Event date: 4 February 2025

Summary of all sessions from the conference by graphic recorder Eddy Phillips. For a high-resolution version click here.

Aims and highlights

With the next Scottish Government Climate Change Plan due to cover the period to 2040, Scotland is at a critical point for climate action to reach net zero and build climate resilience. The aim of the Climate Horizon 2040 Conference was to generate ideas and insights on emerging research and developments to inform realistic and achievable climate policy in the 2030s and 2040s.

Nearly 170 delegates signed up for the event. They included a mix of experts from academia, business, the third sector and the public sector. The conference was an opportunity for them to connect with each other and take inspiration from the sessions for their work. As a delegate said after the conference: “Networking was really good – and the interactivity of the sessions made it feel more engaging and rewarding”.

The event was very popular – ClimateXChange received a total of 36 proposals and had to whittle them down to 7 sessions. Sessions discussed public perceptions of climate change and action, mitigation and adaptation, the potential role of AI, carbon pricing policies, financing place-based home retrofit, land use scenarios and designing cities.

For the final session, delegates sat in groups aiming to answer questions about strategies that could help mobilise climate action in relation to market mechanisms, industry, behaviours, finance and investment, and regulation.

The conference highlighted the urgency of embedding adaptation into Scotland’s net zero strategy, integrating technological and financial innovations while ensuring a just transition. The roundtable discussions produced key recommendations including:

Strengthening policy alignment of mitigation and adaptation measures
Scaling up finance mechanisms for public and private climate action
Investing in resilience
Enhancing public engagement to drive behavioural change
Leveraging innovation
Collaborating across sectors and organisations
Learning from EU countries

This report summarises the key issues raised and discussed at the conference, the major challenges expected and big things on the horizon. The ClimateXChange podcast features a summary of the conference.

Main issues discussed

1. Future-proofing climate action: Integrating mitigation and adaptation

Led by Sustainable Scotland Network adaptation sub-committee

The synergies between mitigation and adaptation are discussed frequently, yet, mitigation and adaptation efforts are often still considered separately. This is problematic not only because both are necessary to address climate change, but also because mitigation measures can limit adaptation options or even create new challenges for adaptation, and vice versa.

For example, if a low-carbon, sustainable new build is located on a flood-plain or is not adequately insulated and ventilated to deal with increased heat events, then costly modifications or maintenance will need to be completed. This can lead to unnecessary, additional greenhouse gas emissions and costs throughout the building’s lifetime.

This panel discussion with researchers and practitioners in the public sector discussed how they have successfully integrated mitigation and adaptation and the challenges they faced in doing so.

Conversations highlighted that despite efforts to reduce emissions, continued adaptation is essential due to climate change.

In particular, the panel discussed the value of adapting strategies to prevent worsening of public health and ensure benefits from land use. While there is some political resistance and planning uncertainties, panellists gave successful local examples that demonstrated practical integration of adaptation measures.

They also highlighted that transformative changes and improved communication would help align public understanding and actions with increasingly urgent climate realities.

Key points from the discussion:

Why do we need to future proof climate action? Even if we meet net zero goals, the globe will continue to warm so we need to continue to adapt. Climate change adaptation must be embedded in mitigation strategies to build resilience.
Uncertainty remains a key challenge in integrating adaptation into policy.
Land use is responsible for 40% of Scotland’s net emissions. Land must be managed for multiple benefits and guard against multiple risks such as biodiversity, flood prevention, carbon sequestration – this is very different from the historical status quo.
Some local governments show political resistance to adaptation, yet they are already implementing practical measures eg adaptation measures in net zero social housing.
The concept of “climate-resilient net zero” must be central to planning, avoiding the carbon costs of rebuilding after climate disasters.
“Climate is a health emergency as well as a planetary emergency”. It is important to plan our mitigation measures with climate impacts in mind so as not to exacerbate health impacts. For example, active and public transport is a win-win-win for mitigation, adaptation and health.
Regardless of taking the approaches of incremental or transformative adaptation, we need to be in control of the change rather than wait for impacts.

2. AI for energy justice

Led by Professor Aristides Kiprakis, University of Edinburgh

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to create a system that is not only more resilient, efficient and sustainable, but also more equitable and inclusive. However, there are challenges associated with AI. Making AI accessible to all citizens, including those in fuel poverty, requires careful consideration, so that no one is left behind.

In this session, experts and stakeholders on AI, social science, energy systems and energy policy shared their views on how to tackle those challenges.

Discussions centred on AI’s potential to tackle fuel poverty and enhance energy distribution efficacy. Panellists highlighted that using data from AI’s capabilities in grid monitoring and behaviour analysis could help optimise energy use and address fuel poverty.

However, they also discussed ethical concerns related to integrating AI, such as privacy in healthcare and biases in algorithms. Discussions acknowledged the potential of AI to improve energy efficiency through smarter infrastructure and demand-side management, yet scepticism remains about AI’s role in overcoming fundamental societal inequalities in energy access.

Highlights from the session included:

The first step is to use AI to use existing infrastructure more flexibly and smartly. For instance, AI could help monitor household energy needs, as Scotland faces growing fuel poverty (31% of households).
AI could help save on capital investments in new infrastructure.
AI could help optimise energy systems, predict grid failures and improve efficiency, but it must be applied equitably. To this end, the role of AI in energy systems should prioritise energy distribution over generation, ensuring equitable access.
Challenges include high energy use in AI models and concerns about data privacy and embedded bias.
Innovative solutions, such as using data centres to heat homes, are already being piloted in Edinburgh.

3. Carbon pricing policies

Led by Dr Vera Eory and Professor Klaus Glenk, Scotland’s Rural College

According to research into how farmers in Scotland view carbon schemes and how scheme design preferences affect intentions to uptake, there is considerable interest in carbon schemes if certain conditions are met. However, there is much variation in farmers’ preferences for contractual obligations, suggesting that a careful exploration before implementation could improve participation.

This session considered the wider aspects of carbon pricing policies in Scotland, especially in agriculture and other four sectors not included in the UK Emission Trading Scheme. The discussion included the role of carbon markets currently and in the short- and medium-term.

Highlights from the session included:

Discussions explored carbon pricing mechanisms, including Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS), taxation and market-based incentives.
Farmers and land managers expressed concerns about how carbon pricing might impact agriculture.
There is a need for blended finance approaches that combine public and private investment.

4. Financing place-based home retrofit

Led by Dr Ian Cochran, Changeworks

Place is an important part of the Scottish policy approach. “Place-based” is increasingly widespread in describing how cross-sector decarbonisation can offer opportunities for economies of scale, social and economic benefits as well as combining the multiple interventions needed in targeted zones at once.

The session aimed to provide an understanding of what we need to get right to bring life to place-based to provide important insights for policy. Given fiscal constraints across the public sector, both Scottish and UK government have expressed interest in exploring the financial benefits.

The session discussed what would good place-based action look like in 2040 and how to take action from today for 2040. Highlights from the session included:

Climate finance must shift from extractive models to regenerative investments that retain wealth locally.
Community-led energy and retrofit projects require accessible funding mechanisms and streamlined processes.
Case studies highlighted the need for scalable and replicable funding models to support neighbourhood-level transitions to net zero.
Long-term investment strategies must prioritise system-wide change rather than isolated pilot projects.

5. Building net zero land use scenarios with Lego

By Anna Sellers, LUNZ Hub

To get delegates energised after lunch, they had a choice of two interactive sessions. In this session, they were asked to play an interactive game using Lego.

Delegates built net-zero land use scenarios and explored trade-offs between competing interests and priorities for land use in coming decades. The following figure summarises scoring across actions and variability across the groups.

The session got delegates considering that the net zero target extends beyond reducing carbon emissions to include biodiversity, water management and flood prevention.

Participants highlighted the complexity of behaviour change and criticised the focus on biomass and mono-culture tree planting. Furthermore, they discussed actions such as reducing livestock numbers both as challenges requiring behaviour change to prevent increased meat imports, and as opportunities to enable broader environmental benefits. Discussions highlighted nature such as peatlands and forests as more than a carbon sink, and the importance of balancing interventions between nature-based and farming practices.

Highlights from the session included:

Peatland restoration, tree planting and habitat creation emerged as priority land-use strategies.
Reducing ruminant livestock herds was debated, with concerns over offshoring emissions.
Participants emphasised the need for evidence-based approaches to increasing soil carbon and the role of agroforestry in helping to achieve Scotland’s net zero goals.

A complete report of the session is on the LUNZ Hub website.

6. Co-designing Glasgow’s future net zero hospitals

Led by Professor Paul Rodgers, University of Strathclyde

A parallel interactive session explored how NHS Scotland’s hospitals in Glasgow can transition to net zero by 2040. As key public institutions, hospitals can serve as models for broader net zero adoption. Groups were asked to design what Scotland’s net zero health care ecosystem could look like in 2040.

Participants took part in an interactive exercise with maps and Plasticine to explore how the city’s health and social care infrastructure can become sustainable while maintaining high care standards. The focus was on sustainable energy, green spaces, transport and waste management infrastructures.

The session showed how net zero is an opportunity to reimagine the way a city works. One of the examples discussed was that of re-purposed buildings such as disused churches that could be used for drop-in health centres, improving access and connectivity.

Highlights from the session included:

NHS infrastructure and transport networks can be decarbonised and made climate resilient.
Waste heat from NHS facilities could be repurposed to heat neighbouring communities.
Local travel can be smoother and help achieve the health and environmental targets.
Strategies for integrating sustainability into healthcare infrastructure were explored, including solar panels, heat networks and energy-efficient retrofits.

Reflections

The final session of the event was an opportunity for delegates to reflect on the discussions held throughout the day.

They could share their thoughts on research needs and recommendations for the Scottish Government on market mechanisms, industry, behaviours, finance and investment and regulation, while also discussing what more Scotland can do to reach net zero.

How can market mechanisms and incentives be used to deliver emissions reductions? 

This discussion explored various aspects of carbon market operations, particularly the Emissions Trading System (ETS). Key points included the effectiveness of carbon pricing and the allocation of free allowances, which has proven successful in sectors like energy that received no free allowances.

The debate extended to the potential inclusion of household fuel and agriculture in the ETS, with suggestions for different ETS setups reflecting specific industry needs and minimising significant economic impacts on certain sectors.

Delegates also discussed transport’s integration into ETS by 2029 and shipping by 2026, along with dynamic pricing models like road pricing during peak times.The conversation touched on the broader political and economic contexts, such as subsidies in aviation fuel and the challenges of a just transition, especially relating to older and electric vehicles. Discussions around financing mechanisms like zero-interest loans for second-hand EVs and grants for heat pumps, highlighted the need for financial and carbon literacy to navigate these incentives effectively.

Participants noted that aligning financial instruments with emission reduction targets is complex. They emphasised the necessity of clear, targeted policies to facilitate a transition to low-carbon alternatives.

The discussion also explored market mechanisms for emissions reduction, highlighting their impact on socio-economic disparities, especially for lower-income groups in Scotland and inter-generational justice in Wales.

Which industries and sectors are in a position to lead on the transformation to net zero, and how do we encourage that leadership?

Given their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, the session identified oil and gas, construction, transport, electricity and textiles as key sectors that could lead the transformation to net zero. Delegates highlighted the potential role of creative industries in making change through creativity, design and innovation.

Building on existing leadership and expertise, particularly in energy and construction, is crucial. Encouraging leadership involves harnessing the skills of individuals in longstanding industries to lead newer, sustainable sectors.

Delegates also highlighted the need for regulatory support, improved training for retrofit assessors and innovative financial products to encourage retrofitting.

They recommended that policymakers create a level playing field through regulation, set consumption-based targets and support crucial network and SME infrastructure developments for a smoother transition to net zero.

What strategies can help shift behaviours and mobilise climate action by major emitters and the wider public/communities?

The discussion emphasised creating an environment where eco-friendly choices are the most appealing and accessible. Learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, the strategy involves a mix of incentives and penalties. Participants suggested financial incentives for individuals and strict regulations for major emitters. Additionally, participants highlighted the need for a social and wellbeing economy, addressing property ownership issues in Scotland.

Delegates suggested behaviour change tactics such as leveraging consumer power, promoting sustainable travel and localising decision-making. An emphasis on extensive collaboration, both domestically and internationally, is crucial for addressing large-scale emitters. Creative, long-term engagement supported by local authorities, combining technology, legislation and public information, is vital for encouraging widespread adoption of climate-positive behaviours.

The session advocated for both top-down and bottom-up approaches, stressing the importance of co-benefits linking climate actions to other community benefits, like health, to resonate more effectively with the public.

How can we mobilise finance and investment to fund effective climate action in Scotland, including securing public and private sector contributions?

It is crucial to make climate projects investible and de-risking investment. To attract both public and private sector funding, projects need a strong business case that demonstrates both financial returns and climate risk mitigation. There is a need for clearer evidence on risk profiles and investment benefits to increase investor confidence.

Blended finance approaches such as public-private partnerships can help de-risk projects, making them more attractive to investors.

With regard to policy and incentives to drive climate investment, delegates suggested that the Scottish Government could incentivise net zero outcomes rather than funding specific measures, allowing businesses to innovate in achieving climate goals. Government could explore a mix of policies to better align public and private sector investment. Delegates also highlighted that greater investment is needed in areas without a clear revenue mechanism, such as home insulation, where financial benefits are indirect but significant (eg reducing NHS costs from cold-related illnesses).

It is also important to shift investment and valuation approaches. The discussion highlighted the need to rethink how we value climate action, moving away from purely financial metrics and toward societal and environmental benefits. Pension funds and other institutional investors face challenges balancing financial returns with ethical and fiduciary responsibilities. Delegates suggested taking a whole-systems approach to understand policy interdependencies, such as transport and heating schemes, which can generate broader economic and social benefits.

Which regulatory or non-financial policy measures could have the biggest impact on reducing emissions in Scotland?

Key principles suggest that regulation should heavily target high emitters while facilitating grassroots and community initiatives. Delegates suggested taking an assertive approach, similar to France’s ban on oil-fired heating, for phasing out gas boilers.

Participants also suggested tightening regulations on environmental claims about products and services, akin to measures in France and Belgium. Additionally, regulating the embodied carbon in building constructions, a common practice in Nordic countries and soon to be implemented EU-wide from 2028, could further lower emissions.

Another proposal is to open up the energy market to allow peer-to-peer electricity sharing. Increasing the accountability of large landowners could also drive reductions in emissions.

Big things on the horizon

The conference highlighted aspects related to climate change action that are likely to become key policy priorities such as more resilient infrastructure, innovations, considerations for a just transition and climate finance.

1. The need for climate-resilient infrastructure

Flooding and extreme weather events will continue to escalate, requiring adaptation in housing, transport and utilities.
Infrastructure investment must consider long-term resilience rather than short-term cost savings.

2. Policy and regulatory innovations

Moving towards a wellbeing economy means that carbon pricing and regulation align with climate justice goals.
It’d be beneficial for new policies to focus on consumption-based emissions rather than just production-based metrics.

3. Just transition and equity considerations

A just transition to net zero ensures that low-income communities are not disproportionately impacted.
Energy pricing mechanisms should consider affordability while driving emissions reductions.
Public engagement strategies can bridge the gap between early adopters of net zero technologies and those unable to afford the transition.

4. Expanding climate finance and investment

Private investors need clearer risk assessments and investment benefits to scale up climate projects.
Pension funds and institutional investors must balance financial returns with ethical responsibilities.
A whole-systems approach can help integrate transport, heating and energy infrastructure into net zero planning.

5. Leveraging AI and digital solutions

AI has the potential to enhance real-time climate action by optimising grid management and energy efficiency.
However, digital solutions must be accessible and not exacerbate existing inequalities in energy access.
Further research is needed to understand the long-term role of AI in achieving Scotland’s climate targets.

Conclusion and recommendations

The Climate Horizon 2040 Conference highlighted the urgency of embedding adaptation into Scotland’s net zero strategy, integrating technological and financial innovations while ensuring a just transition. Key recommendations include:

Strengthening policy alignment: Ensure adaptation and mitigation policies are integrated to prevent unintended consequences.
Scaling up finance mechanisms: Streamline funding for community-led climate action and incentivise private sector investment.
Investing in resilience: Prioritise climate-proofing infrastructure to mitigate long-term risks.
Enhancing public engagement: Develop clear, accessible communications to drive behavioural change and climate action.
Leveraging innovation: Ensure AI and digital tools contribute to equitable and effective climate solutions.
Collaborating across sectors and organisations: For instance, a coordinated plan with combined effort could help achieve a balance of pragmatism (especially with regard to cost) and politics (such as achieving public buy-in). This is at the core of accelerating climate action and achieving climate targets.
Engaging with EU countries: Learning from other countries about measures that are are already being implemented.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5747

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

ClimateXChange
Edinburgh Climate Change Institute
High School Yards
Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Why it is important

The Scottish Government aims to reduce the number of car kilometres by 20% by 2030, compared to 2019.

The Scottish Government asked ClimateXChange (CXC) to assess the evidence base on what works to reduce car use, including shifting to a different transport mode and behaviour change.

CXC commissioned a suite of three studies looking into a range of measures that could help reduce car use: the impact of parking policies, how to encourage sustainable travel among under-18s and their families, and the benefits of sustainable travel to local high streets and town centres.

How ClimateXChange supported policymakers

To build strong, practical evidence of what works in reducing car use, the studies looked for long-term and robust evaluations of the impact of interventions, and evaluations that capture a range of benefits across economic, environmental and social factors.

This was challenging because many interventions have not been robustly evaluated, nor have baseline data for such evaluation.

Each project report sets out how robust the evidence is and the strength of the impact evidence.

The project looking at the benefits of sustainable travel to local high streets and town centres also produced a suite of engagement materials for those promoting, campaigning on, designing and delivering sustainable travel measures. The materials can be used when engaging with communities, businesses and local representatives.

They also produced a guide on how to run such engagement processes as part of local planning and development. The materials were based on findings from the study, engagement expertise and tested approaches with potential users.

All three reports set out priority actions and include clear and easy to find recommendations for practical action, making the research relevant and valuable for policymakers in national and local government.

Impact

Findings from the three studies have informed the development of an updated car use reduction route map.

The findings of the study on encouraging sustainable travel behaviour in children and young people in particular, have helped the Scottish Government to plan future work with schools, especially Eco-Schools. Sustainable travel is part of the curriculum of Eco-Schools, which have dedicated sessions on sustainable living and climate mitigation measures – the findings informed the development of these sessions.

“The work on travel behaviour in children and young people was innovative. It has given us the foundation for potential targeted messaging around car use reduction to young people and their families.”
– Bertrand Deiss, Head of Transport Climate Change Strategy & Engagement
Transport Scotland, Scottish Government

The Scottish Government has shared with local authorities the materials produced in engaging with their communities. The study provided them with evidence that interventions to make local streets and town centres more sustainable will bring money to city centres.

Finally, the research into the impact of car parking restrictions can be used in local development plans and local transport strategies to encourage a shift to active travel and public transport.

Taken together, the reports set out a suite of intervention ideas and provide evidence to inform local and national debates on which interventions may be most useful to meet local transport needs.

Encouraging sustainable travel in under-18s and their families

The benefits of sustainable travel to local high streets and town centres

Findings

Participants felt that we all have something to contribute towards the costs of the transition to net zero, including the Scottish Government, businesses and citizens.

They wanted to see an equitable approach, meaning that everyone contributes but not all in the same way or by the same amount. They felt that a fair distribution of costs must take account of different circumstances, including:

the amount of control someone has over their level of emissions
the availability of lower carbon alternatives
their ability to pay.

They also supported a progressive form of taxation to fund some of the changes required across key sectors, with higher income individuals and businesses paying more.

The report sets out specific findings relating to the transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture sectors.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Measuring a just transition

Monitoring and measuring a just transition is important to achieve a fairer, greener future for all, and to ensure the process is a partnership with those impacted by the transition to net zero.

To help the Scottish Government develop it’s just transition monitoring framework further reports summarise approaches to just transition monitoring and evaluation in other jurisdictions, and identify possible baseline variables to include in the framework.

Monitoring and evaluation of a just transition in Scotland – Summary report on international lessons

Proposed just transition baseline variables built environment and construction sector

Proposed just transition baseline variables land use and agriculture sector

Proposed just transition baseline variables energy sector

Proposed just transition baseline variables transport sector

Just Transition Commission: Measuring and Evaluating Success in the Scottish Just Transition

Research completed in May 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4964

This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research, ISO 20252

Executive summary

Aims

This study carried out a programme of deliberative public engagement to inform the design and delivery of Just Transition Plans in the transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture sectors.

This report summarises findings from two phases of public engagement that aimed to:

uncover informed, considered and collective public opinion on the fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions in these three key sectors (phase one)
gather learning into the factors influencing any changes in participants’ attitudes, beliefs or values as a result of engaging in this deliberative process (phase one)
gather views on how specific policy options within the transport and built environment sectors could be implemented fairly (phase two).

Overall findings and implications

We all have something to contribute towards the costs of the transition to net zero, including the Scottish Government, businesses and citizens.
Participants wanted to see an equitable approach, meaning that everyone contributes but not all in the same way or by the same amount. They felt that a fair distribution of costs must take account of different circumstances, including:
the amount of control someone has over their level of emissions
the availability of lower carbon alternatives
their ability to pay.
Participants supported a progressive form of taxation to fund some of the changes required across key sectors, with higher income individuals and businesses paying more.
Participants emphasised the need for systems that protect those least able to afford transitions, including exemptions and support for low-income individuals and for those facing health or disability challenges.
A combination of incentives and disincentives was broadly supported and was considered the most effective way to encourage (and discourage) certain behaviours.
The timing of any new taxes, charges or penalties was felt to be a key consideration for ensuring a balance between motivating people to change while not unfairly penalising them. A phased, staggered approach was seen as one way of achieving this balance.
The importance of clear and transparent communication with the public was emphasised. It was agreed that the public should feel part of the decisions that affect them through ongoing public engagement.

Deliberative process and impact on views

Participants said they had developed and deepened their understanding of the scale and complexity of a just transition to net zero, in this deliberative process.
Initially, participants thought that those who emit the most should contribute the most. However, upon further deliberation and consideration of the impacts of this on different groups, they had a strong sense that this approach would be unfair if it did not consider those who have more limited control over their emissions (such as some businesses or people living in rural areas).
The factors that contributed most to participants’ views deepening or shifting were hearing from participants with different backgrounds; learning from experts; engaging with hypothetical scenarios and considering impacts from a range of perspectives; consolidating their views through voicing them in group discussions; and having time to reflect on the issues between sessions.
Overall, participants valued the opportunity to learn about, discuss and contribute to Scotland’s just transition. They emphasised the importance of ongoing engagement with the public, through these types of engagement.

Key messages for the transport sector

Achieving a decarbonised transport system will require significant investment in infrastructure across Scotland.
For any form of Road User Charging to be considered fair, participants concluded that different circumstances and needs should be considered, rather than taking a blanket approach. They felt there should be concessions or exemptions for some groups, including people on low incomes, those with health conditions or disabilities, elderly people, those living in rural communities and those who rely on their car for their livelihoods.
Participants felt that Road User Charging would be unfair in rural areas unless there was improved access to public transport.
They also highlighted the importance of allowing sufficient time for people to prepare for any changes being introduced.

Key messages for the built environment sector

Participants suggested that those who profit from buildings – including businesses in the construction sector and those owning multiple properties – should pay for the changes needed to lower the carbon emissions of those buildings.
To ensure the heat transition is paid in the fairest way possible:
There should be support available to all households but the amount of support should vary depending on circumstances, with those on low incomes and those with older properties entitled to the most government funding.
There should be protections in place, such as exemptions from penalties for vulnerable groups, rent increase caps to protect renters, regulation on the installation of new heating systems and a fair appeals process.
Other considerations included careful consideration around loans to avoid pushing anyone into financial hardship, reassurances around the efficacy of new heating systems and clear communication with the public about the changes required.

Key messages for the land and agriculture sector

Participants agreed that the costs of adopting a more climate friendly approach to food should be shared between the Scottish Government, businesses (including farmers but also other businesses along the supply chain such as supermarkets) and consumers. It was also felt that landowners should bear some of the costs.
Suggestions to ensure a fair transition in the way we produce and consume food:
Consider people’s ability to pay, with protection in place for low-income consumers.
Subsidise farms, favouring smaller farms with less income. Support payments should be specifically allocated towards covering the costs of reducing carbon emissions.
Give farms sufficient time and opportunity to change and reduce emissions before introducing any financial impacts such as additional tax.
Ensure that consumers have easier access to sustainable food options.

Introduction and method

This report presents the findings from public engagement regarding a just transition to net zero in three key sectors: transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. The research was carried out by Ipsos on behalf of ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government.

Background to the research

The Scottish Government’s approach to climate change is underpinned by a commitment to deliver a just transition. The Climate Change Plan 2018-2032 update^[1] emphasises that a just transition “puts people, communities and places at the heart of our approach to climate change action.” The plan recognises climate change as a human rights issue and the transition to net zero as an opportunity to tackle inequalities.

The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019^[2] places statutory obligations on the Scottish Government to develop Climate Change Plans and demonstrate how just transition principles have been taken into account when preparing these.

The 2019 report^[3] from the Just Transition Commission outlined recommendations for achieving a just transition to net zero. In its response, the Scottish Government set out its Outcomes, as part of its National Just Transition Planning Framework, and committed to producing Just Transition Plans for high-emitting sectors, sites and regions.^[4] The draft Energy plan was published for consultation in January 2023^[5]. Plans for transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture are currently in development.

Alongside these policy commitments, the Scottish Government has also emphasised the importance of public engagement in the transition to a net zero and climate ready Scotland. The Climate Change Public Engagement Strategy (Net Zero Nation)^[6] sets out the framework for engaging the Scottish public in the transition to net zero, including the objective “people actively participate in shaping just, fair and inclusive policies that promote mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.”

Objectives

Against the policy background outlined above, ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government commissioned a programme of deliberative research to inform the design and delivery of the outstanding Just Transition Plans in transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. The research initially had two objectives:

To uncover informed, considered and collective public opinion on the fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions in the three key sectors.
To gather learning into the factors influencing any changes in participants’ attitudes, beliefs or values as a result of engaging in this deliberative process.

As the research progressed, a third objective was introduced:

To gather views on how specific policy options within the transport and built environment sectors could be implemented fairly.

Ultimately, the research aimed to directly inform the Just Transition Plans and wider work on the transition to net zero across relevant policy areas.

Methodology

Deliberative approach

A deliberative approach was chosen for this research due to the complex and multi-faceted nature of Scotland’s just transition to net zero. Deliberative engagement is about putting people – through informed discussions, involving diverse perspectives, and understanding lived experiences – at the heart of decision making. It differs from other forms of engagement in that it allows those involved to spend time considering and discussing an issue at length before they come to a considered view. Previous research has noted that the complexity of views around climate change means that this topic lends itself well to deliberative forms of engagement.^[7]

This deliberative research used a public dialogue approach,^[8] a process whereby members of the public interact with experts and policy makers to deliberate on issues relevant to future policy and research decisions. The research was delivered in two phases, each of which are outlined below.

Phase one overview

Phase one brought together a group of 30 people from across Scotland to address the first two objectives (gathering views on a fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions, and gathering learning into the factors influencing participants’ attitudes as a result of engaging in a deliberative process). They met online for six workshops held between August and October 2023, each lasting between two to three hours, with the overall aim of answering these overarching questions in relation to each sector:

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?
How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?
How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

An outline of the process and each workshop can be found in the Appendix A.

Online community

Alongside the workshops, an online community helped support ongoing engagement with the participants, facilitating continued discussion and reflection. The online community was hosted on Community Direct (an Ipsos proprietary platform) and discussion was moderated by Ipsos researchers.

Recruitment

The aim was to achieve a sample of at least 30 participants with over-recruitment to account for potential cancellations or drop-outs. In the end, 30 participants started the process and 27 continued to the end.

Participants were recruited by Fieldmouse, a specialist recruitment organisation, who contacted members of their existing panel of potential research participants by telephone. A screening questionnaire was used to capture demographic information about the participants, designed to help ensure the group’s profile was broadly reflective of the Scottish population. Quotas were set on various characteristics (see Appendix B) in line with national population data. However, those living in a remote rural or island area, from an ethnic minority group, with a disability or long-term health condition, or on a lower income were over-sampled to ensure sufficient representation of these groups.

