Draft Environment Strategy: consultation analysis

5. Strengthening resilience to global risks and supporting social justice

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to questions about two cross-cutting outcomes that explain how the draft Strategy will help to strengthen Scotland’s resilience to global risks and support social justice in Scotland and overseas. Q11 explores views on the outcome “We build Scotland’s resilience to climate change and other global environmental risks”, while Q12 examines the final outcome of “These transformations are achieved through a just transition and support climate and environmental justice”

We build Scotland’s resilience to climate change and other global environmental risks

Q11. Do you agree/disagree with the approach set out in the pathway for the outcome “We build Scotland’s resilience to climate change and other global environmental risks? Please explain your answer in the text box below.

Overall, over three quarters (78%) of those answering Q11 agreed with the approach set out in the pathway for the outcome “We build Scotland’s resilience to climate change and other global environmental risks. One third (32%) indicated they ‘strongly agree’, and 46% ‘agree’, while 14% were neutral and 8% disagreed to some extent. Views among individuals who answered were more polarised – while 45% ‘strongly agree’, 20% disagreed to some extent. Four fifths (81%) of organisations agreed, of which 27% ‘strongly agree’ and 54% ‘agree’. While at least two thirds of each type of organisation agreed with the proposed approach, there was slightly less total agreement among government and public sector bodies (75%), environment and sustainability organisations (75%) and industry associations/umbrella bodies (79%) compared to other organisations.

Of the 76 respondents who left a comment in response to Q11, 56 explained their answers to the closed question, highlighting themes including nature-based climate adaptation, highlighting of climate risks, adapting infrastructure such as buildings, the approach taken to adaptation, and the difficulties of becoming self-sufficient.

Nature-based solutions

The most prevalent theme was support for the increased focus on nature-based solutions to adaptation, including peatland restoration, tree planting, habitat connectivity, wetland restoration, coastal habitat restoration and natural flood management. A few respondents suggested that nature-based solutions should be considered at different levels, from the local community to the landscape or catchment scale. A few respondents suggested that a focus on species-level restoration, community woodlands, and rewilding was needed to implement the pathway effectively. A few respondents often suggested linking the Strategy to the Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029 (SNAP 3) to support nature-based solutions in adaptation. However, one respondent suggested that the outcome should refer to both the SNAP 3 and the Climate Change Risk Assessment, in the context that adaptation leads to resilience.

Links to other strategies and policies

While a few respondents remarked that the pathway effectively linked with other strategies, several respondents highlighted existing strategies that they felt the draft Strategy should include, or suggested the need for additional strategies that could support the pathway. The existing strategies that a respondent felt were absent were “Scotland’s Beaver Strategy 2022-2045” and the “Scottish Plant Health Strategy 2024-2029”. In addition, one respondent suggested there was a need for a “National Water Strategy”, citing Germany as an example. Some of the attendees of the health consultation workshop suggested that more details should be provided on the links to health policy and strategies.

Climate risks

Many respondents highlighted the prominent climate risks that Scotland may face, as well as risks specific to different sectors and groups that are more vulnerable to climate risks than others. Climate risks highlighted included extreme weather events and unusual weather patterns. Many respondents highlighted that events arising from these ranged from increased wildfires, flooding, water scarcity, increased risk of zoonotic diseases, increases in algal blooms and severe wind damage. One respondent highlighted increased ocean temperatures as a climate risk, which may particularly impact Scotland’s seafood industry due to biological changes in sea life and altered interactions with wild pathogens. Fishermen were identified as a vulnerable group due to the potential for seas to “become stormier”, creating a safety risk. A small number suggested that other groups at increased risk include rural businesses, coastal communities, island communities, and lower-income households or those in rental accommodation, due to barriers to implementing risk mitigation actions, such as financial constraints or lease agreements. Some attendees of the equality consultation workshop highlighted that climate change is already having an impact and that the draft Strategy should acknowledge the need for action to address the existing effects of climate change, as well as preventative measures.

Adapting infrastructure

The issue of climate adaptation for physical infrastructure, including buildings, energy, and transport, was raised by many respondents. These respondents highlighted the need to strengthen the energy system, including the use of decentralised heat sources and the expansion of renewable and clean energy technologies, which respondents believed could deliver long-term economic resilience and affordability. Two respondents suggested that there is a need to embed resilience in building standards, including the location of new developments and the retrofitting of existing buildings through flood defences, overheating mitigation, passive cooling strategies, and green infrastructure.

