Climate change duties - draft statutory guidance for public bodies: consultation

3. Equalities

Bodies should be aware that the impacts of the decisions they make in relation to climate change and sustainability could potentially affect everyone in Scotland, directly or indirectly. Where policies and plans may have potential equality impacts, it is a legal requirement that appropriate assessments are undertaken. It is therefore important that bodies integrate equality considerations and mainstreaming into their climate action, and approach equality impact assessment and Fairer Scotland Duty assessment as an integral part of climate policy and project development.

3.1 Introduction

Climate change and inequalities are inextricably linked. Globally, those least likely to have contributed to emissions are often those to feel the first, and most severe, impacts of the changing climate^[9]. Within Scotland too, the impacts of the changing climate will be felt in unequal ways, with some areas more likely to be subject to drought, some at high risk of extreme flooding, and others at risk of coastal erosion. The impacts of the changing climate will be felt in unequal ways, with the worst impacts likely to fall on the most vulnerable in society, and those least able to take individual action to protect themselves.

It is likely that the changing climate will deepen existing inequalities within our society unless action is taken, be those related to health, environment, housing, education, employment opportunities or income. Social inequalities including housing, education and employment often contribute to and exacerbate health inequalities^{[10], [11]}.

Intersectionality – multiple and compounding inequalities – is highly relevant to vulnerability to climate change. Climate change and social, economic and personal factors (such as gender, race, income, age, religion and health status) can act together as risk multipliers, contributing to the negative impacts climate change has on health and other inequalities. For example, non-Christian religious minorities are less likely to be employed than those with no religion, with the employment gap particularly acute for Muslims. Despite overall exclusion rates declining across Scotland, having additional support needs (ASN), or being assessed or declared as having a disability continues to be associated with an increased likelihood of exclusion. Households headed by single women with dependent children, and single men without dependent children are most likely to experience poverty ^[12].

Public sector bodies must take a leadership role in mitigating the negative impacts of climate change on the environment and any related impact on inequalities. They must work to actively improve outcomes and wellbeing for all in their work to mitigate and adapt to climate change, by maximising on the opportunities available to them as anchor organisations to consider equalities as part of this work. Climate action and sustainability should be embedded throughout their governance, how they direct resources and develop their organisational capabilities, and how they collaborate with partners and communities.

How public bodies choose to implement this guidance as a whole will determine the impacts on service users, staff, customers, stakeholders, local communities and wider society. Equality impact assessment and Fairer Scotland Duty assessment should be fully integrated into climate policy and project development.

As mentioned in section 2.2 above, bodies could, where appropriate, use integrated impact assessment approaches that consider impacts holistically on protected characteristics, socio-economic status, health and sustainability, with the proviso that any integrated approach must meet the legal requirements for each individual assessment.

The duties and illustrative examples of fairness, equality, procedural justice and health in this chapter illustrate why Scottish Government has embedded just transition principles in climate legislation and emphasised the importance of planning for a fair transition.

3.2 Climate, health and equalities

3.2.1 How climate impacts affect health

Local and international climate impacts, such as increased temperatures, extreme weather events and reduced food production will affect the health and wellbeing of people in Scotland. Most will contribute to poorer health and risk worsening health inequalities, though some opportunities have been identified^{[13], [14]}.

The risks to health include direct effects. For example, higher temperatures increase the risk of heat-related mortality and respiratory and cardio-vascular problems; extreme flood events can cause death, injury or health issues due to biological and chemical contamination and changing vector distributions can lead to different patterns of vector borne diseases^[15].

Climate impacts also affect health and wellbeing indirectly through the social, economic, and physical environment we live in. Known as the building blocks of good health, these include warm, dry, affordable housing, accessible and good quality transport systems and natural environments, strong social networks, affordable nutritious food, and secure, high quality employment.

Damage to homes and critical infrastructure from flooding, for example, may cause displacement, financial difficulties and limit access to education, work and services. This in turn can result in mental health problems, which research suggests is the biggest burden of ill-health from major flood events in the UK. Similarly, extreme weather events are likely to affect international food production and markets. This may influence food purchasing decisions and consumption of healthy diets.

3.2.2 Unequal distribution of health and social risks

The impacts of climate on human health are not evenly distributed. In addition to geographical variation, individuals and communities living in climate impact-prone areas vary in the extent they are affected^{[16], [17]}. This depends on their:

• level of exposure to climate impacts: housing conditions and the physical and natural environment people live in can accentuate or offset the severity of a climate impacts.
• level of adaptive capacity: income, knowledge, insurance, community networks and mobility can influence how well people and communities can prepare for, respond to and recover from climate impacts.
• sensitivity to climate impacts: age and current health status can increase the likelihood of an adverse effect on health and wellbeing.

