Good Food Nation Plan development – understanding local authority and health board processes: report

Executive summary

Purpose. To understand how Scottish local authorities and NHS health boards are approaching development of their statutory Good Food Nation (GFN) plans, and what support would be most useful from Scottish Government.

Evidence base. A short survey received 17 responses (10 local authorities, 7 health boards). This was complemented by informal scoping conversations with four local authorities and three NHS Health Boards and a series of semi-structured follow-up interviews covering a total of 20 local authorities and health boards.

Headline finding. Most organisations are still at an early stage. Plan development is being shaped primarily by limited capacity and funding, governance lead times, and the need to coordinate across partnerships and overlapping geographies.

Key findings across five themes:

• Approach and current position: 10 out of 17 (59%) survey respondents reported being at “initial discussions only” whilst 7 out of 17 (41%) selected “preliminary planning underway”.
• Governance and sign off routes: governance routes are multi-stage (senior leadership, committee or board cycles, final approval), with long lead in times for papers and risks linked to election and committee cycles (raised repeatedly in interviews and initial scoping conversations with health board and local authority contacts).
• Partnership and collaboration: 7 out of 17 (41%) survey respondents said they intend to work towards a combined/joint approach between the relevant health board and local authority, whilst 8 out of 17 (47%) said “maybe” to a collaborative approach. Interviewees often favoured aligned outcomes and joint consultation, while keeping separate statutory plans.
• Risks and pinch points: capacity pressures are prominent, with 12 out of 17 (71%) survey respondents rating their current capacity as 'low'. Funding and resourcing were raised in every interview session as key constraints. Recruitment challenges, consultation fatigue, contested policy areas, and procurement realities also featured prominently in many of the interviews.
• Support needs and preferences: all support types tested in the survey were rated “Useful” or “Very useful” by at least 94% of respondents; the strongest single request was access to relevant data and evidence (with 15 out of 17 survey respondents rating this “Very useful”). Most respondents (77%) selected support being needed “throughout the entire process” (13 out of 17).