To support and enable participation in the research, and in line with industry standards, each participant was paid £400. Where necessary, training was provided on how to use the technology and access the meeting platform. This allowed Ipsos to enhance the diversity of those taking part. Workshops were also arranged to take place outside of regular office hours to increase participation.

Materials

Discussion guides (Appendix C) and stimulus (Appendix D) were developed by Ipsos and approved by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government. A range of specialists joined at different points in the dialogue to provide information that would be useful for participants’ learning and deliberation. Presentations were developed by specialist speakers, in consultation with Ipsos, and these presentations were given live during the main plenary sessions. The specialists were available to answer questions from participants in sessions. Presentation recordings were hosted on YouTube and shared via private links for members to watch again in their own time in preparation for subsequent sessions.

Stimulus were used to encourage participants to consider different impacts of the transition. Ipsos developed fictional characters to help participants think about the impact of potential changes on different groups; and fictional future systems of payment to help participants consider what a fair distribution of costs would look like.

Fictional characters used throughout the workshops

Alice is 28. She lives in Dundee in a third-floor flat that she shares with two other friends. Alice works as a nurse in Ninewells Hospital. She works shift patterns, meaning that she often finishes after 10pm. Alice’s income is £28,000 per year.

David and Sarah are married. David is 42and Sarah is 40, and they have two children, Noah (10) and Katie (7). David works as a financial advisor and Sarah works as a website designer. They live in Bearsden, on the outskirts of Glasgow. David and Sarah’s combined income is £105,000 per year.

Lorraine is 60. She lives on a farm in rural Aberdeenshire where she raises cattle and turkeys. Lorraine employs staff who work on the farm and the farm shop. Her son and daughter also work for the business. Lorraine’s income is £55,000 per year.

Maria is 36. She lives in a flat in Moffat with her daughter, Ella (3). Maria has mobility issues and a respiratory condition that sometimes affects her breathing. Maria looks after Ella full time and does not have another job. Maria’s income from benefits is £21,500.

Nadeem is 50. He lives on the Isle of Lewis, about 10 miles from Stornoway. He lives with his son, Ajay (23). Nadeem is a builder and Ajay works in a shop in Stornoway. Nadeem’s income is £45,000 per year and Ajay’s income is £24,000 per year.

Phase two overview

Phase two brought together a group of 20 people from across Scotland to address the third research objective (exploring specific policy options). They met online for three workshops held in March 2024, each lasting between two and three hours. An outline of the structure of each workshop is shown in Appendix A.

Recruitment

The aim was to achieve a sample of at least 15 participants with over-recruitment to account for potential cancellations or drop-outs. In the end, 20 participants started the process and 19 continued to the end.

Participants were recruited by telephone using a screening questionnaire, as per phase one (see Appendix B for quotas and over-sampled groups). Participants were each paid £140 for their participation.

Materials

Discussion guides (Appendix C) and stimulus (Appendix D) were developed by Ipsos and approved by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government. Presentations given in session one were developed by specialist speakers and Ipsos. Presentation recordings were hosted on YouTube and shared via private links for members to refer back to.

In the remaining workshops, participants focused on two policies; Road User Charging (RUC) and the heat transition in domestic properties. For each policy, they explored two approaches before forming conclusions. Some of the fictional characters from phase one were used to help participants think about the impact of different approaches on a range of groups and to consider trade-offs.

How to read this report

The main body of this report provides a summary of key findings, while appendices 1-3 provide more detailed discussions relating to each sector.

Readers are reminded that the report contains findings from two deliberative processes which were staged in two phases. Phase one’s remit was to consider the broader principle of fairness across three sectors, while phase two’s remit was to consider how specific policies could be implemented fairly within two of those sectors. Findings related to specific phases are highlighted at appropriate points, however, some chapters draw on both to minimise repetition (for instance, in the next chapter, where the starting points for both cohorts were similar).

More broadly, the conclusions set out and discussed in this report are intended to inform the Scottish Government’s development of Just Transition Plans. The report includes verbatim assertions by participants and their understanding of the issues. These are not intended as authoritative statements of fact, but they tell us something valuable about how key issues have been perceived and understood by members of the public.

It should also be noted that, at different points in the dialogue, participants engaged with hypothetical scenarios and policy approaches designed to help participants engage with the issues. They were not necessarily reflective of the Scottish Government’s powers or its intended course of action.

Further, it should be noted that whilst the method of qualitative analysis is systematic and rigorous and the conclusions robust (being based on groups that are reflective of the diversity of the wider public), the analysis does not seek to quantify findings nor does it indicate statistical significance from a representative sample. This report offers a valuable insight into public perspectives on the key questions posed to them after receiving and deliberating on key information relevant to the questions. It will also provide valuable insights for engaging the public on policies which will have a significant impact on their lives.

Participants’ starting point

This chapter outlines the initial views of participants as they began the dialogue. It includes the views of both cohorts (i.e. participants taking part in phase one or phase two) in their respective first workshops, which covered similar content.

Familiarity with key terms

In both phases, participants were generally aware of and familiar with the term “net zero”. When asked to describe what this meant, they used words such as “reducing”, “balancing” or “offsetting our emissions”. Reference was also made to specific behaviours linked with the transition to net zero, such as changing modes of transport, using renewable sources of energy, and eating less meat or dairy. At this early stage there was some concern about the scale of the challenge of reaching net zero, and a desire to learn more about how we get there.

“I recognise it’s something we should work towards but there are so many challenges to cancel out what we are doing. It would take radical changes to people’s lives. I find it hard to work out how on earth we will get there, which is why I really want to listen to the experts.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 1)

There was also some scepticism about how the term “net zero” was used, with some asking whether it actually translated into real change, and others asking whether the target was long term enough. This reflected fairly high levels of concern about climate change among these participants, and a desire to see action as a result of the dialogue.

Participants were much less familiar with the term “just transition”. Among the few participants who had heard the term, they understood it to mean the sharing of responsibility for the transition to net zero, while protecting groups such as those in rural areas and those struggling financially. Others spoke of it specifically in terms of jobs, and the aim of protecting people who worked in traditional fossil fuel industries that may become obsolete (using the example of oil workers in Aberdeen). Overall, a just transition was seen as challenging and questions were raised such as “is it achievable?” and “who can be trusted to take the lead on this?”

Participants expressed a general interest and concern in the topic of climate change and hoped to learn more about the policy developments, explore how they as individuals could act to help tackle climate change, and to both hear from others’ perspectives and feel that the Scottish Government is listening to their views.

“There’s such a lot of different opinions, and living in a rural area we might have different opinions to those in a town or city. I wanted to find out more and join in.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 1)

Reactions to the first presentations

In the first workshop of phase one, participants learned about key concepts that would help them in later deliberations. They heard three presentations which covered: Scotland’s current approach to net zero targets; the principle of a just transition and the work of the Just Transition Commission; and the Scottish Government’s Just Transition Plans for the three key sectors.^[9] Phase two participants heard similar introductory presentations, but the second one focussed on the Scottish Government’s Just Transition Plans for the three key sectors; and the third one on wider public engagement on Scotland’s just transition.

As well as generating a number of questions (which were responded to by expert presenters) the presentations highlighted some broader issues of importance for participants. Some emphasised their concern about the scale of change required to reach net zero and how challenging it will be to change attitudes and behaviours. Others felt that achieving a just transition would be very difficult due to the range of different circumstances to be taken into consideration, particularly the differences between urban and rural areas.

“It’s a huge undertaking. I don’t think we can accommodate for every single person in the country not to be left behind.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 1)

Some felt reassured by the existence of the Just Transition Commission and the Scottish Government’s Just Transition Plans, but there was also a lack of clarity for others around the measures that would be put in place to ensure a just transition. There was therefore a broad interest in understanding more about what these would mean in practice.

“We’ve heard all of this before. I want some of this to get put into practice. I haven’t seen anything […] We talk about emissions and everything but nothing has been put into practice to say “we start from here”. We don’t even know where the money is coming from. The transition part is expensive for ordinary households.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 1)

In phase two there was some scepticism among participants about the Scottish Government’s ability to implement changes fairly (based on perceptions of how LEZs in Glasgow and Aberdeen had been introduced). Given the focus on phase two on specific policies in the transport and built environment sectors, there were also concerns raised about the high upfront costs of switching to EVs or making home energy improvements (based on participants’ own experiences). Participants wanted to see more evidence of the efficacy of low carbon technologies before they would be willing to spend money on them.

Overall, participants generally found the information in the presentations useful and informative. They stressed the importance of the wider public being made aware of Scotland’s net zero targets and the scale of changes required to meet them – the types of information that participants had just heard.

“We need to make sure that people in this country know how [the transition] is going to affect them. You need to give real examples, concrete examples of what is going on in Scotland.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 1)

Early thoughts on fairness

At the end of the first workshops (in both phase one and two), participants shared their reflections on what a just transition to net zero would mean. Their responses highlighted that, despite a lack of familiarity with the term, participants were engaging with some of the principles that underpin a just transition. These early themes included the following:

Costs should be distributed. Participants felt there should be some form of shared responsibility. There was a broad sense that everyone should contribute something, but it was also highlighted that these contributions would not be equal (as people would not be starting from equal positions). It was also felt that some individual actions would need to be supported by systemic changes.
Different needs and circumstances should be taken into consideration. In particular, fairness was linked to acknowledging people’s different financial circumstances and ability to afford the changes that might be expected of them. It was also linked to understanding the differences between urban and rural communities in relation to access to transport infrastructure.
Awareness-raising and public engagement are important to help people to understand why change is needed and what changes we can all make. It was stressed that consultation and engagement should focus on those who are most likely to be affected by the transition.
The transition should not result in further inequality and could even be an opportunity to tackle existing poverty and inequality. Particularly among participants in phase one, there was an aspiration that the transition to net zero should not results in the loss of jobs or communities.

These early themes were revisited and developed further by participants in the remaining workshops, as they learned about specific sectors, deliberated on a fair distribution of costs and benefits, and (in phase two) considered different policy options.

Principles of fairness across sectors

In phase one, individual sectors were covered in three separate workshops on transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. In these workshops participants heard presentations which outlined some of the changes that may be needed in the sector.

Participants were presented with a vision for the sector in 2040 based on the Scottish Government’s discussion papers and explored this in the context of different fictional characters and how they might be impacted. The visions for each sector outlined changes such as:

Transport – private cars produce fewer emissions; alternatives to private cars (e.g. public transport, car sharing etc) are readily available; there are measures to discourage car use (e.g. road charges); and new transport jobs have been created.
Built environment and construction – buildings are more energy efficient; places are designed and used differently (e.g. to cope with extreme weather, or reduce flood risk); the construction sector is more sustainable, using more locally sourced and natural supplies; and new construction jobs have been created.
Land use and agriculture – land is used differently, with less dedicated to food production and more to planting trees, peatland restoration and supporting biodiversity; people are encouraged to consider the climate impacts of food and waste less food; and land and agriculture based jobs have changed.

Using these examples, and based on their own lived experiences, participants answered these questions for each sector:

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?
How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?
How can we make sure that everyone benefits?
Answers to those questions were developed in detail in the final workshop and are outlined in the conclusions to phase one. Five common, cross-cutting themes emerged across sectors that are summarised below.

Cross-cutting themes

Support for those most impacted by the transition

Having heard about the potential changes that may be required to reach net zero in each sector, participants identified certain groups that were likely to be impacted more than others. It was felt that these groups would require support so that they did not experience financial or other types of disadvantage as a result of the transition. These groups were:

Individuals and businesses in rural communities. Across all sectors, it was felt that rural areas would face specific challenges in meeting the aspirations outlined in the sectoral visions. These barriers included: a greater reliance on cars and a lack of public transport infrastructure; high costs of upgrading heating systems due to older, less energy efficient properties; and less easy access to sustainable food options in shops. It was felt that these types of barriers should be accounted for in the planning for the transition.
People who are unable to afford to make changes. Having heard about the potential changes needed in all three sectors, participants felt that these were likely to be expensive. There was particular concern about the impact of those costs on people who would already be considered financially vulnerable, including those on lower incomes and those struggling with the cost of living. This concern carried through to participants’ later views on fair systems of payment, and the importance of considering an individual’s ability to pay.
Businesses unable to afford to make changes. Smaller businesses, including small farms, were viewed as being more financially vulnerable and less likely than larger companies to be able to cover costs of the transition.
People working in jobs most likely to be impacted by the transition. This included: farmers who may be required to change the way they use land and produce food; those who drive for a living who may be impacted by the move to a decarbonised transport system; and the construction sector, who would need to reskill people to retrofit or build new energy efficient buildings.

Shared responsibility for paying for the transition

A theme throughout the sector-focussed workshops was that we all have something to contribute. When discussing each sector, it was felt that the costs of transitioning to net zero should be shared among the Scottish Government, businesses and citizens:

The Scottish Government should fund infrastructure that helps the public to make lower carbon choices (e.g. funding EV charging infrastructure, free public transport) and provide grants or loans to help people with upfront costs such as replacing heating systems. This support was seen as essential to help those who would not be able to afford these changes. It was also felt that the Government should continue to subsidise farmers, as without these subsidies farms may not survive.
Businesses should pay for making changes, particularly if they are going to benefit financially. This was seen as particularly the case for the construction sector and parts of the transport industry, but also extended to farmers and the wider food supply chain. The overriding theme was that profit-making businesses would both have the ability to pay (because they could afford to) and a responsibility to pay (if they would benefit from the changes).
Citizens. It was felt that the public bears some responsibility to pay for changes to our homes, our forms of transport, and the food we consume. It was also agreed that those continuing to make high carbon choices should bear the cost of those choices. However, there were a number of important conditions to this, including the affordability of the changes, and the extent to which someone has alternative choices available to them. These conditions, and how they would be accounted for, were explored in more detail in later workshops.

There were also some specific groups identified as being responsible for changes within individual sectors, including landlords and property owners who it was felt should be responsible for making properties more energy efficient or transitioning to clean heating systems; and landowners who participants suggested should be taxed to help pay for some of the changes to land use needed.

No ‘one size fits all’ approach

Reflecting the points above, it was felt that different approaches would be needed to accommodate the circumstances of and likely impacts on different groups. Across the sectors, the following characteristics were seen as important to bear in mind:

The extent to which there are options available to support low carbon choices. For example, if there is a lack of public transport options (as in rural areas) or if the use of EVs is not practically feasible, then it would be unfair if people in those areas had to pay to fund EV or public transport infrastructure.
The ability to pay, so that those on lower incomes are not further disadvantaged by having to pay for changes they are unable to afford. This extended to businesses, as it was felt that farmers, small businesses, and those struggling financially should be provided with support towards making changes.
Having needs that may impact on behaviours, such as having a disability or health conditions that requires use of a car.

In these sector-focussed workshops, there were mixed views on the extent to which systems of payment should be based on levels of emissions. On the one hand, there was a view that individuals who continue to drive high emitting vehicles or property owners who had neglected to make the necessary changes should be obliged to pay more. On the other hand, it was felt that higher emitters may not have a viable alternative, either because of where they live (i.e. those in rural areas may have no alternative to cars) or because of income (i.e. being unable to afford an EV or to make energy efficiency improvements in their homes).

These views on fair systems of payment were explored in more detail, using hypothetical scenarios, in the penultimate workshop.

Acceptance of the possibility of taxation

Before they had explored potential systems of payment in detail, participants had already discussed the possibility of taxation to support the costs of the transition. While there was an expectation that the Scottish Government would contribute towards the costs (as noted above), it was also acknowledged that those costs paid could end up being borne by the individual anyway through taxation. A progressive tax was supported in principle, based on both ability to pay and ability to choose, but participants did not discuss (at this stage) the details of how that would be implemented.
Some participants felt that payments should be covered by a tax on larger, profit-making businesses, particularly whose practices are not climate-friendly (e.g. those who import food from overseas). At the same time, there was recognition that penalising businesses too harshly could force them to leave Scotland which would risk jobs and move carbon emissions elsewhere. There was some support for a “food miles tax” or other form of high carbon products tax, but only if other more sustainable food options were available and affordable.

Need for education and time

When reflecting on the likely changes in each sector, participants felt there was need for further education, engagement, and public consultations around the transition. They felt that the necessity and benefits of transitioning to net zero should be clearly communicated to all citizens.

It was also stressed that people and businesses would need sufficient time to adapt to the changes required for the transition to net zero, and that this would require advance notice of regulations, taxes or other charges, or incentives.

How our fictional characters fared across all sectors

When reviewing the impacts of the transition on our fictional characters, participants highlighted many of the points raised above, particularly the importance of taking into account factors such as location (whether they lived in urban or rural areas), ability to choose, tenure, income, occupation and other lifestyle factors.

Who benefits from changes?

Alice benefits from improvements to public transport which she could use to go to work in Dundee, rather than relying on her petrol car. However, it was pointed out that more regular buses would not necessarily make her feel any safer travelling to work at certain times (one of the main reasons she avoided using public transport). It was felt that Alice would also benefit from improved energy efficiency in her rented flat, provided upgrades were carried out by her landlord and that additional costs associated with this were not passed on to her. She would also benefit if she was able to afford a high-quality new build in future (as she was hoping to buy a property).

An improved public transport system would benefit Maria, who did not drive. This would mean she would be less reliant on taxis, saving her money. As a tenant (in a flat with an EPC rating of C), she might also benefit if the housing association made her home more energy efficient and if appropriate measures were introduced to reduce the risk of flooding to her property (her ground floor flat was located in a flood risk area).

Nadeem (a builder) could benefit from an increase in demand in the construction sector and from training opportunities available on new construction techniques, provided these are accessible to him and his staff.

David and Sarah would benefit from the move to a more sustainable food system because their lifestyle choices were already in line with this vision (as they largely bought locally produced food, and were on the waiting list for an allotment), and they could afford to make further changes or absorb increased costs.

Who might be negatively impacted?

Lorraine would be negatively impacted across all sectors. As a farmer, she may be required to change her use of transport but have limited low carbon alternatives for agricultural vehicles and personal car use (based on the view that the sort of rural area where she lives is unlikely to have the level of integrated transport needed). It was also noted that her property would likely require a lot of work to make it more energy efficient, which she may not be able to afford. Lorraine’s livelihood was also identified as at risk given the challenges of diversifying land use and the need to increase prices to cover the cost of making those changes. Her age was noted as a factor in that she may not have time to benefit before she retires.

It was felt that Nadeem would be negatively impacted because of his reliance on a van for his work and the fact that he lives and works on the Isle of Lewis. Based on the assumption that public transport would not be a viable alternative, it was considered unfair that his earnings would be affected by road charges. Nadeem and Ajay (both vegan) may lose out if a focus on local food products means they have less choice in their diet. This could be exacerbated by additional challenges transporting goods to where they live. Ajay’s job in a food shop might be at risk if it is adversely affected by increased prices.

It was felt that Alice may see her rent increased to cover the costs of making her home more energy efficient. This would affect her ability to save for a new property, especially if very high energy efficiency standards led to increased costs for new builds. Alice and Maria were both identified as at risk of losing out if food prices increase because of their concern about the current cost of groceries. They may also struggle to access local produce; Maria because of her child care requirements, and Alice because of her shift patterns.

Although David and Sarah would have to adapt their lifestyle in relation to transport (e.g. they would likely have to reduce their use of two cars) it was felt they would be able to adapt and absorb the costs with their income. However, it was recognised that there would need to be some flexibility or exemptions given for their use of the car when travelling with their disabled son.

Fair systems of payment in practice

In the penultimate workshop participants explored what a fair system of payment might look like across all three sectors. Hypothetical scenarios were created and used as a way of testing participants’ views of fairness. These were based on information provided in the workshop presentations and ideas raised by the participants themselves during breakout discussions, and were not necessarily reflective of the Scottish Government’s powers or its intended course of action. It should also be noted that participants’ interpretations of the scenarios should not be read as authoritative statements of fact, but rather reflect how key issues were perceived and understood.

Hypothetical scenario 1: Those who earn the most pay the most

In this scenario, costs would be covered through a progressive form of “net zero” tax applied to people in Scotland earning over a certain amount (see figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Scenario 1: those who earn the most pay the most

What appealed?

There was broad support for the idea of providing free public transport for those on low incomes, given the strong view that this group should be protected as we transition to net zero. However one participant raised the possibility that people on low incomes might already use public transport more than other groups, so felt that incentivising public transport use among those on higher incomes might have more impact.

Providing grants for purchasing EVs was also an appealing aspect of the scenario, as it too would benefit those on lower incomes. However, it was felt that this policy could be more targeted in areas where public transport was not as available, such as rural areas.

“Why would you give a grant to someone on a low income to buy a car in Glasgow or Edinburgh? People in rural areas don’t have a choice, they have to have a car. Giving them a grant could be a really useful thing, to make sure they’re able to get about.” (Participant, workshop 5)

What were the concerns?

Participants felt that middle income earners would potentially lose out under this hypothetical scenario if they would not qualify for grants or free public transport, but would still struggle to afford an EV or to make significant changes to their home.

“It’s a bit vague, ‘low income’ versus ‘high income’. Those on a middle income fall between the cracks, and they can’t afford an electric vehicle or to make the home improvements.” (Participant, workshop 5)

This fed into broader discussions around income, and participants felt that this would not necessarily correlate to ability to pay. Some reflected on their own situations as they considered the scenario, sharing that they had wanted to improve the energy efficiency of their homes but were unable to afford the changes.

There was broad agreement that it would be unfair to fine people, especially those less well off, if they could not afford to upgrade their home. It was therefore felt that a more nuanced consideration of financial ability would need to be considered. Participants were supportive of the suggestion of a progressive “net zero tax”, using small income bands to avoid stark increases in taxation and ease the impact on households.

Participants were aware of potential unintended negative consequences of this scenario. For instance, if landlords struggled to afford the changes they might choose to sell which could impact rental supply and lead to rent increases. There was some debate around whether all landlords should be ineligible for grants, or whether there should be scope for smaller landlords (i.e. with fewer properties) to be eligible, similar to the support offered to smaller farms in this scenario. However, no firm conclusions were reached on this.

As highlighted in the transport workshop, participants remained concerned that a lack of EV charging infrastructure in rural areas would mean rural and island communities missing out.

How our fictional characters fared in scenario 1

Who benefits?

Participants felt that Maria would benefit from free public transport, while Alice could use a grant to switch her petrol car to an EV.

Who might be negatively impacted?

Lorraine was considered to be a middle income earner who could miss out on financial support. Participants felt that she would be “hammered” under this scenario, given her home has an EPC rating of D and she may not be able to afford the necessary changes to bring it up to an energy efficient rating. With the requirements to reduce emissions on her farm as well, it was felt Lorraine would be negatively impacted in several ways.

David and Sarah (owners of a rental property) were also identified as potentially being impacted through the net zero tax and requirements to change EPC ratings in rental properties, but being ineligible for grants. Although it was felt that they could and should pay a higher share based on their income, seeing the various ways in which they would be charged under this scenario, while caring for a disabled son, gave participants a more nuanced perspective which reinforced the view that income alone does not necessarily equate to affordability.

A fair distribution of costs

Participants felt the ‘Those who earn the most pay the most’ scenario could be fair in theory, but in practice would depend on how it was funded; how much time would be given to prepare for the changes; the infrastructure that would be put in place; and how “low income” would be defined. Participants reiterated the view that personal circumstances would need to be taken into account.

Participants also identified a need for awareness raising to ensure fairness in this scenario. They felt that individuals would need to be given guidance on what changes they needed to make and what support would be available for them, recognising that not everyone knows what their home’s EPC rating is.

A key caveat to the discussions was that the role of industry must also be considered alongside public behaviour change and cost-bearing. This was prompted by the risk of food prices increasing as farmers pass costs on to consumers, which would add to the financial burdens already placed on individuals.

“Things are constantly going up, then with this added cost and figuring out if you pay for costs of your home being energy efficient, it seems a difficult and expensive thing to be going through and I’m not sure how this will be managed.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Food price increases were felt to be somewhat inevitable when discussed in the land and agriculture workshop, but in the context of these scenarios were considered to be unfair, especially if big corporations were not doing their bit. It was suggested that “middle businesses” in the supply chain (such as supermarkets) could absorb more of the costs to minimise the impact on farmers or consumers.

Hypothetical scenario 2: Those who emit the most pay the most

Scenario 2 focused on a system of payment whereby those who emit the most pay the most. Costs would be covered through taxing higher emitting industries and other charges for people who contribute the most emissions (see figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2. Scenario 2: those who emit the most pay the most

What appealed?

There were fewer aspects of this scenario that appealed compared to the others. The tax on high carbon food was identified by some as an effective way to encourage people to change their eating habits. Those who were in favour felt that products like meat becoming a ‘luxury’ would make them be more frugal and cut back on certain foods.

“It might encourage me to think more carefully about what I’m buying, maybe being a bit more frugal in terms of what’s used. I see that as a good thing. I’d be quite happy with less choice in some ways because I feel we’ve got way too much choice now.” (Participant, workshop 5)

However, the high carbon food tax was also criticised for making certain food products unaffordable, which was not considered fair. For some, this was based on the view that meat and dairy products were part of a nutritional diet and should not become a luxury. For others, it was about understanding the demands on peoples’ time and ability to pay for fresh, seasonal produce.

“People don’t buy rubbish food because they love it, sometimes it’s because they don’t have the choice […] I love spending too much money in Real Foods, but not everyone has the ability to do that. It’s making sure we’re not leaving people behind. The affordable choice should be for the environment and the health of the people.” (Participant, workshop 5)

What were the concerns?

The main concern around the ‘Those who emit the most pay the most’ scenario was that some people and businesses were higher emitters due to circumstances outside their control. This echoed a strong theme, which emerged early in the dialogue, that people without low carbon alternatives available to them should not be penalised. The construction and farming industries were highlighted as examples where the costs of decarbonisation could be prohibitive and threaten livelihoods. It was also felt that costs could be passed onto consumers, meaning that it would not just be high emitters who would pay the most.

Participants also expressed concern for homeowners and questioned the cost, feasibility and fairness of requiring homeowners to bring their homes to an EPC rating of C by 2033.

“I think the timescale is an important factor here. At the moment, it’s 10 years away. By the time this is made law, it’s probably only going to be 7 years away. It’s what ability is there to do changes in the 7 years.” (Participant, workshop 5)

It was felt that EVs would not be feasible for those living in rural areas, so they would be subject to road user charging despite having no viable alternative. There was some criticism of LEZs in particular, which were seen to have been unfairly implemented in some areas.

“At Keith [in Moray] they were going to create a LEZ but anyone coming from Shetland, if they needed a car, that’d be taxed by the emissions zone [so] they don’t have a choice.” (Participant, workshop 5)

How our fictional characters fared in scenario 2

Who might be negatively impacted?

Nadeem’s livelihood as a builder was felt to be at risk given the additional costs to his business, such as road user charges (if he was not able to switch to an EV) and paying penalties (if he was not able to reduce emissions). Similarly, it was felt Lorraine’s farm would be penalised and her business would be vulnerable if she could not easily change the use of her land.

Who benefits?

Participants felt that the characters living or working in cities, including Alice, Maria and David and Sarah, would benefit from the LEZs due to cleaner air. Given Nadeem and Ajay are both vegan, it was also felt that they would not be penalised for buying high carbon produce such as meat; “lack of penalty is kind of a benefit”.

A fair distribution of costs

Participants consistently felt an emissions-based approach would be unfair:

“I think it’s penalising. There isn’t a lot of incentives there. It’s very directive, ‘You will do this or you will get fined.’ There isn’t a lot of, ‘We are supporting you’. It’s not a kind system […] It’s very harsh.” (Participant, workshop 5)

They felt this system of payment would need a nuanced approach, recognising that some people and businesses have more limited control over their emissions than others, and they would be unfairly penalised if these differences were not considered.

For the introduction of LEZs to be considered fair, improvements to the public transport infrastructure were considered to be a prerequisite.

“There needs to be reliable, good quality transport. And we should start from that. If we start with installing Low Emission Zones, before we improve public transport, it will make people very hostile towards the idea. (Participant, workshop 5)

Additionally, participants felt that there needed to be more of a balance between penalties and incentivisation to help facilitate low carbon choices. Awareness-raising, education and engagement was felt to be an important part of helping people transition, otherwise:

“You are going to disengage and alienate the population and any change becomes a bigger challenge, dramatically. This is going to affect every single part of life.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Hypothetical scenario 3: Incentives for making low carbon choices

Scenario 3 focused on a system of payment where there are incentives for making low carbon choices. Costs would be covered through general increased taxation and through profits generated from certain businesses benefitting financially from the transition (see figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3. Scenario 3: there are incentives for making low carbon choices

What appealed?