People experiencing social and economic disadvantage are one, but not the only, group likely to be disproportionately affected by climate impacts. They are more likely to live in poor quality housing and environments, for example with a higher proportion of vacant and derelict land and less green space. This can increase their exposure to high temperatures and flooding. They often have fewer financial resources to make adaptations, obtain insurance or move. Private tenants, for example, have fewer rights to adapt their home and may be on a lower income. Social isolation, lack of information and poor English language skills can also limit capacity to respond and recover from extreme weather events. People living in areas of deprivation are also more likely to be in poor health and therefore more sensitive to climate impacts.

Climate impacts and these social, economic and personal factors act together as risk multipliers to increase the risk of poor health and health inequalities.

Illustrative example

A housing development starts to flood more regularly and more severely. The rental and sale values of the properties drop, and the more affluent residents move away. The development becomes home to those on low incomes with less choice in where they can afford to live, including elderly residents and those reliant on welfare payments. These residents are less likely to be able to afford the high home insurance premiums demanded due to the high flood risk, and as a result most are uninsured. The homes may also now be owned by landlords less inclined or less able to spend money on adapting the properties against flooding.

When the homes do flood again, causing damage to the properties and loss of personal belongings, residents are unable to afford to make good or replace personal items. This leaves them more vulnerable and likely to require additional support from local government, charities and the social security system. However, they may also lack the resources or social networks to support them in finding temporary accommodation or in accessing support. In addition, the flooding causes anxiety and emotional upset, impacting on mental health and wellbeing. For those of working age, this may have a negative impact on their ability to work, or to work full time. They may have the kind of employment that is difficult to sustain under such circumstances.

3.2.3 Policy response and widening inequalities

Policies or actions to address climate impacts and reduce GHG emissions may not equally benefit everyone^[18]. For example, recent work in Scotland suggests that suspending travel services during severe weather is important from an overall risk-reduction perspective but disproportionately impacts those on the lowest incomes, particularly those employed on zero-hour contracts or who are less able to work from home^[19].

Policies and plans can also have unintended negative health and social impacts. For example, costs associated with improving homes to make them more climate resilient or more energy efficient can be passed on to tenants through rent increases.

Considering the differential impacts and potential unintended negative consequences of policies and plans is important. It allows mitigation measures to be considered and implemented or trade-offs to be made.

3.2.4 Procedural justice

People experiencing social and economic disadvantage often have less power and influence to inform decisions about their lives and their communities. This is due to lack of resources such as knowledge, prestige and beneficial connections. Inequalities in power, influence and decision making are underlying drivers of both health inequalities and the unjust distribution of climate impacts.

Empowering communities to exercise control over decisions which support their ability to adapt, such as local development and coastal management plans and housing rights, is important in achieving a just transition to a climate resilient and net zero Scotland.

3.3 Public Sector Equality Duty

As outlined in section 2.1.3.6., section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 ('the 2010 Act') places a Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) on public authorities, requiring them, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to –

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that it prohibited by or under the 2010 Act

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

These are known as the three needs of the PSED.

Section 5 of the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 places a duty on listed authorities to undertake an assessment of applying a proposed new or revised policy or practice against the three needs. This assessment – an equality impact assessment (EQIA) – must be made for all protected characteristics, bearing in mind that it is the degree of impact, rather than the number of people affected that is relevant. When approaching climate change and equalities, public bodies are strongly advised to take an intersectional approach and look beyond the protected characteristics to include wider socio-economic considerations such as those living in low income areas, in island communities and in remote rural areas. However, if a public body identifies these types of impacts, they cannot satisfy their legal obligations by only including a section in the EQIA. They must also fully complete the relevant impact assessments, namely the Fairer Scotland Duty assessment and or Island Communities Impact Assessment.

As bodies develop or revise policies, strategies, plans, programmes and projects that support implementation of the climate change duties, it is important that these are assessed for equality impacts for two primary reasons:

• bodies must not assume that decisions or changes that are advantageous in terms of the climate change duties will be so in terms of the PSED – it will be important to assess whether the proposals have the potential to negatively impact on particular groups of people or equalities communities
• where the needs of the PSED and impacts on protected characteristics and other equality groups are taken into consideration as part of developing proposals associated with the climate change duties, decisions are likely to be more robust. Importantly, they are also likely to be more sustainable, thus bringing them in line with the third climate change duty: to act in the most sustainable way. The EQIA is a tool for better and more robust decision making that can identify unintended consequences of proposed actions before these are implemented.

