Local food for everyone: consultation analysis

Part A – Local Food

Defining Local Food

The consultation paper set out a definition of local food, reflecting the fact that local food means different things to different people; defined as food that has some of all of the following features:

• It is produced locally (this includes your town, region or elsewhere in Scotland).
• It has short supply chains (there are fewer steps between the primary producer of the food and the person who eats the food).
• It is sustainably produced (i.e. produced in a way that is better for the natural environment than large scale industrial production).
• It is produced in a way that places an emphasis on building better relationships of trust, information, fairness and support between local food producers and the people buying and eating their food.

The first question asked,

Q1: Do you agree with the Scottish Government definition of local food as set out in the strategy?

A total of 292 consultation respondents opted to provide a response to this question. The majority (80%) of these respondents – across all sub-groups – agreed with the Scottish Government definition of local food; a small minority of respondents (15%) disagreed with this definition.

Table 2 - Q1: Agreement with definition of local food

	Number
	Yes	No	Don't know	No response
Campaigning / advocacy (17)	13	4	-	-
Community interest / social enterprise (7)	5	1	1	-
Education / Academic / Research (4)	4	-	-	-
Environment / conservation (5)	3	2	-	-
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (9)	8	1	-	-
Local authority (3)	2	-	-	1
Public sector / NDPB (5)	1	2	2	-
Representative body (17)	12	4	1	-
Third sector (food) (6)	5	-	-	1
Third sector (non-food) (4)	3	-	-	1
Other (4)	4	-	-	-
Total organisations (81)	60 (74%)	14 (17%)	4 (5%)	3 (4%)
Individuals (217)	177 (82%)	31 (14%)	6 (3%)	3 (1%)
Total respondents (298)	237 (80%)	45 (15%)	10 (3%)	6 (2%)

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

Consultation respondents were then asked to explain their answer; 209 respondents provided comments. A small minority of these, primarily organisations, simply noted their support for the overall definition as being the way forward to bring about social and environmental benefits to local communities. To a large extent, comments made by many of the respondents answering this question echoed the points that were in the consultation paper. For example, some, mostly organisations, felt there is a need for flexibility within this definition as different people will define 'local food' in different ways.

Other topics highlighted mostly by individuals referred to a need for more specific geographic delineation of local food, although there was no consistency in views. For example, there were references to local food being food grown within an hour's drive or 50 miles, for food grown within 40 miles and for food grown within 20 miles, along with some references to the need for 20 minute neighbourhoods^[2].

Some other respondents, primarily individuals, referred to local food as being from within the geographic area where they live, including England or Northern Ireland for those living close to a border. There were also some references to locally grown food being defined as any food that is produced, packaged and distributed within Scotland, although a similar proportion also referred to local food as any food from Great Britain and Ireland, particularly in instances where there is a need for food items that cannot be grown in Scotland; or from further afield for certain products such as bananas or avocados.

The need for improvements to supply chains and necessary infrastructure were cited by some respondents – mostly organisations – with references to the need for support for growers by providing stronger supply chains which are short and accountable and providing the necessary local processing units. That said, there was a view from a few organisations that an effective supply chain is more important than its length and that any supply chain will need to be agile, adaptable and aligned, as well as being financially viable.

Alongside a need for stronger supply chains, there were also comments, mainly from organisations, on the need to provide more support for local businesses; for example by providing business support, in supporting them to buy at the same price as the big multiples, or in supporting smaller producers who currently have a limited access to the wider market or in investing in, and promoting, local food systems. A few respondents noted that improvements to the infrastructure would also support local businesses and sustain local producers, thereby supporting the local economy and local jobs.

Environmental issues were raised by a number of respondents, with some requests for any food policy to link to climate change and comments that a greater use of local food would lead to fewer food miles and a lower carbon footprint. Alongside this, there were comments from a small number of individuals on the need for less (non-recycled) packaging to be used and less waste to be created.

While environmental issues were a key area for some respondents, there was also an acknowledgement primarily from organisations as well as a few individuals on the need to have a holistic approach across all agriculture and food policies, and for any local food policy to be more explicit in terms of climate change, biodiversity and health. An environmental / conservation organisation noted the need for the environmental impact of food to be part of the definition and not just a feature of locally produced food, given that some locally produced food can have a higher impact than food produced elsewhere. As noted by an organisation in the food / food retail / producer / distribution sub-group,

"It is also very positive to think of local food as the attributes it embodies. The key four are: 1. nutritionally health giving, 2. actively carbon reducing, 3. creating real jobs in independent businesses, 4. produced in a way that regenerates nature. These four attributes of local food should be measured and quantified for a range of foods and retail settings, and used to help guide consumer preference. These four attributes should also be directly linked to SG spending - for instance in the post CAP farm payment system."

The issue of provenance and the need for labelling was cited by a small minority of respondents (more organisations than individuals), with comments on the need for information to be provided on the origin of food products so that consumers have information on the source of food they are purchasing. Linked to this, there were also a few requests for information on CO₂ emissions, with some suggestions for a form of traffic lighting on food labels.

While there was a degree of support for local food to be sustainably produced, there were a few requests from organisations for a clear definition of 'sustainable'. As noted by one campaigning / advocacy organisation this definition should include "a method of production using processes and systems that are non-polluting, conserve non-renewable energy and natural resources, are economically efficient, are safe for nature and biodiversity, workers, communities and consumers, and do not compromise the needs of future generations".

Linked to this issue, a few respondents also referred to the importance of an agro-ecology approach which is a system of sustainable farming that works with nature offering a holistic and integrated approach that applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agriculture and food systems.

There were also a few references to the need for food in Scotland to be produced to high welfare and environmental standards, offering transparency over the use of fertilisers and insecticides so that consumers have information on the conditions under which food is grown. This issue was cited by more individuals than organisations.

A few respondents referred to specific topics that should be included in a local food policy. These included reference to:

• Alternatives to intensive farming which is an approach seen as damaging the environment (individuals).
• A Wild Food (foraged food) Strategy.
• Allotments and community growing areas, with a small number of references to Community Supported Agriculture (cited by more individuals than organisations).
• Other food products including seafood, fish and venison (cited by more organisations than individuals).

A few respondents, mostly organisations, noted the need for solutions to feed a large population and commented on the need to consider larger farms so that all producers can be part of an integrated food system. There were also a small number of comments that it is wrong to imply that sustainably produced food is inconsistent with large scale industrial production, particularly as this can offer economies of scale.

The Benefits and Disadvantages of Local Food

The consultation paper then set out a number of benefits of local food within local economies, the environment, health, food waste and reducing barriers to food. The next question asked,

Q2: Do you agree with the benefits associated with local food as set out in the strategy?

As shown in the following table, almost three in four respondents agreed with the benefits associated with local food, while almost all of the remaining respondents agreed with some but not all of these benefits.

Table 3 - Q2: Agreement with benefits of local food

	Number
	Yes	Agree with some but not all	No	Don't know	No response
Campaigning / advocacy (17)	10	7	-	-	-
Community interest / social enterprise (7)	5	2	-	-	-
Education / Academic / Research (4)	3	1	-	-	-
Environment / conservation (5)	3	2	-	-	-
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (9)	8	1	-	-	-
Local authority (3)	1	1	-	-	1
Public sector / NDPB (5)	3	2	-	-	-
Representative body (17)	12	5	-	-	-
Third sector (food) (6)	5	-	-	-	1
Third sector (non-food) (4)	1	2	-	-	1
Other (4)	3	1	-	-	-
Total organisations (81)	54 (67%)	24 (30%)	-	-	3 (4%)
Individuals (217)	160 (74%)	47 (22%)	3 (1%)	2 (1%)	5 (1%)
Total respondents (298)	214 (72%)	71 (24%)	3 (1%)	2 (1%)	8 (3%)

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

Respondents were then invited to give further details about their response, including whether there are any further benefits associated with local food which have not been captured, together with examples where possible. 188 respondents made comments. To a large extent, comments reiterated and expanded upon the benefits outlined in the discussion paper. The following paragraphs outline the key themes which emerged in response to this question.

A significant minority (roughly one in five of those who provided answers, and nearly one in three organisations) reiterated their general agreement with the benefits mentioned in the consultation. Similar significant proportions of respondents (higher proportions of organisations than individuals in all cases) cited each of the following wide variety of benefits as stated in the following paragraphs.