Participants were initially drawn to the supportive nature of this scenario, with its emphasis on incentivisation. The provision of subsidised public transport was widely supported.

“If you’re told you’ll get a bit of help, it’s more positive and people will more likely want to carry out and make these differences, but if they have to pay for it and take care of a family, they won’t want to do it. Incentives are always a good thing.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Prioritising high emitting homes for grants and retrofitting schemes were deemed sensible and effective ways of bringing emissions down quickly. Participants living in higher emitting homes said they would appreciate the support to make improvements. Those who rented were more sceptical about this, as they worried that rent prices would be increased by landlords to make the changes, even if they were receiving grants.

While there was a preference for incentives over penalties, there was a view that “there will always be people who can’t be bothered” to change. Participants also highlighted a risk that money could be wasted if it does not target those who need it most. For example, some questioned whether everyone should be eligible for an EV grant or only made available to those who would be unable to afford one without support.

“The bits about grants for all electric vehicles, some people will be able to afford them so they won’t need them. That money could be used for something else.” (Participant, workshop 5)

What were the concerns?

Despite initial positivity towards the ‘Incentives for making low carbon choices’ scenario, concerns grew over how the various financial supports would be paid for and how effective a system based on incentives would be for reaching net zero targets. The idea of general increased taxation was a less appealing aspect of this scenario, as it was felt that this would ultimately result in everyone paying more, and would place an unreasonable burden on people in the context of a cost of living crisis:

“I think we’ve reached a point where we’re all groaning from increase in taxation and cost of living.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Specifically, and echoing earlier findings, middle income earners were identified as a group who were more likely to bear the brunt of general taxation but not see the benefits through grants and subsidies.

“When you talk about general increases in taxation it’s always the middle income owners hardest hit. They earn more so they pay more tax, they then never get the benefits available. They may be £1 over the cut off but they are taxed higher and get no benefits.” (Participant, workshop 5)

How our characters fared in scenario 3

Who benefits?

Participants felt that David and Sarah and Lorraine would benefit as their low EPC-rated properties (David and Sarah’s rental property was D, Lorraine’s home was E) would be prioritised for retrofitting schemes and grants. Profit-sharing for reskilling initiatives were seen to be beneficial for Lorraine too, as well as for Nadeem and his employees.

A fair distribution of costs

While the use of incentives was seen as a kinder approach than penalties, it did not necessarily follow that this system of payment would be fairer. As highlighted above, participants raised concerns about a general taxation putting pressure on some groups, while open incentivisation might mean grants and subsidies were taken up by those who were better off rather than those with the greatest need. Participants therefore felt that a fair distribution of costs under this system would mean more targeted support through grants and subsidies, in combination with a general taxation. The availability of grants and subsidies would also need to be widely publicised and not administered on a first-come-first-served basis to minimise the risk of people losing out.

“Limiting the cash benefits to any group or individual is the key thing, because this is too open-ended.” (Participant, workshop 5)

As with other systems of payment, it was perceived that the current infrastructure – particularly for public transport and EV charging – was too “fragmented”. It was strongly felt that these issues would need to be addressed first, to ensure people were able to make low carbon choices.

This highlighted the importance of timing and sequencing for a just transition to net zero. The system of payment based on incentives was initially more appealing, but it was also felt that some charges might be necessary once people have had time and encouragement to make the necessary changes.

“On the road to net zero it will probably not be fair to charge based on emissions before we reach the points at which changes SHOULD have been made… Emissions charging should be the “stick” coupled with the “carrot” of a really rigorous and case specific package of support to enable homeowners to make the necessary changes.” (Participant, online community)

Summary on systems of payment

These hypothetical systems of payment highlighted the range of complexities inherent in the different approaches to distributing the costs of the transition. Participants were not asked to choose any one scenario over another, but instead discussed how each scenario might impact different groups and raised key considerations for making these approaches as fair as possible. Their key points are summarised in the following table:

Scenario 1 – those who emit the most pay the most

Scenario 2 – those who earn the most pay the most

Scenario 3 – incentivising low carbon choices

• There was general support for the concept of people’s contribution being based on their ability to pay, but concerns over how a system of payment based on this would be implemented.

• This scenario aligned with a strong theme throughout the dialogue of acknowledging different circumstances, and also of not making things harder for those already struggling or disadvantaged in any way.

• While it was recognised that placing responsibility on those who contribute most emissions is fair in principle, there were concerns that this could have an unfair impact on people whose high emissions are due to circumstances beyond their control.

• This scenario was felt to be a negative framing of the issue, which would increase resistance to change, and a “sledgehammer” “oppressive” approach which that was not in keeping with a just transition.

• If an emissions-based approach to distributing costs were to be adopted, participants felt that there would need to be lower carbon alternatives in place, with consideration of, and support for, those without alternatives available to them.

• The use of incentives was considered a more supportive and kinder approach to encourage behaviour change.

• But it was recognised that this would come at a cost, and some found it difficult to support general taxation in the context of the cost of living crisis.

• Participants questioned the fairness (and effectiveness) of taxing everyone when they may not benefit from the grants and subsidies themselves.

Exploring policies

In phase two of the research, a new group of 20 people from across Scotland were convened to learn about and deliberate on potential policy options within two of the key sectors that were focused on in phase one; transport and the built environment. The two policy options were:

Approaches to Road User Charging (RUC), involving a charge on car usage based either on distance driven or on a defined geographic area.
Approaches to funding the transition of domestic properties away from gas or oil-based heating systems to clean heating systems (such as heat pumps or district heat networks).

Picking up where the first cohort left off, they considered the benefits and challenges of these policy options, before providing conclusions on how they should be implemented fairly.

Road User Charging

Views on Road User Charging are explored in more detail in the transport chapter. A summary of the key findings is presented here where participants were shown two possible options to road user charging, presented in the following table:

Option 1 – UK national road pricing

Option 2 – Urban local road user charging

- This would involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven.
- The pricing system would cover all of Scotland’s roads. The cost would vary depending on factors like the weight of the vehicle, the user’s disability status and place of residence e.g. urban residents may be charged at a different level than rural residents.
- It would be measured and monitored using vehicle tracking technology or mile logging (e.g. at MOT control).
- The amount paid would range between 3p and 10p per miles driven. Money raised would be invested in improvements to public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt.
- The type of system would be implemented by the UK Government.

- This would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area.
- When it is in place would depend on local circumstances, e.g. it may be applied at certain times of the day to coincide with when public transport is available. This could apply to large urban and suburban areas such as Edinburgh or Glasgow metropolitan areas.
- It would be measured and monitored using number plate recognition or vehicle tracking technology.
- The charge would be approximately £5 – £15 per day. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt.
- Similar systems are in place in London and Milan. This type of system would be implemented by local authorities (they already have the power to do this).

Views on option 1: UK national road pricing

UK national road pricing was introduced as a possible approach to RUC that would cover all of Scotland’s roads and involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven.

A perceived general benefit of this form of RUC was that those who drove for convenience might be encouraged to choose public transport instead. In turn, the reduced traffic would improve air quality and bring health benefits. That funds raised would be invested in improvements to public transport was widely welcomed, and it was agreed that rural areas should be prioritised for funding, as public transport was considered to be less available and accessible in these areas.

“A good thing about it is that the money raised is put towards public transport. If the money is invested into rural areas, that’d be really good. That’s where the money should go because they need transport.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

The challenges participants were keen to ensure were considered and addressed included:

Taking different circumstances into account: It was felt that some groups would be unfairly impacted as their access to alternative options would be limited (e.g. those who rely on their car because of a disability or health condition, those who have to drive long distances for work, or those who live in rural areas where public transport alternatives are not available). It was agreed that exemptions or permits would need to be in place for these groups and these should be clearly communicated:
“It would be unfair for those that live in rural areas to pay the same when they don’t have a choice in transport.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)
Balancing incentives and disincentives: It was surprising to some that EVs were not exempt. There were mixed views on the fairness of this which hinged on the risk of discouraging people from switching to lower carbon alternatives versus the overall objective of reducing distances travelled by car. It was therefore suggested that EVs should not be charged as much as petrol/diesel cars to incentivise lower carbon choices.
How the charge is paid: It was not considered fair to present drivers with an annual one-off charge, as this could come as a shock and be difficult to pay in one go. Instead, it was suggested that the costs should be spread out. It was also felt that consideration should be given to when the charge is applied (with a suggestion for it to be lower or lifted during the night to ensure those travelling for night shifts are not restricted).

Views on option 2: urban local road user charging

Urban local road user charging was introduced as another possible approach to RUC that would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area.

The benefits highlighted were similar to those raised in response to option 1 (cleaner air and improved public transport infrastructure). For some, this option was considered to be fairer than national road pricing because it was assumed it would be implemented in areas with readily available public transport alternatives.

“This one is targeting particular areas and not all journeys. You’re given an option to use your car or public transport to get into the city.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

There were still challenges that participants raised in relation to this approach, including:

How those who living and working within the charging zone would be treated: It was agreed that exemptions would need to be made for such groups.
Considering the differences between types of urban areas: Inverness, for instance, was felt to be a different type of urban area to Glasgow or Edinburgh, as it served as a connecting transport hub for those in rural areas.
Ensuring access to alternatives: It was felt that adequate public transport infrastructure would need to be in place before RUC was introduced to an area.

Funding the heat transition in domestic properties

Views on the heat transition in domestic properties are explored in more detail in the built environment and construction sector. A summary of the key findings is presented here, where participants were shown two possible options to funding the heat transition, detailed in the following table:

Option 1 – widely available public funding, stricter penalties

Option 2 – targeted public funding, softer penalties

- Scottish government grants and loans are available to all households.
- Penalties for landlords for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2028 and clean heating by 2045.
- Landlords are prevented from increasing rent after switching to a clean energy system.
- Penalties for homeowners for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2033 and clean heating by 2045.
- Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of these changes.

- Scottish Government grants are available to households on lower incomes only. Low or zero interest loans available to all households.
- Private finance opportunities are available.
- Penalties for landlords for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2028, but more time allowed before penalties for not switching to clean heating are enforced.
- Landlords are allowed to increase rent, but there is a cap.
- Penalties for homeowners for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2033, but more time allowed before penalties for not switching to clean heating are enforced.
- Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of these changes.

Views on option 1: widely available public funding

Participants considered a scenario in which Scottish Government grants and loans would be available to all households to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system. In this scenario, there would be penalties for non-compliance by the deadlines set out.

As well as considering the general benefits of the clean heat transition (such as the need to use less energy to warm homes, and reduced emissions), participants also felt that the combination of widely available funding and strict penalties would encourage people to make the changes. The presence of exemptions for certain groups, protections for renters, and an appeals process were all welcomed.

Participants also highlighted a number of challenges:

The 2028 deadline for landlords making home energy improvements was felt to be too close and not enough notice. There were also concerns raised that landlords would choose to sell rather than make the required changes, which would mean fewer homes available to rent.
Conversely, the 2045 deadline for clean heating systems to be installed was considered to be too far away and raised concerns that people would not be motivated to act quickly enough.
The availability of funding to all households drew mixed views:
On the one hand, it was not considered fair to fund households that could afford to pay for changes, while others unable to afford the changes may not receive enough to cover their costs:
“If you’re really rich, you can pay for it, why should you get a grant for it?” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)
On the other hand, it was considered fair that all households receive some support since the changes were being required of them:
“I think it would be fair to give grants to all households because they’re enforcing it. If they want people to do it, they’ll need an incentive.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

In drawing conclusions, there was general agreement that while there should be support available to all households, this should vary depending on circumstances (with those on lower incomes and those with older properties being entitled to the most government funding).

There was some discomfort around the idea of people taking out loans to cover any remaining costs, particularly for those seeking to avoid debt or already struggling with existing financial commitments.
While welcomed, there were concerns that that an appeals process could be difficult and stressful which would be off-putting to some.
Building trust in the efficacy of the clean heating systems was felt to be a necessary pre-requisite to people installing them in their homes, and participants expressed a desire to see evidence of this:
“More trials, more comparisons and more information. I think if people have that then more people are going to go, ‘We see where you’re coming from, we understand and can get behind it.’” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Views on option 2: targeted public funding

Participants considered another scenario in which Scottish Government grants and loans would be available to households on lower incomes to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system (but not to higher income households, landlords or owners of second properties). In this scenario, there would be penalties for non-compliance on energy efficiency improvements, but penalties for not installing a clean heating system by 2045 would not be enforced straight away.

The flexibility in when and how penalties would be applied was welcomed in this scenario. While there were concerns raised initially about landlords being able to increase rent (as in option 1), it was also recognised that there could be a positive impact for tenants if the properties energy efficiency is improved, leading to better living conditions and cheaper energy bills. It was agreed that a rent cap would be important to protect tenants from sharp rent increases.

Similar challenges identified with a targeted funding approach as were raised in relation to widely available funding, which included concerns around the deadlines (2028 being too near and 2045 being too far), the push towards loans, and the need for clear and comprehensive communications to raise awareness of the changes that people would be required to make.

Other challenges identified with this approach to funding the clean heating transition included:

A lack of clarity around the penalties, with some being enforced as soon as the deadline expires and others not being enforced right away. This was felt to be problematic and an ineffective way of encouraging people to act:
“If you say you’ve got to do something by 2045 but there are no consequences for not doing it by 2045 [..] do they really have to do it?” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)
The targeted nature of funding drew mixed views. For some it was felt to be fairer as financial support would be offered to those who need it most, while others felt that targeted funding would result in those just over the qualifying threshold being put under financial pressure. There were also concerns that targeted funding would limit the effectiveness of the policy, with those not eligible being less inclined to act.
There was a strong view against private financing, which was underpinned by a perception that private sector organisations were motivated solely by profit. If loans were to be offered, it was felt that these should be administered by Scottish Government:
“I don’t think private sector should offer loans in the first place. The government wants you to do this so they should offer the loan themselves or provide the grant.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)
As well as providing communications around the efficacy of clean heating systems, participants also felt there should be clear advice on the running costs after installation and reassurance that these would be long-term solutions.

Conclusions

This chapter brings together conclusions from across both phases of the research. Conclusions were reached as participants drew on what they had learned over the course of the dialogue:

In phase one, conclusions were developed iteratively by participants over the course of the dialogue, but were developed in detail in the final workshop and focused on answering the over-arching questions:

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?
How do we make that system of payment fair?
How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

In phase two, conclusions were reached at the end of each sector-focused workshop and concentrated on the fair implementation of Road User Charging, and the funding of the heat transition in domestic properties.

Conclusions have been written using the participants own words as much as possible. Where any edits to wording were made by Ipsos, this was to correct repetition or duplication, or to reorder points into a more logical flow.

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?

The overarching message was that we all have something to contribute. Specific contributions from three broad groups were identified:

Government

The Scottish Government should fund (in an efficient and timely manner):

Public charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.
An integrated, accessible, and reliable public transport system.
Grants and interest-free loans for retrofitting existing homes (available to homeowners and long-term tenants) and purchasing electric vehicles.
Subsidies and research grants for farmers and other small businesses. This should include support towards the cost of changing land use, encouraging development of lower carbon materials or produce, and reskilling and training initiatives.
Education and awareness raising programmes.
Research into low-carbon technologies (e.g. wave power).
An apolitical body to provide the lead in scientific and evidence-based practice.
As well as the Scottish Government, local authorities and other public sector bodies also have a big part to play and should cover some of the costs.

Business

Businesses (including landowners and private landlords) should pay for the changes they need to make. This should be through taxes and other means, and with some support from the Scottish Government.

Businesses are especially responsible for costs where:

There is an opportunity for them to profit from the changes.
They contribute higher emissions where lower carbon alternatives (e.g. alternative land uses, lower carbon transport options or building materials) are possible.
They are landlords with a certain number of properties / making a certain amount of money (to be defined).
They can take on apprentices / reskill people.
They have a responsibility (e.g. private landlords would be responsible for insulating homes and improving energy efficiency; construction businesses would be responsible for switching to low-carbon materials and technologies; landowners would be responsible and accountable for making changes to the land use).

There should be differentiation between small and large businesses, with support available towards the cost for smaller businesses.

Citizens

All citizens should contribute in some way, whether that’s:

- Paying tax fairly.^[10]
- Changing how we get around (switching to electric vehicles, using public transport and more active travel) or paying charges for continuing to use high-carbon forms of transport when good low-carbon alternatives are readily available, feasible and appropriate to use.
- Making changes to our homes where applicable (acknowledging that some changes may not be appropriate for older homes), with advice and support available.

How do we make that system of payment fair?

While participants did not settle on one specific system of payment, they did highlight some key aspects of what a fair system would like look. These fall broadly under six themes, as outlined below:

EQUITY

Make the system equitable, meaning that everyone contributes but not all in the same way or by the same amount.^[11]
Decide what an individual contributes based on their ability to pay (through a means-tested approach) or their ability to act. An independent body should decide on this system of payment (see leadership and accountability section).
Recognise the range of potential impacts on individuals and communities, and reflect individual circumstances when deciding how much different groups should pay. This should take into account location (differences by urban and rural areas), income and the needs of those with disabilities or long-term health conditions.
Support those on low incomes, so that they are not disadvantaged by the changes and to avoid people being left with no help.^[12] “Low incomes” should be clearly defined and consider overall financial position, including assets and savings. Support could include discounts on travel depending on circumstances.

Public engagement
Regularly consult and engage with the public on these difficult decisions.
Consultation and engagement should be accessible and include a diverse range of groups. These engagements should be representative but small in scale and with a clear timeframe in mind.
Findings from these consultations should be reported on.
They should be a joint effort between the Scottish Government and local authorities, allowing for locally-focussed consultation (as national campaigns can miss parts of Scotland and might not reach everyone).

Transparency

Provide education and information about why we need to make changes to reach net zero and what the impacts will be.^[13]
Be transparent about how taxes, charges, grants and loans related to net zero are decided upon, and about how the Scottish Government is contributing to costs. Make this available to the public in a clear and accessible way.

Infrastructure

Improve infrastructure across Scotland so that it is easier for people to make low-carbon choices. This should include more access to integrated public transport including in rural areas, affordable or free electric vehicle charging points, measures to make homes more energy efficient and more availability of low-carbon food.

Regulation

Introduce regulation to control how much businesses (e.g. landlords, supermarkets, energy companies) can pass costs on to consumers. Businesses that don’t comply should be fined.
Prevent people and businesses from gaming the system or exploiting loopholes (e.g. higher earners, multinationals or landowners receiving more financial support than needed, or paying the charges to avoid making changes that others have to make).

Leadership & accountability

Have clear leadership and accountability from the Scottish Government, following science and evidence (not politics).^[14]
The Scottish Government should be responsible for setting up a non-political body, overseeing discussions between all the interested parties to take the lead on the just transition (including specialists in all relevant areas). They could take the lead on deciding who pays and ensure it is fair.^[15]
Government-tendered contracts should have a large net zero element and not just who is going to do it cheapest. The independent governing body should review these decisions.

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

Participants conclusions related to benefits showed similar themes to those relating to systems of payment. Key themes, once again, were of addressing inequality, education, supporting people to make changes and leadership from the Scottish Government.

Reducing inequality

Use the transition to net zero as an opportunity to reduce other inequalities and make Scotland a fairer society. This could be done by, for example, closing the urban/rural divide, reducing health inequalities, reducing reliance on oil and gas and combatting extreme poverty.

Education and support

Help all people (adults and children) to understand what outcomes they are contributing to and why it makes a difference.
Communicate changes in a positive and honest way, emphasising the benefits of net zero for future generations, while acknowledging that changes are unavoidable and will mean sacrifices.
Proactively tell people what costs and other changes are coming, what support is available to them and what will happen if we don’t make those changes. Proactively combat misinformation. This can be through multiple channels, including TV campaigns and population wide texts.
Provide easily accessible and accurate information from credible sources.^[16] This should include individual calculators/tools to help people determine the impact of their own choices and the support available to them.
Give people time and support to make these changes (they won’t happen overnight).

Encouraging behaviour change

Empower^[17] individuals and businesses to make low-carbon decisions (where changes are viable) through a mix of “carrot” and “stick” initiatives.^[18]
“Carrots” would be incentives to make low-carbon choices (e.g. tax breaks, grants, subsidies). These should come first and be widely publicised including the consequences of not taking them up (i.e. subsequent “sticks”).
“Sticks” would be restrictions or charges for making high-carbon choices once low-carbon choices are readily available. These should come after “carrots” and only if there are reasonable, economically viable alternatives already in place.

Business & skills

Encourage and incentivise key industries to reduce emissions and support small businesses to innovate and come up with solutions.
Ensure there is an equitable distribution of Scottish Government support across different sectors.
Ensure that new jobs become available as old jobs become obsolete and that upskilling keeps pace with that.

Planning

Set milestones so that changes are introduced in a gradual and ordered way, rather than in a late rush nearer to 2045. As part of this:
- Ensure changes are thoroughly planned for first.
- Prioritise changes, so it is clear to people what needs to happen when.
- Continually review progress and adapt plans as needed.
- Be prepared to adapt milestones and follow the science if things change.

Leadership

Make sure the Scottish Government are leading from the front and setting an example.

What needs to be in place to make Road User Charging fair?

If RUC was to be introduced to reduce emissions within the Scottish transport sector, and to ensure it was implemented fairly, participants concluded that:

It should be implemented with different circumstances and needs to be taken into consideration.

There should be exemptions or concessions for some groups (e.g. people with disabilities, those who live or work in areas where RUC has been introduced, those living in rural areas and those on lower incomes).

Ensure there is reliable, frequent and more integrated public transport infrastructure before RUC is introduced.

Those were the conclusions that participants most strongly agreed upon. But other conclusions reached included that:

There should be more incentives as well as disincentives (e.g. not charging EV drivers the same as petrol/diesel drivers, and rewarding those who take fewest journeys).
Changes should be introduced carefully, gradually and the public should be clearly informed about them.
The changes should be considered in a holistic way, with consideration given to things like the affordability of housing (affecting where people can live and what options they have for getting to work), and the possible impact on tourism in areas where RUC is introduced.

It should be noted that there were mixed views on the principle of RUC, whichever way it is implemented. While it was generally considered to be acceptable if the above conditions were met, there was also a strong and persistent (albeit more exceptional) view that RUC would be intrinsically unfair as it would limit the choices of those less able to afford the charges.

What needs to be in place to ensure funding for the heat transition is fair?

To ensure the costs of the heat transition are distributed fairly, participants concluded that:

There should be support for all, but the share of funding should vary depending on circumstances, such as income and age of property.

Exemptions from penalties should be in place, with a fair appeals process.

Those were the conclusions that participants most strongly agreed upon. But other conclusions reached, which for some were fundamental to any clean heat transition being implemented fairly, included that:

There should be a proportionate approach that incentivises and supports people to make changes, and allows sufficient time for changes to be made before penalties are imposed.
The use of loans should be considered carefully, with long and flexible repayment plans that are sensitive to peoples’ circumstances. Ultimately, it was agreed that nobody should be forced to take out a loan.
There should be reassurances around the efficacy of clean heating systems, grounded in evidence that is clearly communicated with the public. This should be supported by regulation of new technologies being installed.
There should be a wide-reaching and transparent communications campaign to ensure people understand what’s needed, why it’s needed and what support is available.

Participants’ learning journey

An objective of phase one of the research was to gather learning into the factors influencing any changes in participants’ attitudes, beliefs or values as a result of engaging in this deliberative process. This chapter summarises findings in relation to this objective and draws only on findings from the cohort taking part in phase one.

Extent to which views changed

Early views

As outlined at the start of this report, participants began the process with a fairly good grasp of the term net zero, but less so with the concept of a just transition. Though they had some ideas of the types of change that might be required to reach net zero (such as less reliance on cars, changes to our diet, and different ways of using energy in our homes) they were unsure of the detail about what a just transition to net zero might involve.

Participants started the process slightly daunted by the challenge ahead, but nonetheless open-minded and keen to learn more from experts and from each other. They shared a sense of hope that this deliberative process might lead to some positive action. They also conveyed a sense of the responsibility in their own role in the process, and were keen to make a valuable contribution to the dialogue. However, there was also a note of scepticism about how much impact the process could have, and some questioned whether any action would be taken by the Scottish Government as a result.

Participants’ gradual learning process

As they moved through the process, it was clear that participants were gradually learning new information. During the sector-focussed workshops (workshops two, three and four), participants expressed notes of surprise at some of the information in the expert presentations, which had raised new issues for them or new ways of looking at things. For example, there was surprise at the scale of reduction in car use needed, at the costs of installing heat pumps in homes, and at the level of financial subsidies received by farms.

Learning about the types of changes required to reach net zero also caused some concern among participants, as they appreciated the scale of the challenge ahead and the potential financial implications of those changes. This caused some participants to push back stressing that some changes would be too difficult to implement in certain parts of the country, particularly rural communities, or too costly for certain people.

“It’s hard to imagine me being able to take on any more costs, as someone in fuel poverty. I can’t afford to replace the boiler if it breaks. It seems a bit ambitious, scary. Especially where I live, I am not the worst off, but I struggle to heat the home and then adapt to new technologies.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

As they discussed the issues further in the sector-focussed workshops, participants said that they had developed a greater appreciation of the need for collective action to reach net zero and for costs to be distributed. Some said they had moved away from a feeling that responsibility lay mostly with the Scottish Government, local authorities or businesses, to feeling that societal-level change was required. However, they acknowledged that sharing of responsibility, and distribution of costs, would be complicated and would require thoughtful decision-making supported by education and awareness raising.

“One of the things that struck me, the just transition will have to be government but also society in general. Society itself has to be a driver. The education value and sharing why this is important will make all the difference.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

This sense of collective responsibility was a position that they brought into the final workshops, as they started their detailed deliberations and conclusion-forming.

Views at the end of the process

In the final session, participants reflected on whether their views had changed over the course of the process. The overall message was that they had developed and deepened their understanding of the issues, more so than having changed their opinion or position.

Participants noted that, as a result of taking part in the dialogue, they had developed more understanding of the scale and complexity of the challenge of a just transition to net zero. Participants started the process appreciating the importance of reaching our net zero targets, but by the end they had more of an appreciation of how important, but also how difficult, it will be to ensure a just transition.

“I haven’t necessarily changed my views on anything, but it’s forced me to think about this intensely and it’s driven home how important this is.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6)

As noted above, there was a greater sense of shared responsibility, and need for collective action to achieve a just transition. At the same time, participants said they had more appreciation of the impacts of the transition on different groups, and for individual circumstances to be born in mind in deciding how costs should be distributed. Indeed, this was one of the strongest messages that participants shared towards the end of the process, and which was reflected in their conclusions. Linked to this, the need to protect the most vulnerable in society was a key theme throughout the process.

“At the start I’d quite naively said the Scottish Government (should be responsible) but I’ve learned a lot and changed my mind…from hearing from the professionals and talking to people in the groups.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6)

In addition to the deepening of understanding, one area where views did change somewhat was in relation to systems of payment. In the early stages of the process, some participants felt that responsibility for costs should lie with those who contribute the most carbon emissions. This, they felt, was the fairest way of allocating responsibility for costs. However, as noted in chapter 4, when discussing the scenario of “those who emit the most pay the most”, participants strongly felt that this would not be fair. Having deliberated and considered the impacts of different groups, they felt that some people and businesses have more limited control over their emissions than others. They therefore felt that a more nuanced approach would be required, and that some people and businesses would be unfairly penalised if these differences were not considered.

“I felt it was more apt for the people that produce the most carbon to take the lead…but hearing about farmers and how they don’t really earn money, that really took me aback.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6)

Views on who should take the lead

In the first workshop, participants were asked a live-polling question “who should take the lead in tackling climate change in Scotland?” At that stage, around two thirds said it should be everyone (individuals, businesses and the Scottish Government) while two-in-five said the Scottish Government and one-in-five said all individuals in Scotland.

Participants were asked the same question in the final session. As shown in figure 7.1, views did not change to a great extent. The most common answer once again was for everyone to take the lead. However, there was more emphasis placed “certain groups of people” and slightly more on the Scottish Government.

Figure 7.1: Findings from “live polling” question asked in workshops 1 and 6

Participants felt the relative emphasis on the Scottish Government highlighted a need for “leadership from the front”, a point that was highlighted in participants’ conclusions. They also noted that the slight change in the findings between sessions reflected the difficulty of placing responsibility on any one group.

