EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Consultation
This report presents an analysis of responses to a second consultation to inform Scotland's Climate Change Adaptation Framework. The consultation sought to further develop the strategic aims and objectives of the Adaptation Framework and also outline an Action Programme for 2009-2011 to drive progress towards the objective. The consultation took place from 27 th April to 20 th July 2009. The process consisted of two main strands: written submissions answering the 19 specific questions posed in the consultation document, and four workshops.
A total of 69 written responses were received. The highest number of responses were from organisations, and of these, the most came from local government. Eleven responses were received from individuals.
Four consultation workshops were held for: public sector groups on 15 th June 2009 in Edinburgh; the land use sector on 15 th June 2009 in Edinburgh; the private sector and infrastructure sector on 16 th June 2009 in Glasgow; and for a mix of sectors on 17 th June in Inverness. Some of the information generated at these workshops is included in this report, although the large majority of the material presented here is based on the written submissions.
The qualitative information generated by the consultation encompassed the following issues: the adequacy of the government's efforts to improve understanding of climate change; the effectiveness of the government's efforts to improve the adaptive capacity of individuals and organisations; the utility of the Scottish Climate Change Impacts Partnership ( SCCIP) website; the equalities implications of the proposed Adaptation Framework; the barriers posed by any rules or regulations; and the roles to be fulfilled by all the different sectors in preparing for climate change.
Improving Understanding
The consultation examined whether the following six actions were the most appropriate for improving understanding of the consequences of changing climate:
i. Supporting the further development of climate models.
ii. Developing detailed assessments of risks and opportunities posed by a changing climate.
iii. Costing the risks and opportunities presented by a changing climate.
iv. Working with Scottish sectors to cost the risks presented by a changing climate.
v. Supporting the co-ordination of climate change research across Scotland and with UK partners.
vi. Investigating the benefits of a centrally coordinated evidence base.
The majority of respondents (53 out of the 57 who responded to the question) agreed that the actions were either appropriate or partly appropriate. The main criticisms centred around the fact that the actions were concerned with identifying problems rather than specific measures to deal with those problems. The separation of adaptation and mitigation was also considered counterintuitive and counterproductive by some respondents. Respondents proposed a number of additional actions which went beyond the "improving understanding" remit of the question. These included: improving the transport system; encouraging micro-generation in offices and homes; restoring and protecting the peatlands; improving planning regulations on location, layout and design of buildings; enforcing stringent building standards; and making more funds available or offering tax incentives to encourage the adoption of adaptation measures. A large number of respondents wanted to see the government leading by example. This was a recurring theme running through responses to all questions.
In terms of the six listed actions, respondents expressed the view that climate change models would be more helpful if they were "downscaled" i.e. could be used to give more localised projections about the effects of climate change. Other respondents were keen that the international impacts of climate change, such as food scarcity and climate refugees, be given a higher profile in the Framework.
There was also concern that the social and environmental impacts of climate change were given less priority in the consultation document than economic impacts. Respondents wanted to see actions which would develop and maintain a healthy and robust eco-system. Related to this, there was concern expressed about a possible over-reliance on Cost-Benefit Analysis. The question was raised as to how monetary values would be assigned to social and environmental impacts and the transparency which would be given to such value-based judgments.
Most respondents felt that a central "portal" such as SCCIP would be valuable, providing that it: was much better publicised; was made more accessible; was presented in suitable formats; had probabilities attached to each projected scenario; and, vitally, that it was made relevant to local concerns.
In terms of research, respondents expressed concern that the effective dissemination of existing research might be neglected in favour of "co-ordination" and a rush to commission new research. Support for an empirical database monitoring observed environmental changes was also registered by some.
Improving Capacity
The consultation examined whether the following two actions were the most appropriate for improving the capacity of individuals and organisations to adapt well to a changing climate:
i. Raise awareness of current and projected unavoidable impacts of a changing climate.
ii. Provide decision makers with appropriate decision support tools and training.
The majority of respondents (47 out of the 52 who responded to the question) agreed that the actions were either appropriate or partly appropriate. The main criticism, again, was that the actions were too vague and needed to include more specific and practical measures. It was unclear to a number of respondents who the two actions were targeting, who the "decision makers" were, how the two actions would be resourced, and exactly what types of tools and training were, or eventually would be, on offer and to whom. There was also a concern that the importance of changing people's attitudes and behaviours was not sufficiently addressed in this section of the consultation.