Food quality benefits, with specific mentions made regarding freshness, mineral, vitamin and nutrient content, seasonality, breadth of food range, less need for processed food and security and accessibility of healthy food provision.

Health benefits, in terms of a better fed or nourished population and the mental health of the farming community (e.g. by way of stress relief and reduction of isolation or loneliness), with consequent knock-on benefits for the NHS.

Employment benefits, due to inspiring more people to consider jobs in the food sector with the proviso that fair pay, workers' rights and skills development are made available.

Benefits for remote / crofting / island and rural areas, due to the ability to produce more of their own food, develop their own brands, sustain rural communities and enable a good quality of life generally. However, most respondents stated the caveat that more local infrastructure was needed to realise this benefit; local hubs, processing facilities (e.g. containerised or mobile units), storage and logistics facilities, ferries, and especially abattoirs were recommended in order to keep slaughtering, packaging and processing within the locality. An example of the problems faced by producers was noted by an organisation in the campaigning / advocacy sector:

"For example, the majority of Scottish pigs are slaughtered in England (over 500,000 compared to 300,000 in Scotland according to Scotland Food and Drink) because of a lack of capacity and infrastructure. This also means that the Scottish pig industry is extremely fragile, being reliant on only one abattoir in Scotland, which is particularly problematic given animal transport regulations and journey times."

Benefits arising from shorter supply chains and less food miles: these were purported as including fresher, healthier food, fewer preservation requirements, reduced transport emissions and enhanced viability of small farms and food producers. Benefits for animal health and welfare were also cited as arising from animals not having to travel long distances for breeding or slaughter.

Food waste and recycling benefits, with less waste arising due to longer shelf lives, and additional opportunities identified (e.g. in local food markets or composting) if food is grown or produced locally: examples cited included a zero waste production line in the cod sector in Iceland, and of a distillery utilising waste water to heat greenhouses which produce tomatoes. Smaller numbers of respondents foresaw that less packaging waste would arise, due to less being needed because of fewer transport and storage requirements. There were a very small number of comments on the need to provide support for businesses which use food surplus e.g. fermenting businesses. There was also a suggestion of a need to ensure composting activities are in place along with food waste collections and accessibly priced refilleries (zero waste shops).

Positive benefits for the local economy, with local purchasing purported to keep money in the area as well as helping local businesses. Respondents also referred to this process being redistributive in nature (e.g. to those who produce as well as consume), fair, sustainable and an aid in tackling food poverty. Smaller numbers of respondents also commented about positive impacts on communities more generally, reiterating Community Wealth Building and its benefits.

Improving peoples' connections to food production and consumption via raising awareness of the environment and seasonality of foods. A significant minority of respondents specifically discussed the benefits (e.g. helping deprived people, access to fresh air) arising from community growing or food processing projects such as allotment usage or community gardens, while stressing the need to make more land available for these activities. Similar numbers discussed other social and cultural benefits arising from a local food strategy; these included the sharing of knowledge, inclusivity, relationship building between customers and suppliers and more general connection building within communities.

Environmental benefits and protections, with envisaged climate change mitigation benefits, and reductions of carbon and methane emissions. Additionally, reductions in flooding were predicted as soil condition improvements enable water to be soaked up, and other countries' water supplies would be protected due to less overseas food imports.

A significant minority of respondents were in favour of organic or agro-ecological methods of growing or farming; soil condition, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and regenerative benefits were mooted from these activities.

Small numbers of respondents also mentioned the following potential benefits:

• Less use being made of non-organic aids to growth such as chemicals, antibiotics, hormones and pesticides.
• Tourism benefits (e.g. opportunities to increase tourism based on food provenance, or ensuring that love for food becomes a sought after visitor experience).

Small numbers of respondents suggested further aids to help achieve the benefits of a local food strategy: these included encouragement of foraging for wild food or greater consumption of venison; a very small number recommended Controlled Environment Agriculture or Vertical Farming as useful tools and there were also a couple of favourable comments about Community Supported Agriculture Schemes (CSAs).

Despite the high numbers of respondents citing the benefits discussed above, a significant minority nevertheless highlighted various issues which required tackling in order to realise the benefits of local food strategies. Chief amongst these, a significant minority cautioned that there needs to be behavioural change; facets mentioned included consumer purchasing behaviour, the promotion of seasonal foods, education about food and cooking, regenerative food growing and the unimportance of vegetable aesthetics.

Other additional issues and provisos relating to local food strategy implementation, each cited by slightly smaller numbers of respondents but still comprising a significant minority, were as follows:

• A need for government or local authority support, with specific mentions made about healthy food procurement practices, Scottish food being built into government or council food chains such as those involving schools or care homes, access to land, help with set up costs, aligning support to local requirements and organisation of local food waste collection and disposal by local authorities.
• A recognition that some descriptions in the consultation are unrealistic, including a perceived lack of good agricultural land in Scotland in reality, climate and geography-related drawbacks, poor soil condition (e.g. suffering degraded mineral content), erosion, a short growing season, scepticism regarding 'high standards' of production (with cod management and inshore trawling specifically mentioned) and local food not necessarily equating to healthy food. A small number of respondents stated that it would be unrealistic for Scotland to become self-sufficient and that some foods will always have to be imported; one mention was made of the need for a contingency plan in case of crop failure.
• Affordability, accessibility and pricing issues relating to local food, with complaints that local food prices cannot compare with prices in supermarkets or prices of imported food. This issue was largely raised by individuals. Suggestions to address this problem included issuing food credits for consumers, instigating government subsidies for local producers, and supporting those on low incomes to access local food.

A few respondents suggested a number of policy interventions as aids for prioritising local food, including:

• Agricultural subsidy reform (e.g. replacing area payments with public money for public goods).
• Reinstating entrant farmer grants.
• Support for innovative land management strategies.
• Easing planning regulations.
• Mapping food production for benchmarking purposes or to identify gaps in current production patterns.
• Taxing shops on amounts of food wasted.
• Tackling consumption of products detrimental to health.
• Reducing red tape (e.g. on animal slaughter regulations, or about selling raw meat or unpasteurised milk to anyone outside the farming family).

Other comments, each made by small numbers of respondents, included:

• Requests for the benefits of a local food strategy to be articulated more clearly, with mentions of more research and evidence needed in relation to reducing barriers to local food and vertical farming, and also consideration given to pre-farmgate waste.
• References to the impacts of COVID-19 needing to be taken into the context of local food (driver and stock shortages and increased prices but with community growing and local production proving resilient), with a very small number of mentions that it would be risky to change the economy while the effects are still being felt.
• Negative views regarding fish farming, with lack of benefits to local economies (through foreign-ownership of firms), lack of policing and lack of environmental friendliness all pinpointed as problem areas.
• Negative comments about the business methods of supermarkets and multinational businesses, over-packaging, too much bulk selling and the sacrifice of quality for cheap prices; these respondents desired more support for small scale farmers and businesses.

Having provided their views on the benefits of local food, respondents were then asked:

Q3: Are you aware of any disadvantages of local food?

A total of 285 respondents across all sub-groups answered this question. Views were relatively split with slightly more respondents (146) agreeing there are disadvantages of local food compared to 139 who did not outline any disadvantages.

Table 4 - Q3: Awareness of disadvantages of local food

	Number
	Yes	No	No response
Campaigning / advocacy (17)	6	11	-
Community interest / social enterprise (7)	4	3	-
Education / Academic / Research (4)	2	2	-
Environment / conservation (5)	5	-	-
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (9)	6	3	-
Local authority (3)	2	-	1
Public sector / NDPB (5)	5	-	-
Representative body (17)	9	8	-
Third sector (food) (6)	2	2	2
Third sector (non-food) (4)	2	1	1
Other (4)	1	2	1
Total organisations (81)	44 (54%)	32 (40%)	5 (6%)
Individuals (217)	102 (47%)	107 (49%)	8 (4%)
Total respondents (298)	146 (49%)	139 (47%)	13 (4%)

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

Respondents were then given the opportunity to provide further detail about their response and 184 chose to do so. The key theme to emerge and cited by a large minority of respondents was that local food is often too expensive and that it needs to be affordable and accessible to all individuals. A small number of individuals also noted that there is a perception that local food is more expensive than what is available at supermarkets or that there is unequal access to affordable produce and there is a need for financial support for those who cannot afford local produce. A small number of respondents also noted concerns over the issue of food poverty and the need for local food policies to address this.