“We all have a part to play but taking a lead, someone has to be in the front. The fact that more people were choosing the Scottish Government and certain businesses and actors, it possibly reflects the complexities of the situation.” (Participant, phase 1, session 6).

In discussing the results of the poll, participants emphasised the distinction between taking action to tackle climate change and taking the lead. It was highlighted that while we all bear responsibility for making changes, there was an expectation that leadership should come from the Scottish Government.

What contributed to views changing

Participants identified a range of factors that had contributed to their learning journey and to their views either deepening or changing. In summary, these were:

Hearing from each other. Participants felt that having the chance to discuss issues as a group helped them to appreciate different perspectives on the issues and different circumstances. The experiences of rural participants were highlighted as being particularly valuable:
“I had only thought about my own situation but have learned from people in completely different areas of Scotland and stages of life.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6).
Expert speakers, through their presentations at the workshop and their responses to participants’ questions.
Characters and scenarios had helped participants to consider the various aspects involved in the transition to net zero and to appreciate how different impacts might be felt by different people.
Being asked to articulate their views in the sessions helped to clarify and strengthen their own positions:
“Being asked to speak out, it makes your position clearer. It makes you put it into words, so you’re more aware of your opinion.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3).
Time to think and reflect about the issues, both between the sessions and over the course of the whole dialogue.

Implications from the research

The key outcome of this process was a set of conclusions (shown above) which provide clear suggestions for the Scottish Government to consider as it develops Just Transition Plans. This includes conclusions around specific policy options that were tested in relation to the transport, and built environment and construction sectors. The research also has a number of broader implications for future policy in this area, which are set out below.

A fair system of payment must consider different circumstances.

When considering three hypothetical payment systems (based on ability to pay, level of emissions, or incentivisation), there were elements of each that were appealing and problematic. While it was recognised that placing responsibility on those who contribute most emissions was fair in principle, there were also concerns that this could be unfair if applied to those without the ability to choose lower carbon alternatives. Meanwhile, a system that considers ability to pay was seen to be more aligned with their overall principles of fairness but would require careful implementation to avoid negative impacts on some groups. Research has shown that there is a disparity between the carbon footprints of high-income and low-income households,^[19] which suggests that higher emitters would also be those more able to pay. Ultimately though, participants’ views aligned with the existing National Just Transition Outcome,^[20] of a fair distribution of costs and benefits that consider different circumstances.

There was support for a progressive form of taxation, with higher income individuals and businesses paying more.

It was acknowledged that Scottish Government grants, financial incentives, and wider investment in infrastructure would require additional funding. It was therefore seen as somewhat inevitable that new or different forms of taxation would apply. However, there was resistance to the idea of a general taxation on the basis that this may create financial hardship for those unable to pay more. Instead, participants supported a form of progressive taxation, reflecting the principle of ability to pay noted above. Though not discussed in as much detail, there were also suggestions of taxing larger high-emitting businesses, energy companies, landowners, and a tax on high-carbon products.

Protecting the most vulnerable in society was seen as a fundamental requirement for any future systems of payment.

Whether discussing broad principles of fairness, or how specific systems of payment or policies should be implemented, participants strongly felt that protections or exemptions should be in place for those least able to afford the payment. Participants also stressed the importance of supporting those with other needs or challenges related to health, disability and life stage.

A balance between incentives and disincentives may have the greatest appeal and impact.

The use of incentives (such as grants for EVs and clean heating systems, funded retrofitting schemes, tax breaks for businesses that meet emission targets) was considered a more supportive and kinder approach to encouraging behaviour change than using penalties or charges. But they were not universally supported, and some felt they did not go far enough towards encouraging the level of changes required to reach net zero. Disincentives (such as Road User Charging) were broadly accepted on the basis that they would help to discourage car use. However, for both incentives and disincentives to be considered fair, it was felt that they needed to reflect individual circumstances and (as outlined above) ability to pay.

The timing of any new taxes, charges or penalties will be important.

Introduced too soon, and these pose the risk of placing individuals in financial difficulty and may be met with resistance. Introduced too late and they may not be enough of an incentive to encourage, and instil a sense of urgency in, behaviour change. This was clear when participants discussed the heat transition; they felt that a target of 2028 or 2033 for homeowners to make energy efficiency improvements was too soon, but a target of 2045 for installing clean heating systems was too far away. The most appropriate timing will therefore require a balance between motivating people to change while not unfairly penalising them. A phased, staggered approach was seen as one way of achieving this balance.

It will be important that the public feel part of the decisions that affect them.

The Just Transition Commission highlighted that “the time for difficult conversions is now”^[21] and emphasised the importance of communication and engagement. Participants echoed this sentiment, emphasising the importance of clear and transparent communication about the need for changes in each of the sectors, and the need for ongoing public engagement.

This will be particularly important when it comes to communicating changes such as those outlined in the Heat in Buildings bill. As highlighted in Appendix 2, participants perceived that heat pumps might not be suitable for all environments and there was an appetite for evidence to show their efficacy. A recent study from Energy Systems Catapult found that heat pumps were widely suitable across a broad spectrum of housing types, and that most heat pumps were installed without requiring other energy efficiency upgrades.^[22] Communicating such evidence clearly and accessibly will therefore be vital to encouraging uptake.

Learnings from this deliberative process for future public engagement

Reflecting on their involvement in this deliberative research, participants raised a number of considerations to ensure meaningful public engagement on this topic in future. As highlighted in the previous chapter, engaging over a longer period of time enabled participants to consider complex issues more fully than would have been possible with other form of public engagement.

Breakout groups changed between sessions and participants really valued the opportunity this gave them to discuss the issues with different people and to hear a wider range of perspectives. With a relatively small group of people coming together to discuss issues affecting Scotland as a whole, one participant raised a concern that some groups (e.g. those with disabilities) might have been missing from the discussions. Although those with disabilities were represented in the dialogue, this comment underscores the importance of ensuring that participants in public engagement understand why they have been invited to take part, how the group has been recruited, and where their involvement sits in relation to the wider landscape of public engagement on Scotland’s just transition.

Some practical reflections on the process also highlighted the importance of designing an accessible process. As this project sought involvement from people living across Scotland, an online approach was felt to be appropriate and in particular enabled those living in rural areas, those with disabilities, and those with caring responsibilities to take part. Ensuring the information was presented clearly by experts and facilitators was also important, as it enabled participants to engage on the topic and able to express their views in a safe and non-judgemental space. Valuing participants’ time was another factor that ensured an accessible process; as one participant pointed out, they had been set a big task and being paid made them feel that they could dedicate their time and engage meaningfully.

Participants also highlighted the importance (and challenge) of translating the work of the group into effective awareness-raising and engagement with the wider general public.

“We have now spent almost 15 hours listening to experts and discussing this and we have grown, some have changed [views], some are simply [more aware]. To [share] that kind of information across a population of 5 and a half million…there is quite a gap, with a lot of [work needed] to go forward. Because it’s so complex.” (Participant, phase 1, session 5)

Appendix 1. Transport sector detailed findings

This chapter outlines participants’ views on a just transition in the transport sector. It provides detailed findings from both phases of research:

Phase one, where a group of 30 people living across Scotland met over six online workshops and an online community to consider what a fair distribution of costs and benefits would look like. It focussed on three sectors, one of which was transport.
Phase two, where a group of 20 people living across Scotland met over three online workshops to explore specific policy options. One of those workshops focussed specifically on transport, including the potential use of Road User Charging.

Summary of findings related to transport

The vision for a decarbonised transport system in 2040 was considered difficult to achieve without significant investment in transport infrastructure across Scotland.
Participants felt that the costs for the transition should be shared between:
The Scottish Government in providing support and infrastructure.
Businesses in the transport industry (with support for smaller businesses).
Citizens, but based on use, access to and choice over lower carbon alternatives, and ability to pay.
To ensure a fair transition, in which everyone benefits, participants felt that individuals’ circumstances needed to be considered and steps taken to address any barriers they might face. Groups identified as requiring additional support included:
Those on low incomes.
People with health conditions or disabilities.
Elderly people.
Those living in rural communities.
Participants highlighted the importance of allowing sufficient time for people to prepare for any changes.
Improvements to the current public transport infrastructure was seen as a prerequisite for a just transition.
To ensure any form of Road User Charging is implemented fairly, participants concluded that:
Different circumstances and needs should be taken into account, rather than taking a blanket approach.
There should be concessions or exemptions for some groups, including those listed above and those who rely on their car for work.
Charges should only apply where people have easy access to public transport.
Road User Charging applied to a defined urban area was considered fairer than an approach based on distances travelled.

What changes were expected?

Early in each phase participants discussed the changes to transport that they thought would need to happen for Scotland to reach net zero. These included:

A shift towards lower-emitting forms of transport, including more electric vehicles (EVs), car-sharing schemes, and public transport.
Restrictions on car use in city centres, such as Low Emissions Zones (LEZs) which had already been observed in cities like Aberdeen and Glasgow.
Electrification of rail and bus networks, with more frequent and efficient trains and ferries.
Improving cycling infrastructure, including more cycling lanes and incentives for active travel.
A reduction in the availability of domestic flights in favour of public transport alternatives.

It was felt these changes would be expensive, as the infrastructure in Scotland (for both public transport and EV charging) was perceived to be lacking currently. Participants agreed that the transport network would need to become more integrated for people to be less reliant on cars.

“When I try to travel down south by train, I have to drive to the railway station. That is defeating the object.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

A distinction was drawn early in the discussions between cities and rural areas which prevailed throughout both phases of the dialogue. Among those living in urban areas, the need to reduce car use and encourage use of public transport was considered a positive, if inconvenient, change. Among those living in rural areas, there was a strong view that insufficient public transport had rendered cars “an essential not a luxury”. Participants expressed concern that public transport would not be improved sufficiently and that rural communities would be forgotten about.

“I worry about rural areas as we have zero public transport. I walk to loads of places but can’t walk 45 miles to the nearest supermarket or 100 miles to the nearest hospital. I feel there’s no voice for rural areas, there’s dreadful infrastructure and I really worry.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Overall, it was therefore considered unfair to ask people to rely less on their cars without providing improved public transport. It was felt that this would be particularly unfair on certain groups, such as those living in rural areas, young families, those with disabilities, and elderly people. Improvements that participants wanted to see in transport infrastructure included more frequent, reliable, direct, cost-effective and accessible services.

“Even if the buses were reliable, for what it would cost for a return ticket, you might as well put in the fuel and it works out cheaper.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Reactions to initial presentations in phase one

Phase one participants heard introductory presentations providing an overview of the types of changes that would be needed to move to a decarbonised transport system. Following this, the scale of the challenge became more apparent and daunting to some.

“I just think there are some serious decisions to be made – in how we live our lives, do our work, what we feel is essential in our lives – to enable that to happen.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

As well as sparking further discussion about the potential costs (explored in detail below), the presentations also prompted participants to reiterate concerns about existing infrastructure (such as EV charging), which they felt would need to be significantly improved for this vision to be realised. Participants raised several questions about those infrastructure challenges.

After hearing the presentation about inequalities in the transport sector, participants identified several groups that they felt could be at risk of being left behind in the transition:

Rural communities, particularly those living on islands, based on the points noted above about the current state of public transport in parts of Scotland.
Women, noting a point made in the presentation that women were less likely to have access to a car and were more reliant on public transport.
People on lower incomes, who participants felt may be trapped if they were charged more for using their car but could not afford to replace it with an EV.
People with disabilities or additional needs, who it was recognised may not find public transport accessible.
Small businesses, with concerns over potential job losses in the motor industry if EVs required less maintenance and for businesses struggling to absorb the costs of reskilling employees.

Overall, there was a sense that the changes represented an imbalance towards removing transport options without providing alternatives. One participant illustrated this with an example, describing an experience of their partner who sold their car because they could not afford to drive in a LEZ and could not get to work on time using public transport.

“I thought it was quite unfair. She wasn’t able to afford to buy a car she could have driven in the [LEZ] area […] and is now having to use mine […] She was really negative impacted. If she lived on her own she probably would not have been able to keep her job.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Vision for the transport sector discussed in phase one

Phase one participants were presented with a vision for public transport in 2040 based on the Scottish Government’s discussion paper (see fig. 9.1) and explored this in the context of different fictional characters and how they might be impacted (see fig. 9.2). The vision was a high level scenario intended to encourage discussion and invite participants to consider its implications, based on the characters and their own lived experiences, before discussing what a fair distribution of costs and benefits would be.

Figure 9.1: Vision for transport

The role of transport for our characters

Alice has a small, petrol car. There is a bus route that can take Alice from the hospital to her flat. But because of her working patterns, Alice prefers to drive to work. Even though this is more expensive, she does not feel safe travelling by bus late at night.

David and Sarah have two cars: a diesel SUV and a mid-sized petrol car. David travels by car most days. Sarah mostly works from home. Either David or Sarah use one of their cars to drop-off and collect their children from school. Noah has a disability and uses a wheelchair.

Lorraine sells produce at a small shop on the farm and supplies local businesses, but most of it is sold to suppliers across Scotland and the rest of the UK. There is no public transport in the area, so Lorraine and her family rely on their cars and vans.

For weekly food shopping and other needs, Maria uses the local shops and services in Moffat. For anything further away, such as medical appointments for herself or for her daughter Ella, she takes a taxi. Those longer journeys would usually require two buses, which are not accessible for Maria.

Nadeem uses a diesel van that he drives most days for work. Ajay drives a small hybrid car, which he uses every day to get to work in Stornoway. He has a bicycle but rarely uses it as he does not feel safe cycling on the road. There is limited public transport where Nadeem and Ajay live.

Who could benefit?

Under this vision, there was a view that anyone in transport poverty^[23] would benefit from having access to public transport for their everyday needs. However, there were questions around the extent to which public transport could replace all types of journeys in all places.

Participants felt that these changes might not feel beneficial to everyone immediately, as it would involve more effort and time to get around. Nevertheless, there was an acceptance that this would be a reasonable trade-off for a fairer, healthier society. A broader sense of duty was also felt, with participants recognising that they might not benefit directly from the changes themselves but future generations would.

Who benefits?

As they lived in urban areas and used public transport, participants identified Alice and Maria as two characters who would benefit under the vision, given the improvements to public transport. It was felt that Maria would be able to make more journeys using public transport and would be less reliant on taxis, saving her money. Alice could also use public transport to go to work rather than rely on her car. However, it was pointed out that more regular buses would not necessarily make her feel any safer travelling to work at certain times and that there would be other factors influencing this (such as the bus routes, behaviour of other passengers, and confidence in the driver to manage any issues).

Who might be negatively impacted?

The groups identified as potentially being negatively impacted under this vision were:

Individuals and businesses in rural communities, if more accessible public transport systems did not reach all parts of Scotland (which some participants felt would be the case), but initiatives like road user charges did.
Businesses in the tourism or hospitality sector, if road user charging put tourists off travelling to parts of Scotland.
Families with children, who could find public transport difficult to use.
People who drive for a living, if they were not exempt from road user charges.
People with limited mobility, if they were not able to use public transport and were not exempt from road user charges.

Participants also commented on the intersectionality of these groups, and highlighted the need for different circumstances to be taken into account.

Who could be negatively impacted?

Although David and Sarah would have to adapt their lifestyle (e.g. use of two cars), it was felt they would be able to adapt and absorb the costs with their income, so they would not be at risk of losing out. However, it was recognised that there would need to be some flexibility or exemptions given for their use of the car when travelling with their disabled son.

Lorraine was identified as at risk given the impact of the changes on her farm and limited low carbon alternatives for agricultural vehicles and personal car use (based on the view that the sort of rural area where she lives is unlikely to have the level of integrated transport needed).

It was felt that Nadeem would also be negatively impacted because of his reliance on a van for his work and the fact that he lives and works on an island. Based on the assumption that public transport would not be a viable alternative, it was considered unfair that his earnings would be affected by road charges.

While it was recognised that society as a whole would benefit if this vision was achieved – due to reduced air pollution and increased social interconnectedness – doubts remained over whether it could happen, and whether it could be implemented in a way that everyone benefits from.

Phase one conclusions on a fair distribution of costs and benefits

As we transition to net zero in the transport sector, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?

There was a broad sense that the costs of transitioning to net zero in the transport sector should be shared and that no single organisation or group should bear sole responsibility. However, participants identified particular groups as being in a position to take more responsibility for these costs.

A common view was that the Scottish Government should pay a substantial share to help people make the transition to a decarbonised transport system and to encourage behaviour change in how people travel, through incentivisation such as grants for the purchase of EVs and private charging infrastructure, and free public transport.

“If the government wants everyone to change the way that we live, then they need to put more back in than us ourselves. If they want us to do so much more, they need to help out more than us personally.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

However it was also acknowledged that any costs paid for by the Scottish Government could end up being borne by the individual anyway through taxation. Participants’ discussions therefore focused on ways to make this fair (see fair payment systems).

It was also felt that the transport industry should take on some of the costs, especially where there was scope for businesses to profit (for instance due to increased demand and/or where they contribute higher emissions. Delivery companies had been mentioned in the presentation and it was felt that such businesses could bear the costs of decarbonising their fleets. However, it was also recognised that smaller businesses – such as local mechanics – would need financial support from the Scottish Government to make the initial changes required and to retrain the workforce in new green skills.

Participants recognised that all citizens would ultimately have to pay something to help reach net zero in Scotland’s transport sector, but identified certain groups that they felt should bear more of the costs. It was generally expected that service users – i.e. people already using public transport – would continue to pay for that, and those benefitting from specific aspects of the transport system (e.g. EV infrastructure) should contribute in some way. It was suggested that those contributions could be scaled according to ability to pay and based on some wider investment in infrastructure.

It was suggested that those who can avail of alternative forms of transport (but choose not to) should pay more for making choices that result in higher emissions, for example:

“If someone makes a choice to have two cars in 2040 where we have great transport links, they need to justify it or pay up.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

It was also suggested that tourists could pay a share of the costs through a tourism tax aimed at supporting changes in certain areas. However, as highlighted above, there were also concerns that such charges could reduce the number of visitors and negatively impact businesses that are reliant on tourism.

There were some references to high carbon emitters and suggestions that they might be expected to pay more e.g. businesses that have high emissions, or individuals that continue to drive petrol or diesel vehicles. It was pointed out that those on higher incomes would be more likely to be able to pay the charges and continue high emitting behaviours, or be more likely to afford the low carbon alternatives.

“The wealthy will always be able to do whatever they want to do. They will do however miles they want because they will pay the charges. The poor will be disadvantaged because they can’t pay.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

However, this point was qualified by a view that some high emitters may not have a viable alternative, either because of where they live (i.e. those in rural areas may have no alternative to cars) or because of income (i.e. some would not be able to afford the switch to EVs). Affordability, therefore, was seen an important consideration, even in the case of those contributing the highest emissions:

“Those with older vehicles, and so higher emissions, will be penalised but it might be unfair if those people cannot afford new, cleaner vehicles. This will disadvantage those who cannot use public transport as an alternative for whatever reason. People on lower incomes are always left behind.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

A view shared by some participants was that there will be parts of Scotland that will lose out once the changes are implemented. This view was particularly held by those living in rural areas who did not feel that the vision for transport in 2040 was realistic for rural communities, and considered it unfair to expect those communities to cover the costs of changes that (some felt) ‘will make their situation worse’.

“It will not cover everyone’s needs here, the system and infrastructure is so dreadful they would need to start major roadworks now. I don’t see any of this helping rural areas at all.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?

Thinking about individuals and groups in society who could pay for the changes needed to reach net zero, participants were supportive of a system of payment based on:

Use, with those benefitting from a particular mode of transport, or from a part of the transport infrastructure, or using these more paying a higher share. It was also felt that those using forms of transport that carry higher emissions (e.g. petrol/diesel cars) should pay a higher share for that, but only if they can afford to do so and if other choices are available (as outlined in the next two points).
Ease, availability and choice, with those who have services available to them paying, and correspondingly those who do not have services available or who are not able to use the services not paying. Choice was a particularly important factor in who should pay. Taking road charges as an example, participants felt it was not just important to think about proximity to public transport, but circumstances:

“I live in a rural area where the closest bus is a mile away and the closest train station is nearly 2 miles away. This means I’d have difficulty reaching either of those services, [and] when I am able to get there I’ve either had to walk or drive making it in my eyes a waste of time.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Ability to pay. In defining what ability to pay means, views were mixed. Some suggested this should be linked to benefits (none specified), while others felt this would be unfair to those not on benefits but with low incomes. A more exceptional view was that there should be a flat fee applied to everyone. There was broad agreement, however, that those on lower incomes should pay a smaller share than those on higher incomes:

“It’s got to be based on what people can afford. In principle, it needs to be progressive, otherwise you will end up with poor people paying too much, and richer elements of society paying too little.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Participants felt that a fair payment system would require individual circumstances to be taken into consideration, in particular the needs of those in rural communities. For example, it was felt that car users in rural communities should not pay for road user charging if lower carbon alternatives (i.e. public transport or EV infrastructure) were not available to them and they were still reliant on petrol or diesel cars.

“[For] people in rural communities who may struggle to transition to electric cars in particular (short range, financial challenge, no viable public transport alternative), will rural communities be given concessions, assistance?” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

A range of ideas were suggested for taking different circumstances into account. These included a points-based system with an annual self-declaration (considering a range of criteria such as location, mobility, age, and financial circumstances) or a carbon token allowance system for individuals and companies.

When considering the role of business in sharing the costs, participants worried that these could be passed onto the consumer (e.g. consumers paying more for items being delivered to their home or EV charging prices being increased while companies make large profits). It was therefore felt that there should be “checks and balances” in place to prevent this from happening. But there was also concern for smaller businesses being unable to adapt, so it was considered fair that they would be supported by government.

“The government, which has the power to force change must be aware of the negative effects of forcing costly change on businesses that may not be able to afford it. Appropriate support should be in place, this may be financial, educational or of other modes such as time limited exemptions”. (Participant, phase 1, online community)

In terms of the Scottish Government’s role in sharing the costs, it was recognised that some of the funding would inevitably be raised through taxation. A progressive tax was supported, based on both ability to pay and ability to choose.

“Everyone has to contribute, but what you contribute depends on what choices you are able to make. If you make personal choices that will have more of an impact, you should pay more for it. In many places, you don’t have the choice. You have to factor all that in.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Overall, it was felt that any fair system of payment would need to give people time to make the changes required. In practice, this would mean giving plenty notice of the introduction of new regulations, taxes, charges, or incentives. Related to this, one suggestion was to introduce a sliding scale so that those not making the changes required are charged more as time elapses.

It was also stressed that certain groups will need additional support, or exemptions from the costs. Echoing earlier views, there was widespread concern about the impact of costs on those who were already struggling financially, particularly in the context of the cost of living crisis. There was therefore a strong desire to protect and support those least able to afford the changes, as well as those with restricted choices in their transport use (e.g. those with disabilities and those in rural areas with no accessible services).

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

If the vision for a decarbonised transport system was realised by 2040 (and there was some scepticism over whether it would be), a number of broad societal benefits were identified, including:

A more integrated, smoother and accessible public transport for Scotland (as outlined in the vision) improving health, wellbeing and social connectedness.
More services for communities to support a thriving local economy, reducing the need for people to travel further for their everyday needs.

As with costs, participants highlighted that the benefits of the transition may not be the same for everyone. To ensure that everyone benefits from the transition, they therefore felt that specific circumstances of different groups should be acknowledged and steps taken to address the barriers they may face. This included the groups already mentioned: those on lower incomes and those struggling financially; people with health conditions, disabilities, and elderly people; and those living in rural communities.

Participants felt that further education and engagement on the benefits of the transition was required. Public consultations, particularly with those most likely to be affected, were suggested as an effective way of understanding the needs of these groups.

“At the moment there seems to be a disconnect between the current Scottish Government and the public; they are not listening to the genuine concerns of those who will be most affected and are least able to shoulder these burdens.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

It was also felt that the necessity of transitioning to net zero in the transport sector (and the benefits of doing so) would need to be clearly and widely communicated to people living in Scotland. Related to this, a theme of transparency emerged, with participants highlighting the importance of the Scottish Government showing how funds raised were being used (e.g. to improve public transport infrastructure).

“You would need an acceptance from the collective good, that everyone is going to buy in from the system […] You have to take everyone with you on it, and that is a big challenge.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

There was a view that reducing the cost of public transport would not have an impact on vulnerable groups unless it was available or accessible to them. Infrastructure improvements were therefore seen as a prerequisite for all people benefitting from the transition to net zero in the transport sector.

“Older people already have free access to bus transport but if the buses don’t go where you need it’s no use.” (Participant, workshop 2)

Exploring transport policies in phase two

In phase two, participants discussed the potential application of Road User Charging (RUC) as a way of helping reduce our reliance on cars. They considered two possible approaches to this:

UK national road pricing, involving a charge on drivers based on distance driven.
Urban local road user charging, involving a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area.

Participants explored each approach through scenario-based discussions and considered the implications for different people living in Scotland (using some of the same characters from phase one).

Initial views on the idea of Road User Charging

Before the two approaches were presented, participants shared their initial thoughts on the idea of RUC in principle. Some clear themes emerged, which included:

Not implementing it as a blanket rule: while it was recognised that RUC could encourage people to reduce their reliance on cars, it was also felt that it could impact negatively on some groups (e.g. those on low incomes and those who rely on their car because of a disability or health condition, their work, or where they live). It was therefore agreed that exemptions or permits would need to be in place for these groups.
Ensuring there are alternative choices available: initially it was felt that applying some form of RUC would be fair where public transport alternatives were readily available (e.g. in cities), but not in areas where cars are not a choice but a necessity due to a lack of accessible public transport option (e.g. in rural areas):
“People who live in rural or isolated locations. It’ll be a struggle to get to public transport. I think it will be unfair to put charges on them when they don’t have an option.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)
Ensuring that funds raised through RUC are spent on public transport improvements, which highlighted the importance of transparency in the policy for the public to trust it:
“The money raised needs to be used to directly improve the transport system rather than being gobbled up by the government.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

It was broadly felt that RUC would be acceptable to the public if they understood why it was being introduced and what the benefits would be. However, there was some opposition to the principle of RUC on the basis that it would restrict peoples’ autonomy. It was felt that this would impact those on lower incomes most, as they might have to make decisions based on where they can afford to travel to, while higher earners could absorb the cost and not have to change their behaviour, thus exacerbating current inequalities.

Views on UK national road pricing

UK national road pricing was introduced as a possible approach to RUC that would cover all of Scotland’s roads and involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven, as described in the following table: (see figure 9.3).

Option 1 – UK national road pricing

- This would involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven.
- The pricing system would cover all of Scotland’s roads. The cost would vary depending on factors like the weight of the vehicle, the user’s disability status and place of residence e.g. urban residents may be charged at a different level than rural residents.
- It would be measured and monitored using vehicle tracking technology or mile logging (e.g. at MOT control).
- The amount paid would range between 3p and 10p per miles driven. Money raised would be invested in improvements to public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt.
- The type of system would be implemented by the UK Government.

A number of benefits to this approach were identified, such as cleaner air, improved health and wellbeing, and encouraging greater uptake of public transport.

Participants noted that the money raised would be invested in improvements to public transport and active travel infrastructure. It was agreed that this should be prioritised in rural areas where public transport was widely perceived to be less available and accessible.

Consideration for different circumstances

Reflecting one of the recurring themes from phase one, participants felt strongly that an approach like this would need to take account of different circumstances. It was reiterated that a charge on people living in rural areas who are reliant on their cars to access services would be unfair due to the lack of alternative options available to them.

“It would be unfair for those that live in rural areas to pay the same when they don’t have a choice in transport.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Participants also discussed the impact on people they knew who travel long distances across the country as part of their jobs. With the prospect of national road pricing, it was felt that they would struggle to absorb these charges.

Participants noted from the scenario description that costs would vary depending on certain factors, such as the user’s disability status, and this was broadly welcomed.

“People who are dependent on cars with disabilities, there should be nothing stopping them using their cars, but people who could make small adjustments to their lifestyle, they should just have to bite it” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

To ensure that national road pricing takes account of different circumstances, it was agreed that there should be clarity around who the charge applies to.

Who would be impacted more?

While it was felt that David and Sarah (a couple living on the outskirts of Glasgow with their two children) could afford the charges and make small adjustments to their lifestyle to reduce car use, it was also recognised that there would be circumstances where they would need their car to care for their disabled son and that they shouldn’t be limited in this circumstance.

