Food for thought: is Covid-19 a watershed moment in the fight against food waste?

Image by OpenIDUser2 via GFDL

Image by OpenIDUser2 via GFDL

Much has been said about the reduced air pollution levels during the coronavirus lockdown as a result of the drastic reduction in travel but what about the impact other sectors are having as a result of recent changes? With eating out not currently an option, more of us are tucking in to takeaways as an alternative, which has had an impact on food waste.

Food waste in restaurants rises but waste at home is on a downward trend

New research released by Just Eat and the Sustainable Restaurant Association (SRA) has found that “fluctuations in demand and unpredictable ordering patterns” have led to a slight increase in food waste generated in takeaway restaurants during lockdown. According to the analysis, food waste from restaurants has risen from an average of £111 to £148 per week per restaurant. This means food waste has increased from 9% of all waste to 10%, since pre-lockdown – which equates to a £16.7m rise for the sector as a whole during lockdown.

As well as the variations in demand and unpredictability of ordering patterns, the survey found that disrupted supply chain and business models also had an impact on waste. Almost half (45%) of the restaurants surveyed said they throw most food waste in the bin, which is not good news for the UN target of halving global food waste by 2030.

On the flip side, however, consumers have seemingly become more aware of the food they waste at home and are now wasting less of their takeaway, down from 9% on average to 7.2%. The research estimates that, as a result, households have saved an average of £3.2 million per week during lockdown which adds up to £22.4 million all together.

Over half (59%) of consumers say that they have a greater oversight over how much food is wasted since Covid-19. And there is also agreement that food shortages have heightened awareness of food waste, with 84% agreeing that: “Stockpiling and empty supermarket shelves showed me how important it is to make the most of what we have”.

Changing behaviours and attitudes to food waste

Another recent survey conducted by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) of more than 4,000 participants found that almost a third of consumers said they were cooking more creatively while staying at home, while 30% have started saving leftovers. As a result of these new behaviours, the research shows that the public are throwing away a third less in food waste when compared to the average across 2018-2019, across four key products – bread, milk, potatoes and chicken.

Other changes in consumer behaviour and attitudes during lockdown, highlighted by the research include that:

  • 63% are shopping less often
  • 59% are buying more to create more meals at home
  • there has been a shift to more fresh produce and long-life products and less pre-cut veg, salad packs and ready meals
  • almost half (47%) are checking their cupboards more often before shopping, and 45% their fridge
  • 37% have been organising the food in their cupboards and the fridge
  • around 9 in 10 agree that “food waste is an important national issue” (87%) and that “everyone, including me, has a responsibility to minimise the food we throw away” (92%)

This shows there has been a small but significant change in attitudes towards food waste, according to WRAP, as this represents a 23% increase since November 2019 in the number of citizens that strongly agree with the above two statements.

Sustaining such behaviour and attitudes post-lockdown could certainly help in the fight against food waste, something the UK is already on target with.

Progress in reducing food waste

Indeed, before the current crisis, the UK had been making good progress in reducing food waste according to data from WRAP, with total levels falling by 480,000 tonnes between 2015 and 2018 – the equivalent of 7% per person and a reduction in emissions of 7.1 million tonnes CO2e.

The data shows there was a 27% reduction in food waste between 2007 and 2018, which has saved 1.7 million tonnes of food waste, equal to £4.7 billion. There was also an increase in the number of people that see food waste as an issue, rising from 26% in 2015 to 69% in 2019.

It is clear from the figures that we are moving in the right direction to meet both national and international targets on food waste, and that the current crisis has accelerated this, at least in the short term.

Final thoughts

It has been suggested that the current health crisis could perhaps be a catalyst for lasting air quality improvements. Could it also be a catalyst for a food waste revolution? The report from WRAP suggests it could be:

“This could be a watershed moment in the fight against food waste. There is a unique opportunity to embed these good habits into a ‘new normal’ – a culture which values food and reaps the maximum benefit from it. This makes good financial sense, at a time of economic uncertainty, but will also deliver significant benefits for the planet.”

Of course, the report also acknowledges that there are a range of behaviours that may require some level of support post-lockdown (particularly when citizens once again are more time-pressured). Similarly to the issue of air pollution, there will be a need to maintain certain changes and for new ways of thinking around tackling climate change across sectors when we once again shift focus back to the enduring climate emergency.

One thing is for sure, while we may begin to breathe more easily in the UK’s urban areas, it is no time to take our eye off the ball when it comes to tackling carbon emissions.


If you enjoyed reading this, you may be interested in some of our other recent posts related to food waste:

Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team.

