Mobilising Private Investment in Natural Capital: EIR Review

Information requested

Original request (202400396323)

Please could the Scottish Government provide:

Q1: The tender documents for this report.

Q2: The price stated in the tender document that the Scottish Government was willing to pay for the report to the organisation(s) awarded the contract.

Q3: The actual amount paid for to the Finance Earth receiving these funds.

Q4: The names of the organisations that were contacted to make them aware that prospective contracts were available for tender.

Q5: For each report how many organisations submitted a tender, and who were these organisations?

Q6: Were these tenders advertised? If so, how was this done?

Q7: Were prospective organisations (to write the report) asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest with other organisations?

Q8: Who wrote the tender documents? Did the Scottish Government ask any third parties to draft tender documents? If so, who were these people or organisations?

Q9: Please could the Scottish Government provide all correspondence (in addition to correspondence relating to this report) to the present day between the Scottish Government and Finance Earth.

Q10: The reports appear to focus on using 'green finance' to restore nature, with references to using private capital to achieve this, asserting that public funds are inadequate to achieve the same level of nature restoration.

Q11: Please could the Scottish Government explain in as much detail as possible, including the full background and context to this report being commissioned by the Scottish Government.

Q12: A number of sources (including NatureScot) have suggested that woodland regeneration can be achieved in many areas of Scotland through a reduction in deer densities. The cost of deer culling could be met by landowners, not the public, with NatureScot enforcing penalties for non-compliance. Furthermore, regulations such as reducing sheep numbers (and excluding them from sensitive peatlands) can deliver environmental and biodiversity benefits, without the need for additional public funds.

Q13: There has been public commentary in the media and elsewhere as to if such private finance is actually needed to achieve restoration, with suggestions that better regulation of grazing and repurposing existing subsidies are sufficient for achieving the same level of nature restoration.

Q14: Has the Scottish Government commissioned any reports or attempted to commission any reports that could achieve a similar level of nature restoration by regulatory changes and repurposing existing subsidies as an alternative method to nature restoration? If not, why not? (Annex D)

Q15: The report claims on p.14 that there is a finance gap of £20 billion, with a reference to this claim being made by the Green Finance Institute (The Finance Gap for Nature, 2021). Does the Scottish Government have any evidence that this £20 billion figure is true?

Q16: Please could the Scottish Government explain why alternative or complementary policy options (such as regulations and repurposing subsidies) were ignored or not considered.

Your request for review:

The response I have received from the Scottish Government (SG) is unsatisfactory in relation to a number of questions:

Q4: I asked 'for the names of the organisations that were contacted to make them aware that the prospective contracts were available for tender'. The response did not answer my question. Did SG contact (ie by email or telephone) to make them aware of the contract available for tender? The SG has not denied this; please could you clarify with a yes or no answer.

Q14: I asked if the Sg had 'commissioned any reports or attempted to commission any reports that could achieve a similar level of nature restoration by regulatory changes and repurposing existing subsidies as an alternative method to nature restoration? If not, why not? I was given a link to a document titled ' Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045'. This document is not relevant to my question.

This document does not contain any reference to regulatory changes or repurposing subsidies that could achieve the same level of nature restoration in relation to 'Mobilising Private Capital in Private Finance'.

If the SG has not commissioned a report based on achieving a similar level of nature restoration by regulatory changes and repurposing existing subsidies as an alternative method to nature restoration, the nits answer should be 'no'. Please could the SG provide a yes or no answer. 

If the answer is 'no' to Q14, why has the SG not commissioned reports to seek alternative methods of nature restoration through regulatory changes and repurposing subsidies?

Q15: I asked the SG if it has 'evidence' that the £20 billion figure is true. The SG has provided a Parliamentary answer by Lorna Slater, referencing 'research' by the Green Finance Institute. This is a figure quoted by the Green Finance Institute and the SG has not provided the evidence (if any) underlying this figure. Please provide the original source of data from which the Green Finance obtained this figure and a breakdown of these costs.

Q16: I asked the SG why alternative or complementary policy options (such as regulations and repurposing subsidies) were ignored or not considered. My question has not been answered.

Scientific research has shown that excluding sheep and/or reducing deer numbers can enable restoration of some peatlands. Similarly, many upland areas can be restored through reducing deer numbers so that natural regeneration of trees occurs. This is achieved through regulation and reducing or repurposing existing subsidies. Research has also shown that public money is being used to degrade habitats, such as encouraging high sheep numbers and planting Sitka on valuable wildlife habitats.

The SG could commission reports by other organisations that would demonstrate methods to restore nature without 'mobilising private finance' at no extra cost to the taxpayer. Why has it not done so? To answer this question the relevant government officials need to be contacted to establish why alternative policy options were seemingly ruled out.

Response

I have now completed our review of our response to your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs).

Because you have expressed dissatisfaction with our responses to questions 4, 14, 15 and 16 I have limited my review to our answers to those questions. I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications.