This approach was also considered to be unfair for Nadeem (a rural builder), who would not have a choice but to transport his equipment and materials by van and incur the charge.

Balancing incentives and disincentives

When looking at national road pricing, there was some surprise among participants that EV users would not be exempt from the charge. There were mixed views on the fairness of this. On the one hand, it was felt that applying road pricing to EV users would act as a disincentive and would contradict other messaging that encourages drivers to switch to EVs. This concern was tied to a broader wariness around the potential that consumers would be faced with costs from multiple different angles.

“They’re trying to force you to buy an electric car, but once everyone has got an electric car, they’ll change the rules. As a consumer, I just pay, pay, pay.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

On the other hand, it was felt that EVs should be charged as they would still contribute to emissions through the manufacturing process, to wear on the roads. It was also felt that owners of EVs were more likely to be higher earners and therefore could afford the charge. If the objective is to reduce overall journeys by car, then exempting EVs would not help in achieving this.

It was suggested that this form of RUC would be fairer if EVs were charged less than petrol/diesel cars to encourage lower carbon choices, while also encouraging people to rely less on their cars overall.

“You could say you could be charged reduced rates for that purpose. You are contributing less compared with other people, so that could be one way around.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

How the charge is paid

The indicative cost of 3-10p per mile driven drew mixed responses. For some this amount was felt to be too low to have the desired impact, while others felt increasing the charge would place an unfair financial burden on people who are already struggling. It was suggested that charges could be increased over time to target those who choose to absorb the cost and continue to drive.

Participants also had questions around how drivers would be expected to pay the charge. It was highlighted that a one-off annual charge could come as a shock to some drivers and would be harder to pay in one go. Instead, participants suggested that the costs should be paid in instalments to ease any financial pressures.

It was also suggested that the charge could be lower (or lifted) during the night to ensure those working night shifts have more choices available to them. This was considered important in the case of people who may not feel safe using public transport at night.

“I think there are different circumstances between somebody travelling to work and somebody travelling for leisure. I’m not sure how you would separate the two for making a charge.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Who would be impacted more?

When considering this approach in relation to Alice (a nurse living in a city), the safety concern around her using public transport for night shifts was discussed.

While one view was that Alice has the choice to drive or take public transport available to her and so it would be fair for her to pay the charges, another view was that it would be unfair for her to have to choose between her safety and her finances.

Building on the concern raised about mixed messages, rules changing over time, and the costs for consumers continuing to mount up, it was felt that any changes introduced should be for the long-term.

“If you’re going to have a just transition, make it sensible for the consumer and don’t make the consumer pay more and more.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Views on urban local road user charging

Urban local road user charging was introduced as another possible approach to RUC that would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area, as described in the following table: (see figure 9.4).

Option 2 – Urban local road user charging

- This would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area.
- When it is in place would depend on local circumstances, e.g. it may be applied at certain times of the day to coincide with when public transport is available. This could apply to large urban and suburban areas such as Edinburgh or Glasgow metropolitan areas.
- It would be measured and monitored using number plate recognition or vehicle tracking technology.
- The charge would be approximately £5 – £15 per day. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt.
- Similar systems are in place in London and Milan. This type of system would be implemented by local authorities (they already have the power to do this).

This approach was considered to be fairer than national road pricing. While delivering the same benefits (e.g. cleaner air and improved public transport), participants also expected this approach to be implemented in areas where alternatives – such as public transport and park and rides – would be readily available. Participants were also reassured that similar systems had already been implemented in other cities.

“This one is targeting particular areas and not all journeys. You’re given an option to use your car or public transport to get into the city.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Who could be impacted less?

This approach was considered fairer for Nadeem, as it was assumed that he would not be travelling into areas where RUC was in place and his rural building business would therefore be unaffected.

For David and Sarah, while it was recognised that RUC would likely affect them, they would have alternative public transport options available to them as they lived in a large urban area.

Offering alternatives

Reiterating earlier discussions around the importance of providing alternatives, it was strongly felt that adequate public transport infrastructure would need to be in place before RUC was introduced to an area.

“I think it would have to be done once the developments on public transport were completed and once the government had good confidence that public transport is efficient.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Exemptions

Participants queried how those who live within the charging zone, or travel in and out of it for work, would be treated. While it was felt that some businesses would be able to absorb the costs or find alternatives, it was perceived to be unfair on those who already live or work within the RUC areas. There was broad agreement among participants that exemptions would need to be made for such groups. Similar to national road pricing, it was felt that some EVs should also be exempt, such as those used for work purposes.

“If you’re already living in an area and then you suddenly get told you’re going to have to pay £5 or £15 any time you take your car out purely because of where it is, I would say that would be quite unfair.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Urban area differences

The definition of an “urban area” was also scrutinised, with a distinction drawn between cities like Glasgow or Edinburgh, and cities like Inverness. Inverness was considered to be a city that connects people by transport in rural areas to the rest of Scotland. If local road user charging was introduced here, there was a concern that it would limit the mobility of those living in the surrounding rural areas. This added to the concerns raised earlier about not taking a blanket approach, but considering different circumstances.

“In Inverness, you wouldn’t just be restricting the city centre, you’d be restricting other areas outside of that. Inverness city centre is a connecting point to get to other areas. I can’t see this working [there].” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

What needs to be in place for Road User Charging to be fair?

Participants identified a number of conditions that would need to be in place to make Road User Charging fair (see conclusions section). In reaching their conclusions participants were broadly accepting of the principles of Road User Charging, based on the view that it could help encourage some of the significant changes needed for Scotland to reach its net zero targets.

A more exceptional view was that it would be difficult (and for one participant, impossible) to make RUC fair. Participants drawing this conclusion considered there to be too many variables to consider, and were concerned that RUC would ultimately deepen inequalities by limiting the choices of those less able to afford the charges.

“I can imagine if you’re already living hand to mouth, it would be very stressful to keep track of all your miles and try and work out exactly what you’re going to be paying.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Appendix 2 – Built environment and construction sector detailed findings

This chapter outlines participants’ views on a just transition in the built environment and construction sector. It provides detailed findings from both phases of research:

Phase one, where a group of 30 people living across Scotland met over six online workshops and an online community to consider what a fair distribution of costs and benefits would look like. It focussed on three sectors, one of which was the built environment and construction.
Phase two, where a group of 20 people living across Scotland met over three online workshops to explore specific policy options One of those workshops focussed specifically on the built environment, including the transition to clean heating systems in domestic properties.

Summary of findings

The vision for the built environment and construction sector was viewed positively, but also as overwhelmingly ambitious. Participants felt costs should be shared between:

The construction sector
Multiple property owners
Homeowners
The Scottish Government

To ensure a fair transition, and that everyone benefits , it was suggested that:

Those who profit from buildings should pay for the work needed to make them adequately energy efficient.
Costs should be distributed based on ability to pay, which could include a means-tested approach to payment. Having more than one property was viewed, by some, as an indicator of wealth and that such individuals could afford to pay for changes to their properties.
Landlords have a responsibility to pay for their properties and there should be regulation to ensure they do so without passing on costs to tenants.

To ensure the heat transition is paid for in the fairest way possible, it was concluded that:

There should be support available to all households but that the amount of support should vary depending on circumstances, with those on low incomes and those with older properties entitled to the most government funding.
There should be protections in place, such as exemptions from penalties for vulnerable groups, rent increase caps to protect renters, regulation on the installation of new heating systems, and a fair appeals process.
Other considerations included careful consideration around loans to avoid pushing anyone into financial hardship, reassurances around the efficacy of new heating systems, and clear communication with the public about the changes required.

What changes were expected?

Early in each phase, participants discussed the changes they thought would be needed for the built environment and construction sector to reach net zero. Their suggestions covered people’s homes, commercial or public buildings, and the broader construction sector, including:

Phasing out use of fossil fuels, for example shifting from gas and oil to cleaner heating systems in homes.
More energy efficient buildings.
Using more sustainable materials in construction.
Increased regulation on standards and location of new builds, including ensuring buildings were weather-proof.

One of the key challenges participants identified at this stage was with retrofitting existing buildings. They felt this would be difficult due to the age and characteristics of a property (e.g. whether it would be possible to install cavity wall insulation), location (e.g. there was a perception that heat pumps did not work well in all environments), and the potential cost and disruption caused by making adaptations.

“It [is] easier to address environmental and energy issues when building new houses, most of the problems arise when we try to improve these issues in older housing stock. It means prohibitive costs to change heating systems and insulate old buildings. Who is going to pay for this?” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Potential challenges were also raised specifically in relation to rural communities due to the nature of the existing housing stock, the climate, and the availability of skilled workers.

On heating systems specifically, participants raised concerns about the upfront cost, their perceived suitability for some properties (e.g. apartments with limited external space or coastal properties), and the efficacy of such systems based on what they had heard. One participant, who had seen planning applications for heat pumps as part of their job, highlighted that the process of installing can also be difficult.

“I’ve heard a lot of bad press about heat pumps not working properly […] I’ve heard people have installed them and removed them and gone back to boilers as they couldn’t get their house warm enough. It would be off-putting if you’re going to spend thousands.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

In discussing their expectations for the sector there were early suggestions of financial support for homeowners to make changes to their property in the form of means-tested grants.

Reactions to the initial presentations in phase one

Phase one participants heard a presentation outlining the Scottish Government’s vision for the future of the sector, the types of changes that would be needed to achieve it, and the benefits and challenges associated with decarbonising the sector. A second presentation then outlined the inequalities within the sector that would need to be addressed as part of the transition to net zero.

Echoing many of the sentiments raised in earlier sessions, some participants mentioned feeling overwhelmed about the scale of the challenge in terms of cost, feasibility of retrofitting, and extent of upskilling required.

“It will be difficult to bring current homes up to standard, mainly due to costs…I have an older, solid stone house, which is a nightmare to heat. It’s not on the gas grid, but uses electric and coal. It comes down to funding for me.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

In their initial reactions to the presentation, participants suggested that those profiting within the sector (landlords, energy companies, and construction companies) should bear a greater share of costs than the public should. Having heard about the costs associated with changes such as heat pumps, participants felt that financial support from the Scottish Government would be needed to help homeowners to afford those changes.

Participants also stressed the importance homeowners receiving trustworthy advice regarding the changes required to their properties, and of contractors carrying out high quality work. The need for regulation in the private rental sector was highlighted, as a way of ensuring that landlords did not pass on the cost of upgrades to tenants.

Vision for the built environment and construction sector discussed in phase one

Phase one participants had a chance to view a future vision for the built environment and construction sector on the online community and again in the workshop. The vision (shown in figure 10.1 below) was based on the Scottish Government’s discussion paper for the sector. As well as sharing their own views on the vision, participants revisited the five fictional characters (show in figure 10.2) and discussed how it might impact on them.

Figure 10.1. Vision for the built environment and construction sector

The role of the built environment for our characters

Alice lives in a three-bed flat with two friends. They rent from a private landlord and share responsibility for bills. The flat has electric heating. It has double glazing but is drafty and has poor insulation. She hopes to buy her own property when she has saved enough money.

David and Sarah live in a semi-detached house which they own. Their home has an EPC B rating. It has gas central heating, double-glazing, and loft and cavity wall insulation. They own a second property, which they rent out. This property lacks insulation and has an EPC D rating.

Lorraine lives in a 1920s home. It does not have central hearing. She uses a wood burning stove and electric storage heaters. She has external wall insulation, but the home still has a low EPC E rating. Her daughter wants to work in construction but there are not many local training opportunities.

Maria lives in a ground floor flat which she rents from the housing association. The flat is in a flood risk area. She requires a minimum level of warmth, meaning her heating is used all the time. The flat has an EPC C rating, with double glazing, central heating and loft insulation.

Nadeem and Ajay live in semi-detached property. The property has solar panels and a ground source heat pump. Nadeem is a builder and is working on more new builds. He feels he needs training on new construction techniques for him and his staff.

Who could benefit?

Participants identified groups who would benefit from the vision, provided certain measures were in place. The construction sector was identified as potentially benefitting from the additional work involved in retrofitting buildings, which could lead to profit and the creation of new jobs. Participants noted that construction firms that were already working in line with the vision would find the transition easier than those having to change practices.

“Most of the cost is in retrofitting older buildings. If you build a new building already to high standards the costs are reasonable. You could factor in a heat pump at the beginning. I think the building industry is perfectly able to adapt to that with minimal challenge.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Participants felt that those currently living in an energy inefficient home would benefit from the energy efficiency improvements proposed under this vision. It was suggested that homeowners who could afford to make those changes would likely find this aspect of the transition easiest. It was felt that home buyers would benefit from new builds being built to high energy efficiency standards, as long as those new homes were affordable.

Participants also felt that social renters might face fewer challenges in implementing the changes needed, which was based on a perception that responsibility for making upgrades to their homes would lie with providers of social housing, such as the council. However, they also noted that a drawback for social renters was their lack of control over these types of decisions and that they would have to rely on providers of social housing to make improvements. There was equally a concern that private landlords would pass cost on to tenants.

Who benefits?

Nadeem was identified as benefitting from an increase in work for the construction sector and from training opportunities available on new construction techniques, provided these are accessible to him and his staff.

Alice would benefit from improved energy efficiency, provided upgrades were carried out by her landlord and that additional costs associated with this were not passed on to her. She would also benefit if she was able to afford a high-quality new build.

Maria was also identified as benefiting, if the housing association carries out upgrades and if appropriate measures were introduced to reduce the risk of flooding to her property.

Who could be negatively impacted?

Participants felt that there was potential for homeowners to be negatively impacted if they found energy efficient improvements unaffordable. There was specific concern about middle income earners, who it was felt might not qualify for financial support towards making their homes more energy efficient, yet may not be able to afford those changes.

“The asset rich cash poor single homeowner is going to be the one that’s hit most. You apply for the grant and they’ll say you have a pension and savings but, you can’t access it in the same way a council tenant can.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Participants also felt that there would generally be higher costs associated with living in a rural area, which would impact on ability to afford upgrades. For example, it may cost more to transport construction materials to rural areas.

There was concern that new builds with very high energy efficiency standards would be more expensive which would affect home buyers or self-builders’ ability to afford a new property.

As well as barriers related to costs, participants also noted that it may not be possible to upgrade certain properties due to their age or location (e.g. listed buildings) meaning people living in these properties would not benefit from the vision. There was also concern about the possibility of property owners receiving bad advice about upgrades or work not being carried out to a high standard.

While the construction industry was identified as benefitting overall, participants emphasised that some workers could lose out if there were no local training opportunities available to them, or if they would find it difficult to reskill given their age or need for financial support.

Who could be negatively impacted?

Lorraine was identified as at risk because her property had a low EPC rating and would likely require a lot of work to make it energy efficient, which she may not be able to afford.

Reflecting the points raised above, it was felt that Alice was at risk of losing out if her landlord increased her rent to cover the costs of changes to the property. This would also affect her ability to save for a new property, especially if very high energy efficiency standards led to increased costs for new builds.

Phase one conclusions on a fair distribution of costs and benefits

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes needed in the built environment and construction sector?

In the workshop, the types of costs covered by the expert speakers included those associated with the construction of new buildings, those required for the retrofitting of existing buildings (e.g. through insulation or heat pumps), and the training and reskilling of the construction workforce. Participants discussions therefore centred around these broad cost categories.

As with the transport sector, there was a sense among participants that the costs of transitioning to net zero should be shared and that no single organisation or group should bear sole responsibility. Groups that participants felt should contribute to paying for the changes included:

The construction sector. As noted above, it was felt that the buildings and construction industry was likely to benefit from the changes needed to reach net zero, due to demand for new homes and the retrofitting of existing homes to bring them up to standard. As the industry would likely profit from an increase in demand, it was considered fair for them to pay a share of the costs. In particular, it was felt that the industry should bear the cost of reskilling the workforce, as this would ultimately benefit them (though some suggested that the Scottish Government and colleges or universities should also share some of this cost):

“The companies that are building the new properties should bear a reasonable chunk of [the cost] because they’re going to profit from selling the properties. And they have a duty to bring the properties up to some sort of [standard].” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Those owning rental properties. There was an expectation that social landlords would bear responsibility, and therefore the cost of making changes. Further, there was a strong feeling that private landlords should pay to bring those properties to a suitable energy efficiency standard. Similar to the views about the construction industry, it was felt that those generating profit from the property market should and could pay for changes needed, and that they should be held responsible for ensuring properties reach the necessary standard of energy efficiency:

“If they can generate profit from just owning [an additional property], they should be expected to maintain the same or higher standards than private owners or council flats.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Homeowners. It was generally accepted that homeowners should contribute to the costs of making changes to their properties, as this was seen as part of the responsibility of owning a property. As the cost of making changes would potentially be very high, it was suggested that financial support should be made available for homeowners, ideally in the form of grants or interest free loans. Some felt that homeowners may benefit financially in the long term, as making the improvements to the property may save money on bills or increase its value, although this would depend on local circumstances. A tiered system of payment was therefore suggested, reflecting ability to pay and other circumstances (explained further below in relation to systems of payment):

“I think that low or no interest loans would be welcomed. It’s taken me this long to put together a 5% deposit. I’ve done the biggest bunch of [saving] that I can do … that would take the pressure off me.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

The Scottish Government. Due to the scale of changes required to buildings (e.g. one of the expert speakers noted that almost 2 million homes will need retrofitting) and the level of costs (e.g. installing a heat pump was described by one of the experts as potentially costing up to £15,000 for some households), it was felt that individuals would require support from the Scottish Government. Some participants shared their own experiences of looking into heat pumps, saying that they were unable to get them because they were prohibitively expensive. Government support towards this, and other costs associated with retrofitting, was therefore considered necessary:

“I don’t think it’s doable to pay for this all on our own. Obviously this is something we all want and it needs to be done. But there does need to be funding or grants to help people.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?

In discussing fair systems of payment, two clear themes emerged:

First, that the built environment was complex, with many different players involved and different circumstances to be considered. As such, it was felt that while collective action was required to help reduce the emissions from our buildings, there was no “one size fits all” approach to covering the costs.
Second, that those who were unable to afford the changes, particularly those on lower incomes, should be provided with support. Of the potential systems of payment discussed in the workshop and online community, the approach that was met with most support was one based on addressing inequality and ensuring that those on lower incomes did not get left behind.

There was at least some level of support for the following systems of payment:

Ability to pay. It was felt that individuals all have a part to play, but there should be a tiered, perhaps means-tested, approach to payment. This would mean that those most able to afford changes would make higher contributions, potentially through a tax-based system of payment. There was some discussion of the pros and cons of means testing given the bureaucracy this would require, balanced with a need to act quickly in order to reach net zero by 2045.

“The people who build the biggest and poshest houses, there should be some kind of tax on them to help insulate the people at the bottom of the market… A bit of taxation redistribution there would be useful.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Profit-sharing. As noted above, a strong sentiment in the workshops was that those who made profit from buildings (both from their construction and from leasing them to tenants) could and should pay for the work needed to make those buildings adequately energy efficient.
Number of properties. Having more than one property was viewed, by some, as an indicator of wealth and that such individuals could afford to pay for changes to their properties. However, some challenged this by saying that having a second home did not automatically mean that they could cover the high costs of installing heat pumps or similar measures.

“Unless there are solid reasons why the individual owns more than one home, then they should incur more cost and inconvenience than those living in properties which are appropriate to their needs.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Ability to make changes. Linked to the point above, it was felt that landlords (both private and social) have a responsibility to pay for their properties, and that tenants should not be obliged to cover the costs. It was seen as unfair for landlords to pass the costs of improvements on to tenants – otherwise, the already challenging costs of renting and attempting to purchase a home would become even more prohibitive. This led participants to suggest regulation of private landlords to ensure they bring their properties up to standard and prevent them from passing these costs on to tenants.

“If they talk of passing on costs to the renter, if there are not things like rent controls, then the housing situation will become so bad that no one will be able to afford to live anywhere.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Some participants with experience of renting or owning a property within a building with shared ownership felt it would be unfair if they had to pay costs that they had not agreed to or that would not be borne by social renters.

Opinion was split on whether a payment system based on level of emissions (i.e. with those living in higher emitting homes paying more) was fair. On the one hand, there was a view that property owners who had neglected to make the necessary changes should, after time, be obliged to pay more. On the other hand, there was a view that those in less energy efficient properties may also be those with the lowest incomes, they should not be penalised for not being able to afford the changes needed. Indeed, it was suggested that these properties should be prioritised for support.

“Some houses are not able to have all the new fancy equipment and insulation fitted to them… people living in such buildings should be offered more help and not penalised. However, that being said if such houses have refused to update their homes and continue to use excessive carbon emissions without trying to cut down then, yes, they should pay more.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Participants also recognised that building standards have changed over time so it would not be fair to penalise owners who have “inherit[ed] decisions made by previous owners…that were taken in good faith”. More broadly, participants emphasised the need to consider links between sectors when it comes to an overall system of payment.

“I suggest a nuanced, means-tested approach, which is tailored to each person’s circumstances. I also suggest that this approach takes into account the overall carbon emissions caused by an individual’s lifestyle…Treating these as separate issues seems to be missing the point.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

To ensure everyone benefits from the transition, the general feeling was that appropriate financial assistance should be provided to those on lower incomes and those with particular support needs (on account of their age, health, or disability). Participants therefore suggested financial support for homeowners to retrofit their properties, ideally in the form of a government grant reflective of ability to pay.

Other specific suggestions included assistance in the form of a scheme similar to ‘Help to Buy’ but for energy efficient new builds, and a loan encompassed with mortgage to help owners replace heating systems.

“The people who will find it most difficult are the people that have been in their family home for 40 years and it’s their responsibility to fit it. The support seems patchy for people trying to make these changes…so ultimately homeowners need the most help.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Protecting private renters was also seen as important. It was felt that private renters may be at risk of being left behind if the focus of support was on homeowners. Their concern that some landlords may not be able to afford to make the changes required to their rental property (e.g. if also making changes to the home they live in), therefore leaving renters in energy inefficient properties. To make sure that renters benefit from the changes, there was a suggestion of both regulation for landlords (outlined above) and financial support if necessary.

The importance of awareness raising was also highlighted as a way of ensuring everyone benefits. Specifically, it was seen as important to ensure that everyone understood the EPC rating system, what changes they would need to make to achieve the new requirements, and what support would be available.

Finally, it was noted that rural areas may need different solutions and retrofitting may be harder in rural properties. Several factors were highlighted including age of property, local climate, availability of tradespeople, and additional costs or logistics associated with each of these factors. The importance of adapting to the needs of rural areas was therefore highlighted as a way of ensuring people living in rural areas are not left behind and that people are not discouraged from moving to a rural community.

Exploring policies related to heating systems in phase two

In phase two, participants discussed the transition to clean heating systems in domestic properties (i.e. homes that people live in, whether owned, private-rented, or social-rented) and considered two possible approaches for funding and implementing this:

Widely available public funding, with stricter penalties for non-compliance.
Targeted public funding, with softer penalties for non-compliance.

Participants explored each approach through scenario-based discussions and considered the implications for different people living in Scotland (using the same characters from phase one of the research).

Initial views on the idea of a clean heat transition

Before the two approaches were presented, participants shared their initial thoughts on the idea of transitioning domestic properties to clean heating systems and making energy efficiency improvements in principle.

The Scottish Government support currently available for people switching to clean heating systems (in the form of grants and interest free loans) was viewed positively and the timescales for this (i.e. prohibiting polluting heating systems by 2045) were considered reasonable. However, several practical questions were raised around: how homeowners and landlords would go about installing clean hearing systems ; how suitable they would be for some types of properties (one participant had used support from Home Energy Scotland and was advised that a heat pump was not viable); how listed buildings would be protected; and what the ongoing costs of clean heating systems would be.

The energy efficiency improvements were also viewed positively in terms of the impact they would have on properties’ ability to retain heat. These changes were also considered to be easier, cheaper and more manageable to make than the heat system changes. However, participants questioned the availability of tradespeople, with one participant having been unable to find someone to install loft insulation despite receiving support for that.

Some broader themes also emerged that remained prominent through later discussions:

Concerns around the upfront costs and the impact on certain groups (e.g. students, elderly people, those with disabilities or health conditions, people with older properties, landlords^[24] having to absorb the costs, and tenants who might be subject to rent increases).
A view that grants should be limited to those on low incomes or those in older properties who have to make the biggest changes.
A perception that rent freezes or caps would be necessary to prevent renters experiencing the shock of sudden rent increases.
An appetite for more evidence from trials and system comparisons to reassure people that the solutions proposed are the right ones and are for the long term.

Views on widely available public funding

Figure 10.3: Widely available public funding with stricter penalties

It was felt that widely available funding would prompt more people to be proactive and make changes to their homes earlier rather than waiting until the last minute. This, coupled with stricter penalties, was considered an effective way of encouraging people to switch.

The fact that exemptions would be in place for some homeowners based on certain circumstances was “heartening” for participants. It was felt that people with disabilities, health conditions, pensioners and people living in older properties (who would find the changes most difficult) should be exempt. Participants were also supportive of an appeals process being in place to enable people to challenge penalties.

Who would be impacted more?

Participants identified Lorraine (a rural farmer with an older property) as someone who should be exempt. In her case, being exempt was felt to be important to protect her from further financial precarity, as an older person living in an older property who was already paying off debts.

Participants were also reassured by the fact that tenants would be protected from rent increases, although there were some concerns raised about landlords ignoring the regulations or exploiting loopholes (e.g. by increasing rents before making the required changes).

Deadlines and penalties

The 2028 deadline for private landlords making home energy improvements was felt to be too close, and that introducing penalties without a longer notice period would be unfair. While some welcomed the fact that landlords would not be able to pass along additional costs to tenants, others raised concerns about the potential consequences of this. One participant highlighted the risk of landlords (including her own current landlord) deciding to sell in response to the 2028 deadline, penalties and restrictions, which would mean fewer homes available to rent.

“Very many landlords will simply sell their properties rather than fork out such a large sum of money, this will, of course remove even more homes from housing stock when there is already a housing crisis.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

The 2033 target for homeowners to make energy efficiency improvements was also considered too soon. For this funding approach to be made fairer, participants suggested that homeowners and small business landlords should be given more time to make the necessary changes before penalties are introduced. Exemptions from penalties were also considered to be fair if homeowners and landlords could demonstrate that they had made some effort towards meeting the targets or that they cannot afford to make them.

“If you make an effort and don’t achieve the target, it seems unfair to give you a penalty. The people who do make an effort and achieve it, fair enough. It depends if the target is achievable or not. Be fair about it all and make the target reasonable and achievable.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

The 2045 deadline for clean heating systems to be installed, however, was considered too far away. There were concerns that this timescale would not provide enough motivation for people to act quickly.

“How are you going to get people interested at all when the penalties don’t kick in for another 20 years?…It feels too distant.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

While the appeals process was welcomed, there were concerns that it could be a difficult and stressful process which would be off-putting for some.

Availability of funding

The availability of funding to all households drew mixed views. Some participants felt this was unfair, as wealthier households could afford to make the changes without funding support, while those struggling financially would be reliant on support.

Other participants felt that the Scottish Government should provide financial support to everyone if the changes were being made compulsory. Broader availability of funding was also considered fairer than the alternative, as there was a perceived risk that targeted funding could lead to some households not being eligible for funding but still being put under financial pressure.

“If the government were to enforce this, I think it wouldn’t be very fair to give grants to some and some to not…If they want people to do it, they’ll need an incentive.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

There was some discomfort around the idea of people taking out loans to cover the remaining costs, particularly for those seeking to avoid loans or already struggling with debt.

“I went through my life trying to avoid debt. Taking on debt in your 80s, you’ve had a lifetime not owing anybody then because someone has decided your gas boiler is out of fashion you have to find £15,000.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

If loans were to be offered, participants agreed that long repayment plans should be available to ease any financial burdens, particularly for those paying off existing debts. Among participants who preferred targeted funding, it was felt that lower income households should be given higher grants so that they would not have to take out a loan.

“If giving you a loan, it’s on top of the debts I already have. If [repayments] don’t eat into my pay, maybe it’s manageable, but trying to squeeze the little I earn to then pay for the renovations I don’t need, it’s a bit too much.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Trust and transparency

Discussions on the heat transition highlighted issues of trust in systems such as heat pumps and heat networks. Participants sought more reassurances around the efficacy of these systems and felt that there would need to be a campaigns on a continual basis to raise awareness among the public (using a range of methods such as letter, billboards, and social media). One participant suggested reaching people through alerts on their phones, highlighting the sense of urgency and scale required to make sure the public are aware so that they can start to prepare.