‘Veganuary’ – could a plant-based lifestyle really save the planet?

As we leave behind the indulgences of the festive period, an increasing number of people are signing up to ‘Veganuary’, a campaign encouraging people to try vegan for the month of January and beyond. Already, the campaign has reached its target of 350,000 participants as it continues to grow in popularity; increasing its support every year since its launch in 2014.

Participants sign up for a number of reasons, with major drivers being health, animal welfare and the environment. It’s perhaps no surprise that health is a major driver, given the time of year, but increasingly people are turning away from animal products in a bid to help protect the planet.

Indeed, animal agriculture is a huge contributor to climate change and while it hasn’t received the same attention as others such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transport, it is now receiving increasing media coverage.

Impact of animal agriculture

“The food industry is destroying the living world”. These were the words of environmental journalist George Monbiot, also a supporter of Veganuary, in the recent Channel 4 documentary Apocalypse Cow: How Meat Killed the Planet.

With the increasing population, there has been much discussion in recent years of the effects of urban sprawl and how to tackle this, but Monbiot suggests that attention should be turned to ‘agricultural sprawl’, which he asserts is a much bigger cause of habitat destruction. While ambling through the indisputably scenic Lake District, he describes the landscape as a “sheep-wrecked desert”, which was once home to a rich mosaic of trees, shrubs, plants and animals.

It is also noted that while deforestation in the Amazon is a topic of much current discussion and concern, Britain is actually one of the most deforested landscapes in the world, with agriculture one of the biggest drivers.

The documentary highlights that 51% of land in the UK is currently used for livestock or growing food for livestock, while less than 20% is used for growing cereals, fruit and vegetables for human consumption, and just 10% is used for trees – the one thing that is “essential for both nourishing living systems and preventing climate breakdown”.

Agriculture is responsible for 10% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the UK and 10-12% of emissions globally; the fourth highest GHG emitting sector in the world.

Monbiot makes a radical suggestion that all farming could be eradicated in the future as we look to other sources of food and more sustainable practices. This may be somewhat extreme and undoubtedly something with which the farming community would disagree.

Nevertheless, the extent of the current climate crisis warrants drastic measures and as one of the largest contributors, it would make sense for action to be taken to reduce the impact agriculture currently has.  And it has been argued that a change in diet is the easiest and fastest way to reduce our own personal emissions.

Impact of reduced meat consumption

According to calculations based on the current Veganuary participation figures, 31 days of a vegan diet for 350,000 people would equate to the following savings:

  • 41,200 tonnes of CO2 equivalent from the atmosphere – the same as 450,000 flights from London to Berlin;
  • 160 tonnes of PO43 equivalent (eutrophication) from waterways – the same as preventing 650 tonnes of sewage from entering waterways; and
  • 5 million litres of water, which is enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

In addition, it is suggested that 1 million animals could be saved.

Analysis of the Veganuary 2019 campaign results by Kantar suggests that going vegan for January also leads to sustained meat reduction. Drawing on data from January to June 2019, it was found that there was a sustained reduction in consumption which is estimated to have saved approximately 3.6 million animals in Britain alone.

Still just 3% of the population identify as vegan according to Kantar. Nevertheless, those who participated in Veganuary but did not stay vegan beyond January, did maintain reduced consumption levels at least until July, suggesting a long-term impact on consumption habits.

With increasing numbers pledging their support to Veganuary each year and the resulting reductions in sales of red meat, it would seem that reducing meat consumption may well be a way forward.

Indeed, the United Nations (UN) has also emphasised the need for significant changes in global land use, agriculture and human diets. The UN-commissioned special report on climate change and land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, “present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health”. By 2050, it suggests that dietary changes could free several million km2 of land and considerably reduce CO2 emissions.

Final thoughts

The ‘Veganuary effect’ has clearly been significant and one that sees no sign of dissipating any time soon.

Of course, changing diets isn’t the only way to reduce the environmental impact of food production. Reducing food waste and changing farming and land management practices can also help reduce emissions. The IPCC report also calls for an end to deforestation, the planting of new forests and support to small farmers. It does not call for an end to all farming.

So while we wait for the many governments to take meaningful action on climate change, perhaps picking up our knives and forks as the weapon of choice against the climate crisis is an effective way of making a difference now.


If you enjoyed this post, you may also like some of our other posts related to the environment and climate change:

Follow us on Twitter to see what topics are interesting our research team.