Q4. “The names of the organisations that were contacted to make them aware that prospective contracts were available for tender.”

I can confirm that no organisations were contacted to make them aware that contracts were available for tender. The contract was procured by open competition following the publication of the Invitation to Tender on the Public Contracts Scotland website. Bids are scrutinised by Scottish Government Procurement Teams who will award a contract if that is the appropriate outcome.

Therefore, I am applying the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIRs to this part of your request. This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.

While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information you asked about in response to question 4, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.

Q14. “Has the Scottish Government commissioned any reports or attempted to commission any reports that could achieve a similar level of nature restoration by regulatory changes and repurposing existing subsidies as an alternative method to nature restoration? If not, why not?”

The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 Plan is a new strategy which contains over 100 actions which are currently underway or being scoped. As yet there are not any commissioned reports or attempts to commission reports that explicitly investigate whether a similar level of nature restoration could be achieved by regulatory changes and repurposing existing subsidies as an alternative method to nature restoration.

Therefore, I am applying the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIRs to this part of your request. This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.

While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information you asked about in response to question 14, clearly, we cannot provide information which we do not hold.

Additional information provided out with the EIRs

Under regulation 9 of the EIRs (our duty to provide advice and assistance) I thought that it might be helpful to explain why the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy was provided to you in our initial response. The original response to your request provided information relating to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 and the first five-year Delivery Plan which sets out the range of actions that the Scottish Government is considering for nature.

Investment in restoring and protecting Scotland’s natural environment is essential if we are to address the nature and climate emergencies at the pace and scale required. This is a public and private responsibility. We will need public and responsible private investment working well together, alongside the appropriate use of all other levers available to Scottish Government, if we are to achieve our ambitious climate change and biodiversity goals.

The first of our Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 5-year Delivery Plans works across the full range of levers that the Scottish Government has to drive change – our ability to lead and convene, legislate, regulate and invest. A systematic and evidence-based approach was used to identify the comprehensive set of actions needed to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 in the plan, and it was developed with the input of experts, scientists and key stakeholders.

The plan is comprehensive and ambitious, containing over 100 actions. While all of these are important, some will be game changers – substantially reducing deer densities, protecting 30% of land for nature and developing a nature positive agriculture programme will be transformational. These actions will dovetail with our approach to increasing responsible private investment into nature restoration, helping to ensure that public spending is used more effectively to achieve our ambitious climate change and biodiversity goals.

I attach for further information the methodology that outlines how the actions in the SBS were derived: Prioritising Actions for the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Delivery Plan – Methodology (www.gov.scot)

Q15. “The report claims on p.14 that there is a finance gap of £20 billion, with a reference to this claim being made by the Green Finance Institute (The Finance Gap for Nature, 2021). Does the Scottish Government have any evidence that this £20 billion figure is true?”

The original response provided a link to Parliamentary Question answered by the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. On review of this answer, I have concluded that it does not provide the information you requested.

I am applying the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIRs to this part of your request. This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test.’ Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.

Additional information provided out with the EIRs

Under regulation 9 of the EIRs (our duty to provide advice and assistance) we would like to provide information which may be of interest.

The original response to your request provided information relating to a Parliamentary answer from Lorna Slater which referenced research by the Green Finance Institute.

The research was undertaken as part of the Green Finance Institute’s report, ‘The Finance Gap for UK Nature’ The-Finance-Gap-for-UK-Nature-13102021.pdf (greenfinanceinstitute.com) which concluded that the finance gap to meet Scotland’s nature related outcomes was estimated to be between £15 billion and £27 billion with a central estimate of £20 billion. The figure was quoted from the Green Financial Institute report and as the original source of the information they should be approached for further information.

The report is a helpful contribution to our understanding of the gap in nature funding but is not the driver for Scottish Government’s approach.

Q16. “Please could the Scottish Government explain why alternative or complementary policy options (such as regulations and repurposing subsidies) were ignored or not considered.”

On review, I have concluded that this question was not answered by the information provided, a link to the same Parliamentary answer as was given in response to Q15 above. I have carried out additional searches and have identified an Invitation to Tender for the Provision of analysis to support an options appraisal for the agricultural reform programme that falls within the scope of this part of your request.

An exception at regulation 11(2) (personal information) applies to some of this information because it is personal data of a third party (names of individuals) and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This exception is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception.

Additional information provided out with the EIRs

Under regulation 9 of the EIRs (our duty to provide advice and assistance) we would like to provide further information which may be of interest.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment which underpins the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy highlights the measures that look at alternative approaches. The SEA assesses all actions and options in the SBS and delivery plan.

Biodiversity strategy and delivery plan: strategic environmental assessment - gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

I also attach the following report which is an example of the type of work that Scottish Government is undertaking which includes considering alternative or complementary policy options.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/deer-working-group-recommendations-scottish-governmentresponse/documents/

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

EIR 202400401391 - Information Released - Document

File type

32 page PDF

File size

377.7 kB