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

6. The second duty - adaptation

Chapter 6 of the guidance, ‘Implementing the second duty: adaptation,’ lays out the overarching principles and actions that all public bodies would be expected to undertake, proportionate to their size and nature, to adapt and become resilient to the changing climate. The core of this is undertaking appropriate climate risk assessments and developing an adaptation plan or equivalent.

Q8. The guidance lays out an approach whereby public bodies should review the Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP); identify the objectives relevant to them; contribute towards those objectives; and, where relevant, report annually on progress in their public bodies’ climate change duties report. To what extent do you agree with this proposed approach?

Of respondents answering Q8, 47% strongly agreed and 41% somewhat agreed with the proposed approach (88% combined), while 4% somewhat disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed (7% combined), 4% were neutral, and 1% were unsure. Among public bodies, the highest agreement was evident among local authorities (93% combined), while IJBs were least likely to agree (67% combined).

Around three quarters of all respondents left a comment to explain their answer at Q8. Many respondents agreed with the approach set out in the guidance, notably highlighting that it aligned with existing practice. A range of other views were noted, with key themes in order of prevalence including suggested areas to strengthen, comments on resourcing (see Chapter 2), and calls to simplify the guidance or for more practical resources.

Positive views of the guidance

Many respondents agreed with or welcomed the approach laid out in the guidance. Reasons included it being logical and sensible, helpful in embedding adaptation planning and monitoring in organisational structures, and its ability to address current challenges, such as the need for a coordinated approach to mitigate against the adverse impacts of climate change.

Several respondents perceived the approach as aligning with existing practice, such as using the new national adaptation plan (SNAP3), and that it would help them develop in this area. Some gave general positive feedback on the guidance itself, such as it being detailed, thorough, and comprehensive. For instance, the included examples and bullet points on how to demonstrate compliance were considered helpful.

Aspects to strengthen

A range of disparate suggestions were given to revise aspects of this chapter by some respondents. These included making the adaptation section of the annual Public Bodies Duties Reporting mandatory, emphasising the need for joint adaptation planning across public bodies and utility providers where climate impacts affect shared infrastructure, and further consideration of timescales around adaptation, e.g. balancing immediate resilience needs with progressive long-term planning.

Need for simplification

Some called for this chapter to be simplified. Suggestions included illustrating where synergies can be maximised or how unintended consequences can be identified and mitigated, offering simplified compliance routes for public bodies with limited resources, addressing inconsistent use of terminology, and the need to spotlight obligations.

Need for practical support

Revisions to make the guidance more practical were suggested by some. Specific suggestions included:

• Incorporating tools for assessing adaptation effectiveness and the economic benefits of adaptation, such as including a template adaptation plan.
• Using case studies of practical examples of how different types of public bodies can map their work onto SNAP.
• Promoting tools such as the SNAP3 Navigation Dashboard, the Public Sector Capability Framework and Adaptation Benchmarking Tool, e.g. including a summary of SNAP as an Annexe with a link to the SNAP3 Navigation Dashboard.

All SNAP3 objectives could be relevant

Some respondents highlighted that many or all SNAP3 objectives could be relevant for public bodies, particularly local authorities, and that guidance would be needed to help them identify which objectives to include. Issues that could arise without further guidance were noted, such as increased reporting burden, and the view that the practical translation of SNAP objectives could be challenging.

“Where reporting against the relevant SNAP3 objectives increases the reporting burden. This could lead to additional costs, stretch already limited resources, and potentially divert focus from delivering on-the-ground adaptation actions.” - Aberdeen City Council

Need for consistency

The need for a consistent approach across public bodies was advocated by some respondents, with certain respondents expressing the view that the approach outlined in the guidance could help promote consistency. For instance, one local authority felt that alignment with SNAP3 would ensure a coordinated national approach to addressing climate risks, while another respondent felt that national data sets should be provided to enable a standardised setting of priorities.

Reporting on adaptation

A few organisations provided views on the reporting timescales for the second duty. The main consideration was that, to avoid creating a reporting burden, adaptation reporting could be done over a longer time cycle, e.g. every three years, rather than annually, to align with biodiversity reporting. In addition, aligning reporting with Local Development Plans and CCPBD was recommended. For instance, two felt that a question should be added to the CCPBD report return that asks how the public body is contributing towards the SNAP outcomes relevant to them.

“To reduce excessive reporting burden, reporting cycles could be extended for adaptation. This could give public bodies the time needed to initiate and deliver long-term plans and projects. This possibly also reflects the stage most public bodies are at in adaptation planning.” - South Lanarkshire Council

More clarity needed

Some respondents requested more detail or clarity on the adaptation chapter, notably to emphasise that this should be the approach taken when addressing adaptation. Other suggestions included: specifying how a public body might ensure it has met its duty and that action taken to achieve objectives should be clearly described as part of reporting; detailing the mechanisms for cross-departmental coordination and ownership; and providing clearer links between SNAP and Chapter 6 of the guidance.

Suggested additions

A few singular comments called for specific additions to the guidance:

• Linking it to Flood Risk Management and Dynamic Coast workstreams.
• Including a mechanism to identify relevant objectives.
• A partnership of local authorities are working on a City Region Deal Climate Risk and Opportunity Assessment and hope to produce a template that could be used for climate risk assessment. Referencing the outcome of this Climate Risk and Opportunity Assessment project when it is published was suggested.

Concerns with the approach

Concerns with the approach presented in the guidance were raised by a few respondents, such as it being perceived as ‘a simplistic list of actions’, or that the wording was not strong enough to drive real change, given that many of the suggestions were for ‘consideration’ by public bodies. One respondent expressed concern that efforts driven by the guidance could be undermined if a national strategy around resilience was not in place with direction on expectations, resource planning and the integration of national and regional planning. Other challenges highlighted included difficulties creating a meaningful Adaptation Plan and the lack of required governance and collaborative structures. A few respondents also highlighted the need for staff capacity building (see Q15).