Rivers are changing all the time, and it affects their capacity to contain floods

Houses alongside the Saigon river in Vietnam. Tony La Hoang/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

This guest post was written by: Louise Slater, University of Oxford; Abdou Khouakhi, Loughborough University, and Robert Wilby, Loughborough University.

The rainfall that has inundated the North of England is the latest in a long line of flood events that are becoming the country’s new normal. Indeed, across the world, flooding is expected to become more frequent and more extreme as the planet heats up.

Building robust flood defences and modelling vulnerable areas is crucial if we are to avoid loss of life and livelihoods from these devastating weather events. But our new research reveals that the capacity of rivers to keep water flowing within their banks can change quickly – and in failing to acknowledge this, some flood models and defences may be under-equipped to deal with the consequences when they do.

Many assume that flooding is due to heavy rainfall. This is true, but only part of the explanation. Floods also occur when the amount of water running off the land exceeds the capacity of rivers to carry that flow – as was the case when the River Don breached flood defences in the Sheffield area recently. So, floods are partly caused by the amount of rain falling, partly by the moisture that is already in the ground, and partly by the capacity of rivers to contain water within their channels.

This means that if the capacities of river channels change, then two identical rainfall events falling on similarly wet ground can cause flooding of very different severity.

Most rivers are forever changing. They are shaped by the sediments and water they carry. Humans have modified most of the world’s rivers in some way. In some cases this is through direct influence, such as dam construction or river engineering. Other influences are indirect – building on nearby land reduces the capacity of ground to absorb water, agriculture draws water from rivers, and deforestation leaves more water to flow elsewhere.

After the River Don burst its banks in places, multiple roads in urban centres such as Rotherham flooded. DnG Photography/Shutterstock

Rivers respond to changes in climate as well. During drier periods, less water flows through river systems. This means that there is often less energy to move the sediments at their beds, so riverbed levels may progressively rise, decreasing the capacity of the river. Abundant plant growth within the channel can also reduce a river channel’s capacity by slowing the flow.

But it is not always easy to predict how rivers will change. Extreme shifts in channel shape and capacity can occur very rapidly. After a recent flash flood in Spain, one river rose almost a metre as huge volumes of sediment from upstream were displaced and dumped further along. In tropical river systems, which tend to carry more sediment than temperate rivers, these changes can be several metres.

Uncertain risk

Unfortunately, such changes are typically ignored by flood engineers and modellers, who generally treat the channel as a fixed feature. If rivers actually change their capacity in space and time, then estimates of flood probability may be incorrect, putting people and property at risk.

Motivated by these concerns, we investigated the pace at which channel changes occur, and to what extent these alterations might be driven by climate. We began with a simple conceptual model: climate controls rainfall, rainfall affects river flow, and river flow shapes channel capacity.

Direct observations of this link were lacking in river systems over short timescales. So, we took 10,000 measurements of the capacity of 67 rivers in the US, covering a period of nearly 70 years. We also gathered rainfall and river flow data, to assess how climatic changes affected the capacity of the rivers.

We discovered that temporary shifts in river capacity, lasting years to decades, were far more frequent than had previously been assumed. Overall, river capacity tends to increase during periods that are wetter than average due to greater erosion of river channels, and decrease in drier periods.

The flood-prone Ganges river is a lifeline to millions who live along its course. Joachim Bago/ Shutterstock

We also found that multi-year climate cycles that affect regional precipitation patterns – such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation – can cause channel capacity to expand and contract too, perhaps on a global scale. Armed with this knowledge, we may eventually be able to predict how the capacity of rivers changes, and hence better understand flood risk.

In temperate regions such as the UK, where rivers tend to be vegetated, heavily engineered and relatively stable, delicate changes in channel capacity are hard to detect and unlikely to be life threatening. However, in river systems that carry high volumes of sediment, or in parts of the world where rainfall varies considerably during the year, sudden reductions in river capacity may dramatically increase flood risk for nearby settlements. For example, the Ganges-Brahmaputra river in India and Bangladesh falls under this category. Its capacity is already changing, and its floodplains are some of most densely populated in the world.

Unfortunately, we still have very poor understanding of the nature and causes of channel capacity changes in most regions – and it is the most at-risk places that tend to have the least data. To better understand what’s happening, we need to use satellite imagery to monitor how fast rivers are responding to changes in the climate. What we can’t yet do though is monitor river adjustment in real time. Developing technologies that do this would greatly improve our understanding of how changes in river shape and capacity affect flood risk across the world.

Until this information becomes apparent, flood models and defence structures should build this uncertain risk into their designs. Doing so could make all the difference for those living in vulnerable areas.


