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

3. Climate change and equalities

The first two consultation questions asked respondents for their perspectives on Chapter 3 of the statutory guidance, referred to in this document as ‘the guidance’. Chapter 3 focused on climate change and equalities, and outlined aims for achieving reduced inequalities and improved health and wellbeing through climate action. Impact assessments are also detailed in Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the guidance. The first two consultation questions considered protected characteristics and inequality caused by socio-economic disadvantage with respect to climate change and the guidance.

Q1. With respect to the protected characteristics, could the content of the statutory guidance be changed or added to, to strengthen any positive impacts or lessen any negative impacts as it is implemented by public bodies?

Of respondents answering Q1, 62% felt that the guidance could be strengthened in relation to impacts for people with protected characteristics, while 28% did not and 9% were unsure. Non-public bodies were more likely than public bodies to indicate that changes to the guidance in this area were needed (80% compared to 58%).

Two thirds of all respondents provided a comment to explain their answer to Q1. Key themes identified in responses, from most to least prevalent, included positive feedback on the inclusion of protected characteristics in the guidance, calls for more guidance to support implementation, and comments on the importance of equality information.

Positive feedback

Many respondents highlighted positive aspects of the guidance regarding protected characteristics, including general positive views as outlined in the overarching theme in Chapter 2. Specific points included that all protected characteristics were covered, that including screening questions for impact assessments and guidance on impact assessments was helpful, and that the importance of equality was emphasised. The illustrative examples were also noted to be helpful and to support understanding.

“The draft guidance clearly and cohesively brings together the various duties under the PSED and the Fairer Scotland Duty, emphasising through illustrative examples and the proper integration and application of Integrated Impact Assessment (EQIA) in practice as to the potential deferential impacts of climate change on protected groups.” – The City of Edinburgh Council

“Guidance on impact assessments is covered well in a way which supports public bodies to tailor approach to individual scenarios.” - Individual

Several respondents raised the proposed approach's importance and benefits. These views valued references to the importance of linkages between health, wellbeing, equality, intersectionality, and climate change. There was general agreement on the need to take action in this area, and guidance was considered to be supportive of this work.

A few respondents detailed particular areas where they felt the guidance provided clarity. These included information on intersectionality, risk multipliers, inequality, and links to climate change, as well as the use of impact assessments and legal requirements. A few noted that the guidance aligned with their existing plans, equality impact assessments (EQIAs), legal requirements, and the national performance framework.

Suggested additions, e.g. to support implementation

The need for more information in the guidance relating to climate change and protected characteristics to increase its application, usability and implementation by public bodies was highlighted by several respondents. Suggestions included: providing more examples and case studies, such as rural, severe weather events and best practice examples; intersectionality and climate change training; practical and simplified tools; greater support with the practical application; and a suggestion for the guidance to evolve over time.

A desire for greater clarity was emphasised by several respondents. Calls were made for generally increasing clarity or detail overall (see Chapter 2), as well for as specific areas of the guidance, such as:

• Linking climate actions to specific protected characteristics.
• The interaction between equalities requirements and climate change duties.
• Providing greater elaboration in the examples already provided.

Some respondents suggested using participatory engagement methods with protected characteristic groups to support the design and delivery of climate action. Greater guidance on using this engagement method was also requested, noting that it could be challenging and that barriers to engagement must be overcome.

“Promote inclusive decision-making: Public bodies should be guided to involve groups with protected characteristics in the design and delivery of climate actions, ensuring that their voices are heard and their unique needs are met. This could include establishing advisory groups from diverse community backgrounds, which would provide insights into how climate policies are impacting their day-to-day lives.” - Bield Tenant Equality Network

Specific additions to this section of the guidance were suggested by a few respondents. The most frequently mentioned omission was the challenges faced by disabled people, with respondents noting this group is particularly vulnerable to climate change. A range of other additions were suggested, such as prioritising protected characteristic groups in climate resilient public infrastructure projects, human rights framing to address and illustrate inequalities, and emergency planning in care settings for severe weather events.

A few respondents made suggestions to simplify, reduce complexity, and increase accessibility of the guidance (see Chapter 2). Two respondents requested definitions for the phrases ‘inequalities of outcome’ and ‘protected characteristics’. Other singular suggestions included grouping duties relevant to protected characteristics in one place rather than throughout the guidance.

Strengthen guidance on protected characteristics

Several respondents highlighted areas of the guidance about protected characteristics that they thought could be strengthened. Specific examples mentioned by one to three respondents included:

• Impacts on island communities, age, and disabilities.
• Accessibility of communication about climate action for people with disabilities.
• Mandating EQIAs for all climate-related decisions.
• Guidance on engaging with underrepresented communities.

Some respondents commented on the need for strengthened guidance on intersectionality. They called for the guidance to highlight further how intersectionality can lead to increased climate change vulnerability and impact. This included providing more relevant examples and further guidance on implementation. Positive comments about the current content on intersectionality were also made.