Another key comment emerging from a minority of organisations and individuals was that people have lost a sense of eating seasonal food and that, in order to eat local food, people will have to eat produce when it is in season, rather than having an expectation that food can be available all year round. Allied to this, a similar proportion of respondents (more individuals than organisations) noted that Scottish growers will not be able to produce the range of food that individuals are used to being able to access at present. There were also some comments that some ingredients will have to be sourced outwith the country as Scotland will not be able to produce all the food required by the population.

As at earlier questions there was also some reference to infrastructure and a current lack of local supply chains and a view was expressed that efficient supply chains will need to be set up if a local food strategy is to be effective. Higher numbers of organisations than individuals made this point.

There were a number of suggestions for increased levels of education and information on growing food for all people. Suggestions included the educational and health aspects of gardening to be highlighted, or how to cook with seasonal produce. A few respondents felt this will be needed to persuade individuals to buy into the concept of local food.

A few respondents, mostly individuals, referred to land and how this can impact on local food policies. For example, there were some concerns over land which has become too contaminated to use or where soils are devoid of minerals. It was also pointed out that not all soils are good for all crops and that intensive farming practices can be detrimental to the health of soil and water. Once again, there were suggestions to grow local produce in a sustainable manner so as to avoid any negative carbon impacts in local food production. There were also some references, mostly from individuals, to the need to return to a mixed farming approach so as to produce a wide variety of food from a single source; that there needs to be a move away from intensive farming which can result in a loss of diversity.

A few respondents noted other disadvantages and these included:

• An overreliance on local food and how this can be negatively impacted by crop failure, climate change or more extreme weather.
• Not all local foods are good quality and some have a negative impact on the environment (mostly individuals).
• Small local producers cannot compete with large companies or countries that produce cheaper products and can utilise large scale food supply and distribution structures.
• Issues over sourcing a workforce willing to work the land; and the allied need for land-workers to receive the living wage (mostly individuals).

A small number of respondents – mostly organisations – felt there is a need to make changes to public procurement practices and cited two key reasons for this. First, it was felt that public procurement needs to be more accessible to smaller producers. Second, it was recommended that local authorities and other public sector organisations should be prepared to buy local food, even if this is at a higher cost, as this would help to lead the way for others to follow suit.

There were also some suggestions for supermarkets to stock more local produce.

Other comments made by respondents at this question reiterated points made to earlier questions and included reference to a need:

• For a holistic approach, with integration at a national, regional and local level across a wide range of policy areas so that, for example, economic and environmental policies are compatible. This was noted mostly by organisations (cited by more organisations than individuals).
• For incentives and support to be offered to producers.
• For the necessary infrastructure to be put into place; examples given were for smaller refrigeration units and more local abattoirs.

There were a small number of suggestions from organisations for a need to consider new approaches such as vertical farms which can help to combat the issue of seasonality of produce; as well as mentions of low tech solutions to help extend growing seasons.

A few respondents across different sub-groups summarised some key points and noted;

"Where local food is more expensive, this is often because a lot of agroecological, small-scale producers have no choice but to use artisanal markets to add value to their produce and products to make ends meet. This follows from a lack of support for sustainable production, especially at a smaller scale, and a failure to internalise the negative social and environmental impacts of large-scale, industrially produced, processed and distributed food, resulting in market failure and significant competitive disadvantages …. 'disadvantages' can, however, be overcome through better support for genuinely local food. Government needs to address market failure via a radical overhaul of agricultural subsidies, to ensure that they reward biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation and social public benefits including employment opportunities and the production of nutritious and local food, and by implementing the 'polluter pays' principle. Further support is necessary for local infrastructures, actively creating local markets (e.g. through procurement that prioritises local food), tackling bureaucratic and regulatory barriers to small-scale and local food production (e.g. procurement contracts, hygiene regulations) and education and training to build skills in local food."

Scottish Government Activity

The consultation paper noted that the 2014 paper 'Recipe for Success: becoming a Good Food Nation' highlighted the interplay between food and wider socio-economic factors, and aimed to ensure that everyone in Scotland has the opportunity, skills and confidence to access an affordable, healthy and balanced diet for themselves and their families. With communities establishing local food initiatives, the launch of new food businesses and the growth of existing food businesses, The Scottish Government has worked to grow the Scottish local food economy under three pillars:

• Connecting people with food.
• Connecting Scottish producers with buyers.
• Harnessing public sector procurement.

Pillar One: Connecting people with food

The consultation paper outlined a number of ways in which the Scottish Government is helping communities across Scotland. This has included:

• Making land available for growing.
• Grow your own funding.
• Learning about food.
• Improving access to locally produced food.

The next question asked,

Q4: Do you have any comments on the first pillar of the Scottish Government's local food strategy; connecting people with food?

A total of 231 respondents, across all sub-groups, chose to respond to this question. Some of these responses echoed themes cited at earlier questions or confirmed the importance of some or all of the initiatives under this pillar. A small minority of mostly individuals confirmed their general agreement with pillar 1 or the initiatives under this pillar without providing any additional detail. There were also some general comments on the need to ensure the Scottish population has access to safe, local, diverse, fair, healthy and nutrient rich food, to ensure that there is improved access to locally produced food, and of a need to tackle food poverty This point was made by more organisations than individuals. A small minority of respondents (more organisations than individuals) felt there is a need for more ambition in food growing strategies.

The key theme which emerged related to the importance of education, with comments that food education needs to be an integral part of the curriculum and that there needs to be hands-on learning in school gardens, visits to communal growing sites and visits (not digital) to farms. There were also some comments about the importance of offering food education to all individuals and that learning should be provided outwith schools in other settings such as adult education or from community groups so that practical learning beyond schools is extended to the whole community. This theme was cited by higher numbers of organisations than individuals.

A small number of respondents noted the importance of having individuals who are sufficiently trained to be able to educate others, as well as a need for the provision of facilities for training.

There were also a few comments, primarily from organisations, that the provision of universal school meals provides a good opportunity for connecting Scottish children and young people with Scottish food in their everyday experience. A campaigning / advocacy organisation holding workshops, noted their participants wanted to see:

"The need for food to be embedded in the curriculum rather than just an add on. The need for holistic qualifications that tie practical growing and cooking skills together rather than seeing them as separate. The need for a vision for different types of growing spaces for different needs with a variety of educational programmes attached."

Linked to the issue of education, there were also some calls for more active promotion of local food and its nutritional benefits, for example, through awareness campaigns or other channels of information provision.

A significant minority of respondents referred to land in some way and these issues were raised by higher numbers of organisations than individuals) also cited the need for access to land and noted a number of ways this could be brought about. These included greater proactivity on the part of local authorities in providing land for allotments or community gardens, with suggestions for derelict land or unused land to be provided for this purpose; or ensuring that developers provide space in new developments for growing food. Linked to this point, there were also some calls for reform of land ownership so that land is easier to access and there were some suggestions for a radical reform of land ownership. There were also some calls for support of individuals who have land so that they can produce food for local consumption and / or become commercially viable. Some of these respondents outlined financial support as necessary to take forward greater numbers of local food growers and producers. There were also some comments of the need for access to good quality, productive land that could offer security of tenure as access to land is a difficult and expensive process. Across these issues, a number of respondents suggested a redistribution of land to those who wish to grow, and there were a small number of suggestions for unused crofts to be given to young families to farm, given that a number of existing crofts do not currently support the development of local food.

While some respondents outlined the need for greater levels of financial support to food growers, there were some comments that the current levels of available funding are insufficient to bring about the level of change that is needed, particularly given the current costs of land purchase; this point was raised by more individuals than organisations. There were also some calls from slightly more organisations than individuals for greater levels of support for community agriculture and urban agriculture for the long term. There were also a small number of references from both organisations and individuals to the need for agricultural subsidy reform.

The importance of partnership working and strong local partnerships was highlighted by a number of respondents, mostly organisations. Examples provided by respondents included the need to connect producers, growers and farmers, by connecting producers with community businesses, or for local authorities and other public sector organisations to facilitate relationships and connections between growers, farmers, local processors and those in the hospitality and food sector. It was noted by a few that this would help to overcome barriers to accessing local food.