Louise Slater, Associate Professor in Physical Geography, University of Oxford; Abdou Khouakhi, Research Associate, Climate and Weather Data Analysis, Loughborough University, and Robert Wilby, Professor of Hydroclimatic Modelling, Loughborough University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Further reading from our blog:

Future proofing Scotland’s road network

How can we ensure Scotland’s roads are fit for the future? That was the challenging question facing a panel of experts at this year’s Traffex Scotland exhibition. The exhibition – held for the first time at the SEC in Glasgow – attracted a large number of contractors, consultants, manufacturers and suppliers involved in the design, management and maintenance of Scotland’s roads and bridges.

Future-proofing the roads network was one of several seminars at the exhibition covering highway maintenance and development. The speakers on the panel were: Eddie Ross and Andy Thomson from BEAR Scotland (which maintains Scotland’s roads), Mark Arndt from Amey (a leading supplier of consulting and infrastructure support services both in the UK and internationally) and Evan Ferguson from Scotland Transerv (which manages and maintains more than 600 kilometres of trunk road and motorway network across South West Scotland).

The panel highlighted the challenges facing road maintenance engineers in assessing the current state of Scotland’s road network, and agreed that one of the key factors driving successful future development was to gain an understanding of the travel habits of the future. Gathering and sharing data will form the backbone of this understanding, enabling traffic managers to model, monitor and control the effects of travel as well as reducing congestion.

But the basics of road maintenance will always apply. Scotland has a diverse road network, and while trunk roads in the north of the country are often single carriage, requiring considerable improvements, elsewhere the challenges relate to capacity. Maintaining those roads, developing them for the future and ensuring minimum disruption to travellers and the economy are all exercising the minds of traffic engineers.

The climate and the weather are also important drivers of change. The panel wholeheartedly agreed that water is the road engineer’s enemy, and the increasingly wet weather experienced by Scotland can often lead to disruption for travellers.

The Scottish Government’s recent consultation on its National Transport Strategy highlighted extreme weather events, such as 2018’s “Beast from the East”, which cost the UK economy at least £1 billion per day as gridlocked roads, along with no trains and no buses meant many workers were unable to access employment.

The Traffex panel welcomed the National Transport Strategy as a good first step in future-proofing Scotland’s roads network. It highlights the need to enhance the resilience of the transport network, to enable new transport projects and policies to deal effectively with the predicted changes in climate and to adapt existing networks to allow for increased rainfall and extreme temperatures.

The panel also discussed some of the technological advances that are set to revolutionise travel patterns in the coming years. One notable development is the emergence of autonomous vehicles (AVs).

AVs need roads without impediments, and therefore need clear and well-maintained road surfaces, as well as road markings that are kept at high standards. At the same time, the ways in which AVs use roads may be different from conventional traffic, and this will have significant effects on the resilience of road surfaces.

Electric vehicles also herald profound changes to our roads, with implications for road pricing and infrastructure.

With only 20 minutes to cover the future of Scotland’s roads, the panel had their work cut out. But they ended, as they began, by stressing the need to understand the travel habits of the future. There was widespread agreement that the travelling public will be open to innovations such as AVs and electric vehicles, but will also expect improvements in connectivity options, including cycling and public transport.

Our road engineers will have a vital role to play in maintaining the roads network, while being flexible and open to new developments to keep Scotland moving.


Idox Transport delivers bespoke, cost-effective solutions to support strategic and localised transport control. Innovative services and solutions enable complete management across all forms of transport, supporting the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles – whatever the end goal. To find out more, please contact the Transport team at transport@idoxgroup.com

Lessons from Norway: Deposit Return Scheme

by Scott Faulds

Last year, following the screening of the BBC’s Blue Planet II, the issue of single-use plastic and its effect on the ecosystem rose to the forefront of the public’s mind. Research conducted by Waitrose & Partners found that 88% of people who watched Blue Planet have now changed the way they use plastics, with 60% of viewers now likely to use a refillable water bottle. The “blue planet effect” has even influenced the work of various legislatures, with the introduction of new laws designed to ban single-use plastic in the Scottish Government, UK Government and European Commission. Additionally, both the Scottish and UK Governments have been looking into ways to reduce use of single-use plastics through the introduction of what is known as a deposit return scheme (DRS).

What is a deposit return scheme?

The basis of a DRS is relatively simple: when you purchase a drink in a single-use container you pay a nominal fee as a deposit. On returning the container you receive your deposit back. The Scottish Government have recently announced that they have set the deposit for their scheme at 20p. DRSs have been successfully operating across the world for several years and are particularly common in the Nordic countries, where container return rates are between 88% to 96%. However, whilst the basis of the DRS is often the same, each country has a different set of operating criteria that determines which single-use containers can participate in the scheme, the level of deposit and the places where people can return their single-use containers.

