Scottish climate change adaptation programme 2019-2024: analysis of responses to consultation

Executive Summary

i. In February 2019, The Scottish Government launched the consultation 'The Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme: A Consultation Draft^[1]'. The national consultation forms a key part of the final stages of development for the second statutory five-year Climate Change Adaptation Programme due to be published later in 2019.

ii. The consultation achieved 73 responses from individuals and organisations. Individual participants provided roughly one fifth of the responses (15 out of 73); the remaining 58 responses came from a broad range of organisations including local authorities, membership organisations, public bodies, environmental campaign groups, businesses, research/academic institutions, partnership organisations, 'other' third sector organisations and a primary school.

Responses to the Proposed Overall Approach

iii. There were sixty-nine responses to Question 1: 'Do you agree with our outcome-based approach to adaptation in Scotland?' Of these, 65 respondents answered 'yes' indicating that they agreed with the outcome-based approach; 4 selected 'unsure'. Overall this indicates strong overall support for the approach put forward by the Scottish Government.

iv. In comments, participants shared their views about the potential value of this approach and identified areas for further clarification. Other themes within comments included the need for cross-sectoral working and reflections on the scale and urgency of change required.

v. There were sixty-eight responses to Question 2: 'Do you agree that a National Forum on Adaptation should be established to facilitate discussion on climate change adaptation?'. Of those, sixty-five respondents answered 'yes' indicating that they agreed with the intention to establish a National Forum of Adaptation; three selected 'unsure'. This demonstrates strong support for the proposal put forward by the Scottish Government.

vi. In comments, participants shared their views about the need for a Forum and proposed suggestions about its membership, model and remit. Participants also identified issues for the Forum to focus on.

vii. There were seventy responses to Question 3: 'Do you agree that climate change adaptation behaviours should be included in the Programme?' Of these, sixty-three respondents answered 'yes' indicating that they agreed with the proposal to include adaptation behaviours within the Programme; seven selected 'unsure'. This indicates there is a strong level of support for the proposal put forward by the Scottish Government.

viii. In participants' comments many reflected on the nature and scale of the behavioural changes required; some called for a greater focus on systemic change as opposed to change by individuals. There were also calls for more evidence and greater detail about the proposals and allocation of resources, roles, and responsibilities.

ix. There were sixty-nine responses to Question 4: 'Do you agree that an integrated approach should be taken to monitoring and evaluation?'. Of these, sixty-five respondents answered 'yes' indicating that they agreed the approach should be included within the Programme; four selected 'unsure'. Again, this indicates there is a strong level of support for the proposal put forward by the Scottish Government.

x. Themes in the comments included reflections on the importance of monitoring and evaluation, calls for more detail and suggested refinements or models to explore.

Responses to the Proposed Vision and Outcomes

xi. There were sixty-eight responses to Question 5: 'Do you agree with our long-term vision for adapting to climate change in Scotland?'. Of these, fifty-three respondents answered 'yes' indicating that they agreed with the draft vision; ten selected 'unsure' and five answered 'no'. While overall this demonstrates a high level of support for the vision, the expressions of agreement, uncertainty or disagreement with this proposition were more mixed than those provided in responses to the overall approach.

xii. In the explanatory comments, two thirds (31) agreed with the vision overall, but highlighted matters for further consideration by the Scottish Government. Eleven participants fully endorsed the vision and had no changes to suggest.Themes in comments included suggested refinements to the presentation of the vision, reflections on barriers, enablers, and opportunities. The five participants who answered 'no' suggested that they did so because they wanted the vision to convey a stronger sense of urgency and ambition.

xiii. There were sixty-five responses to Question 6: 'Does the Programme identify the right outcomes for Scotland over the next five years?'. Of these, thirty-seven respondents answered 'yes' indicating that they agreed with the draft outcomes; twenty-one selected 'unsure' and seven answered 'no'. Again, while overall this demonstrates strong support for the proposed outcomes, the expressions of agreement, uncertainty or disagreement were more mixed than those provided in responses to the overall approach.

xiv. In over half of the comments there were references to further areas for consideration within the outcomes. There were reflections on the nature of outcomes, the extent to which participants consider them to be achievable, presentation of the outcomes, calls for greater urgency and some requests for additional detail or clarity.

Additional policies to include within the Adaptation Programme

xv. There were 66 responses to Question 7: 'Are there any additional policies that should be included in the outcomes set out in the following pages?'. Of these, 50 respondents answered 'yes' indicating that they thought additional policies should be included in the outcomes, 6 answered 'no' and 10 were unsure.

xvi. In comments, 45 participants suggested at least one addition to the policies included in the draft Programme. They shared general reflections about the nature and connections between outcomes, their relative importance, and specific changes to particular outcomes. Participants also described examples and evidence to inform policy development in the future.

Responses to the Strategic Environmental Assessment

xvii. Consultation questions eight to ten asked respondents for their views on the Strategic Environment Assessment. This is a detailed 73-page document which describes the impact on the environment of the draft Programme, as identified by the Scottish Government.

xviii. There were 43 responses to Question 8: 'What are your views on the accuracy and scope of the information used to describe the SEA environmental baseline set out in the Environmental Report?' Twenty-two of these responses conveyed general agreement with the accuracy and scope of the information, six participants made a general comment which did not convey a clear view, four responses focused on aspects of the SEA for further consideration, and another participant described their view as 'unsure'. Ten participants stated that they had no comment or made words to that effect.

xix. There were 42 responses to Question 9: 'What are your views on the predicted environmental effects as set out in the Environmental Report?'. Eighteen conveyed general agreement with the predicted effects, and eight participants made a neutral or general comment which did not convey a clear view. Four participants expressed uncertainty or disagreement with the predicted impacts. Twelve participants stated that they had no comment or made words to that effect.

xx. There were 42 responses to Question 10: 'What are your views on the findings of the SEA and the proposals for mitigation and monitoring of the environmental effects set out in the Environmental Report?'. Eighteen participants agreed with the findings, nine made general or neutral descriptive comments, and eight participants indicated they disagreed with the findings, with varying explanations in their comments. Many of the comments reiterated participants' responses to previous questions.