Collaboration

Many respondents emphasised the importance of collaboration across various sectors, particularly with key partners when developing policy, as well as with local communities and delivery partners when implementing policy. Several respondents highlighted that the pathway would require a “joined-up approach” and connectivity across sectors.

Agriculture, forestry, and other land management sectors were highlighted by several respondents as sectors which would benefit from a collaborative approach. This included a partnership with the Scottish Government in policy development and delivery, acting as “key partners in adaptation”, collaborating with other delivery partners to deliver landscape-scale adaptation, and recognising the existing approaches that provide resilience, such as well-managed moorlands, woodlands, wetlands, and farmland.

Many respondents emphasised the importance of collaboration with communities in developing and implementing climate adaptation strategies. They highlighted that climate adaptation occurs at the local level, and building resilience is also the task of existing organisations, such as local governments, education providers, voluntary organisations, faith groups, businesses, green networks, and local community initiatives.

Several respondents suggested that the Strategy should prioritise community-led approaches, including providing resources, ensuring strategies are flexible and locally tailored, greater collaboration with local authorities, and clearer funding mechanisms to enhance implementation. Two respondents felt that the pathway could be strengthened by legislating “for community right-to-own and community benefit entitlements for all nature-based and climate resilience projects” and pathways to include explicit measures to build community resilience, respectively.

Support

Several respondents highlighted the need to support rural communities to deliver adaptation through investments and support to “remain economically viable”. This included a call for a “dedicated funding mechanism for island-specific climate adaptation projects”. Several respondents highlighted the need for clarity on long-term capital funding for flood management. Several respondents highlighted the need for support to implement nature-based solution approaches to adaptation, including technical and financial support, as well as the requirement for targeted approaches. Two respondents suggested that farmers should be supported to reduce livestock numbers and move away from “industrial scale farming”. Finally, one respondent suggested that there should be more support for research, monitoring and knowledge sharing for climate adaptation interventions, as well as exploration of natural capital investment frameworks.

Governance

Several respondents suggested amendments to decision-making processes in Scotland, including ensuring that planning and infrastructure decisions prioritise ecosystem connectivity, soil health, and natural carbon sequestration. One respondent suggested that the Scottish Government could add “an additional layer to existing tools like the Infrastructure Investment Hierarchy that indicate a preference for nature-based solutions over others.” Another suggested that “the requirement for integrated biodiversity corridors in urban areas should be enforceable via the National Planning Framework, not discretionary”. Another suggested the Strategy should “explicitly require 'island-proofing' of all climate resilience measures as mandated by the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018”.

Several respondents suggested improvements and changes to monitoring and measurements, including the development of island-representative indicators, the use of GWP* (Global Warming Potential) rather than GWP100 as a climate metric, and a robust surveillance system to monitor zoonotic and plant diseases. Finally, one respondent suggested a review of the current Scottish Environment Protection Agency regulatory framework, specifically the implementation of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, due to its impact on the seafood industry.

Other less commonly mentioned themes raised by a few respondents at Q11 included: the importance of engagement and education to support the development of resilience within communities; the need to strengthen energy security, highlighting Scottish dependence on other nations in relation to energy supply and climate action; and the need to integrate other aims, such as health and wellbeing, in climate adaptation.

These transformations are achieved through a just transition and support climate and environmental justice

Q12. Do you agree/disagree with the approach set out in the pathway for the outcome “These transformations are achieved through a just transition and support climate and environmental justice”?

Just under three quarters (73%) of those answering Q12 agreed with the approach set out in the pathway for the outcome “These transformations are achieved through a just transition and support climate and environmental justice. Three in ten (29%) indicated they ‘strongly agree’, and 44% ‘agree’, while 17% were neutral and 10% disagreed to some extent. Views among individuals who answered were again more polarised – while 32% ‘strongly agree’, the same proportion (32%) disagreed to some extent. Four fifths (79%) of organisations agreed, of which 29% ‘strongly agree’ and 50% ‘agree’. At least two thirds of each type of organisation agreed with the proposed approach, but the strength of agreement varied considerably. For example, 88% of government and public sector bodies agreed (63% strongly) and 13% were neutral, while 68% of environment and sustainability organisations agreed (32% strongly) and 26% were neutral.

Detailed comments on the pathway for achieving a just transition and delivering climate and environmental justice were provided by 65 respondents. In line with the closed question results, comments typically agreed with the overall direction of the pathway. However, there were calls for greater clarity, stronger integration with other policy areas and more concrete delivery mechanisms. Many comments reflected an understanding of justice not just as an outcome, meaning fair distribution of costs and benefits, but as a process that emphasises participation, representation and accountability.

