Public bodies climate change duties - draft statutory guidance: consultation analysis - final report

9. Overall reflections

The consultation paper states that the purpose of the Statutory Guidance is to support public bodies in meeting their climate change duties. It aims to help public bodies to minimise their operational emissions, adapt and become resilient to the current and future impacts of the changing climate, live within environmental limits, and ensure a strong, healthy and just society.

Q14. Do you think that the guidance fulfils its stated purpose of providing support to public bodies in putting the climate change duties into practice?

Almost three quarters (73%) of respondents answering Q14 agreed that the guidance fulfilled its stated purpose, while 15% did not, and 12% were unsure. Greater support was evident among public bodies compared to non-public bodies (78% and 60% respectively).

An open comment was left by over seven in ten of all respondents to explain their answer at Q14. The most prevalent themes were positive views and a need to simplify or clarify aspects of the guidance. These themes were also evident in responses to Q15; relevant comments have been included alongside responses to Q14 in the analysis below. These featured heavily as overarching themes throughout responses, as noted in Chapter 2 of this report, but have been summarised here given the wider focus of these questions.

Positive views

Positive comments on the guidance were provided by many respondents at Q14 and several at Q15. Overall, the guidance was considered comprehensive, clear, relevant, and flexible. A few felt it improved on the 2011 guidance due to its breadth and depth. Specific areas cited as useful included the context overview, the emphasis on Just Transition principles, the public health perspective, the importance of procurement and the supply chain, the local climate hubs, the role of audit, and residual emissions. Best practices and practical examples, referencing of wider sources and Annex C were highlighted as especially useful.

Benefits of the guidance were also highlighted by many respondents at Q14 and some at Q15. The guidance was welcomed as useful for various reasons, including that it will contribute to meeting net zero targets; will avoid exacerbating inequalities; is ambitious in its targets; reduces ambiguity as detail is given; and makes it easier for public bodies to take steps towards compliance. It was also considered a useful resource for assisting with the development of a City Development Plan, according to one local authority.

“It is in-depth, relevant and offers flexibility, recognising the variety of organisational contexts across the public sector.” – EAUC

Simplify or clarify aspects of the guidance

In contrast, many respondents at both Q14 and Q15 called for simplifying the guidance. Several other respondents at Q14 and some at Q15 sought more detail or clarity. Most comments centred around concerns regarding the length and complexity of the document, and with views expressed that this could pose challenges for busy staff, particularly those in smaller public bodies.

Suggestions included: making greater use of signposting or annexes for background or general content; removing repetition; highlighting duties and the steps needed to achieve them; addressing how to overcome operational constraints; setting out mandatory or minimum requirements; using more visual content, such as checklists containing ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’; and creating a summary version. In addition, there were calls to streamline reporting requirements, ensure comparability of data across public bodies and promote co-production and partnerships.

More clarity or information was sought in specific areas, such as: materiality; calculations not based on financial spend; to provide more detail in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan; and how to balance the duties with other factors when decision-making to determine the correct weighting for each factor and the best way to act. There were also calls for any guidance to be regularly updated, and to consider the audiences for the guidance.

Strengthen or add aspects

A few respondents at Q14 and some at Q15 raised the need to strengthen the guidance. A few at Q14 and some at Q15 suggested additions. These included suggestions for more information on practical methods for fostering cross-departmental working and recognition of the role of certain public bodies in convening partnerships, the need to strengthen references to nature throughout the guidance, and issues for public bodies involved in leasing arrangements.

Other suggestions included:

• Giving specific guidance to public bodies that undertake a regulatory role to leverage climate action.
• Adopting a more holistic approach that encapsulates the whole public body, rather than the onus being placed solely on buildings and estates.
• Providing stronger links between educational outcomes and climate disadvantage at the section on socio-economic impacts, e.g. highlighting that extremely high temperatures over 30 degrees Celsius reduce overall pupil attainment.
• Setting out ethical and moral bases for the climate change duties, not just the legal perspective.
• Referencing the ability of electric vehicle charging points to contribute to reducing emissions, such as through making charging points available at workplaces and the need to understand the safety and insurance implications of charging points.
• Referencing the Carbon Neutral Islands initiative and including an example from the Islands Centre for Net Zero in the Growth Deals section.

Practical Support

Some respondents at Q14 and some at Q15 reiterated the need for more practical support to implement the duties, with similar issues raised as covered elsewhere in the report. Several respondents at Q14, and several at Q15, also raised the need for additional resources for public bodies to enable them to implement the duties. These are both covered in Chapter 2 of this report

Additional suggestions included:

• To align the guidance more closely with real-world situations.
• Developing a centralised hub with key tools, templates and examples.
• The need for consistent methodologies, such as standard risk assessments or standardised reporting.
• The need for access to more tools, such as emissions calculators.
• To refer to tools such as those provided by the Sustainable Scotland Network and the Scottish Climate Intelligence Service.

Q15. Do you have any further comments about the guidance?

Over seven in ten respondents provided a comment at Q15. The analysis below reflects additional themes raised at Q15, which are not included in the analysis of Q14 above.

Compliance

Some respondents raised the need to encourage compliance by public bodies at Q15 and a few at Q14. Views were expressed that much of the guidance’s content was light on the requirements for public bodies, with many of the proposals presented as optional. Concerns with clarity, consistency of language, using the terms ‘must’, ‘should’ and ‘could’, and efforts to explain these, were highlighted across questions.