Comments on Adaptation Plans

A few organisations commented that the guidance would assist with identifying local adaptation priorities and developing local plans. Evidence was given of public bodies’ existing activity to support adaptation planning and reporting, though not all had a dedicated Adaptation Action Plan in place. Two respondents reported having commissioned climate risk assessments as part of their work in this area, for instance:

“The Council recognises that it will need to accelerate and augment its efforts in conjunction with partners and our key future priority is to develop a corporate and areawide Adaptation Plan focussing on key deliverables. With this in mind, together with partners in the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City region, the Council has commissioned a shared Regional Climate Risk and Opportunity Assessment (Autumn 2023 - March 2025). This will enable an integrated and joined-up approach to climate adaptation in the years ahead.” - Scottish Borders Council

Other issues

Several respondents felt more resources would be required to achieve this approach, and themes identified by a few respondents each included the need to account for different public bodies (see Chapter 2), and comments on Adaptation Plans, mostly outlining what stage of development these were in.

Q9. Do you have any other comments about the guidance provided in this chapter about complying with the second duty?

Almost two thirds of all respondents left an open comment at Q9. The most prevalent themes were strengthening aspects of the guidance, the need for collaboration, positive views and suggested additions.

Aspects to strengthen

Calls to strengthen the guidance were made by several respondents. Most comments were received about the risk aspects of the guidance, with suggestions also given for other areas to strengthen.

The most prevalent view about the focus on risk was the need to consider opportunities as well as risks, such as green infrastructure and active travel. Other suggestions included detailing risk-related reporting requirements, the long-term nature and interdependencies of climate risks, risks of maladaptation, and providing more information on area-wide risk assessment and responsibilities.

“The focus of the guidance is on the adaptation to risks from climate change, there is also potential that the guidance acknowledges the possible benefits, socially and economically available from adaptations, e.g. job creation, safer communities, biodiversity.” - Scotland Excel

The primary topic respondents felt should be further strengthened was nature-based solutions, though other suggestions included financing adaptation action, food and food security, leasing buildings, roles and responsibilities, Dynamic Coast resources, and adaptation at the local level.

The need for a collaborative approach

Some respondents highlighted the need for collaboration in local and national adaptation efforts. Respondents described the need for stronger guidance and for the Scottish Government to support practical partnerships. Specific suggestions included: strengthening references to action taken at a national level, and more broadly across other stakeholders; coordinating action and managing global risks arising from climate change, e.g. increasing reliance on digital telephony that operates via the electricity grid; and identifying land for horticulture or developing local supply chains and farmers markets. A few respondents felt the key role of local authorities could be further highlighted, given that they own significant land assets and often lead on local adaptation activity.

Positive views

Some respondents expressed positive opinions on the guidance. Comments included that it was in-depth, provided a solid framework, could encourage buy-in across all public bodies, and clarified expectations and steps to take.

Respondents welcomed specific aspects of the guidance, including the focus on interdependencies, cascading risks, working together, signposting, a mainstreaming approach, and ensuring public bodies give due consideration to their physical assets. A few considered the approach beneficial, for example, by adopting a whole systems approach and helping standardise approaches across public bodies.

Suggested additions

Omissions or suggested additions were highlighted by some respondents. Most commonly, general remarks were left, such as those described in Chapter 2. Specific suggestions varied widely, and included incorporating social equity and community engagement in adaptation work, requiring compliance or an explanation of why objectives have not been met, referencing the Fourth UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA4), and methods to assess the impacts of warming scenarios and setting targets and outcomes for adaptation, such as local resilience indicators linked to SNAP3 objectives.

Need for simplification or further clarity

Conversely, some respondents considered this part of the guidance overly detailed and long, with comments reflecting those described in Chapter 2. These respondents felt that clear frameworks and simple risk assessment methodologies were needed, along with a greater focus on actions and ways to integrate with decision-making structures.

Further clarity was sought by some respondents, such as on:

• The ‘healthy ecosystems’ part of Figure 14.
• Assets that public bodies should consider, e.g. trees could be one given their role in offsetting emissions, with associated protective actions (planting native trees, use as boundaries, creating wildlife corridors or green communal spaces).
• How bodies should respond to, and adapt to, severe weather events, and to set out best practice in this area.
• How public bodies are expected to use their wider influence to progress adaptation actions across Scotland.
• A perceived conflict of measures outlined in section 5 with those in section 6, such as if poor installation of external wall insulation resulted in buildings being less resilient to increased rainfall.

Need for practical support

The need for tools, design guides and climate datasets to support adaptation planning was raised by some. Views included that the current template did not capture innovation, that design guides should be produced stating that the latest climate data should be used, or signposting to tools such as UKCP18 and Climate Risk Screening Toolkits.

“The adaptation guidance, though setting comprehensive expectations, falls short in delivering practical, actionable advice tailored for resource-constrained, operationally-focused, and cross-departmentally complex organisations. There is a critical need for practical tools readily applicable by operational teams (e.g. climate-resilient maintenance specifications, adaptable business continuity templates for diverse climate hazards, robust decision frameworks for prioritising adaptation measures).” - Argyll & Bute Council

Other themes

A range of less commonly mentioned specific themes were noted by a few respondents, such as the need to consider the role of local authorities, the need to improve staff skills and capacity (see Q15), and the need for consistency across public bodies. Respondents felt the role of local authorities could be better considered in relation to housing developers, including ambitious design standards that promote biodiversity and nature-based approaches in Local Development Plans and by incorporating recommendations from Audit Scotland’s report on local authority approaches to addressing climate change.