural Capital”, which it is consulting on at the moment.
Not content with its previous attempts to privatise nature in Scotland (see the “PFI For Trees” scandal last year and “Green Investment Portfolio” a few years before that), the Government now wants to expand the remit of potential privatisation to all aspects of natural capital: our geology, soil, air, water, plants and animals.
The principles set out by the market framework betray a government that is bending over backwards to make Scotland the easiest place to extract profits from. This isn’t hyperbole – it is said quite plainly in the documents. Yes, it says, nature should be “enhanced” by the investments, but we must also take into account “the need and expectation for a financial return on investment”. Investment should be “responsible” but the governance side of things merely carries “expectations” – which could well be read as a government willing to allow the investors to write their own governance rules.
READ MORE: National Trust Scotland urges ministers to 'save' Bannockburn battlefield
The Government promises to develop a “pipeline of investable projects” and is also going to set out “the benefits from private investment in natural capital” – which suggests that we who live on the geology, breathe the air and drink the water just don’t know how good things are going to get if we allow them to privatise the lot.
Scotland is already one of the most foreign-owned economies in the developed world and already has some of the most concentrated patterns of private land ownership in the world (according to Andy Wightman (above), the third largest landowner in Scotland is now Gresham House, a London-based asset management firm owned by New York-based investment firm Searchlight Capital).
We have a long history of public assets being “developed” by private companies (hence why the term PFI is so toxic) and campaigners around Scotland (such as those fighting to protect St Fittick's Park in Aberdeen – the last freely accessible area of greenspace in Torry – from private development) are well aware of the stakes if we allow private companies to develop Scotland’s assets for their own benefit rather than the benefit of all of us.
READ MORE: Euro 2024: The National launches charity sweepstake for summer tournament
The response to the climate crisis must go well beyond “net zero” (which, under current Scottish Government targets, is a promise that Scotland will continue to cause climate damage until 2045 and then promise to clean up exactly as much damage as we cause every year from then on without promising to fix the damage we’ve caused up till that point).
It must consider a true Green New Deal that doesn’t just consider our natural capital as a sink for carbon credits, a profitable return on private investment, a way to “achieve product diversification” (read: a way for fossil-fuel companies to greenwash their pollution) and some green points for billionaire philanthropists but as a place for all of us (including the plants and animals) to live sustainably on this planet together.
One of the questions in the consultation reveals the Government’s thinking all too clearly. Question four asks: “How should public investment work alongside and enable private investment?”
READ MORE: Subway admits new trains mean longer journey times as costs massively increase
This is, of course, entirely backwards and inside out. Public investment shouldn’t be used as an accelerator for even greater profits but should be the main driver of climate transition – potentially funded by taxing polluting companies rather than selling them carbon credits to allow them to keep polluting.
Common Weal will publish our response to this consultation ahead of the deadline on July 12 and we encourage everyone to submit their response too (you can find the “Developing a natural capital market framework” survey by clicking here) but that brings us to a final point of objection in the way the Government is handling this topic.
Regular readers will know how important government transparency is to Common Weal, as attested by our campaigns for stronger Freedom of Information laws and our highlighting of the absurd loopholes in the Lobbying Register, and that nerve was struck again in this consultation where the Government said that, unlike every other public consultation we’ve taken part in, the responses to this consultation will not be published.
Why not? My suspicion is that it doesn’t want the public to see the responses from the private investors who stand to profit from this market framework as they tell the Government how wonderful it would be if they were allowed to profit from our natural capital as they make even more money by exploiting our geology, soil, air, water, plants, animals ... and us.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here