3.4 Fairer Scotland Duty

Under Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 certain bodies, including local authorities, Health Boards, integration joint boards and the enterprise agencies, are also subject to the public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequality. In Scotland, this duty was introduced in 2018 as the Fairer Scotland Duty (FSD). The duty places a legal responsibility on named public bodies in Scotland to actively consider ('pay due regard' to) how they can reduce inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage, when making strategic decisions. Due regard is best demonstrated in a published assessment (FSDA).

The duty applies to strategic decisions – these are the key, high-level decisions that the public sector takes, such as deciding priorities and setting objectives. In general, they will be decisions that affect how the public body fulfils its intended purpose. They may also be coordinated with other strategic decisions as part of an overarching plan. These would normally include strategy documents, decisions about setting priorities, allocating resources, delivery or implementation and commissioning services – all decisions agreed at Board level (or equivalent). The duty also applies to any changes to, or reviews of, these decisions, not just the development of new strategic documents. Examples of strategic decisions include: preparation of a corporate plan, preparation of annual budgets, major procurement exercises, decisions about the shape, size and location of the estate, and making strategic decisions on workforce planning. For a full list of examples and further information refer to the statutory guidance on the Fairer Scotland Duty published by the Scottish Government.

There may be key ways that the climate change duties can align with the Fairer Scotland Duty, given that decisions taken in line with the climate duties may very well have a high potential to lessen inequalities of outcome resulting from socio-economic disadvantage.

Illustrative example

A city council may take a decision that could reduce air pollution in areas of the city where they know there is a higher concentration of both pollution and socio-economic inequality according to the SIMD, such as by increasing pedestrian only zones or restricting heavy vehicle traffic. This is likely, in time, to lessen inequalities in health outcomes between these areas and those that are less deprived.

Conversely, if they choose to make it easier for heavy industrial traffic to drive from one side of the city to the other, without considering whether the routes they are trying to open up to heavier traffic run predominantly through areas of higher socio-economic deprivation, this will likely worsen inequalities of outcome from socio-economic inequality. The same thinking can be applied to where a local authority may choose to invest money or focus in terms of promoting or increasing access to green spaces, improving parks, and so on, given the inequality that exists in access to blue or green spaces.

3.5 Illustrative worked example - EQIA and FSDA

This illustrative example is hypothetical. It is intended to illustrate how undertaking an EQIA and a FSDA for the development of a policy or practice related to climate action can ensure the achievement of wider linked benefits both for groups with protected characteristics and for groups experiencing socio-economic inequalities. This example is focused on the development of a sustainable travel plan.

A public body decides to develop a corporate sustainable travel plan, primarily to help reduce carbon emissions associated with staff commuting and business travel. The body is located in a large office building in an edge-of-city business park, adjacent to a housing estate which is in a low SIMD area. The residents in the housing estate are generally on low incomes, and more likely to be elderly or belong to a minority ethnic group.

Through developing its sustainable travel plan, the public body aims to reduce the number of staff driving to work. This could have positive impacts on local air quality, in turn benefitting the health of local residents. It may also help reduce traffic congestion at peak times.

With a focus on encouraging staff to use active travel for their commute, the public body engages with their local authority to lobby for improved cycling infrastructure in the area and the development of off-road cycleways. Increasing cycling rates would have direct health benefits for those staff. As the cycleways would be open to all, this could result in wider health and wellbeing benefits for local residents too. Cycling is usually an affordable means of transport and would improve accessibility for residents. The creation of pathways with associated trees and other planting could improve the quality of local greenspace and help enhance biodiversity.

Improved cycling infrastructure and public transport provision may make the business park a more attractive proposition and encourage other businesses to lease space or develop there, increasing local employment opportunities and stimulating other local development.

As legally required, the public body undertakes an equality impact assessment as well as a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment as part of the process of developing its sustainable travel plan. The EQIA considers the three needs of the PSED while the FSDA considers impacts on inequality for groups experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. Undertaking the EQIA highlights areas where the body can deliver on its statutory obligations against the three needs of the PSED; undertaking the FSDA does so in relation to statutory obligations under the Fairer Scotland Duty.

