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

3. Findings

Findings are presented under five cross-cutting themes identified consistently across interviews and supported by the survey data.

3.1 Approach and current position (where organisations are in the GFN Plan development process)

Survey respondents are largely in the pre-development phase: 10 out of 17 (59%) reported ‘initial discussions only’ and the remainder reported ‘preliminary planning underway’. Across interviews, ‘getting started’ typically meant establishing an internal working group, mapping stakeholders, and locating the organisational ‘home’ for the plan.

A common approach reported by some authorities who were at a preliminary planning stage was to build from existing local food strategies, food partnerships or community planning infrastructure, rather than starting from scratch. Where a mature partnership already existed (e.g. a local food partnership or community food network), leads described this as a practical vehicle for early engagement and coordination.

Survey responses suggest plans are expected to be highly cross-cutting, with 6 out of 17 (35%) respondents expecting 5 to 6 departments to be involved and 4 out of 17 (24%) expecting 7 or more departments. Public health, catering and environmental service departments are typically expected to be involved.

Participants described currently taking a ‘watching brief’ approach (monitoring the situation closely without taking any action) to plan development where resourcing was unclear, while others were already networking across neighbouring authorities and NHS footprints (where local authority and health board overlap) to avoid duplication.

While many authorities were still at the ‘initial discussions’ stage, a small number described having moved beyond scoping, for example by drafting early options, briefing senior leadership and elected members on the upcoming statutory duty, and using established food partnerships or community planning structures to convene stakeholders. Informal peer exchange was valued, with one area noting that another authority in their regional network appeared ‘far ahead’, which helped to make the task feel more practical and achievable.

3.2 Governance and sign-off routes

Governance was consistently described as a multi-stage pipeline. Local authority routes typically involve several stages: drafting through officer working groups (1), senior leadership oversight (2), committee/cabinet cycles (3), and often full council approval for cross-cutting strategies (4). Health board routes typically involve senior leadership/executive routes and ultimately board approval.

A recurring operational issue identified in the interviews was lead time: papers often need to be prepared weeks (or months) ahead of committee/board cycles; if revisions are required, items may slip to the next cycle. Interviewees emphasised that governance processes are manageable once a draft exists, but the cumulative impact of cycles, lead times, and cross-organisational reporting can create substantial overall time requirements.

Political and organisational calendars were highlighted as practical constraints (e.g. committee recesses, pre-election periods), and the need for early awareness-raising papers/briefings was frequently mentioned as a way to reduce late-stage governance blockers.

For example, in a local authority officers noted that approval sits with the Cabinet but timing depends on both when the plan is ready and whether ‘due consultation and engagement’ can be evidenced, alongside constraints such as pre‑election periods and committee recesses.

Another authority emphasised that consultation would be iterative, ‘at various stages it will go back’, and highlighted the practical challenge of aligning consultation quality with committee and local authority cycles, particularly where consultation is intended to be delivered through a local food partnership (i.e. as a collective plan) rather than by the local authority alone.

Interviewees frequently described governance as including an explicit consultation stage. In several local authorities, drafting was expected to be followed by public and/or partner consultation, with time needed both to run a consultation and to analyse, publish and respond to feedback before final reports could proceed to committee/Cabinet or full council. One local authority described a typical minimum public consultation period (e.g. at least two weeks), followed by internal deadlines forr publishing consultation outcomes and preparing a final proposal for full council, with additional time required for monitoring officer checks and publication of papers in advance of meetings.

Some interviewees suggested that, once the process moves into drafting and consultation, the full route to final sign-off could take around 18 to 24 months, and in one case a full two-year timeline was anticipated, reflecting consultation stages, committee or board lead times, and revision cycles. Others emphasised that it is difficult to estimate in advance, particularly where start dates are linked to when the legislative duty comes into force (start date was under discussion at the time of the interviews), and where consultation feedback could require substantial re-drafting, which can shift items to later committee or board cycles.

In several sessions, participants asked for practical clarification on what ‘have regard’ means in day-to-day plan development. Discussions focused on demonstrating a clear line of sight from the national outcomes and priorities to local choices, while recognising local variation. Where a local plan does not emphasise a national priority to the same extent, Scottish Government colleagues highlighted the importance of keeping an audit trail that records the rationale and evidence, including why specific issues are, or are not, prioritised locally.

3.3 Partnership and collaboration

Partnership working is a central feature of intended approaches. In the survey, 7 out of 17 (41%) reported ‘yes’ to joint/combined working, and 8 out of 17 (47%) reported ‘maybe’.

However, all interviewees suggested they will be working in a partnership. Many participants favoured aligning outcomes, sharing evidence, and running joint engagement/consultation where possible, while retaining separate statutory plans (or cross-referencing between plans) to keep accountability clear.

Regional and sub-regional collaboration models were viewed as particularly promising where NHS geographical footprints span multiple local authorities offering efficiencies in engagement, data gathering and peer learning.

Community planning partnerships and local food partnerships were repeatedly referenced as convening structures for collaborative development, especially where the plan is positioned as a partner collective rather than a single‑organisation document.

In several areas, collaboration with the health board was framed as essential for data and evidence gathering. Participants described opportunities for joint data sharing and, where feasible, a shared consultation exercise, particularly where multiple local authorities are covered by a single NHS area. This was discussed as a model in which NHS planning is developed alongside place‑based delivery routes led by local authorities. For example, the consultation may be developed by the NHS board and local authorities, but the local authorities will be carrying out the consultation.