The Norwegian Model

The most effective DRS in the world can be found in Norway, colloquially known as “panting”, which has been in operation since the early 2000s. 97% of all plastic drink bottles are returned and less than 1% of all plastic bottles sold in Norway end up in the environment. Most impressively, it is estimated that 92% of all plastic bottles returned are recycled back into plastic bottles, with the chief executive of Infinitum (the private, not-for-profit, operator of the DRS owned by retailers and producers) estimating that some bottles have already been recycled more than fifty times.

Within the Norwegian model, the legislation underpinning the scheme is a single page, with the industry owned body Infinitum entrusted to decide how best to operate the DRS. Infinitum is incentivized to make the scheme as efficient as possible due to an environmental tax placed on all producers of plastic bottles, which is lifted if 95% of all single-use containers are returned.

The Norwegian scheme accepts all polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and aluminium containers if packaging has been designed in line with Infinitum’s guidelines, which ensures that all containers entering the scheme are able to be easily recycled. These guidelines are fundamental to ensure the circular nature of the scheme. For example, it is critical that labels attached to bottles are easily removed without leaving any residue which could inhibit their ability to be recycled.  The level of deposit charged varies, with all aluminium and small PET containers set at 2kr (17p) and large (500ml+) PET containers at 3kr (26p). All retailers that sell beverages eligible for the scheme are required to act as a collection point, either via reverse vending machines or as a manual collection point. Additionally, it is also possible for schools/charities to act as manual collection points, which enables them to collect additional revenue. Reverse vending machines also feature an option for the deposit to be donated to the Norwegian Red Cross.

In short, the design of the Norwegian DRS has largely been left in the hands of the industry itself, who are incentivised to ensure it operates effectively in order to receive a tax reduction. This has enabled the creation of a truly circular system where everything from the design of the packaging itself to how containers are collected has been meticulously planned. The statistics speak for themselves:  with 97% of all plastic drink containers returned and 92% of these containers then re-purposed into new containers, it is fair to say that Norway’s DRS is world leading.

Lessons to Learn

With both the Scottish and UK governments at various stages in their development of a DRS, there are some lessons to be learned from the successful scheme operated in Norway.

Both governments could look at how best to ensure industry engagement when implementing their DRSs. Encouraging citizens to recycle more is unquestionably a good thing for a responsible government to do. However, containers returned can only be recycled if industry is engaged and able to make appropriate changes to their containers to ensure they are as recyclable as possible when returned.

Additionally, it will be important to ensure that there is enough infrastructure in place to allow people to return their single-use containers. This will be of particular significance to more rural areas of the country. Both governments could consider how Norway dealt with this issue, where any business which sells items eligible for the DRS must also act as a collection point. Furthermore, both governments could consider if it is viable to enable schools and charities to act as manual collection points, allowing citizens to donate their deposit to worthy causes. This will provide citizens with options in how they wish to make use of their deposit whilst also providing additional collection infrastructure.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, it is evident that Norway operates the most effective DRS in the world, with over 95% of all plastic and aluminium containers recycled via the scheme. Both the Scottish and UK governments would be wise to look at what lessons can be learned from Norway when designing DRSs which will help to tackle the climate emergency. As shown by the experience of Norway, the most effective DRSs are more than just recycling, they are entire system changes.


Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

Further reading from The Knowledge Exchange blog on recycling and climate change:

A rising tide: the growing importance of the blue economy

Wild Surf

There has been much focus on the green economy in recent times as the international community attempts to address the current ‘climate emergency’. According to the United Nations (UN), “an inclusive green economy is one that improves human well-being and builds social equity while reducing environmental risks and scarcities.” Over the past decade, many governments have highlighted the green economy as a strategic priority, and since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C in 2018, action has been stepped up across the globe.

However, green economy strategies tend to focus on the sectors of energy, transport, agriculture and forestry, which leaves out an important part of the world’s environment – the oceans. It has been argued that “a worldwide transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient green economy will not be possible unless the seas and oceans are a key part of these urgently needed transformations”.

Perhaps unsurprisingly then, a new buzzword in the international sustainability agenda is gaining momentum – the ‘blue economy’. Since the turn of the 21st Century, there has been an increasing commitment to growing the blue economy but what exactly is it and why is it important?

What is the blue economy?