Echoing a theme cited at earlier questions, there were some calls for a comprehensive, holistic and interdisciplinary approach (primarily cited by organisations). The current local food sector is seen by some to be fragmented and localised and a need for joined-up interventions was identified. This, in turn, would help to realise ambitions across a wide range of sectors including planning, climate change and help to strengthen local economies and businesses. For example, a few respondents suggested policy actions that would make clear connections between a new Local Food Strategy, the work of the Scottish Land Commission and discussions on land reform. There were also a small number of comments for the need for clearer connections between the three pillars.

A few respondents referred to the need to create better living standards for all Scots, with some comments that all people should have a right to food and there should not be a need for food banks. There were a few suggestions for improving welfare benefits overall rather than providing emergency funding. Allied to this issue, a few organisations referred to the Good Food Nation Bill and the opportunities this offers to include a 'Right to Food' for all individuals. There were also some requests for this Bill to be more ambitious so that, for example, there could be a requirement for large retailers to have local distribution points across Scotland and for local food to be added to their supply chains. As noted by a few respondents:

"If there is to be 'local food for everyone' we must recognise the role of local food in the realisation of the right to food and incorporate it within the future development of the Good Food Nation Bill."

Other issues that echoed points raised at earlier questions included:

• Reference to the benefits of local food (nutritional / physical health / mental health and wellbeing / community resilience / environmental / offering volunteering opportunities).
• The need for a suitable infrastructure to support local growers, producers and processes (cited by more organisations than individuals).
• A need for food labelling to show the provenance of food, with a few references to the need for a reduction in food waste (mostly organisations).
• Changes to procurement processes so they prioritise 'local attributes', with a suggestion for community benefits to be allied to procurement processes (more organisations than individuals).
• A need to include all types of food within local food policies including foraged food, seafood and so on (more organisations than individuals).

Pillar 2: Connecting Scottish producers with buyers

The consultation paper outlined the key areas covered by this pillar. These included fostering short and circular supply chains, encouraging retailers to stock Scottish food, encouraging consumers to buy Scottish food and encouraging the use of Scottish products as inputs. Respondents were then asked:

Q5: Do you have any comments on the second pillar of the Scottish Government's local food strategy; connecting Scottish producers with buyers?

A total of 211 respondents opted to provide commentary on Pillar 2, some of whom, mostly individuals, simply noted their agreement with this pillar without providing further detail.

The key theme emerging in response to this question, and mentioned by around a third of respondents (more organisations than individuals), was of a need for the appropriate infrastructure to be in place to support small producers. The required infrastructure included efficient distribution networks, adequate processing facilities, short and circular supply chains, routes to market and regional distribution hubs for local producers. Linked to this, there were also some comments that the current policies and regulation around food processing can create difficulties for small enterprises, for example, the costs of being involved with farmers' markets.

The business model of most supermarkets was perceived to be incompatible with local food strategies, with some comments on the need to regulate supermarkets to require them to sell local produce (this point was raised by more individuals than organisations). Whilst not citing supermarkets specifically, some respondents (more organisations than individuals) also noted the need to encourage markets and retail outlets to stock local produce so as to provide greater support for local food initiatives and regional food groups.

The issue of increasing awareness of local food and its benefits and value was cited by more organisations than individuals, with references to the need to encourage consumers to buy Scottish food that is sustainably produced. There were also some comments on the need to promote local food to consumers and provide information to enable them to make informed choices. That said, a few respondents commented that the price of local produce can be an issue as this is often more expensive than mass produced food from elsewhere; it was felt that some consumers cannot afford to buy local food.

A number of respondents referred to the need for greater levels of investment and support for local food producers. Ideas included suggestions for:

• Investment in sustainable farming and urban agriculture (mostly organisations).
• Supporting farmers to develop agro-ecological and organic farming methods to help increase levels of soil resilience and encourage biodiversity (mostly organisations).
• Greater use of the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) model. This approach is seen as having short supply chains, low retail, transport and marketing costs and direct sales to members, so the whole farming pound is retained in the local economy (mostly organisations).
• The provision of more land for growing to increase the growing capacity of Scotland – this could include community gardens, market gardens, orchards and so on.
• Support for high street outlets and encouraging new businesses to set up, perhaps by offering rate reductions (mostly individuals).
• Increased use of technology in order to extend growing seasons and the range of food available, with some reference to the use of vertical farming techniques.
• Financial investment such as low interest loans, grants, subsidies and access to this. Suggestions included:
• Funding needs to be more flexible.
• There needs to be long term investment for local food groups.
• There needs to be integration between on-farm retail and food processing capital in grant schemes.
• Capital grant schemes need to be appropriate to the scale of local businesses as often the amounts of money required are relatively small; and minimum amounts for capital grants should reflect needs.

A number of organisations referred to specific areas where the Scottish Government could help drive forward local food strategies. Suggestions covered a number of different approaches including changes to procurement processes and the introduction of Dynamic Purchasing Systems to help remove barriers created by the current procurement approaches.

The concept of a holistic approach was again cited by more organisations than individuals, with a need for alignment across a range of policy areas, including agriculture, climate change, energy, decarbonisation, renewables and planning. A few comments urged a need for less focus on the export market and a greater focus on the needs of Scottish communities.

As at some previous questions, there was also a focus on the need to be able to identify food as local, with suggestions for clear labelling, perhaps using a universal branding scheme or by providing information on geographic status (cited by more individuals than organisations).

In summarising a number of the above points, a representative body noted:

"[We] welcome[s] the work Scottish Government is doing with major retailers encouraging them to stock Scottish food. However an awareness needs to be brought into this of who these retailers currently are and the power they hold - Nearly 95% of groceries are sold through the top nine supermarkets, resulting in a growing imbalance of bargaining power within food supply chains. We agree[s] with the Landworkers' Alliance that 'a local food strategy should also support local economies which include local retailers. Decentralised routes to market can make healthy, fresh, nutritious and often organic food, produced by SMEs, accessible to people of all incomes. They are more accessible to agroecological and smaller scale farmers and facilitate a proliferation of such enterprises which bring an associated increase in agrodiversity at genetic, crop and landscape level. This contributes to an increase in natural biodiversity and soil health, which are vitally important to the resilience and adaptability of our food system in the face of climate change and environmental degradation."

Pillar Three: Harnessing public sector procurement

The consultation paper outlined the key element of this pillar: leveraging public sector buying power to support Scottish producers. Respondents were then asked:

Q6: Do you have any comments on the third pillar of the Scottish Government's local food strategy; harnessing public sector procurement?

A total of 199 respondents chose to respond to this question. The greatest numbers – a large minority – made generally supportive comments agreeing with the third pillar, with respondents reiterating the importance of the public sector setting a good example by supporting local producers as much as they can; it was intimated that these actions would support increases in local food production. However, significant numbers of respondents pinpointed difficulties for local producers in accessing public sector procurement.

A significant minority of respondents (including a large minority of organisations) thought there needed to be a focus on buying specified types of produce. Suggestions for the sorts of food envisaged as suitable for public procurement included those that are fresh, nutritious, organic, plant-based, sustainable or seasonal. Traceability was mentioned by a couple of organisations as being important in ensuring local food production meets these standards.

Smaller but still significant numbers of respondents thought the third pillar needed to go further; various means of firming up public sector procurement of local food were put forward as follows:

• Mandatory local purchasing (e.g. setting a minimum percentage of all food purchasing).
• Setting legally binding targets.
• Instigating checks and oversights to oversee the process.
• Including relevant conditions on contracts, for example regarding sustainable production.
• Reviewing contract lengths, with suggestions that local producers need long term (e.g. more than 5 years) public sector commitments to help with long term planning, production forecasting and cash flow.
• Defining 'locally produced'; several respondents were of the opinion that local should mean local within a local authority area and not just within Scotland.