Interviewees often distinguished between (a) producing a single joint statutory plan and (b) undertaking joint work to reduce duplication. A frequently preferred model was joint engagement/consultation and shared outcomes across a region, with each authority then setting out distinct actions within its own plan. This was described explicitly by local authorities and the NHS Board that have agreed a region wide approach where the intention is to ‘ask the same questions once’ and agree joint outcomes, while retaining separate plans for accountability.

3.4 Areas of concern

Capacity pressures were raised the most frequently as the most important delivery risk across both the survey and the interviews. In the survey, 12 out of 17 (71%) rated current capacity as ‘low’, and only 4 out of 17 (24%) rated capacity as ‘moderate’.

Interviewees often framed this as work being done ‘on the edge of the desk’, without a dedicated coordinator role, making it difficult to convene stakeholders, manage dependencies, and maintain momentum.

Funding uncertainty was repeatedly raised as a core pinch point, particularly because it shapes whether organisations can recruit, backfill, or fund facilitation and engagement. Participants also noted the risk of competition for the same specialist roles if multiple authorities attempt recruitment at the same time.

Across interviews, funding was framed as a practical precondition for meaningful plan development. Participants linked it to appointing or seconding a coordinator, backfilling staff time, running engagement and consultation, procuring facilitation and data support, and sustaining local food partnership coordination.

A small number of interviewees also referred to public statements about Good Food Nation funding and asked for greater clarity on what this means in practice for relevant authorities, including how any national level allocations translate into local capacity to deliver the statutory duty. In such cases, respondents were directed to GFN policy officials for further clarity and information regarding funding.

In some areas, interviewees anticipated a recruitment challenge if many relevant authorities seek to appoint similar roles at the same time. This was described as both a capacity risk and a cost risk, particularly for smaller or rural authorities and island boards.

Several additional pinch points that were prominent include: (i) consultation fatigue given multiple overlapping statutory processes; (ii) contested policy areas (e.g. agriculture, procurement, climate change) that can slow sign-off; (iii) procurement and market constraints when translating ‘local’ aspirations into compliant purchasing; and (iv) data availability and clarity on expectations around spheres of influence (what is locally actionable versus national/system-level).

Other evidence from the survey suggests that the most anticipated expertise gap is in data and evidence gathering.

Survey evidence on anticipated expertise gaps (multi-select):

• Data and evidence gathering: 8 out of 17 (47%)
• Food policy expertise: 7 out of 17 (41%)
• Legal/compliance understanding: 7 out of 17 (41%)

Consultation itself was also framed as a pinch point. Participants highlighted both consultation fatigue and the possibility that consultation results could require substantial re‑drafting or re‑scoping of plans, creating delays. Governance lead times compound this risk where papers are prepared far in advance of decision meetings and cannot easily be updated once submitted.

A further risk raised in interviews is market pressure: participants expressed concern that, as multiple local authorities and health boards start to procure in line with similar ambitions, they may compete for the same suppliers (e.g. local produce), which could drive up prices and make delivery difficult within existing budgets.

3.5 Support needs and preferences

Support needs were largely consistent across all relevant authorities. All tested support types as seen in Table 4 were rated as either ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’ by at least 94% of survey respondents. The strongest single request was access to relevant data and evidence (15 out of 17 rated this ‘very useful’).

Support with facilitation was also often raised by interviewees. Interviewees described the challenge of convening partnership meetings and running meaningful engagement with busy stakeholders, particularly when consultation is intended to be delivered collectively through partnerships. Alongside facilitation, participants requested toolkits and reference materials for designated leads who may not have deep food‑system expertise, and an ongoing dialogue with the Scottish Government as plans develop.

Data support was consistently framed as referring to both access and enablement. Participants asked for support with data sharing (including protocols that enable bringing partners into the process) and for a shared platform where organisations could upload local data and retrieve comparable data/evidence back to support consistent baselining and monitoring.

Some participants described benefiting from ongoing conversations with the Scottish Government, and sessions involving researchers linked to the Good Food Nation Living Lab. Practical examples were welcomed, particularly emerging work on monitoring and use of dashboards at local level. Interviewees suggested that continuing this type of support, and making it easy to access (for example via a knowledge hub or shared platform), would help to reduce duplication and maintain a consistent evidence base across relevant authorities.

Qualitative evidence adds detail on what ‘networking opportunities’ and ‘data and evidence’ support look like in practice. Interviewees noted that leads are often overbooked, and suggested making networking and learning events more accessible through recordings, slide packs and brief written summaries so organisations do not miss information.

In terms of timing, survey respondents most commonly (77%) wanted support ‘throughout the entire process’ (13 out of 17), with smaller proportions identifying ‘before starting’ and ‘during early planning’ as particularly important. Interviewees framed this as needing a consistent relationship with Scottish Government/partners rather than one-off events.

Timing preferences (multi-select):

• Throughout the entire process: 13 out of 17 (77%)
• Before starting plan development: 4 out of 17 (24%)
• During early planning stages: 3 out of 17 (18%)

Preferred formats emphasised the desire for blended offers of support. Nearly two-thirds selected a ‘combination of formats’ (11 out of 17, 65%), with high preference for online webinars/presentations (10 out of 17, 59%), peer learning networks and written guidance (each 8 out of 17, 47%), and an online resource portal (7 out of 17, 41%). Interview sessions also indicated noticeably lower support for one‑to‑one calls or meetings.

Format preferences (multi-select):

• Combination of formats: 11 out of 17 (65%)
• Online webinars or presentations: 10 out of 17 (59%)
• Peer learning networks: 8 out of 17 (47%)
• Written guidance documents: 8 out of 17 (47%)
• Online resource portal: 7 out of 17 (41%)
• In-person workshops or training sessions: 6 out of 17 (35%)