While the focus of these discussions was on homeowners and landlords making the heat transition in their properties, it was also felt that housing developers should be responsible for installing heat pumps in new builds, or connecting them to heat networks. This was linked to a broader sense that these policies were placing an unfair burden on consumers without systemic action or leadership being demonstrated by industry or government.

“They’re still putting gas boilers in. Why don’t they put heat pumps in new builds so people know how they work. It feels like it’s just the stick at the moment, there’s no carrot.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Views on targeted public funding

10.4: Targeted public funding with softer penalties

Those who preferred a more targeted funding approach saw this as fairer than the option of broadly available funding, as they felt it would support those who needed it most. As well as people with low incomes, people with disabilities were also identified as a group who should be eligible for grants.

While there were concerns raised initially that private landlords being able to increase rent would negatively impact tenants, it was also recognised that tenants could benefit from their homes being made more energy efficient, which in turn could lead to better living conditions and cheaper energy bills. It was agreed that a rent cap would be important to protect tenants from sharp rent increases.

Deadlines and penalties

As highlighted in discussions around the timescales for implementing changes in option one, it was felt that some deadlines (e.g. 2028 for landlords to meet a minimum energy standard)) were too soon and would not provide enough notice, while others (e.g. 2045 for switching to a clean heating system) were too far away and would not instil enough of a sense of urgency in the changes required.

In discussing the introduction of penalties for non-compliance, participants raised concerns that this would lead to people rushing to install the technologies before the deadline and mistakes being made. This prompted questions around how the clean heating systems would be installed and regulated.

“I think penalties scare people off more and maybe they’ll do things quickly and they’ll be done wrongly. Who’s checking these things? Are there people checking it’s done correctly? It could be a cowboy builder doing things that are wrongly done and then you get penalties for something that you thought was right.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

There was also a lack of clarity around the timings of the penalties, with some being enforced as soon as the deadline expires and others not being enforced right away. This was felt to be problematic and an ineffective way of encouraging people to act.

“If you say you’ve got to do something by 2045 but there are no consequences for not doing it by 2045, [it] doesn’t make sense. I could say anyone has to do something but if there are no consequences, do they really have to do it?” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Participants suggested that the penalties should be made clearer, but agreed that there should be some flexibility in how and when they are applied by taking the household’s circumstances into account first.

Targeted funding

Although some participants supported a more targeted funding approach, there was also a strong view that targeted funding could create financial hardship and worsen the cost of living crisis. It was also felt that targeted funding could limit the effectiveness of the policy, with those not eligible for funding being less inclined to act.

As in the previous scenario, some were not comfortable with people being pushed into any form of debt, even with some of the costs covered by grants.

“They’re saying 0% interest loans, but you’re putting a heap of people into debt, vulnerable people, young people. I think this would be quite horrible.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

There were strong views against private financing, which were underpinned by a perception that private sector organisations – and energy companies in particular – were motivated solely by profit. If loans were to be made available, it was preferable that these be Scottish Government-administered and not privately financed.

“I don’t think private sector should offer loans in the first place. The government wants you to do this so they should offer the loan themselves or provide the grant.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

While some were not comfortable with private financing in the form of loans, there was some openness to other forms of private financing, such as discounts on energy bills in return for making energy efficiency improvements. Alternative sources of funding for the heat transition were also suggested, such as a tax on the profits of energy providers.

Trust and transparency

As in the previous scenario, participants felt that there would need to be clear and comprehensive communications with the public to raise awareness of the changes that homeowners and landlords would be required to make. Building on this, participants expressed a clear appetite for these communications to provide reassurances around the reliability of the clean heating systems and the ongoing running costs as well as installation costs.

“If I knew that my energy bills were going to drop sufficiently then it wouldn’t bother me at all having to try and fund it from a low interest loan. But I would feel extremely nervous on going that it might. It’s a big jump to take just based on faith.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Related to this was an unease around the longevity of the policy, the risk of requirements changing in future, and the cost of this to consumers in future.

“Scottish Government years ago encouraged people to buy diesel cars, and now diesel is dreadful, encouraged to install wood burning stoves and central heating, again now it’s wrong. How many times are the public expected to listen to the government and spend money converting to whatever it is only to be told within a short time that it’s wrong.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Appendix 3 – Land use and agriculture sector detailed findings

This chapter discusses participants views on a just transition for land use and agriculture. As with the previous sector-focussed chapters, it describes initial views on changes needed, learning during the workshop, and conclusions in relation to the three questions. Policy options for the land and agriculture sector were not explored as part of phase two of the research, so the findings presented here are in relation to phase one only.

In agreement with ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government, the workshop dedicated to this sector focussed on what the transition to net zero means for food production and consumption. Recognising the scale and complexity of the land and agriculture sector, this topic was chosen as an area in which participants would be able to relate to their everyday lives.

Summary

Participants supported the move towards more climate friendly approach to food, but were concerned the overall fairness of the vision and impact on rural communities.

Participants felt costs should be shared between:

The Scottish Government
Farmers
Other businesses (e.g. supermarkets)
Consumers
Landowners

To ensure a fair transition, in which everyone benefits, it was suggested that:

People’s ability to pay is taken into account, with protection in place for low-income consumers.
Farms are subsidised, favouring smaller farms with less income. Support payments should be specifically allocated towards covering the costs of reducing carbon emissions.
Farms should be given sufficient time and opportunity to change and reduce emissions before introducing any financial impacts such as additional tax.
Ensure that consumers have easier access to sustainable food options.

What changes were expected?

Before the workshop, participants used the online community to discuss the changes they thought would be needed for the land use and agriculture sector to reach net zero.

They anticipated changes to the way we buy and eat food. There was a widespread sense that people should eat more local, seasonal and sustainable produce, with fewer products imported from abroad. Many participants interpreted this as a climate friendly diet. It was also suggested that we may need to reduce meat consumption, especially imported meat. While it was noted that these changes would likely reduce the range of foods available, participants were generally very positive about the environmental and health benefits they could bring. However, some participants felt that it would be difficult for consumers and the wider food industry to adapt to these kinds of changes, and that this could have economic consequences.

“The range of food we have readily available may be reduced. I don’t have a problem with that and feel it is something we should make the best of in terms of reducing food miles and eating found produced as near to home as possible.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Changes to farming practices were also anticipated, with a strong focus on farming practices being more “ecologically friendly”. Participants suggested that there may be move towards more organic farming, vertical farming (i.e. growing crops in vertical layers) to make space for rewilding, and regenerative practices (e.g. techniques that preserve and enhance soil quality). It was also suggested that our approach to land management more broadly may need to change, with greater emphasis on tree planting, biodiversity and creation of more carbon sinks.

Participants were generally positive about the types of changes to food production described above, though some felt that food price rises for consumers were inevitable. Others emphasised that farming should be supported to become profitable without passing on costs to consumers. There was therefore support for subsidies for farmers, as food production was considered a “vital” industry, but not for “wealthy landowners”.

Overview of presentations and reactions to them

At the workshop, participants heard two presentations delivered by experts. The first outlined the Scottish Government’s vision for the future of the sector, the types of changes that would be needed to achieve it, and the benefits and challenges associated with reducing emissions in the sector. The second outlined the inequalities within the sector that would need to be addressed as part of the transition to net zero.

Participants were struck by the complexity of the topic and emphasised a need for more public education around food production and consumption. Several participants were unaware that the sector received financial support from the Scottish Government, and were surprised at the extent to which businesses relied on this subsidy (e.g. the presentations had explained that without support payments, many farms would be in deficit). This led to a feeling that many farms were financially vulnerable and in need of ongoing support, which set the context for the later discussions around who should pay.

“Farming is already so heavily subsidised. One can’t imagine it continuing in any shape or form without large subsidies in the future, unless we were to lose the farming industry…I can’t imagine the rug being whipped from the farming industry.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

There was some surprise at how much food was imported, particularly fruit (the presentation explained that 16% of our fruit was produced domestically). There was also discussion on the average age of farmers, and about the need to encourage young people into the sector.

Some participants stressed the importance of considering wider aspects of land use which they felt impacted efforts to reach net zero. This echoed their initial thoughts on changes needed and included aspects like deer management, shooting estates and carbon credits. These are explored in more detail below.

Vision for the land use and agriculture sector

Participants had a chance to view a future vision for the land use and agriculture sector on the online community and again in the workshop. The vision (shown in figure 11.1) was based on the Scottish Government’s discussion paper for the sector. As well as sharing their own views on the vision, participants revisited the five fictional characters and discussed how it might impact on them.

Figure 11.1: Vision for the land use and agriculture sector

The role of land use and agriculture (particularly food) for our characters

Alice picks things up on her way to and from work. She doesn’t have a lot of time to cook and gets a takeaway or delivery a few times a week. Alice feels that she spends too much on food. She would like to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables and better-quality meat, but these are not easily available in the shops close to her flat.

David and Sarah have a large garden. They buy locally produced food as much as they can, even if it is more expensive. They get their weekly food shop from several places. They have reserved a space at a local community allotment.

Lorraine’s farm specialises in cattle and turkeys. She is planning on making changes to the business to help reduce its emissions. These changes would increase the cost of producing food and the business would not be able to absorb these costs.

Maria gets all her food shopping delivered from the supermarket and has a strict weekly food budget. She choses whichever products are cheaper. She tries to ensure that her daughter eats a healthy diet, but this can be difficult within her budget.

Nadeem and Ajay have a vegan diet. They get their weekly groceries from the supermarket. Buying food that suits their diet is more important to them than where it comes from. Ajay works at a small food shop. If farmers increase their prices, the shop will increase the price it charges consumers.

From the outset, the potentially negative impacts of the vision on rural communities were noted, particularly in relation to the suggestion that less land would be dedicated to food production. There was a sense that crofting land would not be suitable for other uses and so crofters may lose out if they are not able to continue current practices.

“Crofting is environmentally friendly. There’s no fertiliser use, it’s a very natural way of farming and yet that’s the one that’s going to be penalised against much more intensive farming in arable areas. That’s the wrong note to hit, the wrong balance.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

There was also some resistance to using more land for tree planting. One reason for this was the perception that would reduce the potential for farmers to earn money, as they would be giving up land used for grazing or meat production in favour of forestry. Another reason was in relation to the impacts on communities, with some participants describing how plantations had led to a sense of isolation for their community and a feeling that they were “cut off” as result of being surrounded by trees.

Reflecting their initial thoughts on the changes needed in the sector, there was support for importing less and eating more local and seasonal produce, and for continued support for food producers. However, there was discussion of the difficulty of changing consumer habits, especially in the context of the cost-of-living crisis, and the challenges that some might face in accessing climate friendly food.

Who could benefit?

Under this vision, participants felt that farmers who were able to diversify could benefit if the changes resulted in a more financially sustainable business, provided there was support and advice available to help them do so.

Participants felt that consumers could see health benefits from access to more quality, nutritious produce, and if there was more education on how to cook meals from scratch. It was also felt that communities could in turn see economic benefits from more people shopping locally.

Participants felt that wealthier consumers would find the transition easiest as they could absorb an increase in food prices. Similarly, participants felt that wealthier farmers would be able to afford to make changes to their business. There was also a sense that the scale of change required for businesses in the wider supply chain (e.g. larger supermarkets, retailers and distributers) would be smaller than for food producers directly.

Overall participants recognised that consumers who were already eating a sustainable diet or businesses whose practices were already in line with the vision would find the transition easier as they would need to make fewer changes.

Who benefits?

It was felt that David and Sarah would benefit because their lifestyle choices were already in line with the vision, and they could afford to make further changes or absorb increased costs.

Who could lose out?

Participants highlighted farmers and crofters who specialise in livestock may lose out, as their ability to do so may be restricted if more land is dedicated to forestry. There was a suggestion that the vision would “decimate” these communities in the north of Scotland. It was also felt that, if farmers were growing less food, there may be knock-on impacts on others working in the food sector and potentially job losses.

Participants felt that food price rises were inevitable and therefore that people on low incomes would lose out.

“All the changes will come with a cost. We already have a lot of food banks and people struggling. Those people will be impacted even more than they are now. It’s difficult to tell what would make it fairer. How can we help the poor more than we are helping now with food banks.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

There was a view that consumers may lose out if they were not able to grow their own food (some participants, especially in urban areas, felt this would be difficult for them to do), or were not able to access sustainable produce.

“Consumers are going to miss out if there are no local food co-ops, food sharing, food communities. Some people are surrounded by takeaways and corner shops. They don’t necessarily have access to local foods because of where they live.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

Who could lose out?

Lorraine’s livelihood was identified as being at risk given the challenges of diversification and the need to increase prices to cover the cost of making changes. Her age was also noted as a factor in that she may not have time to benefit before she retires.

Alice and Maria were identified as at risk of losing out if prices increase because of their concern about the current cost of groceries. They may also struggle to access local produce; Maria because of her child care requirements, and Alice because of her shift patterns.

Nadeem and Ajay may lose out if a focus on local products means they have less choice in their diet. This could be exacerbated by additional challenges transporting goods to where they live. Ajay’s job might be at risk if the viability of the shop where it works is affected by increased prices.

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes needed in the land use and agriculture sector?

The types of costs that were outlined in the presentations and that participants explored in their discussions included: the costs associated with change the way land is used and food is produced, the costs associated with the wider food supply chain and distribution network, and the costs of food for consumers.

Generally, it was felt that costs should be paid for by a balance between government, industry and consumers. Specific groups that they felt should be responsible for some of the costs of the transition included:

The Scottish Government. Farming subsidies were described as a “practical necessity” in order to sustain the industry and keep prices affordable. It was therefore felt that some level of subsidies should continue, and that these could help to fund some of the costs associated with the transition. However, it was also suggested that not all farms should be supported to the same extent and that subsidies should vary to reflect the size and financial performance of the farm (outlined further in the next section).
Farmers. It was felt that farmers should cover some of the costs associated with changes to land use or food production, especially if they would benefit directly from the changes (e.g. if the changes to practices helped with their operational efficiency, helped them to generate income, or added value to their business). However, participants stressed that farmers would unlikely be able to incur significant additional costs without becoming financially unviable. It was therefore felt that, as noted above, ongoing financial support for farmers would be required.

“It will have to be [supported by] the government…I don’t see it being viable without subsidies. Loads of farms will just go out of [business].” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

Consumers. There was a sense that an increase in food prices for consumers will be “inevitable” and that those who can afford to pay should share some of the costs. With this came a sense that consumer behaviour would also need to change, with more of a focus on eating a climate friendly diet. Some participants supported prices rises to encourage consumer behaviour change. However, there was a sense that consumers have less responsibility for paying for changes than other businesses as they do not have a direct say in the costs.

“We eat like kings, all of us, and we need to come back to [eating] more sustainable things.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

Other businesses. While not a common theme, it was suggested that businesses in the wider food supply chain should also share some of the costs. In particular it was felt that large, profit-making businesses such as supermarket chains would be able to afford some of the costs (e.g. for reducing or replacing packaging), rather than farmers and consumers.

“It’s those businesses in the middle that should pay because the consumer and the farmer don’t have the money… commercial businesses who are making big profits, they should make more of a contribution to this process to make this fairer.” (Participants, phase 1, workshop 4)

Landowners. From the outset, some participants raised issues with the current structure of land ownership in Scotland, with a perception that absentee landowners earn from large shares of land that might otherwise have been used for food production. It was suggested that these landowners should be taxed to help pay for some of the changes need to land use. As previously noted, there were also calls for wider land reform which, for some participants, was seen as inextricably linked to viability of the farming industry.

“One of the biggest factors affecting the viability of Scottish farming is land ownership…the fact that huge swathes of good land are owned by…absentee landlords leaving very little for homegrown farmers.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

How can we make sure that system of payment fair?

While acknowledging the scale of the challenge, participants showed at least some support for systems of payment based on:

Ability to pay. Consumers on lower incomes were seen as likely to find any increase in food costs most disruptive and difficult. Echoing findings from the transport and built environment workshops, participants therefore felt that a future system of payment should take into account people’s ability to pay and protect low-income consumers. At the same time there was recognition that placing a greater burden of the costs on wealthier households could discourage them from making good choices which may be counterproductive.
Subsidising some, but not all, farmers. As noted above, continuation of farming subsidies was considered a fair way of helping the sector to adapt to change. It was suggested that the subsidy system should favour smaller farms with less income (and therefore less ability to pay). It was also suggested that support payments should be specifically allocated towards covering the costs of reducing carbon emissions and making farming practices more sustainable. Recognising that some farms or crofts may already be operating sustainably, there was also a suggestion that a payment system should “penalise neglect”.

“[Financial] support can help the transition but should only be given where additional costs are incurred and not where changes may actually help profitability. This is one area where justice in transition could easily be lost as large farmers, forestry companies and green investors soak up ever larger sums of public money.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Taxing larger businesses. Some participants felt that payments should be covered by larger, profit-making businesses, particularly whose practices are not climate-friendly (e.g. those who import food from overseas). They suggested taxing these businesses, or having a payment system that means these businesses absorb costs rather than passing them on to consumers. At the same time there was recognition that penalising businesses too harshly could force them to leave Scotland which would risk jobs and move carbon emissions elsewhere.

“What about taxing the big business that’s importing things from faraway countries that they could get here? People like Maria [one of the fictional characters used as stimulus for the discussion] don’t really care much about where food is from and how it’s sourced, it’s just about feeding their family.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

Taxing high-carbon products. There was some support for a “food miles tax” or other form of high carbon products tax, but only if other more sustainable food options were available and affordable. It was also suggested that a tax on food waste (for supermarkets, not consumers) would help to reduce the amount of food currently wasted. However, some participants felt that it was not fair to base a payment system on emissions as some farms emit more than others depending on their produce.

To make the transition as fair as possible, it was also stressed that farms need to be given sufficient time and opportunity to change, diversify and reduce emissions before introducing any financial impacts such as additional tax.

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

As well as a reduction in carbon emissions, participants identified a range of potential benefits from the future vision for the sector including: health benefits of eating more locally grown, quality food; physical and mental health benefits for individuals and communities growing their own food; economic benefits of supporting local businesses (though business viability was also seen as a risk); a reduction in food waste; more job opportunities within the land use and agriculture sector; and financial benefits for farmers from diversification.

An overarching message was that financial support was required to ensure that farmers and consumers could benefit from the changes. To make sure everyone benefits, participants also felt that we should:

Provide people with the opportunity to eat the right kinds of food. It was felt that steps should be taken to ensure that low carbons foods remain affordable for people on low incomes. It was also suggested that more access to individual and community growing spaces and food sharing initiatives may help more people to benefit from these types of food, particularly for those who do not already have access to a garden.

Improve communication and engagement with the public. Participants felt that there was need for more awareness-raising about how the food system works, the types of changes that will be necessary, and what types of food are more climate-friendly, and how to make healthy affordable meals. It was stressed that the public need to understand why change is necessary before they can accept those changes. Participants also advocated more community and local government involvement in decision-making about land use.
Change the system of land ownership to provide more equitable access to land. A few participants felt strongly that widescale change to land ownership was required, so that smaller farms have more opportunity to be profitable and that there were more opportunities for young people to work in the sector.

Appendices A-D: Research materials

Appendix A – Structure of workshops

Phase 1

The first workshop introduced participants to the process and key concepts. This was followed by three separate workshops on transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. In these workshops participants learned about key issues associated with the transition in each sector and shared their views, before answering these overarching questions in relation to that sector.

	Date/time	Objective	Session description	Presentations
Session 1 – Introduction	10 August 2023, 6pm to 9pm	Introduction to the process and aims. Participants learn key concepts.	Introduction to the process. Participant introductions. Presentations from expert speakers (see right). Small breakout discussions followed by Q&A with speakers. Initial thoughts on a fair transition.	Introduction to key concepts relating to climate change, just transition, net zero and Scottish Government plans.
Session 2 – Transport Session 3 – Buildings and Construction Session 4 – Land use and agriculture	15 August 2023, 6pm to 9pm 29 August 2023, 6pm to 9pm 14 September 2023, 6pm to 9pm	Participants develop an understanding of each sector and form initial thoughts on a fair distribution of costs and benefits for that sector.	Presentations from expert speakers (see right). Breakout discussion followed by Q&A with speakers. Breakout discussion of future vision in relation to fictional characters. Breakout answers to the overarching questions in relation to the sector.	Future vision for the sector. Addressing inequalities in the sector
Session 5	30 September 2023, 10am to 1pm	Participants consolidate their views on a fair distribution of costs and benefits and form wider conclusions on cross-cutting elements	Breakout discussion of future scenarios in relation to fictional characters. Breakout forming conclusions on a fair transition.	No presentations
Session 6 – Conclusions	5 October, 2023, 6pm to 9pm	Participants review, ratify and finalise their conclusions.	Breakout discussion on answers to the overarching questions. Reflections on the process. Postcard to the future task.	No presentations

Phase 2

The first workshop introduced participants to the process and key concepts. This was followed by two workshops, each focussing on a policy area within the transport and built environment sectors. The transport sector session focused on two possible approaches to Road User Charging; UK national road pricing or urban local charging. The built environment sector session focused on two approaches to funding the heat transition in domestic properties; widely available funding (with stricter penalties) or targeted funding (with softer penalties).

	Date/time	Objective	Session description	Presentations
Session 1 – Introduction	6 March 2024, 6.30pm to 8.30pm	Introduction to the process and aims. Participants learn key concepts.	Introduction to the process. Participant introductions. Presentations from expert speakers (see right). Small breakout discussions followed by Q&A with speakers. Initial thoughts on a fair transition.	Introduction to key concepts relating to climate change and the move to net zero; concept of just transition and Just Transition Plans; previous public engagement on just transition.
Session 2 – Transport	14 March 2024, 6.30pm to 9pm	Participants learn about Road User Charging (RUC) and discuss how to ensure this is implemented fairly.	Presentation (see right). Breakout discussion considering two approaches to RUC in relation to fictional characters. Breakout answers to form conclusions on RUC.	Introduction to RUC.
Session 3 – built environment and construction	20 March, 6pm – 9pm	Participants learn about clean heat transition in domestic properties and discuss how to ensure this is funded fairly.	Presentation (see right). Breakout discussion considering two approaches to funding the clean heat transition in relation to fictional characters. Breakout answers to form conclusions on clean heat transition.	Introduction to clean heat transition and Heat in Buildings bill.

Appendix B – Recruitment quotas

Phase 1

The quota targets were based on data from the Scottish Household Survey 2019, unless otherwise stated. Groups that were over-sampled are indicated with asterisk (*).

	Variable	% in population	Target number	Achieved number
Age	16-24	11%	4	4
	25-34	18%	6	4
	35-54	32%	11	11
	55+	38%	12	11
Gender	Woman	52%	17	17
	Man	48%	16	13
	Non-binary/other	No clear data	No target	0
Region of Scotland (source: NRS mid-year population estimates)	Central	12%	4	2
	Glasgow	13%	4	4
	Highlands and Islands*	8%	5	5
	Lothians	15%	5	5
	Mid Scotland and Fife	12%	4	3
	North East Scotland	14%	4	4
	South	13%	4	3
	West	13%	4	4
Ethnicity	African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British*	1%	2	0^[25]
	Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British*	3%	3	3
	White Scottish/Other British/White Other	96%	27	25
	Other ethnic group or mixed/multiple ethnic groups*	0%	1	2
Disability	No long-term physical or mental health condition	70%	19	16
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is limiting*	24%	10	10
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is not limiting*	6%	4	4
Household income, per year	Less than £10,000*	9%	4	3
	£10,001 – £20,000*	30%	11	9
	£20,001 – £30,000	21%	7	6
	£30,001 – £40,000	15%	5	4
	More than £40,001	24%	6	8
Attitudinal measure (SHS 2019): Which of these statements, if any, comes closest to your own view?	Climate change is an immediate and urgent problem	68%	Aim for mix	17
	Climate change is more of a problem for the future	14%		7
	Climate change is not really a problem	3%		1
	None of these / don’t know	9%		5
	I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening	6%	Excluded^[26]	0

Phase two

The quota targets were based on data from the Scottish Household Survey 2019, unless otherwise stated. Groups that were over-sampled are indicated with asterisk (*).

	Variable	% in population	Target number	Achieved number
Age	16-24	11%	2	2
	25-34	18%	4	4
	35-54	32%	6	7
	55+	38%	8	7
Gender	Woman	52%	10	10
	Man	48%	10	10
	Non-binary/other	No clear data	No target	0
Region of Scotland (source: NRS mid-year population estimates)	Central	12%	2	2
	Glasgow	13%	3	3
	Highlands and Islands	8%	2	2
	Lothians	15%	3	3
	Mid Scotland and Fife	12%	2	2
	North East Scotland	14%	3	3
	South	13%	3	3
	West	13%	2	2
Urban/rural	Urban	83%	15	15
Urban/rural	Rural*	17%	5	5
Ethnicity	African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British*	1%	2	3^[27]
	Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British*	3%	2	2
	White Scottish/Other British/White Other	96%	15	14
	Other ethnic group or mixed/multiple ethnic groups*	0%	1	1
Disability	No long-term physical or mental health condition	70%	12	12
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is limiting*	24%	6	6
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is not limiting*	6%	2	2
Household income, per year	Less than £10,000*	9%	2-3	2
	£10,001 – £20,000*	30%	6-7	7
	£20,001 – £30,000	21%	4	4
	£30,001 – £40,000	15%	3	2
	More than £40,001	24%	4	4
Attitudinal measure (SHS 2019): Which of these statements, if any, comes closest to your own view?	Climate change is an immediate and urgent problem	68%	Aim for mix	17
	Climate change is more of a problem for the future	14%		3
	Climate change is not really a problem	3%		0
	None of these / don’t know	9%		0
	I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening	6%	Excluded^[28]

Appendix C – Discussion guides

Phase one, session one

Thursday 10 August 2023, 6pm-8pm

Overarching objective: introduce participants to key concepts and familiarise them with the online discussion format and their role throughout the dialogue. Opportunity for Q&A to develop understanding before moving into focused discussion on each sector in subsequent sessions.

Image showing example of Jamboard exercise.