Similarly to the green economy, there is no internationally agreed definition of the blue economy. Its origins stem from the Rio+20 outcomes whereby member states of the UN pledged to ‘protect, and restore, the health, productivity and resilience of oceans and marine ecosystems, to maintain their biodiversity, enabling their conservation and sustainable use for present and future generations.’

It is further explained through the UN General Assembly support for Sustainable Development Goal 14: ‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’ as set out in the UN’s 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

Various definitions have been used by different agencies.

According to the World Bank, the blue economy is the “sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and jobs, and ocean ecosystem health.”

Conservation International has suggested that, “at its simplest, ‘blue economy’ refers to the range of economic uses of ocean and coastal resources — such as energy, shipping, fisheries, aquaculture, mining, and tourism. It also includes economic benefits that may not be marketed, such as carbon storage, coastal protection, cultural values and biodiversity.”

Like the green economy, the blue economy model aims for improvement of human wellbeing and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.

Why the blue economy is so important?

Clearly, ocean health is vital to the blue economy. With over 70% of the world’s surface covered by ocean, almost half of the world’s population living in close proximity to the sea, the majority of all large cities being located along the coast and 90% of global economic trade travelling by sea, it is not difficult to see why the ocean and its resources are seen as increasingly important for both sustainable and economic development.

It is also a source of food, jobs and water, and contributes to the protection of the environment by absorbing carbon dioxide emissions. It has been estimated that the global blue economy has an annual turnover of between US$3 and 6 trillion and is expected to double by 2030. It is also estimated that fisheries and aquaculture contribute $US100 billion annually and about 260 million jobs to the global economy. In addition, over 3 billion people around the world, mostly from developing countries, rely on the world’s oceans and seas for their livelihood.

It is therefore not surprising that ocean pollution and the threat to marine resources have ascended the sustainability agenda in recent years, attracting increasing global attention and high-profile interest.

Sir David Attenborough’s popular Blue Planet II series highlighted the devastating impact pollution is having on the world’s oceans. It led to drastic behaviour change – 88% of people who watched the programme reported having changed their behaviour as a result, with half saying they had “drastically changed” their behaviour, and half saying they had “somewhat changed” it.

The recently heightened concerns over climate change have also highlighted the importance of the blue economy. The IPCC report warned that coral reefs would decline by 70-90% with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99%) would be lost with 2ºC.

Momentum building

Governments and organisations from across the world have been taking action to address the climate emergency with many strengthening commitments to growing the blue economy in particular.

The first ever global conference on the sustainable blue economy was held last year. It concluded with hundreds of pledges to advance a sustainable blue economy, including 62 commitments related to: marine protection; plastics and waste management; maritime safety and security; fisheries development; financing; infrastructure; biodiversity and climate change; technical assistance and capacity building; private sector support; and partnerships.

A new High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy was also established in September, the first time serving heads of government have joined forces on a global pact to protect the world’s oceans.

The UN’s Decade for Ocean Science (2021-2030) will also soon be upon us and the World Trade Organisation has been tasked with ending harmful fisheries subsidies by 2020. New approaches are also helping countries value their small-scale fisheries. Scotland’s economic action plan, for example, makes a specific commitment to grow the blue economy which includes a new, world-leading approach to fisheries management with a focus on inclusive economic growth.

Way forward

The increasing awareness of the blue economy and the threats it currently faces provide an opportunity to change things for the better. As the global conference on the sustainable blue economy suggested, a sustainable blue economy strategy needs to be people-centric with ocean-centric investments. If momentum keeps building towards growing the blue economy across the globe, perhaps this will go some way to mitigating the global climate emergency bringing benefits for all.


Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research officers and keep up to date with our latest blogs

Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference 2019 open for bookings

We’re pleased to announce that 2019’s Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference is returning to Edinburgh on Thursday 19 September, and the programme has now been released.

This flagship conference always attracts a knowledgeable audience from the planning and legal professions, with a focus on quality discussion and debate.

The focus this year is on two main themes: the approach to housing, land value and infrastructure delivery, and the impact of the community empowerment agenda in Scotland. With the Planning (Scotland) Act finally having received Royal Assent on 25 July, we’ll also be looking at what to expect next, including a review of the National Planning Framework. And as usual, there will also be the popular sessions on recent case law.

Conference programme

The programme features a wide range of speakers, bringing perspectives from the private sector, local government planning, academia and central government to bear on the issues. The chair for this year will be James Findlay QC.

The conference is an excellent opportunity for solicitors and planners to refresh their knowledge of recent changes in planning and environmental law, as well as providing time for quality networking.