Given current financial constraints, concerns were raised over the potential for public bodies to only work to achieve the minimum requirement, and that rigorous audit and regulatory activity would be required to reach ambitious targets. Suggestions for improvement in this area included adopting a ‘comply or explain’ principle, more substantial penalties, and supplementary guidance to ensure activity is coordinated and relevant.

Working together

Some respondents raised a desire for more detailed guidance to support joint working, commented on organisational contributions to partnerships, and called for more stakeholder engagement to develop guidance, including with communities, contractors, and service users. Suggested improvements not mentioned elsewhere included: setting up peer groups to share best practice, such as for Integration Joint Board officers responsible for ensuring compliance; to highlight the example of the Coastal Change Adaptation Plan as a successful approach to joint working; and to develop interventions that can be implemented across public bodies.

“A possible improvement is to enhance the guidance on 'actively seeking partnerships with other organisations to develop and implement wider place-based adaptation plans.' This could include providing names and contact details of public bodies within the same region, facilitating knowledge-sharing and collaboration. While this information is available in individual reports and other forums can support partnership-building, accessing and initiating collaboration is not always straightforward. To further strengthen this approach, organising adaptation meetings tailored to specific areas could help streamline coordination and improve regional climate resilience efforts.” - Individual

Reporting on the climate duties

Comments on reporting on the climate duties were made by some respondents. Alongside calls for a consistent methodology and additional resources, as noted elsewhere in this report, respondents emphasised the need for streamlined reporting due to the potential for duplication and the need to align with other reporting requirements and provide a hierarchy of reporting requirements. For example, Integration Joint Boards (IJBs), as a Category 1 Responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004^[2], have business continuity arrangements in place and risk plans which are audited and have escalation pathways. Reporting under both SNAP and the Civil Contingencies Act was felt to risk duplication.

One respondent felt including ‘making planning decisions’ in section 5iii of the reporting template for local authorities would be beneficial, and that including planning considerations in planning decisions would better enable the development of a range of low-carbon technologies and the infrastructure that supports them. Another highlighted concerns with a reliance on worst-case future scenarios for flood risk assessment, resulting in ‘significant challenges for developers' due to overly cautious assessments.

Public bodies working together to produce returns was felt to be a useful way to reduce duplication and enable more efficient use of resources. Streamlined reporting could help ensure, for instance, that adherence to certain standards does not disincentivise certain climate action by public bodies, as could occur with land-based projects or consideration of carbon offsetting. Other specific comments on reporting included:

• The need for shared data platforms or a functional reporting interface that includes pre-populated data from the previous year to prevent the need to re-enter data.
• The need for greater use of qualitative data.
• Clearer guidance on the frequency of reporting could help develop a more robust and up-to-date dataset, which is seen as particularly relevant for longer-term initiatives, such as nature-based solutions.
• Providing feedback to public bodies on their reports, auditing them or giving clarity on the end use of data. This would assist bodies in identifying areas for improvement, understanding how the data shapes wider policy changes, and assuring the Scottish Government that progress was being made consistently.
• Providing clear sectoral guidance on the role of public bodies in contributing to national targets, such as setting out annual emissions allowances per full-time equivalent staff member based on Nationally Determined Contributions^[3].
• Establishing a baseline of carbon performance across all activities and using this to develop a route map to net zero, setting out pathways, priorities, activities and dependencies, linked to measuring and reporting performance.

“A secondary boundary page should be included that notes all scope 3 emission categories allowing organisations to note what is included in their report. This would provide a snapshot of what is currently in the boundary, what is being considered and what is excluded or not relevant. This will also help public bodies to identify where they have gaps. Comments boxes should also be included in each section to allow public bodies to provide context.” – Scottish Enterprise

Training and capacity building

The need for more training and capacity building in public bodies to support improved compliance was highlighted by some respondents at Q15, and some mentioned this issue across other questions. Calls were made for:

• The Scottish Government to facilitate shared learning opportunities and connections between public bodies.
• Training for all staff in public bodies on the climate duties, or for leaders on their roles, remits and responsibilities,
• The need for assistance from specialists, without which it was felt that public bodies with limited resources could struggle to achieve targets or submit meaningful returns. For instance, Sustainable Scotland Network suggested they could be engaged to provide support to public bodies on how to comply and proactively use the guidance to drive forward delivery.

Suggested training topics were mentioned by a few respondents, including how to create an adaptation plan, develop organisational sustainability policies including sustainable procurement, carbon literacy, and how to set area-wide targets using ClimateView. Examples of useful training providers delivering carbon literacy were noted, such as the Carbon Literacy Project and Museums Galleries Scotland. Adaptation Scotland highlighted they have recently started delivering climate resilience training to front-line business specialists, with a plan to roll this out further, to help mainstream adaptation in their existing business support.

“Provide more guidance or training for public bodies, especially smaller organisations or those with fewer resources, on how to embed climate adaptation into their operations. Housing associations, for instance, would benefit from resources that help them adapt their housing stock to the changing climate, including flooding risks or heat vulnerability... Encourage collaboration between sectors, particularly between housing, infrastructure, and transport sectors, to ensure climate adaptation is embedded across various levels of decision-making. Shared resources and knowledge could enhance the impact of adaptation efforts at the local level.” - Bield Tenant Equality Network