Respondents (including a large minority of organisations) drew attention to perceived problems with the current public sector procurement system; it was regarded as cumbersome, expensive, challenging and unrealistic to use from a small or local supplier's perspective, with particular issues mentioned about the number of criteria to meet for inclusion and arduous and expensive due diligence requirements. There were requests to make it easier for these types of producer to access by making it more streamlined or by reformulating the rules and processes involved (e.g. on the type and number of authorised suppliers). A specific problem was noted regarding food production being lumped together with processing and transport; it was suggested that these be broken down into segments within the system. A small number of comments suggested that the public sector procurement system needed to be decentralised (e.g. so that schools can have the freedom to make their own purchasing decisions). A food trade respondent related the following experience:

"The tendering system was very complex - we had to submit 27 separate documents including risk assessments, emergency plans, waste policies, and the like. I approached 3 agencies who promoted the idea of better procurement, but none of them would give us practical help with preparing our tender. It took 3 weeks of work to prepare a bid!"

A significant minority of organisations recommended dynamic procurement or dynamic purchasing systems as a solution. Advantages pinpointed included flexibility, allowing collective groups (e.g. cooperatives) to bid for contracts, the connection of producers with new supply chains, the reduction of barriers for small suppliers, the matching of government contracts with sustainable food producers, and the ability to allow for supply fluctuations due to seasonality.

Affordability issues were also raised by a significant minority, with public bodies seen as procuring the cheapest products due to budget constraints, and price being regarded as more important than quality. Concerns were consequently raised about the squeezing of small scale producers in order to compete for contract awards. A related point was made (by slightly fewer respondents) about ensuring local authorities are adequately funded to cover the increase in food costs incurred through local purchasing.

Concerns were also voiced by a large minority of organisations about the ability of local suppliers to supply sufficient capacity of produce. It was pointed out that small suppliers cannot compete with large companies in this regard and will need support in supply chain logistics, processing facilities and regional distribution hubs in order to step up supply. A few related remarks indicated that it was essential to instigate a holistic approach given that food production involves many facets (production, processing, distribution, etc.). A third sector organisation gave the following instance of how this can be done:

"Through our FFLS work, we know first-hand the importance of relationship building. This can be a slow process, but is very effective in the long-term, as shown by the recent example of Mossgiel Farm linking up with East Ayrshire Council to supply fresh, organic milk to all schools across the local authority area. This included the use of vending machines to serve milk in refillable containers, reducing plastic waste by 400,000 single use bottles a year." (Third Sector (food))

Other difficulties were pointed out, each by a few respondents as follows:

• The need for change regarding local authority and public sector attitudes, by way of getting them to see the value in local food, understanding the differing priorities of a sustainable food system, and seeing the links between food, public health and the environment.
• Lack of data regarding local food performance, with a suggestion that research needs to be carried out to break site information down into primary, secondary and ASN schools.
• New rules for food in schools were perceived to have resulted in less rather than more local produce qualifying for procurement.
• Concerns about disturbing the existing mechanisms which may alienate existing large suppliers.

A significant minority of respondents (mainly individuals) suggested extending public sector procurement for local food to other publicly-owned settings in addition to schools and other educational settings: the NHS, hospitals, prisons, leisure centres, care homes, cultural facilities and the Scottish Parliament were all mentioned in this context.

A few respondents wished to tie in public sector procurement of local food with pupil education, with elements including seasonality, local production benefits, food origins, cooking with fresh produce and food stories all suggested as having benefits for later life. A very small number of respondents saw an opportunity to link the change in public sector procurement with the expansion in free school meals. A few respondents suggested that schools, councils and other public sector organisations could produce or cook some of their own food onsite, given the right skilled staff and facilities; after school gardening clubs and hospital rooftop 'Urban AgriTech' developments were suggested as settings.

A significant minority of respondents (dominated by organisations) pinpointed benefits from harnessing public sector procurement. These included the following:

• Benefits for the local economy; for instance, profits from activities being kept in the local area, aligning with the government's Community Wealth-building Strategy and helping create and keep local jobs – though regarding the latter point a need to integrate fair pay for workers in procurement contracts was alluded to by a few respondents.
• Environmental benefits, including carbon savings and helping to attain climate change targets.
• Diet and health benefits from being fed fresh, local food.
• Good opportunities being offered for local suppliers, in terms of regular income, stability of demand, publicity for produce and capacity building to help compete with larger organisations.

Finally, a small number of respondents made positive comments about the Food for Life Programme, citing that it was working well and significant work had been done; however, there were a very small number of suggestions that the £400,000 of funding seemed to be too little, given a school population of greater than 700,000.

Having obtained views on each of the three pillars, respondents were then asked:

Q7: Are there any areas related to local food where Scottish Government involvement could bring further benefits or reduce disadvantages?

A total of 210 respondents commented at this question. Almost all recommended actions in many specific areas to support the benefits of local food or reduce the disadvantages they face.

The greatest number of respondents – a large minority – recommended support for small scale or local growers, food producers and farmers. Suggestions included funding, subsidies, a reduction in business rates, favourable treatment over global chains and big retailers and revising regulations (e.g. on hygiene and food safety) to reduce barriers for small operators. Separately, a few respondents desired support to be given to new entrant food producers, businesses and farmers, for example by restoring the new farmers' grant and providing start up loans; it was intimated that these actions would help promote food as a career. A few mentions were also made advocating mandated local procurement to help local suppliers, and also support for farmers markets or local food markets.

Helping to support or create key local infrastructure to support short supply chains was a priority for a significant minority (including a large minority of organisations); facilities desired included abattoirs (with a few suggestions these could be mobile), distribution hubs, cold stores, processing hubs, and polytunnels.

Actions to help make local food accessible and affordable to those on low incomes were mentioned by similar numbers of respondents; measures included using food credits, membership schemes involving local shops, subsidising food costs, subsidising transport charges, increasing local production to realise economies of scale to bring prices down and tackling inequalities generally. In similar vein, small numbers of respondents advocated action to help make good quality, healthy food accessible and affordable in rural, remote or island areas, given the relative cheapness of processed food and higher costs of local production.

Similar numbers again thought that provision of education and information about local food would help in the areas of increasing awareness of the benefits of local food and food production skills (e.g. growing and cooking your own food). A few respondents focused on action in schools, with suggestions for putting food in the curriculum and teaching sustainable cooking techniques.

A desire for creating or making available more local green spaces was voiced by significant numbers of respondents, in order to facilitate urban growing including allotments and community gardens. Similar numbers advocated larger scale land reform actions; suggestions included making more land available for small or medium growers or other help for small producers to afford or access land, making green spaces compulsory in all new housing developments, and enabling more community owned land, perhaps by using the Community Empowerment Act.

Significant numbers of respondents (particularly campaigning and advocacy organisations) wished for action to promote organic, sustainable, seasonal or agro-ecologically-grown food, with some suggestions that incentives be provided. A few respondents desired more promotion of healthy diets, with small numbers advocating plant-based diets or diets with no or reduced meat or dairy products.

A clearer focus on or support for specified food-related campaigns, projects and networks was desired by a significant minority of respondents, with a few suggestions that there should be an overall strategy overseeing these. Several campaigns and projects were named in this connection, including Scotland's Natural larder, Community Food and Health Scotland, Nourish Scotland, CHEX, the D&G Sustainable Food Partnership, and the Glasgow Food Policy Partnership. Joined up thinking was also regarded as important concerning government strategies: further recommendations included more linkage of the Scottish Government's and local authorities' food and climate agendas, and integration of the Local Food Strategy with other policies such as the Community Wealth-building Strategy, the 4^th National Planning Framework, the Strategy for Economic Transformation and the Just Transition Strategy.

Small numbers of respondents each made reference to the following areas where Scottish Government involvement might help:

• Action on waste food (e.g. instigating (local) recycling facilities, fining supermarkets rather than help them redistribute to communities, increasing composting or animal feed uses or taking action on packaging waste).
• Action on labelling and food traceability (making clear what is Scottish or local to help people make informed decisions, and publicising food provenance).
• Promotion of foraging (e.g. educating people as to what is edible, reinforcing its cost effectiveness, connection to nature and exercise benefits).
• Promoting or maintaining high welfare systems for Scottish meat produce (e.g. using pasture that can be used for nothing else, local abattoirs as a help with animal welfare due to the need for less travel).
• Fishing reforms to safeguard stocks for the long term (e.g. protecting marine environments (e.g. fish / crustacean nurseries), ensuring sustainable quotas, instigating a spatial management plan for fishery operations, more controls on fish farming, promotion of small scale closed system aquaculture, cheaper distribution, limitations on dredging, effective monitoring to avoid overexploitation and less exporting in favour of local provision).
• Support for venison production (e.g. management of wild deer, development of the supply chain, investment in community owned or local larder facilities, promotion as a food resource, modernising the Deer (Scotland) Act to make wild venison more available locally and action on skills training for stalking and processing). Almost all the comments supporting venison production were from individual respondents.
• Other fiscal support actions (e.g. properly resourcing local authorities to help commit them to the success of local food strategies, expanding the Food for Life scheme to all local authorities, (increased) taxation of imported lower grade or non-seasonal food and of food which would be illegal to produce in the UK and provision of grants to regenerative farming).
• Other legislative support actions (e.g. planning legislation or planning policy reviews to remove the change of use requirement for food growing, to have a better understanding of green corridor connections, and to restrict fast food outlet locations; also to enshrine the Right to Food in Scots law, to establish production standards for Controlled Environment Agriculture and vertical farming, and to establish licencing for shooting woodpigeons).