In terms of raising awareness, this was considered vital to any hopes of implementing adaption measures. Some respondents wanted to see a greater sense of urgency in the delivery of key messages, while others wanted to see more consistent messages being communicated. A further comment was that awareness raising needed to be targeted at specific groups, such as "harder to reach" groups and people for whom English is not a first language. Generally, it was felt that the government needed to think innovatively about the most effective ways of raising awareness across the sectors.
In terms of training, there were a number of suggestions about how the training should be devised. Suggestions included: training the trainers effectively to disseminate information; mainstreaming what are currently specialist skills; sharing good practice; sharing showcase examples; and giving sector specific training.
The tools needed to facilitate adaptation to climate change were considered crucial by some, but there was also confusion over what they were and when they would be made available. Encouraging local authorities to establish a Local Climate Impacts Profile was considered essential, while pitching specific tools to specific population groups (such as old or young people) was also advised. The point was also made that currently available tools were not yet being optimally applied or advertised.
The Scottish Climate Change Impacts Partnership
The consultation explored the utility of the SCCIP website. Respondents were asked the following:
i. How do you think the climate change trends and impacts service might be improved?
ii. How do you think the latest research and project information service might be improved?
iii. How do you think the tools and resources service might be improved?
iv. How do you think the training and support events service might be improved?
Only 31 of the 69 respondents reported that they had used the SCCIP website. Of these, some respondents found it very useful, while others found it lacking in various ways. Recommendations for improvement included: wanting it to be more actively promoted and advertised; simplifying the language used; making it more user-friendly; keeping it more up-to-date; including links to other useful websites; improving the navigation; having sector specific sections on the site; presenting an option to give feedback about the site; and to give recent good practice examples or notice of training on offer.
A large number of respondents mentioned that the training section of the website was particularly lacking. Respondents wanted more training to be on offer, for it to be better advertised, sector specific, and available in more geographical locations.
Equalities Implications
The consultation examined what the equalities implications of the proposed Framework might be.
The general view among respondents was that some groups of people are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than others and that it is likely that these people will also find it harder to recover from the negative impacts of climate change. The vulnerable groups identified by respondents were: people on low incomes; older people; children; those with ill-health; disabled people; people with mental health issues; those for whom English is not a first language; people living in the Highlands and Islands; people living in coastal regions; and people with little climate change awareness. In addition, the effects of climate change internationally were envisaged to compound global inequalities, and some felt that this international dimension was not given a high enough profile in the consultation report.
There was a general view that these groups of people will need more targeted government support to help them adapt. The measures proposed by respondents included: shoring up the insurance industry so that it is protected from bankruptcy; helping people on lower incomes to find insurance; conducting Equalities Impact Assessments on new policies; improving the capacity of the Third sector to deliver assistance to vulnerable groups; improving community mechanisms to help communicate adaptation messages ( e.g. community wardens); and ensuring that measures are implemented equally across all sectors to ensure sustainable and equitable outcomes.
Many respondents made reference to the 2009 Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research ( SNIFFER) report entitled: "Differential Social Impacts of Climate Change in the U.K."
( http://www.sniffer.org.uk/Webcontrol/Secure/ClientSpecific/ResourceManagement/UploadedFiles/UKCC22%20FinalReport_web.pdf). They felt that this report comprehensively highlighted the differential impacts of climate change on different social groups.
Barriers
The consultation explored if there were any particular rules, regulations, or government actions that might pose a barrier to adaptation
Most respondents argued that all policies and legislation should be reviewed in light of the urgent need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The following barriers were identified: planning and building regulations; land use; local government; political leadership; and funding.
With regards to planning and building regulations, respondents felt that both were key instruments to ensure a well-adapting Scotland. However, given this level of importance, many respondents expressed disappointment that there was not more reference made to them in the consultation document. The Scottish Planning Policy and the National Planning Framework were both seen to present excellent opportunities for incorporating mitigation and adaptation considerations, but there was concern that these opportunities would be missed. For example, one organisation felt that there was not enough clear or positive guidance on what "sustainable development" actually is. It was also suggested that there needed to be a re-prioritisation between aesthetic sensibilities (how buildings look) and the need to adapt to climate change.