Discussion structure	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting	18.00 – 18.15	Welcome and introduction of process	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone to the dialogue (15 mins): Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants to the first online session of the Just Transition dialogue. Chair introduces poll and asks participants to answer question: “Who do you think should take the lead in tackling climate change in Scotland? All individuals living in Scotland Certain groups of people living in Scotland (e.g. those with the highest carbon emissions) Businesses in Scotland The Scottish Government All of these groups None of these groups Chair closes poll and comments on results before providing a summary of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here. Shares aims of research: To explore the public’s views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions, with a focus on three key sectors. To understand what factors influence any changes in the public’s attitudes, beliefs or values. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Explains purpose of this session is to introduce everyone to the topic, explain some key concepts and to start setting out the issues for discussion – including what we mean by just transition, the sectors that have been identified as the focus of this research and why, and the development of just transition plans for those sectors. Emphasising how valuable their role is to inform the development of these plans. Show the overarching questions that we will seek to answer in each of the sectors we will be looking at: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? How can we make that system of payment fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides summary of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Explain that today’s session will mostly be about listening and learning and encourage participants to jot down their thoughts and questions, explaining that there will be a Q&A at the end. Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.15)
Table introductions	18.15 – 18.25	Introducing participants to group, gathering initial thoughts and feelings.	Break-out group introductions (10 mins) FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THANKS PARTICIPANTS FOR JOINING. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. ASK EACH PERSON TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND SHARE ONE HOPE OR FEAR THEY HAVE ABOUT TAKING PART. What are your initial thoughts on the chair’s introduction and the plan for the next 5 sessions? Net zero was mentioned in the introduction. What does net zero mean to you? Is it something you’ve thought about much before today? Before being invited to this dialogue, had you come across the term “just transition to net zero?” IF YES – what did you think about it? IF NO – what do you think it’s about? Do you have any questions at this stage? NOTE THESE DOWN AND EXPLAIN THAT THERE WILL BE A Q&A TOWARDS THE END. IF TIME – What did you make of the quick polling question we asked at the start? Did anything in the results surprise you? Why/why not? The poll suggests that as a group we thought that [highlight most common response] should take the lead for tackling climate change – why do you think that is? Do you yourself have a different view on that?
Move to plenary (18.25)
Presentation on climate change and the move to net zero	18.25 – 18.35	Introduction to key issues around climate change and the transition to net zero	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Climate change and the move to net zero. CXC BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the key concepts relating to climate change, net zero and to outline the SG’s plans generally: What we know about climate change/the climate emergency and its impacts Some key terms – net zero, adaptation, mitigation – and why these are happening The Scottish Government’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2045 and what that means
Stay in plenary (18.35)
Presentation on just transition	18.35 – 18.45 5 minute buffer built in here to allow for intros/ crossover	Introduction to just transition	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Just Transition. Just Transition Commission BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the concept of just transition: What it means (including principles from Climate Change Act 2019) Recommendations of the Just Transition Scotland National Just Transition Planning Framework and outcomes In relation to the participant’s task, the key things they should think about to ensure the just transition plans in each sector are fair (i.e. who will be affected and how, who can/should pay, who is responsible)
BREAK (18.50)
Chair displays break time on screen and encourages participants to take a screen break 18.50-19.00 (10 mins)
Return to plenary (19.00)
Presentation on just transition plans	19.00 – 19.10	Overview of just transition plans	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Just Transition Plans. Scottish Government BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Summarise just transition plans in key sectors explaining: The three sectors we are focussing on and why (drawing from fact sheets with salient stats for each sector) Priority themes within each sector What a Just Transition Plan is, and why they are needed What we want the public to tell us (i.e. focusing on what would be a fair distribution of costs and benefits within each sector)
Move to breakouts (19.10)
Question forming	19.10 – 19.25	Reflect on presentations and gather questions	Reflections on presentations (10 mins): FACILITATOR REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THE PRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO WATCH BACK AT ANY TIME. AIM FOR ABOUT 3 MINS OF DISCUSSION PER PRESENTATION What did you think of the presentation [CXC] gave on climate change and net zero? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on net zero – i.e. when we asked “what does net zero mean to you”) Is anything still unclear? What did you think of the presentation [JTC] gave on just transition? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on just transition i.e. when we asked what they thought this term meant) Is anything still unclear? What did you think of the presentation [SG] gave on just transition plans? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Is anything still unclear? Question gathering (5 mins): What questions do we have for our speakers? REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY PART OF THE SESSION (INCLUDING CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION, PROCESS, THEIR ROLE ETC). What are our priority questions? Who would like to ask this question on behalf of our group? ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO VOLUNTEER TO ASK QUESTION (OFFER TO WRITE IT OUT IN THE CHAT FOR THEM SO THEY CAN JUST READ IT OUT). CAN HAVE ONE PERSON ASK ALL OR DIFFERENT PEOPLE ASKING. FACILITATOR CAN ASK ON BEHALF OF GROUP IF NO VOLUNTEERS. GATHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY PART OF THE SESSION AND ASK GROUP TO PRIORITISE 2-3 FOR Q&A (REASSURE THAT OTHER QUESTIONS WILL BE PUT TO SPEAKERS AFTER SESSION AND WRITTEN RESPONSES POSTED ON ONLINE COMMUNITY OR RECAPPED IN FUTURE SESSIONS.
Move to plenary (19.20)
Q&A	19.25 – 19.45	Q&A with experts	CHAIR TO CALL ON FACILITATORS IN TURN TO ASK QUESTIONS AND DIRECT TO RELEVANT EXPERTS (20 mins)
Move to breakout (19.45)
Final reflections	19.45 – 19.55	Final reflections and exercise	Final reflections (5 mins) What did you think of the questions asked by other groups? Have any new issues emerged for you? Is there anything you are still unclear about? Jamboard exercise (5 mins) SHARE SCREEN AND ASK PARTICIPANTS TO COMPLETE THE SENTENCE. WRITE ON DIGITAL POST-ITS WHAT EACH PARTICIPANT SAYS. EACH COLOUR POST-IT REPRESENTS A DIFFERENT GROUP’S CONTRIBUTIONS, SO PARTICIPANTS CAN SEE AND REMARK ON WHAT OTHERS ARE WRITING (NOT JUST THEIR GROUP):
Move to plenary (19.55)
Wrap up	19.55 – 20.00	Wrap up	Chair to close the day (5 MINS): Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the next one. Introduce online community and how to get signed up.

Phase one, session two

Tuesday 15 August 2023, 6pm-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants develop an understanding of the vision for a transition to net zero in the transport sector and an understanding of the costs, benefits and challenges associated with that transition. Participants provide views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits.

Phase one, session three

29 August 2023, 6pm-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants develop an understanding of the vision for a transition to net zero in the built environment and construction sectors and an understanding of the costs, benefits and challenges associated with that transition. Participants provide views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits.

Phase one, session four

14 September 2023, 6pm-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants develop an understanding of the vision for a transition to net zero in the land and agriculture sector (with a particular focus on food production) and an understanding of the costs, benefits and challenges associated with that transition. Participants provide views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.00 – 18.10	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (10 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back to the workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Briefly explain who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in session 3 and recaps on key topics – highlighting the suggestions the group made for ensuring costs and benefits were shared fairly. Explains that today we will be focussing on the third and final of the three sectors – land use and agriculture and that their views will help feed into the development of the JTP for the land and agriculture sectors. Emphasising how valuable their role is. Highlight that the topic of land use and agriculture is a big and complex one, and that it might seem a bit removed for some participants – for example, if they do not live in a rural area or have not had much dealings with either land use or agriculture, they might feel that the topic is less relevant to them, compared with transport and buildings. So for the purposes of this session, we will be exploring what land and agriculture means for the food that we eat – that is something that hopefully everyone can relate to. We will therefore explore what the transition to net zero means for how food is produced, through to what types of food we buy and eat. Emphasise that they should approach this topic with open minds – although we reached some conclusions in last two sessions, they might think differently when it comes to this sector. So they have the opportunity to suggest different ideas today. Show the overarching questions that we will seek to answer today: As we transition to net zero… Who should pay for the changes that will be needed to our land use and agriculture, including changes that impact on our food? How can we make that system of payment is fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides re-cap of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality
Move to breakout (18.10)
Table introductions 5 mins	18.10 – 18.15	Introducing participants to new group and reflections on previous workshop.	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please introduce yourself, and share one thing that stood out most from the previous session.
Move to plenary (18.15)
Future land and agriculture sector 10 mins	18.15 – 18.25/30	To introduce the types of changes needed and why they are necessary	CHAIR TO INTRODUCE SPEAKER – ASK PARTICIPANTS TO NOTE DOWN ANY THOUGHTS AND/OR QUESTIONS AS THEY LISTEN, WHICH WE WILL RETURN TO LATER Plenary presentation: Vision for a future land use and agriculture (Scotland’s Rural College) Presentation to help participants understand the land and agriculture sector, the changes that are likely to be needed, and how this impacts on food. Covering: An overview of Scotland’s land and agriculture sector And overview of where our food comes from Future – where we need to get to in order to reach net zero The likely costs and benefits associated with those changes
How different groups might be impacted by the transition 10 mins 5 minute buffer built in	18.25/30 – 18.40	To help participants understand potential inequalities, that the just transition hopes to address	CHAIR TO GIVE PARTICIPANTS A MINUTE TO REFLECT ON PRESENTATION 1 AND WRITE DOWN ANY BURNING THOUGHTS/QUESTIONS BEFORE INTRODUCING SPEAKER. Plenary presentation: Impacts of the transition on different groups (Climate Change Committee). To help participants to understand the impacts of the transition, covering: What challenges does the transition present for different groups What opportunities does the transition present? Factors for participants to consider as they think about fair distribution of costs and benefits.
Move to breakouts (18.40)
Future land and agriculture sector -discussion 25 mins	18.40 – 19.05	Initial views on future costs and their fairness. Opportunity to clarify any points from presentation	We have the opportunity now to reflect on that presentation and to ask questions. What did you think of the future changes that were outlined in the presentations? What was appealing about those changes? What was not appealing about them? You heard that land will need to be used differently, meaning costs for farmers, businesses and consumers. What did you think about those costs? Who do you think would be able pay those costs? And who do you think should pay for those costs? Have you any initial thoughts on how might we make those costs fairer? [Speaker] discussed the different groups that might be impacted as we transition to net zero – what did you think about that? Has this changed how you think about how fair or unfair the changes needed are? How might we make those changes fairer? What did you think about the benefits, or opportunities, of the just transition mentioned in the presentations? Did these raise any new issues for you? Have you any initial thoughts on how we might share the benefits fairly? What questions would like to ask [the speakers]? FACILITATOR TO PREPARE TOP QUESTION (WITH TWO BACK-UP). ENCOURAGE VOLUNTEERS TO ASK QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF GROUP.
BREAK	19.05 – 19.15	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Chair to present screen advising on time to return from break. TECH TEAM KEEP BREAK OUTS OPEN UNTIL END OF THE BREAK.
Move to plenary (19.15)
Q&A 20 mins	19.15 – 19.35	Q&A	Q&A in panel-style, with both presenters. CHAIR TO FACILITATE Q&A SESSION, WITH FACILITATORS ASKING THE QUESTIONS FROM THEIR BREAK-OUT GROUP OR CALLING ON PARTICIPANTS TO.
Move to breakouts (19.35)
Deliberation on key issues 30 mins	19.35 – 20.05	Deliberation on key issues – changes required, impact on different groups, and how that could be made more fair	[10 MINS] We’re now going to look at a Vision for 2040, which describes a future land use and agriculture sector. This Vision is based on the changes that the Scottish Government believes are necessary if we are to reach net zero, and some of these have been mentioned already by [the speakers]. FACILITATOR SHOWS THE SLIDE WITH THE “VISION FOR LAND USE AND AGRICULTURE IN 2040” AND READS THROUGH. REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THE SCENARIO IS BASED ON A VISION FOR SCOTLAND’S FUTURE LAND AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY HOW THAT IMPACTS ON FOOD. As we work towards achieving this vision, who do you think would find the transition easiest? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? As we work towards this vision, who do you think would be at risk of losing out or being left behind? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? [20 MINS] Let’s now think about what life would be like for some specific types of people as we adapt to these changes. We are going to revisit our characters from the previous sessions, and find out a bit more about them. This time, we will understand a bit more about what role food plays in their lives. Let’s look at the first one… SEE SLIDES LABELLED – “CHARACTERS – LAND USE AND AGRICULTURE”. SHOW THESE ON SCREEN. AIM TO COVER 2 CHARACTERS IF THERE IS TIME. How do you think this person would feel about the future vision for the land and agriculture sector, and the changes it means to our food? In what way might they be impacted differently to others? PROBE ON ASPECTS SUCH AS BEING ENCOURAGED TO THINK ABOUT THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF FOOD AND WASTING LESS FOOD What sorts of costs might have an impact on this person? PROMPT IF NEEDED/RELEVANT DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER YOU ARE COVERING: Remember we are talking about costs such as Changing farming practices to make them more sustainable (LORRAINE) Cost of producing and selling food (LORRAINE, NADEEM & AJAY) Buying more locally produced, quality, sustainable food (ALICE, MARIA, DAVID & SARAH, NADEEM & AJAY) Having access to space to grow food (DAVID & SARAH) Bearing all that in mind, should this person be responsible for the costs associated with the transition? (IF THEY SHOULD) What makes you say that? Which costs? (IF NOT) What makes you say that? And who would be better placed to contribute to those costs? What would help to ensure this person benefits from the changes to the land and agriculture sector, and isn’t left behind or disadvantaged?
BREAK	20.05 – 20.15	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Facilitator to advice their group on the return time (back into plenary).
Deliberation on key issues 30 minutes	20.15-20.45	Deliberation on key issues – specific costs areas and how they should be shared fairly	DURING THESE FINAL DISCUSSIONS ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT ON THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THOSE OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR GROUP, AND THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THEY DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS EXERCISE. We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. We will do this in the same way we did in the previous session. Remember, for tonight, we’re focussing only on the changes that will be needed in the land and agriculture sector. Thinking about the costs of the transition to net zero in this sector, who do you now think should pay those costs? PROMPT IF NEEDED: Should it be government, farmers, food producers, the public? What about a food producer who passes the costs on and increases food prices? What about someone who chooses to buy food that is not locally produced? What about someone who has specific needs in their diet? Has your opinion on that changed at all since we started the session? IF YES What has led you to change your mind? Is your view the same for all of the costs, or are there some costs that you think should be paid for differently? How can we make that system of payment fair? IF NOT COVERED ABOVE: Should the system of payment be based on: Levels of emission? Ability to pay? Ability to choose? Ability to make changes / have a say on what food they buy? Addressing inequality? (PROBE FOR DETAILS) Something else? (PROBE FULLY FOR DETAILS) How can we make sure that everyone benefits? What particular groups might require additional time and resource to be spent to ensure they benefit from these changes? What sorts of barriers need to be removed to ensure benefits are shared fairly? Finally, I’d like to revisit the exercise we did the first session when we described what a just transition means to each of use. Based on everything we have discussed so far, I want you to answer the same question – but this time, if you can, trying thinking about the land and agriculture sector and specifically focus on food.
Move to plenary (20.45)
Feedback in plenary	20.45-20.55	Participants hear from each other	Each facilitator to give a recap on the key themes coming out of their breakout discussions – focussing on the key themes of how we share costs and benefits fairly.
Close 5 mins	20.55-21.00	Close	Chair to close the day: Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the next one. Invite participants to go to the online community to rewatch any presentation and keep the discussion going Summary of next steps, reminder of how important continued engagement is. Thank participants and close

Phase one, session five

30 September 2023, 10am – 1pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants consolidate their views on the costs, benefits and challenges associated with the transition and form wider conclusions on the cross-cutting elements relating to a just transition (i.e. fairness). Findings from this session will feed into the final concluding session.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	09.30-09.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	09.50-10.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	10.00 – 10.10	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (10 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back to the workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Briefly explain who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in session 4 and recaps on key topics – highlighting the suggestions the group made for ensuring costs and benefits were shared fairly in the L&A sector (including findings from the online community). Explains that today we will be switching the focus from specific sectors to broader themes, focusing on how we ensure the costs and benefits of the transition to net zero are distributed fairly. Explain purpose of this session is to help us start to bring everything together and form conclusions (in preparation for the final session). Show the overarching questions that we are seeking to answer at the end of the process: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? How can we make that system of payment is fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides re-cap of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Recap on sector sessions and playback broad themes emerging. Explain that the purpose of today’s session is to start to look at how changes in these sectors might interact with each other and their impacts on peoples’ everyday lives. Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality.
Move to breakout (10.10)
Table introductions 15 mins	10.10 – 10.25	Introducing participants to new group and initial discussions around fairness.	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please introduce yourself, and share one thing that stood out most from the last session. Throughout this process we’ve talked about ways to ensure a just transition to net zero, which means making sure the costs and benefits are distributed fairly. We will come back to this later in the session, but for now I just want to ask, based on everything you’ve heard so far about the transition to net zero, what does the word ‘fairness’ mean to you? ALLOW PARTICIPANTS A MINUTE TO REFLECT ON THAT QUESTION, AND NOTE DOWN THEIR THOUGHTS ON A PIECE OF PAPER BEFORE ASKING THEM TO SHARE. FACILIATTOR SHARE FIRST PART OF THE MIRO BOARD AND ADD ON POST-ITS THE WORDS/PHRASES THAT COME UP. What words or phrases come to mind? (IF NOT COVERED ABOVE) What does it mean for the run up to 2040, and the changes needed to achieve the visions we’ve been looking at? What about after 2040? You might remember in session 1 we asked who you thought should take the lead in tackling climate change. Should those who take the lead also make the decisions about how we tackle climate change? IF YES – Who do you think should take a lead and make the decisions? IF NO – Who do you think should take the lead? And who should make the decisions? Does something being fair depend more on who decides, or what the decision is? Or is it about both? What makes you say that? IF TIME – What did you think of the chair’s recap? Did it seem an accurate summary of what you’ve been hearing/saying during these discussions? Was there anything missing?
Move to plenary (10.25)
Introduce future scenarios 10 mins	10.25 – 10.35	To introduce the future scenarios	Plenary presentation: Future scenarios (Ipsos chair) The chair will talk everyone through the future scenarios and provide a brief explanation of the plan for the remainder of the session (emphasising that it is largely over to them now to deliberate, with the help of Ipsos facilitators). An overview of the scenarios are: Scenario 1 – those who earn the most pay the most Scenario 2 – those who emit the most pay the most Scenario 3 – there are incentives for making low carbon choices Chair will explain that the scenarios are based on the sorts of changes we have been discussing in the sector sessions, and the different ways in which these changes might be brought about. The chair will emphasise that these are all things that are being considered or are already being done around the world, and are options that could be considered in Scotland. The chair will remind participants that the task is not to focus so much on how likely or desirable the changes are in Scotland, but how we make sure the costs and benefits of these changes are distributed fairly IF they were to happen. Will also emphasise that the aim is not for participants to choose the “best” scenario or decide which once should be implemented – we are using these as a way of helping participants to think differently about the three big questions we are trying to answer.
Move to breakouts (10.35)
Future scenarios – part 1 discussion 40 mins	10.35 – 11.15	Exploring first scenario in detail	SCENARIOS SUMMARY. EACH FACILITATOR TO FORCUS ON TWO SCENARIOS, BUT WITH THE OPTION TO COVER THE OTHERS WITH ANY REMAINING TIME: FACILITATORS TAKE ASSIGNED SCENARIO FOR FIRST BREAKOUT: FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN AND GO TO FIRST SCENARIO IN MIRO, USING DIGITAL POST-ITS TO RECORD CROSS-CUTTING THOUGHTS / EMERGING CONCLUSIONS THAT ARISE DURING DISCUSSION, PLAYING THESE BACK TO PARTICIPANTS. The first scenario we are going to look at is [read title]. We’ll read through it together and then have a discussion about it. FACILITATOR READ THROUGH SCENARIO AND ALLOW TIME FOR PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT/NOTE THINGS DOWN. Initial reactions to scenario (10 mins) Before we go into the detail, I want to get your initial reactions to this scenario. How did you feel listening to it? What made you feel this way? Which parts of the scenario really stand out to you? Why? Is there anything that surprises you? What aspects – if any – are appealing? What aspects – if any – are not appealing? How fair or unfair does this scenario seem to you? What makes you say that? PROBE ON: What aspects in particular seem fair? What aspects in particular seem unfair? Who is it unfair to? Scenario + individual impacts (15 mins) Let’s now think about this scenario in terms of your own live, if you are comfortable sharing. First, thinking about where you live (including the type of home you live in and other buildings you visit around where you live: e.g. where you work, taking your children to school, where you go for medical appointments, where you go for leisure activities), how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Now thinking about how you travel around, how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO TRANSPORT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? And now thinking about food – what you buy and where you buy it from – how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO LAND/AGRI SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Scenario + character impacts (15 mins) Now let’s look at this scenario in relation to our characters. FACILITATOR MOVE ALONG ON MIRO BOARD TO CHARACTER SUMMARY CARDS AND READ THROUGH THESE, THEN MOVE ALONG TO SCENARIO AND CHARACTERS SHOWN TOGETHER WITH ICONS. FACILITATOR REFER TO EACH BOX IN SCENARIO AND ASK: Who (if anyone) do you think could benefit from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else benefit? Who (if anyone) do you think could lose out from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else lose out? PLACE GREEN CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL BENEFIT. PLACE RED CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL LOSE OUT. Who (i.e. which character) do you think would pay: The biggest share of the costs for this? PLACE LARGE MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON The smallest share of the costs for this? PLACE SMALL MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON LET PARTICIPANTS KNOW THAT THEY MIGHT NOT THINK ANY OF THE CHARACTERS SHOULD PAY, AND THEY CAN ADD GROUPS THAT THEY THINK SHOULD PAY USING POST-ITS (E.G. GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE). Is that fair or unfair? [IF UNFAIR] What would need to happen to make this fairer? What would you change about this scenario to make it fairer? Would you take anything away? Would you add anything in? And what would need to happen to make sure everyone benefits from these changes? ASK OPENLY FIRST, THEN PROBE ON: Is there any other support (not financial) that you think would be important? (IF NEEDED, for example, information sharing or advice services) What would this support look like as part of a just transition?
Stay in breakouts (11.15)
BREAK	11.15 – 11.25	BREAK	Facilitator sends own group on break and advises on return time (ensuring everyone gets at least 10 minutes)
Stay in breakouts (11.25)
Future scenarios – part 2 discussion 40 mins	11.25 – 12.05	Exploring second scenario in detail	SCENARIOS SUMMARY. EACH FACILITATOR TO FORCUS ON TWO SCENARIOS, BUT WITH THE OPTION TO COVER THE OTHERS WITH ANY REMAINING TIME: FACILITATORS TAKE ASSIGNED SCENARIO FOR SECOND BREAKOUT: FACILITATOR TO USE DIGITAL POST-ITS TO RECORD CROSS-CUTTING THEMES THAT EMERGE DURING DISCUSSION, PLAYING THESE BACK TO PARTICIPANTS. The first scenario we are going to look at is [read title]. We’ll read through it together and then have a discussion about it. FACILITATOR READ THROUGH SCENARIO AND ALLOW TIME FOR PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT/NOTE THINGS DOWN. Initial reactions to scenario (10 mins) Before we go into the detail, I want to get your initial reactions to this scenario. How did you feel listening to it? What made you feel this way? Which parts of the scenario really stand out to you? Why? Is there anything that surprises you? What aspects – if any – are appealing? What aspects – if any – are not appealing? How fair or unfair does this scenario seem to you? What makes you say that? PROBE ON: What aspects in particular seem fair? What aspects in particular seem unfair? Who is it unfair to? Scenario + individual impacts (15 mins) Let’s now think about this scenario in terms of your own lives, if you are comfortable sharing. First, thinking about where you live (including the type of home you live in and other buildings you visit around where you live: e.g. where you work, taking your children to school, where you go for medical appointments, where you go for leisure activities), how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Now thinking about how you travel around, how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO TRANSPORT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? And now thinking about food – what you buy and where you buy it from – how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO LAND/AGRI SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Scenario + character impacts (15 mins) Now let’s look at this scenario in relation to our characters. FACILITATOR MOVE ALONG ON MIRO BOARD TO CHARACTER SUMMARY CARDS AND READ THROUGH THESE, THEN MOVE ALONG TO SCENARIO AND CHARACTERS SHOWN TOGETHER WITH ICONS. FACILITATOR REFER TO EACH BOX IN SCENARIO AND ASK: Who (if anyone) do you think could benefit from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else benefit? Who (if anyone) do you think could lose out from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else lose out? PLACE GREEN CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL BENEFIT. PLACE RED CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL LOSE OUT. Who (i.e. which character) you think would pay: The biggest share of the costs for this? PLACE LARGE MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON The smallest share of the costs for this? PLACE SMALL MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON LET PARTICIPANTS KNOW THAT THEY MIGHT NOT THINK ANY OF THE CHARACTERS SHOULD PAY, AND THEY CAN ADD GROUPS THAT THEY THINK SHOULD PAY USING POST-ITS (E.G. GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE). Is that fair or unfair? [IF UNFAIR] What would need to happen to make this fairer? What would you change about this scenario to make it fairer? Would you take anything away? Would you add anything in? And what would need to happen to make sure everyone benefits from these changes? ASK OPENLY FIRST, THEN PROBE ON: Is there any other support (not financial) that you think would be important? (IF NEEDED, for example, information sharing or advice services) What would this support look like as part of a just transition?
Stay in breakouts (12.05)
BREAK 10 mins	12.05 – 12.15	BREAK	Facilitator sends group on break. Halfway through break, tech support to close breakouts and bring everyone back to plenary.
Move to plenary (12.15)
Feedback	12.15 – 12.25	Participants hear from others	Chair invites facilitator to feedback on group discussions, briefly summarising scenarios explored and what the group’s conclusions were around how fair/unfair they are and what would need to be in place to ensure fairness.
Move to breakouts (12.25)
Emerging conclusions	12.25 – 12.55	Emerging conclusions captured (preparing for final session)	Reflections on feedback (5 mins) Before we get into our final task, I just want to get your thoughts on what the other groups have been discussing: Did you hear anything that surprised you? Was there anything you particularly agreed or disagreed with? Did you hear anything that raises new issues for you? FACILITATOR NOTE DOWN ANY NEW ISSUES RAISED. Forming conclusions (20-25 mins) We’re now going to revisit the discussion we had earlier about what fairness means, to help us start forming conclusions around how we ensure the costs and benefits of the transition to net zero – in each of the sectors we’ve been looking at – are fair. FACILITATOR SHARE DIGITAL WHITEBOARD AND READ OUT POST-ITS THAT WERE WRITTEN AT THE START. THEN BRING IN POST-ITS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE SESSION. Our final task is to start to tidy these up into conclusions, i.e. what we think the Scottish Government should consider as they draft the Just Transition Plans for each sector. Is there anything here that we want to change or reword? IF YES – What would you like it to say instead? Does this apply to all the sectors? IF NO – which sectors does it apply to? Is there anything here that we’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? Is there anything we want to add? REFER TO ANY NEW ISSUES RAISED. IF YES – What should we write? Does this apply to all the sectors? IF NO – which sectors does it apply to? Of everything here, what is most important to you? Why is that? Revisit S1 Jamboard (5 mins) IF TIME, FACILITATOR SHOW JAMBOARD FROM SESSION 1 SHOWING INITIAL THOUGHTS ON WHAT A FAIR TRANSITION TO NET ZERO MEANS. Looking at this again, now that we’re further through the process, do you think what we’ve written down today is similar or different to what we said at the beginning? What are the similarities? What are the differences? IF ANY DIFFERENCES – Why do you think this is different now?
Move to plenary
Close 5 mins	12.55-13.00	Close	Chair to close the day: Brief overview of what has been covered. Invite participants to go to the online community for final activities before last session Summary of next steps (final session) and what to expect in final session. Thank participants and close