“The guidance should explicitly reference intersectionality and encourage public bodies to consider how overlapping characteristics (e.g. disability, age, gender, poverty) affect vulnerability to climate impacts - especially in geographically dispersed regions like Highland.” – The Highland Council

The need to provide more targeted support to vulnerable groups affected by climate change was suggested by a few respondents, such as by considering place-based impacts. A few respondents suggested strengthening links to children and young people and generational inequality, highlighting the disproportionate impact of climate change on younger generations compared to older generations.

“To strengthen the positive impacts of the Statutory Guidance, it could explicitly recognise generational inequity and ensure that climate policies and public sector actions prioritise intergenerational justice. Similar steps have already been taken in Wales, such as with the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act (2015). Strategies could be translated within the Scottish context to ensure that all public bodies take into account the impact of their actions on future generations.” - EAUC

Alignment with existing policies and decision-making

A few respondents raised decision-making and data in this context, highlighting the relevance of protected characteristic considerations to decision-making, the need for cross-departmental collaboration, and clear governance. They also highlighted the need to signpost to relevant datasets and the challenges of sourcing relevant data and evidence for impact assessments.

“The guidance has some good examples and shows how climate change and equalities are connected and shows why public bodies should look at these holistically when making decisions.” – Fife IJB

Q2. With respect to inequality caused by socio-economic disadvantage, could the content of the statutory guidance be changed or added to, to strengthen any positive impacts or lessen any negative impacts as it is implemented by public bodies?

Almost three fifths (57%) of those answering Q2 felt the guidance could be strengthened concerning inequality caused by socio-economic disadvantage, while a third (33%) did not, and 10% were unsure. As for Q1, non-public bodies were more likely to feel the guidance could be strengthened in this area than public bodies (81% and 53% respectively).

Over half of all respondents provided an open comment to expand on their answer to Q2. The most common themes were positive comments, areas to strengthen, and suggestions for increasing the practicality of the guidance with respect to inequality caused by socio-economic disadvantage. Some respondents referred back to, or noted overlap with, their responses to Q1. To avoid repetition, only additional themes not already described under Q1 are presented below.

Support for clear and comprehensive content

Several respondents highlighted positive elements of the guidance regarding inequality caused by socio-economic disadvantage and the benefits resulting from this guidance. Respondents emphasised that they found the content to be strong, particularly regarding socio-economic disadvantage, intersectional equalities and compounding inequalities. The illustrative examples provided in section 3.5, the links and references provided, and information on impact assessments in section 2.2, were considered helpful and comprehensive. A few emphasised the importance of linking inequalities, climate change, and impact assessments, which form part of wider climate policy.

More guidance on poverty reduction and geographical impact

Several respondents raised the need to strengthen specific aspects of this part of the guidance, notably around geographic issues, such as place-based inequalities, and to consider island and rural communities further. Strengthening the link between climate action, socio-economic development, and poverty reduction, including the causes of poverty, was also recommended.

“There is limited focus within the guidance on place-based inequality, which can be particularly acute in the Highlands and Islands – rural and deprived urban areas often face higher risks (e.g. fuel poverty, housing quality / shortages), but the guidance does not seem to require or suggest tailored mitigation strategies.” – Highlands and Islands Enterprise

Some respondents called for further specificity by providing more guidance on assessments and worked examples, such as:

• Guidance on suggested methods to monitor, assess, and mitigate negative impacts in communities, as well as how to assess risk multipliers and assess them proportionately and practically.
• Case studies of the impact of climate policies on poverty, housing and service access.
• Examples on fuel poverty (particularly in impact assessments) and rural contexts.
• Practical steps to embed climate considerations and socio-economic disadvantage into work.

A range of additions to Chapter 3 of the guidance were suggested by some respondents. One key suggestion was to include targeted climate change support and investment for socio-economically disadvantaged communities.

Providing greater clarity on specific elements of Chapter 3 was suggested by some respondents, such as:

• Defining the term socio-economic characteristic.
• Improving the air quality illustrative example.
• Explaining how assessments may interact in section 2.2.

Respondents also mentioned a desire for more detail on the inequalities of economic resilience and for further discussion on the social determinants of health.

Other comments

Some respondents commented on impact assessments as outlined in Section 2.2 of the guidance. This included views that the guidance and its examples are important and helpful. Organisations also made singular suggestions to assess unmet needs as part of impact assessments, have a national impact assessment template, and include examples of how to integrate EQIAs into climate planning.

NHS Scotland and NHS Education for Scotland (NES) detailed the challenges of cross-cutting implementation:

“The ask spans multiple internal departments and organisations, complicating implementation. This fragmentation may affect the ability of public bodies to deliver cohesive responses to socio-economic inequality unless coordination mechanisms or clearer responsibilities are outlined.” - NHS Scotland