Download Appendix 2 – Significant Water Management

Appendix 1: Officer Response to Defra consultation on Draft Climate
Change Bill
Patrick Erwin / James Hardy
Climate Change Legislation Team
Area 4/F5
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6DE
Contact:
Direct Line:
Fax:
Email:
Jared Boow
020 7934 9951
020 7934 9950
[email protected]
Our Reference:
London Councils response to
Defra’s Climate Change Bill
consultation
Your Reference:
Date:
14 June 2007
Dear Mr Erwin/Mr Hardy
Re: Defra’s consultation on the draft Climate Change Bill.
1. London Councils is committed to fighting for resources for London and getting the
best possible deal for London’s 33 councils. Part think-tank, part lobbying
organization, and part service provider, London Councils formulates policies,
organises campaigns and runs a range of services all designed to make life
better for Londoners.
2. London Councils welcomes the opportunity to make a written submission to
Defra’s consultation on the Draft Climate Change Bill. Some overall comments
about the draft Bill are made below, and then followed by specific responses to
the questions and issues raised in Defra’s consultation document.
General comments on the Climate Change Bill:
3. London Councils welcomes the Bill and its overall thrust to commit to reducing
carbon emissions and setting up an independent committee to advise on meeting
these reduction targets. However, we feel that targets in the Bill may not be far
reaching enough, in terms of the UK meeting its required contribution to global
reductions.
4. London Councils is concerned that the practicalities of reducing emissions on the
ground will require a major role for local government, yet this has not been
addressed by the Bill, with not a single reference to local government anywhere
in the text. In addition, the proposed membership for the Climate Change
Committee does not include a role for local government.
5. The draft Bill does not take into account the effects of aviation on climate change.
Although the Kyoto Protocol excludes aviation and shipping, climate change is a
global issue and the impacts of a rapidly growing aviation sector is likely to have
a significant impact on emissions and the ability of the Government to meet its
targets.
Climate Change Bill – Appendix 1
London Councils TEC – 14 June 2007
Agenda Item 14, Page 4
6. There is no clear link made with air quality or the trade offs between climate
change and local air quality. They should be considered in tandem, with clear
reference being made to air quality in the draft Bill.
7. The Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, which will apply from
June 2007, also has implications for local authorities in relation to alleviation of
fuel poverty, promoting micro-generation and use of heat from renewables. The
draft Bill should not contradict the Act, and should rather complement it.
Defra’s consultation questions:
Targets and Budgets:
Setting statutory targets
Q1
Is the Government right to set unilaterally a long-term legal target for
reducing CO2 emissions through domestic and international action by
60% by 2050 and a further interim legal target for 2020 of 26-32%?
8. London Councils notes the main aims and purposes of the Bill, which are to bind
Government to CO2 targets in legislation, but considers the Bill needs to be
clearer regarding how these targets are to be achieved, and how in particular,
local authorities will be expected to help deliver these.
9. In addition, new scientific evidence recently reported in the national press has
suggested that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will likely need to be reduced
by 80% to avoid catastrophic climate change. The consultation document states
that: “Last year’s Stern Review of the economics of climate change stated that, in
order to achieve a stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gases at a level which
would avoid the more damaging effects of climate change, the world needs to
reduce overall emissions by about 50% (stabilising within the range of 450550ppm CO2), compared to current levels. This means industrialised countries
such as the UK reducing their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions by at
least 60%”. There is however no rationale given as to why the 60% figure is not
proposed to be higher, given it says the UK needs to reduce emissions by “…at
least 60%” (emphasis added). The Government needs to improve its rationale
for such a target to ensure it is taking into account the appropriate evidence to
begin with.
10. The Bill does provides a framework for addressing climate change issues,
creating a degree of certainty in the market, but does not stipulate how cuts in
emissions should be made or give specific reduction targets for local authorities
or individual businesses.
Q2
Is the Government right to keep under review the question of moving to
a broader system of greenhouse gas targets and budgets, and to
maintain the focus at this stage on CO2?
11. CO2 is by far the most prevalent of the GHGs emitted across the UK (over 85%
as stated in the consultation). However, as the consultation document also
states “The Kyoto protocol, as a global agreement, reflects the fact that it is the
combined effect of greenhouse gases which causes global warming, and there
may be merit in the UK taking on a wider greenhouse gas target”. Whilst the
consultation states that large reductions of other GHGs such as methane have
Climate Change Bill – Appendix 1
London Councils TEC – 14 June 2007
Agenda Item 14, Page 5
occurred and any further reductions would be costly, it would still be sensible to
keep under review on a regular basis the inclusion of all GHGs in a target, or to
even create separate reduction targets for these. Excluding methane and other
GHGs would not give the complete picture as to what the UK’s impact on global
warming is, so the Government should at the very least keep this under regular
review or set individual GHG targets, based on the costs of reducing them in
relation to their impact on our overall GHG ‘footprint’.