Confirmed speakers and panel members this year include:

  • Mark Lazarowicz, Terra Firma Chambers
  • Shona Glenn, Head of Policy & Research, Scottish Land Commission
  • Dr Mark Robertson, Managing Partner, Ryden
  • Nicola Woodward, Senior Director, Lichfields
  • Fraser Carlin, Head of Housing & Planning, Renfrewshire Council
  • Pauline Mills, Land & Planning Director, Taylor Wimpey
  • Tammy Swift-Adams, Director of Planning, Homes for Scotland
  • Nick Wright, Nick Wright Planning
  • Pippa Robertson, Aurora Planning
  • Dr Calum Macleod,Policy Director, Community Land Scotland
  • Neale McIlvanney, Strategic Planning Manager, North Ayrshire Council
  • Stefano Smith, Director, Stefano Smith Planning and former Convenor, RTPI Scotland
  • Pam Ewen, Chief Officer – Planning, Fife Council and former Convenor, RTPI Scotland
  • Jacqueline Cook, Head of Planning, Davidson Chalmers

If you’re interested in planning or environmental law in Scotland then there’s no doubt that SPEL 2019 is an unmissable conference.


The 2019 Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference is on 19 September at the COSLA Conference Centre, Edinburgh.

The conference programme and booking form are available here.

The conference is supported by Terra Firma Chambers.

SPEL Conference 2018 open for bookings

SPEL Conference 2018 bannerWe’re excited to announce that this year’s Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference is on Thursday 13 September in Edinburgh, and there’s already a great lineup of speakers confirmed.

This conference remains the flagship conference in its field, reflecting our commitment to supporting knowledge sharing and excellence within planning and the built environment professions.

The last year has witnessed many developments which impact on the planning system and the conference will provide a space for the planning and environmental law community to discuss and debate these.

Key topics

This year is the 28th SPEL Conference and we’re focusing on two key themes – the Planning Bill and wider environmental matters.

In May, the Stage 1 Report on the Planning (Scotland) Bill was released. Whilst some proposals appear to be going through the process relatively unchallenged, there are others which will be subject to further scrutiny.

As we anticipate what a future planning system is going to look like, planning reform is not the only driver of change. The Energy Strategy, climate change, the 2021 Landfill ban and the National Transport Strategy will also impact on planning.

As usual, we’ll also be reflecting on recent case law and considering how it relates to daily practice. The conference is an excellent opportunity for solicitors and planners to refresh their knowledge of recent changes in planning and environmental law, as well as providing time for quality networking.

Conference programme

The programme features a wide range of speakers, bringing perspectives from the private sector, local government planning, academia and central government to bear on the issues.

Confirmed speakers this year include:

  • Mark Lazarowicz, Terra Firma Chambers
  • Pippa Robertson, Aurora Planning
  • Archie Rintoul, former Chief Valuer Scotland
  • Karen Heywood, Interim Chief Reporter, Planning & Environmental Appeals Division, Scottish Government
  • Karen Turner, Director of the Centre for Energy Policy, University of Strathclyde
  • Greg Lloyd, Emeritus Professor of Urban Planning, Ulster University
  • Lesley Martin, RSA Scotland
  • Laura Tainsh, Partner, Davidson Chalmers
  • Russell Henderson, Associate Director, RPS

We’re pleased that Douglas Armstrong QC will be chairing the conference.

If you’re interested in planning or environmental law in Scotland then SPEL Conference 2018 is the perfect chance to hear about the latest developments and network with others.


The 2018 Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference is on 13 September at the COSLA Conference Centre, Edinburgh.

The conference programme and booking form are available here.

The conference is supported by Terra Firma Chambers.

What next for energy efficient homes?

York XIII-OK

Guest post, by Dr Alina Congreve, Centre for Cities, University of Hertfordshire, and
Dr Dan Greenwood, University of Westminster

The controversy surrounding the scrapping of the zero carbon target for new homes continues, despite its removal by the government in July 2015. The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee report, published in March 2016, was highly critical of the government’s approach to energy efficiency and housing. There has also been a strong reaction to the closure of the Zero Carbon Hub at the end of March. The Hub was widely regarded as an exemplary model of collaboration between government, industry and third sector.

Critics of the government’s approach to new housing policy point out that the initial drivers behind the zero carbon target have not gone away. European requirements that all new buildings are ‘nearly zero’ energy by 2021 are still in place. The Climate Change Act requires a fall in emissions of 80% by 2050 (from a 2006 baseline). Given the limits to reduction from retrofitting existing buildings, emissions reductions from new build need to be even higher.