The EQIA

(a) Eliminating discrimination

The body wants to encourage all staff to cycle to work more, but their last travel survey indicated that very few female staff cycle to work. The body investigates these findings by engaging with their staff as part of the EQIA process, and finds that many female staff are put off by the route into the business park which is via a busy road and exposed, leaving them feeling vulnerable to potential attack or anti-social behaviour. They also feel that the current cycle parking, which is at the edge of the car park, is isolated and poorly lit adding to feelings of insecurity.

The body wants to ensure that all staff feel safe and able to cycle if they wish. They improve the lighting to the staff car park and move the cycle parking close to the main entrance to the building to ensure line of sight to reception, enhancing perceptions of safety.

Another barrier identified in information gathered for the EQIA was lack of adequate facilities for cyclists and other active travellers. While the office does have showers, three of these are located in the men’s changing area, with only one in the female changing area. Needing to queue for a shower upon arrival has put a number of the female staff off using active travel to commute. The public body reconfigures the washroom facilities, ensuring that equal provision is provided. They also increase the number and size of storage lockers available so that active travellers have space to keep their kit.

(b) Advancing equality of opportunity

The body sets up a bicycle user group to encourage and facilitate cyclists to support one another, and as a forum to discuss cycling related issues. Representatives from the group become key points of contact for related areas of the business including facilities management and HR, ensuring that cyclists and would-be cyclists have a stronger voice and are involved in relevant decision making.

The public body also prioritises engagement with the local authority to lobby for the development of off-road cycling and walking infrastructure to establish an alternative route avoiding the busy road, to create a safe route for active travel for all.

The public body wants to increase the proportion of staff using public transport. The body engages with the local bus company to improve bus service provision to the business park. It also reviews its working arrangements, and allows for more flexible working hours to enable staff to adjust their start and finish times to meet specific bus services or to avoid peak times when journey times are longer. These improved arrangements help bus travel become a feasible option for many more members of staff, in particular benefitting women with caring responsibilities and younger members of staff, as identified through the staff travel survey.

(c) Fostering good relations

Through the travel survey and the bicycle user group, it is identified that lack of skills and the confidence to cycle on busy roads is a barrier to many employees, including those with disabilities, women, and others who are nervous about cycling. A cycling buddy scheme is set up, where more skilled and confident cyclists, including those with experience in adaptive cycling, lead a series of lunchtime rides and accompany less confident riders on part of their commute. This builds confidence and skills in the less able riders, increases understanding between the two groups of riders, and helps build positive social relationships. Over time, initially less confident cyclists, including those with disabilities, are enabled to lead rides and act as buddies; and the scheme is extended to members of the local community facing similar barriers. Additionally, the organisation reviews its salary sacrifice Cycle to Work scheme, to ensure that it includes provision of adaptive bicycles and necessary accommodations to ensure inclusivity for all participants.

The FSDA

In the FSDA process, the public body identified statistical evidence that low income groups were more reliant on public transport than higher income groups, were less likely to travel by private car, and that their active travel was more likely to involve walking than cycling. They consulted with groups experiencing poverty in the local community, and identified that an improved bus service would also benefit local residents through more regular provision of affordable and accessible public transport, widening access to employment opportunities. Affording, securing and insuring cycles were seen as a barrier to cycling for many in the area.

Local residents in the adjacent low SIMD housing benefit from more buses at peak times and services that run later into the evening. This improves access to services, and opens up additional employment opportunities such as shift work, which would previously not have been an option for many due to lack of affordable transport options.

Wider influence

The public body introduces an affordable cycle leasing scheme with a local supplier and engages with the local authority to lobby for improved local cycling infrastructure, including off-road shared-use pathways with good connections to public transport and secure lockup facilities. The local authority undertakes community consultation and engagement around the design of the pathways and associated green spaces. Different community groups, including marginalised groups, and users, including the public body, are engaged in the co-design exercise. This leads to improved understanding of the needs of different groups, a sense of community ownership, greater community cohesion, and a design that successfully meets wider needs.

New relationships between the public body and the local community are built during the consultation process. The bicycle user group expands and becomes more diverse, extending its lunchtime rides and buddying scheme to include local community members. A beginners’ running group is formed to make use of the new dual-use pathways. The body explores possibilities to set up a work experience and summer internship scheme with local youth groups.

Staff surveys suggest that inequalities in feeling healthy, worrying about finances and job satisfaction have decreased between those on the lowest and the highest incomes, and between male and female employees.