As referred to in previous questions, significant numbers of respondents commented that potential supportive actions taken would bring benefits in the areas of climate change and environmental impacts, together with community health, resilience and employment.

The views of individuals

The Scottish Government is keen to obtain the views of individuals in terms of their views towards local food, and a series of questions were posed for individuals only. When considering answers to these questions, it should be borne in mind that they are not representative of the general population.

The first question asked:

Q8: Please indicate how willing you are to pay more for local food (very willing, willing, neutral, unwilling, very unwilling)

As demonstrated in the following table, a large majority of respondents were willing to some extent to pay more for local food (80% gave a response of 'very willing' or 'willing').

Table 5 - Q8: Willingness to pay more for local food

	Number*	%
Very willing	82	37
Willing	95	43
Neutral	21	10
Unwilling	11	5
Very unwilling	9	4
Don't know	3	1

*Although this question was asked of individuals, 9 organisations also opted to respond

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

Individuals where then asked:

Q9: Please indicate how willing you are to go to more / different shops to access local food (very willing, willing, neutral, unwilling, very unwilling)

The following table shows there is willingness from a very large majority of respondents to try new or different shops in order to access local food, with 86% giving an answer of 'very willing' or 'willing'.

Table 6 - Q9: Willingness to go to more / different shops to access local foods

	Number*	%
Very willing	105	48
Willing	85	38
Neutral	18	8
Unwilling	7	3
Very unwilling	6	3
Don't know	-	-

*Although this question was asked of individuals, 9 organisations also opted to respond

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

The next question went onto ask:

Q10: Please indicate how likely you are to change your diet, for example to eat fewer exotic foods or to eat more seasonally, in order to eat more local foods (extremely likely, likely, neutral, unlikely, very unlikely)

As demonstrated in the following table, a very large majority of respondents were willing to some extent to change their diet in order to eat more local food (87% gave a response of 'extremely likely' or 'likely').

Table 7 – Q10: Willingness to change diet in order to eat more local foods

	Number*	%
Extremely likely	123	56
Likely	69	31
Neutral	19	9
Unlikely	8	4
Very unlikely	2	1
Don't know	-	-

*Although this question was asked of individuals, 9 organisations also opted to respond

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

The next question went onto ask:

Q11: Are you aware of where you can access local food?

As demonstrated in the following table, there is widespread awareness of where to purchase local food and a high proportion of respondents claimed to be purchasing local food on at least an occasional basis. Over half of these respondents (52%) know where to access local food and claimed to purchase it frequently; and just over a third of respondents (35%) claimed to know where to access local food and to purchase it occasionally. Only a small minority claimed to know where to buy local food but not to purchase it (6%) or claimed not to be aware of where they can access local food (7%).

Table 8 - Q11: Awareness of where to access local food

	Number*	%
Yes, and I buy it frequently	115	52
Yes, and I buy it occasionally	77	35
Yes, but I don't buy it	13	6
No, I am not aware of where I can access local food	16	7

*Although this question was asked of individuals, 9 organisations also opted to respond

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

All respondents who answered this question were then asked to provide further detail in support of their initial answer; 168 commented. The single largest comment, made by just over a third of respondents (35%) was that local shops are already used, with a range of different sources being cited. These included local butchers, fishmongers, greengrocers, bakers, farm shops and farmers' markets. A few respondents also noted that they have deliveries of local food, for example, veg boxes. Some respondents noted they grow some of their own food. Small numbers of respondents also noted they use supermarkets as well as local businesses, that they prefer to support local businesses when they can or that there is good availability of local food in their area.

That said, some respondents noted that local produce is more expensive and that not everyone can afford it; or that there is a limited choice locally, that it is too far to travel to get to local produce or that there is no local produce nearby. Furthermore, a small number of respondents noted that it is not easy to find out where to buy local produce and there were some suggestions for an online database or some form of promotion for local produce or for a local food hub with a distribution network.

A few respondents noted that when using a supermarket, they will look for local or Scottish produce, although there were also some comments that the labelling of produce is not clear enough regarding its source, and that having reference to 'UK' or 'British' does not provide the level of information required. Small numbers of respondents also noted that supermarkets are more convenient. There were a few calls for supermarkets to stock more local produce.

Small numbers of respondents highlighted the benefits of local food, with references to it being of better quality or better for the environment. Conversely, there were some references to local produce sometimes offering poor value for money, that its quality can be poor or that local produce might not be organic.

The next question asked respondents:

Q12: Are you currently able to buy healthy, affordable food groceries within a 20 minute walk (approximately 800 metres) of your home?

As demonstrated in the following table, a significant minority of respondents (40%) claimed it is not possible for them to buy healthy and affordable food within 20 minutes walking distance of their home. Smaller proportions of respondents noted they have a variety of options (20%), there is limited choice (22%) or they have to travel further to buy certain products (18%).

Table 9 - Q12: Ability to buy healthy, affordable food groceries within a 20 minute walk of home

	Number*	%
Yes, I have a variety of options	44	20
Yes, but there is limited choice	48	22
Partially, I have to travel further to buy certain products	39	18
It is not possible for me to buy healthy and affordable food within 20 minutes walking distance of my home	88	40
I don't know	1	**

*Although this question was asked of individuals, 9 organisations also opted to respond

**Less than 1%

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

Respondents were invited to provide further detail on their initial response to this question, with a particular focus on any barriers to their ability to access healthy, affordable food; 144 chose to do so.

To a large extent, responses related to the initial response given to this question. For example, many of those who said they could only partially buy healthy, affordable goods or that they could not buy healthy, affordable food within 20 minutes walking distance of their home noted there are no food shops at all within a 20 minute walk from their home, that they live in a remote / rural area or small village, that there is a limited range locally or that they grow some of their own food or forage.

For respondents who claimed to have a variety of options, responses tended to focus on having a variety of shops or a good choice locally, that they can get some local produce at their local supermarket or that they live in a town or city.

There were also a few comments on local shops being expensive, that not everyone can afford local food, or that there can be problems getting certain types of food locally (these referred mostly to fruit and veg).

The next question went onto ask:

Q13: Are you currently able to buy local food within a 20 minute walk (approximately 800 metres) of your home?

The findings for this question tended to mirror those from the previous question (12). As demonstrated in the following table, a significant minority of respondents (43%) claimed it is not possible for them to buy local food within 20 minutes walking distance of their home. Smaller proportions of respondents noted they have a variety of options (13%), there is limited choice (17%) or they have to travel further to buy certain products (26%).

Table 10 - Q13: Ability to buy local food within a 20 minute walk of home

	Number*	%
Yes, I have a variety of options	29	13
Yes, but there is limited choice	37	17
Partially, I can access some local food but have to travel further to buy certain products	57	26
It is not possible for me to buy local food within 20 minutes of my home	94	43
I don't know	1	**

*Although this question was asked of individuals, 9 organisations also opted to respond

**Less than 1%

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

When asked to provide further detail on their initial response, comments tended to echo those seen at question 12. For example, many of those who said they could only partially buy local food or that they could not buy local food within 20 minutes walking distance of their home noted there are no food shops at all within a 20 minute walk from their home, that they live in a remote / rural area or small village, that there is a limited range locally or that they grow some of their own food or forage.

Regarding respondents who claimed to have a variety of options, responses tended to focus on having a variety of shops or a good choice locally.

Other comments made by respondents included:

• Knowing what is locally produced is a challenge / labelling is not always clear regarding the source of food products.
• Local produce can be expensive / not everyone can afford local food.
• Supermarkets do not sell enough local produce / supermarkets should be encouraged to sell more local produce.

