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

2. Overarching qualitative themes

While the consultation questions asked respondents to reflect on specific aspects of the guidance, respondents often made more general comments across several themes, which were evident in their responses to multiple questions. Some of these themes were especially common in responses to Q14 and Q15, which asked respondents for their views on the guidance as a whole.

To avoid repetition, this chapter outlines these overarching themes. These include, from most to least commonly mentioned:

• Positive views about the clarity and benefits of the guidance.
• Perspectives on the guidance length, level of detail and simplification.
• Strengthening the guidance.
• Practical support.
• Funding and capacity concerns.
• Proportionality.
• Alignment with relevant policies and reducing duplication.
• Leadership and decision-making.
• The need for increased clarity.
• Considering the wider context.

Many respondents provided comments aligned with these themes, but about individual aspects of the guidance or in response to specific questions. Where appropriate, these specific details are included in the question-by-question analysis later in this report.

It is important to note that respondents expressed a range of views in open-ended comments. For example, one respondent could be broadly supportive of the guidance, but still suggest areas where they felt greater clarity would be beneficial, while another could raise a lack of clarity as a reason for dissatisfaction. Therefore, qualitative analysis should be used to understand the range of views expressed by those who chose to leave an open comment, while the quantitative analysis can be used to understand the strength of views.

Positive views on the guidance

Across all consultation questions, respondents made a range of positive comments about the guidance. These described the guidance as helpful, well-structured, comprehensive, clear, easy to understand, detailed, important, and suitable. These general comments highlighted that the guidance was useful and fit-for-purpose and raised general benefits that could arise from its application, for instance, to encourage action towards reducing emissions and other climate change-related work.

Perspectives on the guidance length, level of detail and simplification

Respondents presented varying perspectives on the length and complexity of the guidance. Views were split between those who felt the guidance was sufficiently in-depth and detailed and those who felt it was too long and complex.

Concerns were expressed that the length and level of detail of the current draft guidance reduced clarity, contained information already known by some organisations, and could be overwhelming and resource-intensive to understand, particularly for smaller public bodies. It was suggested that this could make it less useful and more challenging to navigate. Respondents expressing this perspective often suggested the guidance be shortened, condensed or simplified, for instance, through greater use of summaries, checklists, hyperlinks, annexes, and signposting to relevant information.

Conversely, others felt that the current level of detail and length was helpful as it ensured all relevant information was included, and meant the guidance could be a useful resource for smaller public bodies who may have little knowledge on the topics covered. Calls were made for supplementary guidance to be issued alongside this guidance so that public bodies could consider all relevant guidance holistically and avoid the need for remedial action should supplementary guidance be issued later requiring a different approach.

Strengthening the guidance

General suggestions to strengthen the guidance included providing greater detail, further emphasising certain aspects, or suggesting areas to add. Respondents raised concerns that the way the guidance was currently written could be open to interpretation. Calls for stronger messaging around targets and duties were made, such as increasing mandatory requirements or highlighting core targets and requirements.

Practical support

Across multiple questions, there were calls for more practical support to enable public bodies to better implement their duties. Commonly, requests were made for the Scottish Government to provide the public sector with further access to relevant tools, e.g. calculation tools, worked or ‘real world’ sector-specific examples, case studies, frameworks or sample templates and impact assessments.

Funding and capacity concerns

Throughout the consultation, concerns with resourcing, funding, capacity, and capability were raised. See Q15 for a discussion of capacity building and training-related issues.

Both large and small public bodies expressed concern over the resources required to implement the guidance. While some challenges differed, such as the wide scope impacting larger bodies and the lack of in-house expertise more frequently impacting smaller bodies, common issues were also identified. Concerns with a perceived lack of funding to support implementation were frequently raised, with the view that this is needed to allow for effective data management, undertake robust reporting, and take appropriate action to mitigate climate change. Challenges highlighted included the need to digest significant amounts of material given in the guidance document and the input of specialists. Setting and reporting against new targets, addressing emissions and monitoring climate impacts were noted to be particularly resource-intensive tasks.