Rights and fairness

There was widespread support for embedding fairness and equality principles at the core of the transition. A few respondents endorsed a rights-based approach that gives legal effect to environmental justice through an enforceable human right to a healthy environment. This right was described as including access to clean air, safe water, a stable climate, non-toxic ecosystems and opportunities to participate in environmental decision-making in line with the Aarhus Convention. One organisation suggested establishing a Scottish Environment Court or similar mechanism to strengthen access to justice.

Some respondents also highlighted distributive fairness, stressing that a just transition must prioritise low-income households, rural and island residents, older people and children who are least able to absorb costs from the transition. Many argued that fairness should be built into every policy decision through assessments of who pays and who benefits, and transparent reporting on distributional outcomes. Examples included targeted energy retrofits for fuel-poor households and local benefit-sharing tests for major projects. Some respondents raised concerns that “green gentrification” and speculative land purchases are excluding working-class communities from affordable housing and rural opportunities.

Links with other policies

Many respondents welcomed the pathway’s cross-sector framing but found the linkages between just transition principles and other key policy areas to be underdeveloped. They argued that the success of a just transition depends on coordinated policy integration, particularly with the built environment, housing, transport, skills, agriculture and land reform agendas. In transport, a few respondents highlighted the importance of equitable access to clean and affordable mobility options and referenced existing transport transition plans as relevant frameworks.

A few respondents from land and marine sectors requested stronger connections to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, Forestry Strategy and sector-specific just transition plans, including those for aquaculture and blue economy activities. Some noted concerns that rapid rule changes to accelerate offshore wind development appeared inconsistent with fairness principles. A few advocated for embedding Community Wealth Building and wellbeing economy approaches to support shared local benefit. Some attendees of the equality consultation workshop highlighted that Just Transition principles are relevant to the Child Poverty Act, and the Fairer Scotland Duty.

Skills, training and jobs

Developing the workforce for a net zero and nature-positive economy was viewed as central to a fair transition. A few respondents called for funded training allowances, continued professional development budgets for farmers and land managers and mentoring programmes to spread new skills in areas such as horticulture, agroforestry, restoration and diversification. Educational organisations highlighted the need to embed Learning for Sustainability across qualifications and to invest in professional development for educators, enabling them to deliver effective climate and nature-related education.

Many emphasised that workforce policy must actively address inequalities in access to green jobs, especially for women, disabled people, minority ethnic communities, and young entrants. Examples included gender audits of green skills programmes, initiatives for returners and more inclusive apprenticeship schemes across STEM and energy sectors. Some respondents also noted challenges in recruitment, retention, and diversity across various industries and called for a coordinated national workforce plan that involves the government, further education colleges, and employers.

Investment and support

Many respondents stressed that financial stability and targeted investment are prerequisites for a just transition. They urged the Scottish Government to ensure policy and fiscal clarity and to sequence changes so that jobs, infrastructure and alternatives are in place before regulations take effect. Recommendations included targeted retrofitting and affordability safeguards to prevent fuel poverty, equitable funding for small farms and crofts that deliver environmental and community benefits, and capital support for diversification into renewables or eco-tourism.

A few respondents also called for stronger community investment mechanisms and requested sector-specific roadmaps and advisory services to help businesses plan transitions. A recurring theme was the need for rural and island cost uplifts, as existing support levels often fail to reflect the challenges of delivering change in remote areas.

Governance, community and monitoring

Many respondents linked just transition to governance reform, emphasising the importance of accountability, transparency and participation. Proposals included publishing annual distributional dashboards to show who benefits from investments, applying just transition impact assessments across government and embedding monitoring of fairness indicators in implementation frameworks. Many argued for greater community empowerment, moving beyond consultation to genuine co-design. Suggestions included legal rights to community ownership and benefits in renewable projects, more accessible consultation formats, measurable social outcomes, such as local jobs and training opportunities, and embedding community wealth building in policy. Some attendees of the equality consultation workshop emphasised the importance of the third sector in connecting communities to implementation and the need for co-production of poverty indicators to support the monitoring of the Strategy.

Other themes

A small number of respondents also raised issues related to global justice, calling for stronger commitments to ethical supply chains, international climate finance and fair trade. Some argued that the level of ambition in the pathway does not match the urgency of climate and biodiversity challenges and recommended bolder measures relating to wealth distribution, land reform and support for food system change. Some highlighted the risk of unintended negative consequences, including disproportionate costs to businesses or disruption in rural and coastal communities, and recommended better sequencing and support to mitigate these effects.