Potential improvements for all to have better access to healthy, affordable and locally sourced food

The next question was posed to all respondents and asked:

Q14: Do you have any further comments on improvements that could be made to allow for everyone living in Scotland to have better access to healthy, affordable and locally sourced food?

A total of 205 respondents opted to answer this question. To a large extent, the themes emerging to this question echoed themes raised at earlier questions, and included comments on the need:

• To offer financial support in a number of ways including the opening of local shops, farmers' markets, reduced business rates and subsidies for small landowners and farmers. A campaigning / advocacy organisation noted:

"Those providing public sector food in Scotland can play an important role in ensuring that everyone living in Scotland has better access to healthy, affordable and locally sourced food. Making this a reality requires significant investment across the food supply chains, school food environment, and human resources. This should not be regarded as a cost to the Scottish Government, but as sustainable, long-term investment in Scotland's community resilience, public health, environmental sustainability and contribution to global climate change mitigation."

• To have improved infrastructure including abattoirs, distribution networks that are reliable and affordable, and local processing plants.
• For all to have access to local food that is affordable.
• For education on, and improved awareness of, local food: where it is produced, about seasonality, the importance of eating healthy food and so on.
• For increased land for production and land reform to help bring this about.
• For a food policy that is linked to social, economic and environmental policy and that offers a holistic vision for food.
• For increased partnership working and coordination to support local growers as well as cooperation over marketing and distribution; and a more connected approach between statutory agencies, the voluntary sector and government (both local and national). There were also a few calls for public sector organisations and local authorities to set an example by ensuring all food provided in schools, hospitals and so on is locally produced. An organisation commented:

"People in Scotland face both geographic and financial barriers to accessing healthy, affordable, and locally sourced food, and strategies for overcoming these barriers will need to include public, private and third sector partners. Those providing public sector food in Scotland can play an important role in ensuring that everyone living in Scotland has better access to healthy, affordable and locally sourced food."

• For changes to procurement approaches.
• For clear labelling of all food.

A small number of respondents – mostly organisations – noted the need for a participatory approach along the lines of that followed in the Scottish National Islands Plan which involved comprehensive consultation amongst island communities:

"Food is at the centre of Scottish life and a local food strategy demands a participatory approach which involves face-to-face discussions with all those involved in and relying on local supply chains."

There were some references to The Good Food Nation Bill and the opportunities this provides for the Scottish Government and local authorities to set out plans to address geographic and financial barriers faced by people in accessing local food, although there were also some comments that this Bill does not go far enough.

Access to local food in public institutions

The Scottish Government is keen to understand the role of public institutions in providing access to local food and the next question asked:

Q15: Do you think that Scotland's schools, hospitals and other public institutions provide sufficient access to healthy, locally sourced food?

As demonstrated in the following table, there is a lack of belief that Scotland's schools, hospitals and other public institutions provide sufficient access to healthy, locally sourced food, with the highest number of respondents (109), across all sub-groups, thinking that Scotland's schools, hospitals and other public institutions do not provide sufficient access to healthy, locally sourced food. Furthermore, an additional 68 respondents felt that this only happens to a degree. Only small numbers of respondents felt that Scotland's schools, hospitals and other public institutions provide healthy, locally sourced food (cited by 14 respondents) or that they mostly provide healthy, locally source food (15 respondents).

Table 11 - Q15: Do Scotland's schools, hospitals and other public institutions provide sufficient access to healthy, locally sourced food?

	Number
	Yes	Mostly	Somewhat	Not at all	Don't Know	Not answered
Campaigning / advocacy (17)	1	-	10	2	1	3
Community interest / social enterprise (7)	1	-	1	2	2	1
Education / Academic / Research (4)	-	-	4	-	-	-
Environment / conservation (5)	-	-	2	-	1	2
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (9)	-	-	1	7	-	1
Local authority (3)	-	1	1	-	-	1
Public sector / NDPB (5)	-	-	3	1	1	-
Representative body (17)	-	-	5	9	1	2
Third sector (food) (6)	-	-	1	1	1	3
Third sector (non-food) (4)	-	-	1	1	-	2
Other (4)	-	-	3	-	-	1
Total organisations (81)	2 (2%)	1 (1%)	32 (40%)	23 (28%)	7 (9%)	16 (20%)
Individuals (217)	12 (6%)	14 (6%)	36 (17%)	86 (40%)	65 (30%)	4 (2%)
Total respondents (298)	14 (5%)	15 (5%)	68 (23%)	109 (37%)	72 (24%)	20 (7%)

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

Respondents were given an opportunity to provide further detail on their initial response to this question, and 144 chose to do so. Some based their response on personal experience.

The key theme emerging at this question – from around a third of respondents – was of a need to increase budgets as cost is a barrier to accessing and using local food and local food supplies. A small number of respondents noted that money spent by local authorities on local food will return the investment to the local economy as well as offering other wide ranging health and social benefits and cost savings for the local authorities.

Around a quarter of respondents (mostly organisations) noted that procurement rules are a barrier to accessing healthy, locally sourced food, and there were also some comments that procurement policies should require local food to be purchased and that changes to the procurement process would facilitate access for local producers. Slightly fewer respondents commented that public institutions should be setting an example and accessing healthy locally sourced food. To help overcome these barriers, there were a few suggestions for the development of dynamic procurement systems and regional distribution hubs to overcome the perceived barriers currently presented by procurement processes.

A minority of respondents (more organisations than individuals) noted that some schools, hospitals and other public institutions are making an effort and that locally sourced meals are now more common in some places. However, a similar number (mostly individuals) noted poor experience of school or hospital meals citing a limited choice of available food, a lack of choice or poor quality meals. There were also some comments that food is often cooked offsite in centralised facilities which prevents the use of local food; and there is a need for public institutions to have the capacity to prepare their meals.

There were some specific references to the use of local providers. Most mentioned was the Food For Life Served Here initiative (FFLSH), with one respondent noting that more than half of Scottish councils are affiliated to this scheme. East Ayrshire Council which uses local food providers was also cited by a small number of respondents.

Other issues raised by respondents were a need:

• For gardens to be provided in schools and hospitals so they can grow their own food.
• To promote the cultural significance of food preparation and cooking, along with the social benefits of this.
• For clear labelling of products.

A few respondents, primarily those in island or remote rural areas noted difficulties in being able to access local producers and local produce throughout the year, with some comments that even when local produce can be accessed, it is on a seasonal basis.

Respondents were then asked:

Q16: Are you aware of any examples of schools, hospitals or other public institutions that have been particularly effective in providing healthy, locally sourced food?

As demonstrated in the following table, only a minority of respondents (26%) noted any specific examples of schools, hospitals and other public institutions that have been particularly effective in providing healthy, locally sourced food. A higher proportion of organisations noted specific examples.

Table 12 - Q16: Awareness of public institutions that have been particularly effective in providing healthy, locally sourced food

	Number
	Yes	No	No response
Campaigning / advocacy (17)	9	4	4
Community interest / social enterprise (7)	1	4	2
Education / Academic / Research (4)	3	1	-
Environment / conservation (5)	2	1	2
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (9)	3	4	2
Local authority (3)	2	-	1
Public sector / NDPB (5)	2	-	3
Representative body (17)	9	5	3
Third sector (food) (6)	2	-	4
Third sector (non-food) (4)	1	1	2
Other (4)	2	1	1
Total organisations (81)	36 (44%)	21 (26%)	24 (30%)
Individuals (217)	42 (19%)	165 (76%)	10 (5%)
Total respondents (298)	78 (26%)	186 (62%)	34 (11%)

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

A total of 85 respondents then went onto provide a wide range of examples of schools, hospitals and public institutions as having been particularly effective in providing healthy, locally sourced food. These included East Ayrshire Council, North Ayrshire Council, Argyll & Bute, Aberdeen City Council, the Highland Council, NHS Ayrshire, Arran schools, Arran Ayrshire College, South Ayrshire, The Isle of Raasay Walled Garden and Mossgiel Farm. There were also a few references to initiatives from overseas or the rest of the UK. Many of the references to specific examples came from organisations.

There were also references to some specific initiatives and these included Food for Life Served Here^[3] (FFLSH) and allied references to the Soil Association; and Locavore^[4].