Suggestions for improving the guidance in this area included providing more financial support information, considering resource allocation by public bodies and making reporting less resource-intensive. Respondents felt this latter goal could be achieved by adopting more step-by-step approaches to improve staff efficiency and capability, addressing practical and operational realities and not adding to the reporting burden, for instance, through streamlining reporting requirements.

In Q2, some respondents highlighted the need for greater funding to adequately address climate change and socio-economic disadvantage. General statements advocating this were made, as were references to specific areas thought to require more funding. This included, for example, financing of community-led adaptation projects, funding through housing associations, and funding for local authorities to go beyond statutory equalities requirements.

“…producing a Climate Change Plan with this level of detail will, however, require significant resource which West Dunbartonshire, common to other local authorities, does not currently have” – West Dunbartonshire Council

“The current funding envelope within which local authorities operate means that investing in solutions designed to reduce emissions can be challenging, and this is not recognised by the guidance …The fact that local authority budgets operate on a yearly basis and are heavily ring-fenced… reduces our flexibility.” – Scottish Borders Council

“Any delays in funding decisions around the Scottish Climate Intelligence Service (SCIS) at Scottish Government should be considered if all 32 local authorities are expected to follow SCIS specific guidance for area wide area-wide boundary and target setting, planning and reporting…The resource implication of developing realistic targets in these areas should not go unrecognised. This will take time and funding to develop.” – Aberdeenshire Council

Proportionality

Ensuring the guidance and resulting requirements are proportionate to the size and maturity of public bodies and can be applied flexibly was raised across questions. Overall, the guidance was felt to be proportionate, and allowed for such flexibilty, though comments that it felt more suited to large and mature public bodies were also received.

Suggestions for how the guidance could give greater consideration to the variety of public bodies included:

• Reducing reporting requirements for smaller public bodies compared to larger public bodies.
• Considering specific sectors and producing sector-specific guidance, e.g. providing tailored examples and case studies for education, housing, and area-specific considerations, including rural/urban.
• Clearly outlining expectations for Integration Joint Boards (IJBs).
• Having sector-specific methodologies.

“A more tailored approach for specific education settings would be welcomed. Colleges are set up in different ways, with various competing priorities and the need for flexibility as part of that would be welcomed given that the college sector in Scotland incorporates large urban-based college campuses and rural learning centres across the Highlands and Islands…The challenge for colleges is the lack of sector-specific guidance that is provided throughout the duties. There are areas which are underdeveloped, these include curriculum design and campus planning. We would recommend further engagement with the college sector through Colleges Scotland to develop this guidance.” – Colleges Scotland

Alignment with relevant policies and reducing duplication

There were calls throughout responses to increase alignment and links between the guidance and relevant goals, policies, and duties. In particular, public bodies were keen to understand how climate change duties intersected with their other reporting duties.

Calls were made for greater alignment with organisational or sectoral net zero and climate goals, such as local heat and energy efficiency strategies or integrating the use of the Carbon Management Plan template into existing plans and strategies. Respondents felt the guidance should give stronger encouragement to public bodies to align their planning, finance and procurement processes to these wider arrangements. For instance, work could be undertaken to align local authority climate-related targets with their carbon reduction targets and expectations.

It was suggested that the guidance could usefully mention aspects of sustainable procurement, such as ‘whole life’ costings, circular economy considerations, environmental impacts on resource use, biodiversity, and the social element of the sustainability agenda. Another view expressed across questions was for the guidance to better promote a more rounded approach to ‘Learning for Sustainability’ in education, such as emphasising the need to embed skills and values for sustainability, as well as knowledge, and that resilience can be built through teamwork and problem solving.