Carbon budgeting
Q3
Should the UK move to a system of carbon management based upon
statutory five-year carbon budgets set in secondary legislation?
12. As noted previously, local authorities need to know how Government expects
them to help achieve these targets, and whether there will be any punitive action
regarding failure to meet targets. Any time-related targets, whether annual, five
yearly etc., need to be clearly spelt out by Government, particularly with respect
to local government’s role in helping to achieve these. Any changes within the
Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) framework that contain a focus
on climate change will also have impacts on local authorities, and therefore need
to be clearly spelt out in the Bill.
13. Five year carbon budget plans are quite long and may contribute to targets being
missed at the end of a five year term. Annual carbon budgets could be more
effective and can be monitored more closely. The same principle of ‘banking’
and ‘carrying forward’ carbon reductions being suggested for the five year
budgets can be applied to annual targets.
Q4
Do you agree there should be at least three budget periods in statute at
any one time?
14. As per the above, there should be at the very least, three budget periods, as this
equates to one per five year block. As suggested above however, a shorter time
period could be more effective, to ensure the Government keeps track of its 60%
CO2 reduction commitment. Since the goal is to reduce emissions by 26-32% by
2020, five yearly targets might be too long- a new Government for example,
might inherit the need for reductions of up to 11% in a single five year block if the
previous five years’ targets failed and no action had been taken during that
period.
Reviewing targets and budgets
Q5
Do you agree there should be a power to review targets through
secondary legislation, to ensure there is sufficient flexibility in the
system?
15. If the purpose of the Bill is to set statutory targets, details of any such flexibility as
suggested above should be built into the primary legislation. The ability to review
targets through secondary legislation would appear to allow Government to
‘move the goalposts’ at a later date and therefore compromise the whole purpose
of the Bill from the outset. The Government needs to set clear robust targets that
local government, business and other stakeholders can work towards meeting.
Whilst some flexibility is necessary, due to changing scientific understanding of
climate change and the emerging technologies that are appearing to deal with it,
Climate Change Bill – Appendix 1
London Councils TEC – 14 June 2007
Agenda Item 14, Page 6
any secondary legislation should not also be used to water down targets if and
when Government fails to meet them.
Q6
Are there any factors in addition to, or instead of, those already set out
that should enable a review of targets and budgets?
16. No comments.
Counting overseas credits towards the budgets and targets
Q7
Do you agree that, in line with the analysis in the Stern Review and with
the operation of the Kyoto Protocol and EU ETS, effort purchased by the
UK from other countries should be eligible in contributing towards UK
emissions reductions, within the limits set under international law?
17. No comments.
Banking
Q8
Do you agree it should be permissible to carry over any surplus in the
budget? Are there any specific circumstances where you consider this
provision should be withdrawn?
18. London Councils has no objection to the concept of banking surplus emissions
savings if it meets similar requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
Borrowing
Q9
Do you agree that limited borrowing between budget periods should be
allowed?
19. London Councils agrees that limited borrowing between periods should be
allowed along the lines outlined in the consultation.
Compliance with carbon budgets and targets
Q10 Is it right that the Government should have a legal duty to stay within
the limits of its carbon budgets?
20. London Councils are keen to ensure that the consequences of failing to meet
targets are clearly set out in the Bill, as well as who those consequences are
directed at.
The Committee on Climate Change:
The need for an independent analytical organisation
Q11 Do you agree that establishing an independent body will improve the
institutional framework for managing carbon in the economy?
21. Yes, but conditional on taking into account our concerns raised regarding the
functions and membership of such a committee.
Climate Change Bill – Appendix 1
London Councils TEC – 14 June 2007
Agenda Item 14, Page 7
Functions of the Committee on Climate Change
Q12 Do you agree that the Committee on Climate Change should have an
advisory function regarding the pathway to 2050?
22. Yes, if the Committee on Climate Change is independent from Government, it
should be allowed to have an advisory function regarding the pathway to 2050.
23. Current reporting requirements on local government over a range of issues are
already quite onerous. Therefore, if the Committee requires reporting/monitoring
from local government, it would be helpful to build this into existing processes or
at least to keep them within similar methodologies to those of existing ones to
avoid any additional bureaucracy. Any further requirements on local government
will also need to be appropriately resourced.
Q13
Do you agree with the proposal that the Committee on Climate Change
should have a strongly analytical role?