Once again, there were references to problems with the procurement process and the difficulties of obtaining authorisation for local suppliers; alongside the need for a Dynamic Procurement System.

Question 17 then asked:

Q17a: Has your attitude to local food changed at all due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and related restrictions?

As demonstrated in the following table, a majority of respondents (169) felt their attitude to local food changed due to the pandemic and related restrictions, at least to an extent. That said, over a third (109) claimed that the pandemic and related restrictions had not changed their attitude to local food at all.

Table 13 - Q17a: Changes to attitudes to local food due to COVID-19

	Number
	Yes	Somewhat	Not at all	Not answered
Campaigning / advocacy (17)	6	8	1	2
Community interest / social enterprise (7)	4	2	-	1
Education / Academic / Research (4)	2	1	-	1
Environment / conservation (5)	1	2	-	2
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (9)	3	2	3	1
Local authority (3)	1	1	-	1
Public sector / NDPB (5)	1	1	2	1
Representative body (17)	7	3	4	3
Third sector (food) (6)	1	2	-	3
Third sector (non-food) (4)	2	-	-	2
Other (4)	2	1	-	1
Total organisations (81)	30 (37%)	23 (28%)	10 (12%)	18 (22%)
Individuals (217)	69 (32%)	47 (22%)	99 (46%)	2 (1%)
Total respondents (298)	99 (33%)	70 (23%)	109 (37%)	20 (7%)

(Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding)

Respondents were also asked to provide further detail in support of their initial response and a total of 200 respondents did so.

For those whose attitude had changed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and related restrictions, the key comments were that they have started using local shops to a greater extent or that they are more aware of the importance of local food networks and the greater levels of resilience offered by short supply chains. Additionally, there were some comments that local shops and local networks reacted better to the impact of the pandemic and were more flexible than supermarkets. Allied to this latter point, a few respondents noted that the pandemic had exposed fragilities in the food system, particularly in relation to the dominance of supermarkets and their lack of flexibility.

A few respondents also commented that the pandemic exposed existing dysfunctions and inequalities in the food system and has led to an increased use of food banks (this point was cited by higher numbers of organisations than individuals)

Of those who claimed their attitude to local food did not change at all due to coronavirus, the key comment was that they were an advocate of purchasing local food prior to the pandemic.

Organisations or schemes that have been particularly effective during the COVID-19 pandemic

The consultation posed a series of questions in relation to organisations or schemes that have been particularly effective during the COVID-19 pandemic across a number of issues:

• In providing local food.
• In developing a strong sense of local food culture and community.
• In reducing the distance that food travels from being grown or produced to being eaten (the number of 'food miles' travelled).
• In increasing the availability of locally produced food.

Respondents provided very similar responses across these questions, with little differential; so, the following paragraphs provide a summary of these four questions.

Almost half of respondents (45%) claimed to be aware of any organisations or schemes that have been particularly effective in providing local food during the COVID-19 pandemic (45% of respondents were not aware of any organisations or schemes and 10% did not provide a response) (Q18).

Exactly half of respondents claimed to be aware of any organisations or schemes that have been particularly effective in developing a strong sense of local food culture and community; (40% were not aware and 10% did not answer) (Q19).

Just over four in ten respondents (42%) were aware of any organisations or schemes that have been particularly effective in reducing the distance that food travels from being grown or produced to being eaten (the number of 'food miles' travelled); compared to 48% who were not aware and 10% who did not provide an answer (Q20).

A similar proportion (42%) claimed to be aware of any organisations or schemes that have been particularly effective in increasing the availability of locally produced food; compared to 45% who were not aware and 14% who did not provide an answer (Q21).

Across all four questions, and as seen at Question 16, a wide range of different organisations and schemes were cited by respondents as having been particularly effective during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of which were locally based and serving their local area. There were specific mentions for a number of local authorities, community organisations, community councils, social enterprises, food partnerships and individual outlets, as well as references to specific schemes, initiatives and outlets. These included Locavore in Glasgow, CFINE (Community Food Initiatives North East) in Aberdeen, Woodside Arran Farm, Scotland the Bread and Food for Life Served Here (FFLSH). A number of respondents noted that in some instances links were set up between community food initiatives and local growers and suppliers to ensure a good supply of surplus or purchased food. There were a small number of references to improved local distribution networks.

As at previous questions, there were references to the agility, capacity and preparedness of small local businesses to change their focus in order to provide products required by customers and to offer alternative delivery mechanisms. For example, when restaurants were forced to close during lockdowns, some suppliers switched to offering a delivery or collection service direct to consumers; this benefitted both the supplier and consumer.

As well as the provision of food to the local populace, some organisations focused on other initiatives such as offering training on how to grow vegetables and fruit. This was recognised as a useful skill to develop which would allow individuals to continue to grow in a sustainable fashion post-pandemic. Importantly, there was also recognition of the other benefits that this offers, including benefits to mental wellbeing, offering a form of physical exercise and so on. One example provided by a number of respondents was that of The Bowhouse. As one individual noted,

"The Bowhouse, a local food hub in Fife, collaborated with local food producers to ensure the community had access to healthy and delicious produce during lockdown, and to provide new routes to market for local producers who lost their wholesale contracts due to the pandemic. They launched the Bowhouse Link in April 2020, to replace their usual monthly farmers market. This is an online platform which brings together a wide range of local producers, including butchers, flour millers, brewers and market gardeners, to sell their produce in one place. Local people can purchase their entire weekly shop, and the Bowhouse co-ordinate putting together orders from different suppliers, packaging the produce, and delivering it. Shorter supply chains were also beneficial for improving Covid safety, as very few people came into contact with the products between the field and delivery. After being a huge success during lockdown, the Bowhouse Link has continued to provide a platform for people to shop online for local produce weekly."

An organisation in the campaigning / advocacy sector commented;

"There are many good examples of community organisations across Scotland building community resources around food and they multiplied and adapted their offerings during Covid. Each have a slightly different focus, including: training and skills around growing your own food and connecting people with food; tackling mental health and social isolation; increasing access to fresh and healthy food and ensuring awareness of healthy diets (some targeting particular age groups); ensuring community resilience and food security e.g. by supplementing the local supply chains for local public kitchens, cafes and markets with seasonal fresh food."

There were also a number of references to the rise in the number of food banks, food hubs and community fridges, which were particularly beneficial to those who found themselves without a job and / or regular income, and which also help to reduce food waste.

While respondents appreciated the capacity to access produce from local outlets during the pandemic, there were a few queries as to whether the produce provided was in fact locally produced and how sustainable or environmentally-friendly it was. For example, where non-seasonal produce is provided, there were some queries over the air miles travelled to obtain some of the produce. Linked to this point, there were a small number of comments on the issue of 'greenwashing' or 'virtue signalling', with some queries over how eco-friendly, green or sustainable some products are. As a few respondents noted, clear labelling would help to address these issues.

While respondents acknowledged the benefits of these changes to local communities and local economies, there were a few concerns that some services which came into being during the pandemic are no longer available or that greater numbers of consumers have now reverted to shopping at supermarkets.

At as previous questions, there were some references to the lack of infrastructure which can prevent some local businesses or produce being utilised by the local community, for example, a lack of local abattoirs or local processing facilities.

There were a few mentions of volunteering opportunities that were offered during the pandemic, and these were seen as beneficial to participating individuals. That said, there were concerns from a small number of respondents over the capacity to maintain some of the initiatives which rely heavily on volunteers, and whether volunteers will continue to fulfil this role once the pandemic is over.

Once again, the issue of funding was raised by a few respondents, with comments on the need for funding and current limitations because of inadequate funding levels, for example, that it is not possible to access funding if you are a small scale market gardener.

In summing up the situation, a respondent in the Food / food retail / producer / distributor commented:

"Most food in a neo-liberal market economy such as ours, is provided by businesses. Solutions to the lack of local food in Scotland will not come out of supporting one-off 'schemes': they lie in reforming the market to make it fairer, less dominated by supermarkets, and incentivised to favour good local food and the small businesses that produce it. Focussing on one-off examples of 'good practice' misses the point. There are a few good examples around, but they have largely managed to deliver good local food despite the current market. They are often isolated examples precisely because the market is currently framed in a way that does not value and reward the benefits that local food delivers."