There is a widespread view within the sector that the most effective way to achieve energy efficient new homes is through regulation, supported by appropriate tools and training developed in collaboration with the industry. For planners working in local authorities, the options for requiring developers to go beyond the Building Regulations are severely curtailed. Following the Housing Standards Review, they can no longer require developers to build to higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Influencing new development through stronger regulations was a key part of many cities’ climate action plans.

In spite of this, local authorities are still able to set higher environmental requirements for commercial buildings and insist that developers build to BREEAM standards. When the costs and savings of regulation are calculated by the government the energy savings to office occupants are included in the calculations. However, when the costs of energy standards for new homes are calculated by the government, energy savings for households are not included. The current processes of reviewing policy are based on financial costs and benefits, but value judgements are made about which costs are included. The Housing Standards Review has created a long period of uncertainty for the industry. The transaction costs that result from this uncertainty, such as staff training or product development to meet a new standard that is subsequently withdrawn, are also not included in policy impact financial calculations.

Possible front cover image II

In the short-term, strengthening Building Regulations or modernizing regulatory tools such as the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) seem unlikely. Voluntary codes and standards can have an important complementary role to play alongside regulation. Some landowners who wish to go beyond the legal minimum find a benchmark developed by a third party valuable. Current examples can be found in Norwich, where the city council is using a combination of AECB and Passivhaus standards on sites that it owns and are being developed for housing. In the current market for new homes, consumer drivers are relatively weak and buyers and mortgage lenders rarely place a premium on energy efficiency or other sustainable features. There is, however, the potential to do more to change this situation. If a standard adds value to a property by appealing to buyers, then the business case to do more becomes much stronger.


These views are based on a report carried out for the  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Trust on the Future for policy and standards for low and zero carbon new homes. The report draws on over 70 interviews with key stakeholders in the industry. It is available free to download.

Alina Congreve is an Associate at the Centre for Cities at the University of Hertfordshire. An experienced sustainability and built environment professional, Alina has specialist expertise in a number of areas, including sustainability and new residential development and resource efficiency in construction.

Read our other blog posts on energy efficient homes:

An all-round approach: could the circular economy help the world turn the corner on climate change?

512px-Recycling_symbol.svg

Image by Krdan via Creative Commons

This week, politicians from around the world are making a final attempt to craft a deal on climate change at the UN COP21 talks in Paris. The stakes could not be higher. Climate scientists largely agree that if the global surface temperature increase exceeds 2 ºC, the consequences could be catastrophic – drought, fires, coastal flooding, loss of agricultural production and increased spread of disease.

The role of the circular economy

Many believe one key element that could play a crucial role in curbing global warming is the transition from a linear to a circular economy.

Since the industrial revolution, the world’s economies have used a linear “take-make-consume-dispose” pattern of growth, a model which assumes that resources are abundant, available and cheaply disposable. But, in recent years, concerns about a combination of issues, including the depletion of raw materials and the amount of waste being sent to landfill sites, has increased interest in the concept of the circular economy.

The circular economy in focus

In our most recent “In focus” briefing, we take a look at the application of circular economy principles. The briefing outlines the development of the concept, which has moved from the fringes of the ecology movement in the 1970s to the mainstream of thinking on economic development today.

Circular economy principles have been adopted by companies such as Renault and by early-adopting governments in Japan and Scandinavia. Last week, the European Commission adopted a new Circular Economy Package aimed at boosting competitiveness, creating jobs and generating sustainable growth.

As well as highlighting the economic and environmental benefits of the circular economy, the briefing also describes barriers to further progress, such as product design promoting obsolescence and weak fiscal incentives for business.

The briefing also focuses on the role of UK local authorities in making the transition to a circular economy, and provides case studies highlighting examples of good practice.

Practising what they preach

As the international delegates in Paris try to deliver the first new global climate accord in 18 years, they might be inspired by their surroundings. The organisers of the conference have taken circular economy principles to heart, including the provision of locally sourced food, water fountains instead of plastic cups and the rental of furniture, structures, material and lighting for the event.

With the fate of the planet in the balance, it might not be too much of an exaggeration to describe the circular economy as a concept whose time has come.


The Circular Economy (In focus) is available to download here

If you enjoyed reading this blog post, you may also like:

Something old into something new: innovations in recycling

Our popular Ask-a-Researcher enquiry service is one aspect of the Idox Information Service, which we provide to members in organisations across the UK to keep them informed on the latest research and evidence on public and social policy issues. To find out more on how to become a member, get in touch.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.