Along with areas suggested for greater alignment, the need to avoid duplication of effort was also raised. For example, overlap with the Fairer Scotland Duty assessment was noted, with calls to consider how different impact assessments intersect. A few respondents suggested sources that could be referenced in the guidance, for example, schemes about Scottish climate legislation such as the Scottish Intelligence Service partnership approach and the Science-Based Targets initiative.

Policies suggested for improved alignment with the guidance varied depending on the section under consideration, and included:

Communities and equalities:

• Fairer Scotland Duty (Q1, Q2, Q14).
• Community planning under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act (Q2).
• Community Wealth Building bill (Q2, Q10, Q11), community asset transfers and participatory budgeting (Q11).
• Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) (Q1).
• Equality Act (Q1, Q14).
• Impact Assessments, e.g. Social Value Impact Assessments (Q11).
• Local Development Plans and Local Outcomes Improvement Plans (Q7, Q9).
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 (Q1).

Environment and land:

• Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Q1).
• The existing PBCCD report.
• United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (Q10).
• Islands Scotland Act (Q1).
• Just Transition (Q2, Q9, Q11).
• Scottish Funding Council’s Tertiary Quality Enhancement Framework and the Outcomes Framework and Assurance model, where both these processes include elements relating to net zero and sustainability.

Other:

• National Performance Framework (NPF) (Q1, Q7, Q10).
• National Planning Framework e.g. work within the intent of NPF 4 Policy 22 balancing climate resilience with the need to unlock sustainable development opportunities (Q2, Q3, Q7, Q11).
• Consumer Duty (Q1).
• Food strategies (Q2, Q5).

Leadership and decision-making

Respondents made a range of comments about leadership and decision-making. The guidance was considered useful in its consideration of decision-making, accountability, planning, and implementation. Strong, effective leadership was called for, with concerns about the potential for insufficient progress to address climate change should this be absent. Respondents also welcomed taking a whole-system approach, emphasising the importance of corporate leadership, and the need to embed carbon impact assessments in decision-making.

Respondents sought further guidance to support practical decision-making by public bodies, such as how to make suitable investment decisions, monitor and report on climate impacts, use socio-economic data for action prioritisation, and linkages to robust studies and datasets to help inform decision-making.

Other recommendations included adding a decision-making framework, ensuring equalities are mainstreamed in decision-making, involving local residents in decision-making through community engagement, and promoting cross-department or sector work.

“There are helpful recommendations on leadership, governance, mainstreaming climate change into an organisation’s work, ensuring climate change is integrated into key decision-making.” – East Dunbartonshire Council

“The thrust of the legislation and guidance gives primacy to carbon emissions and its reporting and further guidance is needed on how to balance actions which conflict with GHG emissions ambitions but provide other sustainability benefits.” - Aberdeen City Council

The need for increased clarity

Public bodies generally called for more clarity around expectations for reporting, roles and responsibilities and timescales. Respondents also highlighted a desire for clearer requirements for data collection, greater clarity, and overall guidance on methodology. Specific comments were made throughout responses to restructure sections of the guidance to improve clarity. These included simplifying titles and language used, adding more summaries for ease of reading, providing a glossary and ensuring there are definitions for certain words and phrases. Examples of changes suggested by respondents included:

• Strengthening language use and requirements, such as ‘may choose’ to ‘should use’ in Q3.
• Updating links and references (Q3, Q14).
• Tailoring the Carbon Management Plan template for different sectors (Q6).
• Increase the use of plain English.
• Further consideration of the digital accessibility of the guidance.

Consider the wider context

The need to consider and link to wider contextual factors and research was detailed throughout responses. This included providing more links to published research, and giving greater consideration to biodiversity and nature, health and wellbeing, housing, societal class, and ecosystems topics related to climate change. The need to further involve the private sector in addressing climate change was also highlighted.

Two respondents repeatedly raised specific perspectives across the consultation. Comments by The Vegan Society expressed support for a vegan lifestyle to reduce climate change, including comments on farming, emissions, animal rights and links to research. One individual repeatedly disagreed with climate science and the information provided in the guidance.