24. It is important to have technical expertise on this committee. London Councils is
however concerned that the suggested membership of the committee does not
include membership from any local government organisations (see also Q15
below). London Councils believes that local government will be responsible for a
considerable part of the implementation of the Bill’s targets, and, due to the role
of local authorities as a tier of Government, that they are more than just ‘ordinary
stakeholders’. We therefore believe that there should be a place on the
committee to harness the expertise, and represent the concerns and viewpoints
of local government.
Factors for the Committee on Climate Change to consider
Q14 Are these the right factors for the Committee on Climate Change to take
into account in assessing the emissions reduction pathway? Do you
consider there are further factors that the Committee should take into
account?
25. Within energy policy, the committee needs to address how decentralised energy
and the renewable energy sector can be supported nationally. A possible ‘further
factor’ could be a monitoring role, in terms of identifying any key reasons for
targets being missed.
Membership and composition
Q15 Do you agree the Committee on Climate Change should be comprised of
technical experts rather than representatives of stakeholder groups?
26. Whilst understanding the role of the committee as being a more technical one
and not a policy vehicle for debating various stakeholders’ interests, London
Councils believes that the inclusion of the role of local government is critical for
the Climate Change Bill to achieve its aims. Local authorities will be one of the
key stakeholders responsible for enabling the Government to reach proposed
targets. However, the Bill completely omits the role of local government. Local
authorities are significant land, building and vehicle owners, as well as major
service providers and procurers of products and services. For the Government to
achieve its ambitious GHG reduction targets, it needs to provide more certainty to
Climate Change Bill – Appendix 1
London Councils TEC – 14 June 2007
Agenda Item 14, Page 8
local government, as one of the main delivery agents of Government policy, as to
what local authorities will be expected to achieve.
27. Many local authorities have taken the lead on this issue to date, whether it be
through switching electricity supply to green energy providers, introducing new
fleet vehicles with the cleanest engines, or setting local planning requirements to
reduce carbon emissions. The lack of acknowledgement of this innovative lead
from local authorities fails to recognise the role of local leadership in the efforts to
combat climate change. Support from the Government for this progressive
approach on the issue can only assist local government in continuing to push
ahead with policies and initiatives that will help achieve these targets.
28. Local government finances are also already very constrained. Therefore, any
significant new administrative or compliance role for local authorities needs to be
appropriately resourced.
Q16
Are these the appropriate areas of expertise which should be
considered? Do you consider there are further areas that should be
considered or any areas that are less important?
29. The areas of expertise listed are appropriate. However, as stated above,
expertise at the local government level (being a significant service provider and
implementer of central Government policy across a wide range of topic areas)
should be included.
Enabling Powers:
Extending the suite of domestic trading schemes
Q17 Do you agree with the principle of taking enabling powers to introduce
new trading schemes?
30. No comments.
Benefits and structure of enabling powers
Q18 Do you consider that these powers are sufficient to introduce effective
new policies via secondary legislation? If not, what changes would you
make?
31. The nature and extent of the enabling powers must be clearly spelt out and
consulted on separately.
Reporting:
The need for regular, independent monitoring of the UK’s progress
Q19 Do you agree that the Committee on Climate Change should be
responsible for an independent annual report on the UK’s progress
towards its targets which would incorporate reporting on a completed
budget period every five years?
32. As per earlier comments regarding budget periods, an annual report is essential,
especially if there are five year periods, to ensure the Government is on track to
meet its own targets.
Climate Change Bill – Appendix 1
London Councils TEC – 14 June 2007
Agenda Item 14, Page 9
Adaptation
Q20 Is statutory reporting the best way to drive forward progress on
adaptation while at the same time ensuring Government is able to
develop flexible and appropriate measures reflecting developments in
key policy areas?
33. The proposals regarding adaptation do not go far enough. Adaptation has often
been the ‘poor cousin’ to mitigation, yet the future risks to human health,
biodiversity, property, and infrastructure are becoming increasingly apparent. A
‘quinquennial’ review of adaptation needs may not be often enough to keep up
with the dynamic changes that are occurring in both climate science and the
actual on-the-ground effects that are becoming apparent. New house building,
infrastructure provision etc. needs to be adaptable to future climate conditions. In
London, the pace of change within Government and Mayoral policy alone (such
as London Plan requirements, changing building regulations, the ‘Code for
Sustainable Homes’ etc.) suggests that a five-yearly progress report is too long a
time frame.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Lester
Director, Transport, Environment and Planning
London Councils
Climate Change Bill – Appendix 1
London Councils TEC – 14 June 2007
Agenda Item 14, Page 10