Land use regulations were also mentioned by respondents as a general barrier. More specific concerns were raised over the Scottish Rural Development Programme and the Land Use Strategy and the priority given to climate change in both. A number of respondents advocated an "eco-systems based approach" which would take into account the vital importance of bio-diversity in improving Scotland's adaptive capacity.
A number of barriers were noted in relation to local government and its ability to take up and enforce adaptation measures. Some respondents felt that Single Outcome Agreements ( SOAs) should explicitly include mitigation and adaptation commitments. It was also advised that the Climate Change Declaration ( http://www.sustainable-scotland.net/climatechange/) should be included in all SOAs and be considered in "best value" assessments. In terms of adapting funding systems to encourage long-term measures and investment, it was also suggested that a "whole-life" costing system be introduced.
Many respondents argued that poor leadership from government was the biggest barrier to promoting effective adaptation to climate change. A few respondents claimed that mixed messages often leave the public de-motivated. It was also noted that no mention was made of the apparent contradiction between climate change policy and promoting economic development and that this does not give out a clear signal as to the far-reaching lifestyle changes which will be required.
In terms of funding adaptation measures, the financial crisis was also seen as a key barrier.
Sector Roles
The consultation examined the roles of the different sectors in building resilience to a changing climate.
Respondents generally considered that the sector roles were incomplete and insufficiently clear as outlined in the consultation document. Respondents strongly agreed that a co-ordinated and cross-sector approach should be taken. However, it was argued that this would require stronger leadership from government and more clarity in terms of expectations and guidance.
For the public sector, there was some confusion about where public sector responsibility lay, especially in light of the "climate change duties for public bodies"
contained within the Climate Change [Scotland] Act 2009. Some local authorities also requested clarity about these new duties. Some respondents argued that public sector agencies should act as role models, that they should engage in joint working, and that they should promote and share best practice from an early stage so as to influence any guidance produced.
Many respondents reasoned that local government plays a pivotal role in helping people to adapt, and in communicating adaptation measures. SOAs were again mentioned as an instrument for aligning government and local authority responses. However, there was some concern that progress needed to be officially monitored by Audit Scotland and that urgency needed to be instilled, perhaps by encouraging Community Planning Partnerships to include climate change measures. It was also suggested that local authorities can devolve actions to other agencies e.g. estate managers, employers, community leaders, and planning partners.
Respondents also expressed the view that there was immense potential for the Third sector to play a key role in linking up grass roots communities, communicating policy initiatives, and running training programmes. It was felt that this sector could help to tackle the "equality gap" which would be widened by the impacts of climate change.
In terms of business sector roles, concerns were raised that awareness of climate change was very low in this sector and, as such, targeted measures would be needed in the Framework. Small to medium-sized enterprises were singled out as being in greater need of support and advice. When communicating the importance of climate change to businesses, some respondents argued that more relevant examples needed to be used, and more sector specific training would also be beneficial. It was also suggested that businesses themselves could potentially offer innovative solutions to the challenge presented by climate change, that they could harness the opportunities presented by climate change, and that measures undertaken by them could help to strengthen community capacity and resilience in the long-term.
Other comments
Respondents also raised additional points which they felt had been overlooked or not given enough prominence in the proposed Framework.
Some respondents wanted planning and land use addressed more comprehensively. Others wanted ecological adaptation to be given priority in the Framework in light of the urgency required in building eco-system resilience and the time needed for habitats to develop. It was also argued by some that the global dimension of climate change needed to be given more prominence, and by others that transport needed to be given more attention, given its role in both mitigation and adaptation. Other comments were directed towards criticising minor aspects of the lay-out of the actual consultation document.
Common Themes
Generally, views ranged greatly and were often specific to the respondent's sector. Thus, there was not a huge amount of overlap between responses, making it more difficult to draw out common themes in the analysis. However, some themes did stand out over and above the more specific, detailed comments. These were: the seriousness of climate change and the need for a greater sense of urgency in planning for its impacts; the desire to see a more detailed plan of actions rather than a list of problems to be addressed; the need to make risks and opportunities, as well as training, more sector-specific; the desire to see the SCCIP website better resourced and more effectively advertised as a one-stop shop; the desire to see vulnerable groups identified for targeted government support; the need to take a holistic overview of all policies and legislation related to the environment to ensure compatibility with the Framework; the perceived need for an "eco-system based approach" to build environmental resilience; and the desire to see the Scottish Government lead by example and take a more consistent and co-ordinated approach to climate change.