Phase one, session six

5 October 2023, 6-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants review, ratify and finalise their conclusions.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 15 mins	18.00 – 18.15	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (15 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back for the final workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Briefly explain who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in previous sessions and recaps on key points. Explains that today we will be bringing everything together to answer the overarching questions and will spend most of our time in breakouts: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? How can we make that system of payment is fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Recap on x-cutting session and present summary of the conclusions that the group started to form (from S5 post-its, which Ipsos will have combined into one set and presented as responses to each of the overarching Qs). Explain that the purpose of today’s session is to bring everything together and finalise these conclusions that we have started to form. Chair to explain how the conclusions will be developed from here – today is the chance for everyone to have their say on the what the conclusions should say, with the wording that is most suitable etc. But acknowledge that there may be points where views differ, and some of the groups may come up with different wording from each other. Although it would be great if everyone agreed, it’s okay if they don’t. In the final report that Ipsos produce, we will make clear any differences in view around these conclusions. Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality.
Move to breakout (18.15)
Table introductions and ratifying conclusions on Q1 20 mins	18.15 – 18.35	Introducing participants to new group and ratifying conclusions on Q1	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please introduce yourself and where you currently live As the chair said, we’re going to spend most of this workshop finalising our conclusions on each of the overarching questions. As we do this, we’ll think about each of the sectors too. FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH DRAFT RESPONSES TO FIRST QUESTION: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? This is a summary of responses that we have pulled together based on what you’ve said in previous sessions. These conclusions should be in your words, so I’m going to ask what (if anything) you’d like to change, add or take away to make sure it reflects what you think, based on what you’ve heard throughout this process. If we don’t agree on anything, that’s absolutely okay, we will discuss it as a group if that’s the case FACILITATOR TO CONTINUALLY CHECK WHETHER THERE IS AGREEMENT ON ANY CHANGES OR IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, CAPTURE DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO REFLECT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Is there any wording you want to change that’s written here? What would you like it to say instead? Why is that change important to you? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there any wording you’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there anything you’d like to add that isn’t here? What would you like to add? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? What do you think about the statements related to how… The Scottish Government should pay? Businesses should pay? Citizens should pay? Of everything that’s written here, what feels the most important to you? What makes you say that?
Move to plenary (18.35)
Feedback on Q1 10 mins	18.35 – 18.45	Feedback on Q1	Chair invites each facilitator to share screen and summarise the group’s changes / reasoning.
Move to breakout (18.45)
Reflections on Q1 edits and ratifying conclusions on Q2 10 mins	18.45 – 18.55	Reflections on Q1 edits and ratifying conclusions on Q2	Reflecting on other edits (10 mins) Before we get into the next question, what – if anything – stood out most to you from the edits made by other groups? Does anything surprise you? What makes you say that? Is there a change/lack of change you agree with? What makes you say that? Was there a change/lack of change you disagree with? What makes you say that? IF NEEDED, FACILITATOR TO REITERATE CHAIR’S REMARKS ABOUT HOW THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE REPORT (I.E. THEY WILL REFLECT THE GROUP’S EDITS BUT ALSO THE RANGE OF VIEWS AROUND THEM, SO IT’S IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH PARTICULAR WORDING SO THAT WE CAN EXPLAIN THIS IN THE REPORT). Before we take a quick break, I just wanted to check that we’re still happy with our own edits, or do we want to make any further changes? FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH GROUP’S EDITS IF GROUP WISHES TO MAKE CHANGES. PROBE ON REASONS FOR ANY FURTHER CHANGES AND CHECK ON AGREEMENT.
Ratifying conclusions on Q2 20 mins	18.55- 19.15	Ratifying conclusions on Q2	FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH DRAFT RESPONSES TO SECOND QUESTION: How can we make that system of payment is fair? Moving onto question 2, this is a summary of responses that we have pulled together based on what you’ve said in previous sessions. FACILITATOR TO CONTINUALLY CHECK WHETHER THERE IS AGREEMENT ON ANY CHANGES OR IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, CAPTURE DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO REFLECT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Is there any wording you want to change that’s written here? What would you like it to say instead? Why is that change important to you? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there any wording you’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there anything you’d like to add that isn’t here? What would you like to add? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? If these points were all put in place, would this feel like a fair system of payment? What, if anything, is missing? Of everything that’s written here, what feels the most important to you? What makes you say that?
Stay in breakouts (19.15)
BREAK 10 mins	19.15 – 19.30	BREAK	Facilitator to advise on time to return from break
Move to plenary (19.30)
Feedback on Q2 10 mins	19.30 – 19.40	Feedback on Q2	Chair invites each facilitator to share screen and summarise the group’s changes / reasoning. Chair introduces poll and asks participants to answer this question again: “Who do you think should take the lead in tackling climate change in Scotland? All individuals living in Scotland Certain groups of people living in Scotland (e.g. those with the highest carbon emissions) Businesses in Scotland The Scottish Government All of these groups None of these groups Chair closes poll but results not shown. Chair explains that they will be presented again later.
Move to breakouts (19.40)
Reflections on Q2 edits 10 mins	19.40 – 19.50	Reflections on Q2 edits	We’ll move onto the final question soon. Before we do, what – if anything – stood out most to you from the edits made by other groups? Does anything surprise you? What makes you say that? Is there a change/lack of change you agree with? What makes you say that? Was there a change/lack of change you disagree with? What makes you say that? IF NEEDED, FACILITATOR TO REITERATE CHAIR’S REMARKS ABOUT HOW THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE REPORT (I.E. THEY WILL REFLECT THE GROUP’S EDITS BUT ALSO THE RANGE OF VIEWS AROUND THEM, SO IT’S IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH PARTICULAR WORDING SO THAT WE CAN EXPLAIN THIS IN THE REPORT). We’ll take a break shortly, but before that I just wanted to check that we’re still happy with our own edits, or do we want to make any further changes? FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH GROUP’S EDITS IF GROUP WISHES TO MAKE CHANGES. PROBE ON REASONS FOR ANY FURTHER CHANGES AND CHECK ON AGREEMENT.
Stay in breakouts (19.55)
Ratifying conclusions on Q3 20 mins	19-50-20.10	Ratifying conclusions on Q3	FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH DRAFT RESPONSES TO THIRD QUESTION: How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Moving onto our final question, this is a summary of responses that we have pulled together based on what you’ve said in previous sessions. FACILITATOR TO CONTINUALLY CHECK WHETHER THERE IS AGREEMENT ON ANY CHANGES OR IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, CAPTURE DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO REFLECT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Is there any wording you want to change that’s written here? What would you like it to say instead? Why is that change important to you? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there any wording you’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there anything you’d like to add that isn’t here? What would you like to add? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? If these points were all put in place, would you feel like everyone has been given the opportunity to benefit? What, if anything, is missing? Of everything that’s written here, what feels the most important to you? What makes you say that?
Move to plenary (20.10)
Feedback on Q3 edits and poll 10 mins	20.10 – 20.20	Feedback on Q3 edits and poll	Chair invites each facilitator to share screen and summarise the group’s changes / reasoning. Chair presents slide showing S1/S6 poll and comments on results/any shifts. Introduces final breakout.
Move to breakouts (20.20)
Reflections on Q3 edits, poll results and projective exercise 10-15 mins (Facilitators to judge length based on how much they say in the reflections section)	20.20 – 20.30-35	Participants hear from others	Reflections on Q3 edits (5-10 mins) What – if anything – stood out most to you from the edits made by other groups? Does anything surprise you? What makes you say that? Is there a change/lack of change you agree with? What makes you say that? Was there a change/lack of change you disagree with? What makes you say that? And are still happy with our own edits, or do we want to make any further changes? FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH GROUP’S EDITS IF GROUP WISHES TO MAKE CHANGES. PROBE ON REASONS FOR ANY FURTHER CHANGES AND CHECK ON AGREEMENT Poll results and reflections on process (5-10 mins) What did you make of the poll results? FACILITATOR SHARE SLIDE WITH POLL RESULTS FROM S1 AND S6 Did these surprise you? Why/why not? What do you think of the results this time compared with session 1? Thinking about this poll, has your own view changed on who should take the lead, or has it stayed the same? Why is that? IF CHANGED – At what point in this process would you say your view changed? What prompted the change? IF NOT CHANGED – Were there any points in the process that strengthened your view? And now thinking more broadly about a fair distribution of costs and benefits, has your view changed at any point during this process? Why is that? IF CHANGED – At what point in this process would you say your view changed? What prompted the change? IF NOT CHANGED – Were there any points in the process that strengthened your view? IF ANY TIME REMAINING: Before we finish, I’d be interested in hearing your reflections on this process overall. What, if anything, have you enjoyed most about being on this panel? What, if anything, have you not enjoyed as much? What, if anything, has been the most challenging part?
Move to plenary (20.30/35)
Close	20.30/35 – 20.40/45	Thank participants	Chair to thank participants for their efforts over the 6 sessions, explain next steps including final online community activity (see below), and reporting. Ipsos to thank participants and close the session. Final activity for the online community* On the online community, we will ask you to write a postcard to yourself as if you were in the year 2040. Imagine you are writing back to yourself in the current moment – in 2023 – about the changes that have been made in Scotland: what has it meant for how you travel around in 2040? The house you live in? The food you eat? And how you feel about these changes?

Phase two, session one

Wednesday 6 March 2024, 6.30pm-8.30pm

Discussion structure	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 20 mins	18.00-18.20	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	18.20-18.30	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.30 – 18.40	Welcome and introduction of process	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone to the dialogue (10 mins): Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants to the session. Chair provides a summary of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here. Shares aim of research: To explore the public’s views on how the changes in the transport and the built environment sectors are done fairly to ensure a just transition to net zero. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Explains purpose of this session is to introduce everyone to the topic, explain some key concepts and to start setting out the issues for discussion – including what we mean by net zero and just transition, why these sectors and the development of just transition plans, and how these workshops fit into other public engagement that has been happening on Scotland’s just transition to net zero. Emphasising how valuable their role is to inform the development of these plans. Chair shows overarching plan for each session: Session 1 – introduction Session 2 – transport focus Session 3 – built environment focus Chair provides summary of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Explain that today’s session will mostly be about listening and learning and encourage participants to jot down their thoughts and questions, explaining that there will be a Q&A at the end. Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.40)
Table introductions	18.40 – 18.50	Introducing participants to group, gathering initial thoughts and feelings.	Break-out group introductions (10 mins) FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THANKS PARTICIPANTS FOR JOINING. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. ASK EACH PERSON TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND SHARE ONE HOPE OR FEAR THEY HAVE ABOUT TAKING PART. As you heard in the introduction, we are here to discuss Scotland’s Just Transition to Net zero and you’ll learn more about that this evening. But before we get into it, what does “net zero” mean to you? Is it something you’ve thought about much before today? And before being invited to this discussion, had you come across the term “just transition to net zero?” IF YES – what did you think about it? IF NO – what do you think it’s about? Do you have any questions at this stage? NOTE THESE DOWN AND EXPLAIN THAT THERE WILL BE A Q&A TOWARDS THE END.
Move to plenary (18.50)
Presentation on climate change and the move to net zero 10 mins	18.50 – 19.00	Introduction to key issues around climate change and the transition to net zero	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Climate change and the move to net zero. CXC BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the key concepts relating to climate change, net zero and to outline the SG’s plans generally: What we know about climate change/the climate emergency and its impacts Some key terms – net zero, adaptation, mitigation – and why these are happening The Scottish Government’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2045 and what that means High emitting sectors: highlighting that transport, the built environment and construction, land and agriculture, and energy are highest emitting in Scotland (to set context for our focus on the first two).
Stay in plenary (19.00)
Presentation on just transition 10 mins	19.00 – 19.15 5 minute buffer built in here to allow for intros/ crossover	Introduction to just transition	Plenary presentation 2 (10 mins): Just Transition and JTPs. Scottish Government BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the concept of just transition: A brief history of Just Transition and what it means The two sectors we are focussing on and why (drawing from fact sheets with salient stats for each sector) Priority themes within each sector What a Just Transition Plan is, and why they are needed in these sectors Current status of the plans and a reminder of what we want the public to tell us (i.e. to share views on policies that could be adopted as part of the JTP in the transport and built environment sectors)
BREAK (19.15)
Chair displays break time on screen and encourages participants to take a screen break 19.15-19.25 (10 mins)
Return to plenary (19.25)
Presentation on public engagement so far	19.25 – 19.35	Overview of the range of public engagement already carried out	Plenary presentation 3 (10 mins): Findings from public engagement so far. Chair, Ipsos Scotland BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Provide an overview of what public engagement has happened so far, and what it’s told us: Summarising findings from phase 1 of the Just Transition Dialogue, which answered these overarching questions: Who should pay for the changes that will need to be made How do we make that system of payment fair How do we make sure everyone benefits Summarising findings from wider public engagement Highlighting the gaps / what we don’t yet know enough about i.e. views on some of the specific policies or actions that might be put into place in Scotland. Explaining that this is what the group will be focussing on.
Move to breakouts (19.35)
Reflections and question forming 25 mins	19.35 – 20.00	Reflect on presentations and gather questions	Reflections on presentations (15 mins): FACILITATOR REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THE PRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO WATCH BACK AT ANY TIME. AIM FOR ABOUT 5 MINS OF DISCUSSION PER PRESENTATION. ORDER FOR GROUPS 1-2: CXC, SG, IPSOS ORDER FOR GROUP 3: IPSOS, SG, CXC What did you think of the presentation [CXC] gave on climate change and net zero? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on net zero – i.e. when we asked “what does net zero mean to you”) Is anything still unclear? FACILITATOR MAKE NOTE OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS What did you think of the presentation [SG] gave on just transition and the just transition plans? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on just transition i.e. when we asked what they thought this term meant) Is anything still unclear? FACILITATOR MAKE NOTE OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS What did you think of the presentation [Ipsos] gave on findings from previous public engagement? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Is anything still unclear? FACILITATOR MAKE NOTE OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS Question gathering (5 mins): What questions do we have for our speakers? REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY PART OF THE SESSION (INCLUDING CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION, PROCESS, THEIR ROLE ETC). What are our priority questions? Who would like to ask this question on behalf of our group? ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO VOLUNTEER TO ASK QUESTION (OFFER TO WRITE IT OUT IN THE CHAT FOR THEM SO THEY CAN JUST READ IT OUT). CAN HAVE ONE PERSON ASK ALL OR DIFFERENT PEOPLE ASKING. FACILITATOR CAN ASK ON BEHALF OF GROUP IF NO VOLUNTEERS. GATHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY PART OF THE SESSION AND ASK GROUP TO PRIORITISE 2-3 FOR Q&A (REASSURE THAT OTHER QUESTIONS WILL BE PUT TO SPEAKERS AFTER SESSION AND WRITTEN RESPONSES PROVIDED OVER EMAIL OR RECAPPED IN NEXT SESSION).
Move to plenary (20.00)
Q&A 20 mins	20.00 – 20.20	Q&A with experts	CHAIR TO CALL ON FACILITATORS IN TURN TO ASK QUESTIONS AND DIRECT TO RELEVANT EXPERTS
Stay in plenary (20.20)
Final reflections and wrap up 10 mins	20.20 – 20.30	Final reflections and exercise	Chair to thank experts and participants for taking part in the discussion and introduce final plenary exercise ( 5 mins) On screen, you’ll see a sentence and all we want you to do is complete this sentence in your own words based on what you’ve heard tonight. There is a character limit so try and keep it short and snappy! To me, a just transition to net zero means… Chair to comment on results before closing the session (5 mins): Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the date/time of the next one.

Phase two, session two

Thursday 15 March 2024, 6.30pm-9pm

Overarching objective: To introduce potential changes to our transport system including road user charges, and to test views on different approaches to this in terms of their fairness.

Discussion	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 20 mins	18.00-18.20	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	18.20-18.30	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.30 – 18.40	Welcome and introduction to this session	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back. Chair provides a summary of the overall purpose of the process, and why we are here: To learn about the transition to net zero, focussing on the transport and built environment sectors. To discuss how the transition to net zero in those sectors can be as fair as possible. To help the Scottish Government make some important decisions as it plans for net zero. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, note-takers and any observers. Shows overarching plan/outcome for each session: Session 1 – Introduction Session 2 – Transport Session 3 – Built environment and construction Recap on what was discussed last week, including any strong themes from the Q&A. Explains purpose of this session is to focus on the transport sector. Participants will learn more about why we need to make changes to our transport system, what sorts of changes they might be, and some specific approaches that the SG are interested in your views on. Emphasise that the purpose of these discussion is to think about how fair these change are, as this is central part of achieving a just transition. Findings from this session will help SG to understand how fair, or unfair, you feel certain actions are – and to hear your ideas about how to make them fair. Summary of today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.40)
Role of transport in your life 15 mins	18.40 – 18.55	Introducing participants to group, understanding their current transport behaviour	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please tell everyone your name and where you live. As you heard, today we will be discussing transport. So let’s start off by understanding the ways that everyone uses transport at the moment. What forms of transport do you regularly use? PROBE FOR DETAILS e.g. what types of public transport, whether petrol/electric car etc We will be discussing some of the changes to our transport system that will be required to reach net zero. What do you think some of these might be? PROMPT IF NOT MENTIONED And what changes to people’s behaviours might be required? How do you feel about those potential changes? Do they feel fair to you? PROBE ON REASONS
Move to plenary (18.55)
Presentation on road user charging 10 mins	18.55 – 19.05	Help participants understand why charging is necessary	Plenary presentation: How can we reduce our reliance on cars? Presentation to help participants understand why we are focussing on actions related to road users and to introduce road user charging. Coverage of presentation: What needs to change? – why we need to reduce our reliance on cars What are the solutions? – encourage sustainable transport and discouraging car use Transport Demand Management – what it is and how it works Current taxation (to highlight that this is separate from RUC) Examples of RUC
Move to breakout (19.05)
Discussion on road user charging 15 mins	19.05 – 19.20	To understand overall views on charging and to set up key considerations for the discussion on specific policies.	We have the opportunity now to reflect on and discuss your views on what you heard. We are going to look at some specific examples of road user charging later, so that we can discuss how it might work. But first… How do you feel about the idea of road user charging in general? PROBE What are the benefits, if any? What are the drawbacks, if any? Who would be most/least impacted? PROBE around dependency on cars vs choosing to drive, urban/rural location, access to other form of transport, higher/lower income etc How fair or unfair does it generally feel? What makes you say that? PROBE around what is driving their views on fairness – affordability, location, ability to choose, equal treatment, paying for what you contribute? What would make road user charging fair? IF NECESSARY What would a “best case” charging scenario look like for you? NOTE – IF PARTICIPANTS RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT 20 MIN NEIGHBOURHOODS, OR HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY MEAN RESTRICTING WHERE WE CAN DRIVE, YOU CAN SAY: “The idea behind 20 minute neighbourhoods is to create thriving, positive places and tackle inequalities by improving access to local facilities. It is not about restricting movement or ability to travel, but is based on better provision of local services and amenities that reduce the need to travel. The idea is flexible and should be adapted to support local needs and context, and effective community engagement is a key part of it.”
BREAK 19.20-19.30 (10 mins)
Return to breakouts (19.30)
Reviewing different charging approaches 45 mins	19.30 – 20.15	To test the acceptability and fairness of policy options	We are now going to look at how road user charging might be applied in Scotland. The Scottish Government is currently exploring options for how car demand management could be applied in future. It has carried out research exploring how different options could work, and is reviewing the existing powers that local authorities have to ensure these are fit for purpose in the future. As part of these considerations we are now interested in your views on road user charging options, including what they might mean for you and your household, and for other people across Scotland. There are two potential approaches that we are going to look at. These are based on approaches that have happened elsewhere. I am going to show you each option on screen, and after each one we will have a discussion about it. As you will see, these are fairly brief descriptions and are not shown as fully formed ideas. That is because we want to open up discussion about how approaches like these might work, how fair they feel, and what else you think should be considered. These workshops are part of the process of developing these policies, so we do invite questions and even challenge about these. ORDER OF THE OPTIONS TO BE ROTATED BETWEEN GROUPS FACILITATOR TO HAVE SLIDES THAT HAVE MOCKED-UP DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TWO OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: *Option 1: UK National road pricing. This would involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven. The pricing system would cover all of Scotland’s roads, but the cost would vary depending on factors like the weight of the vehicle and the user’s disability status and place of residence – for example, urban residents may be charged at a different level than rural residents. It would be measured and monitored using vehicle tracking technology or mile logging (at MOT control)* The amount paid would range from 3-10p per miles driven. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. This type of system would be implemented by the UK Government. NOTE: If asked about how this apples to SG, explain that “The Scottish Government would be involved in discussions about future systems, and would use any evidence (such as what this group tells us) to continue to press the UK Government for a fair and progressive future transport finance system.” *Option 2: Urban local road user charging.* This would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area. When it is in place would depend on the local circumstances – for example, it may be applied at certain times of the day to coincide with when public transport is available. This could apply to large urban and suburban areas such as Edinburgh or Glasgow metropolitan areas. It would be measured and monitored using number plate recognition or vehicle tracking technology. The charge would be approximately £5-15 per day. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. Similar systems are already in place in London and Milan. This type of system would be implemented by local authorities (they already have the power to do this). AFTER EACH OPTION, ASK THE FOLLOWING: What do you think of this option? Why do you feel that way? What are the benefits? What groups might benefit from this? PROBE Cyclists, pedestrians, EV owners, people living urban/rural areas, local residents? What are the drawbacks? What groups might be negatively impacted? PROBE Petrol/diesel owners, local residents, people living urban/rural areas, people travelling to/from urban areas etc? Overall, how fair or unfair does it feel? If this was to be put in place, what would make it more fair? PROBE What about: Where it applies? When it applies (days, times, etc)? Who it applies to / who is exempt? The way it is implemented / monitored? How much is charged? How the money is used? Information and communication about it? CHARACTERS AFTER GOING THROUGH EACH OPTION, FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THE CHARACTERS Let’s now think about what this would mean for some specific types of people. I’ll show these on screen and will read through them with you. SHOW CHARECTORS ON SCREEN, ONE BY ONE, EACH GROUP COVERING 1-2 CHARACTERS. ORDER: How do you think this person would feel about Option 1 / Option 2? Would it be fair that this person pays / doesn’t pay? What would make that more fair?
BREAK 20.15-20.25 (10 mins)
Move to breakouts (20.25)
Conclusion-forming 25 mins	20.25-20.50	To bring everything together and form conclusions	We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. Working together, I’d like you answer this question: “If road user charging is introduced, what needs to be in place to make it fair?” REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT IN THIS FINAL SECTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ROAD USERS CHARGING IN GENERAL, NOT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC OPTIONS ABOVE (BUT THEY CAN REFER TO THOSE IF THEY LIKE). ASK PARTICIPANTS TO COME UP WITH THREE STATEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THIS OVERARCHING QUESTIONS. PARTICIPANTS START BY CALLING OUT THEIR RESPONSES, WHICH ARE NOTED DOWN ON VIRTUAL POST ITS. THEY THEN DISCUSS / RANK THE 3 THAT THEY FEEL ARE MOST IMPORTANT. FACILITATOR HAS THESE 3 STATEMENTS WRITTEN UP (ON THE MIRO BOARD, OR ON 3 BULLET POINTS ON A SLIDE), READY TO FEEDBACK IN PLENARY.
Move to plenary (20.50)
Feedback and wrap up 10 mins	20.50 – 21.00	Final reflections and exercise	CHAIR THANKS EVERYONE INVITES FEEDBACK FROM EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS, CONCENTRATING ON THEIR 3 CONCLUDING STATEMENTS THEY CREATED. BRIEF RECAP ON NEXT STEPS, THANK AND CLOSE.

Phase two, session three

Wednesday 20 March 2024, 6pm-9pm

Overarching objective: To introduce changes required to transition to clean heating in homes, and to test views on different financing approaches to this in terms of their fairness.

Discussion	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 20 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.00 – 18.10	Welcome and introduction to this session	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back. Chair provides a summary of the overall purpose of the process, and why we are here: To learn about the transition to net zero, focussing on the transport and built environment sectors To discuss how the transition to net zero in those sectors can be as fair as possible. To help the Scottish Government make some important decisions as it plans for net zero. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, note-takers and any observers. Shows overarching plan/outcome for each session: Session 1 – Introduction Session 2 – Transport Session 3 – Built environment and construction Recap on what was discussed last week, including a summary of top conclusions reached on this question: “If road user charging is introduced, what needs to be in place to make it fair?” Explains purpose of this session is to focus on the built environment sector, specifically our homes. Participants will learn more about why we need to change how we heat our homes, what sorts of changes they might be, and some specific approaches to paying for these changes that the SG are interested in your views on. Emphasise that the purpose of these discussion is to think about how fair these payment options are, as this is a central part of achieving a just transition. Findings from this session will help SG to understand how fair, or unfair, you feel certain actions are – and to hear your ideas about how to make them fair. Chair introduces some quick polling to capture initial views on this… Thinking about the energy efficiency of your home, which of these statements – if any – comes closest to your own view or experience? I had not thought about it before taking part in these workshops I would like to make improvements, but haven’t yet I have already made improvements I have considered making improvements, but don’t want to None of these If you were considering making changes to the energy efficiency of your home over the next decade, which of these – if any – would be the biggest factor in your decision to go ahead or not? The time it would take Knowing what changes are needed Knowing how to go about it How much it would cost Something else Don’t know Summary of today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.10)
Role of transport in your life 15 mins	18.10 – 18.25	Introducing participants to group, understanding their current transport behaviour	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please tell everyone your name and where you live. What did you think of the conclusions reached at the end of the transport session? Is there anything missing that you feel it’s important the Scottish Government considers if RUC was to be introduced? We will be discussing the changes to how we heat our homes and why this will be needed to help us reach net zero. What do you think some of these changes might be? PROMPT IF NOT MENTIONED And what changes to people’s behaviours might be required? How do you feel about those potential changes? Do they feel fair to you? PROBE ON REASONS
Move to plenary (18.25)
Presentation on energy transition in homes 10 mins	18.25 – 18.35	Help participants understand why heat transition is necessary and options for financing it	Plenary presentation: How can we fairly transition our homes to clean energy? Presentation to help participants understand why we are focussing on heat transition in homes and different approaches to paying for this. Coverage of presentation: What needs to change? – why we need to transition to clean heating What are the solutions? – improve energy efficiency and convert to clean heating systems What are clean heating systems? – polluting heat (gas, oil) v. clean heat (heat pumps, heat networks) What are the benefits / challenges of switching to a clean heating system? What is the HiB bill? – summarise contents of the bill and consultation that has been taking place around it What is it going to cost? – £27bn for homes (£33bn across all buildings, avg £14,000 per home) How are we going to pay for this? – introduce public and private financing options
Move to breakout (18.35)
Discussion on clean heating 20 mins	18.35 – 18.55	To understand overall views on charging and to set up key considerations for the discussion on specific policies.	We have the opportunity now to reflect on and discuss your views on what you heard. We are going to look at some specific approaches for making these changes later, so that we can discuss how it might work. But first… How do you feel about the idea of changing how you heat your home? PROBE What would it mean for your household? What are the benefits, if any? What are the drawbacks, if any? And how do you feel about the idea of improving the energy efficiency of your home? PROBE What would it mean for your household? What are the benefits, if any? What are the drawbacks, if any? What types of people would be most/least impacted by these changes? PROBE around types of homes (flats, detached houses), size of homes, occupants (families, couples, elderly), urban/rural location, higher/lower income etc. How fair or unfair does it generally feel? What makes you say that? PROBE around what is driving their views on fairness – affordability, timescales, options available, reliability/efficacy of the technology? What, if anything, would make the transition to clean heating fair? IF NECESSARY What would a “best case” charging scenario look like for you?
BREAK 18.55-19.05 (10 mins)
Return to breakouts (19.05)
Reviewing different financing approaches to heat transition 55 mins	19.05 – 20.00	To test the acceptability and fairness of policy options	We are now going to look at how the transition to more energy efficient homes could be achieved in Scotland. The Scottish Government is currently exploring options for how the transition to clean heating and more energy efficient homes can be financed, recognising that it will be unaffordable to finance this through public funding alone. The Scottish Government is considering how best to make use of the public and private funding options available. As part of these considerations we are now interested in your views on approaches to paying for these changes to homes, including what different payment options might mean for you and your household, and for other people across Scotland, as well as the timescales for making changes. There are two potential approaches that we are going to look at. I am going to show you each option on screen, and after each one we will have a discussion about it. ORDER OF THE OPTIONS TO BE ROTATED BETWEEN GROUPS FACILITATOR TO HAVE SLIDES THAT HAVE MOCKED-UP DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TWO OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: *Option 1: More widely available public financing, stricter penalties (approx. 20 mins)* All landlords are required to meet a reasonable minimum energy standard by 2028, with all homeowners required to do this by 2033. This would be measured by a standard list of measures roughly equivalent to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)* used now. All polluting heat systems (e.g. oil and gas) will be prohibited after 2045. There is a national communications campaign to set out the requirements. Home Energy Scotland offer free home energy checks which include recommendations on making energy improvements to your home. Scottish Government grants and loans will be available to *all* households to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system. Landlords could receive civil penalties if they don’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2028 and further penalties if they don’t have a clean heating system by 2045. There would be regulation in place to prevent landlords from increasing rent after switching to a clean energy system. Homeowners may also receive civil penalties if their home doesn’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2033 and further penalties if they don’t have a clean heating system by 2045. Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of the changes, based on things like personal circumstances or the nature of the property. There is an appeals process in place to make it easy for those who feel the requirements have been incorrectly or unfairly applied to them. If asked about the EPC rating, facilitators to read out: An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) gives a property an energy efficiency rating from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient) and is valid for 10 years.* If asked about penalties, facilitators to read out: For landlords, civil penalties might include a fine for not responding to a compliance notice, and the landlord may not be able to let the property after 2028 if the required energy efficiency rating isn’t met by then, For homeowners, civil penalties could include a fine if the property does not meet required energy efficiency rating by 2033. Option 1 discussion:* What do you think of this option? Why do you feel that way? What are the benefits? PROBE ON WHO BENEFITS What are the drawbacks? PROBE ON WHO MIGHT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED Overall, how fair or unfair does it feel? PROBE: What about in terms of: [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Replacing energy systems being a requirement for landlords and homeowners by 2045? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Making energy efficiency improvements by 2028 for landlords, and 2033 for homeowners? Financial support being available to everyone? Landlords not being allowed to increase rent? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] The penalties for not meeting the required energy efficiency standard by 2028 (landlords) / 2033 (homeowners)? The penalties for not installing a clean heating system by 2045? If these requirements were introduced, what would need to be in place to make it more fair? PROBE What about: Sources of information/advice? What sources would you trust? Support options? How should these be communicated? Who Scottish Government funding is available to? Repayment plans / timescales? What about for the energy efficiency improvements (by 2028/2033)? What about the clean heating system (by 2045)? The penalty for not meeting energy efficient standards by 2028/2033? The penalty for not switching to clean heating by 2045? Protections and warranties? *Option 2: More targeted public financing, softer penalties (approx. 20 mins)* All landlords are required to meet a reasonable minimum energy standard by 2028, with all homeowners required to do this by 2033. This would be measured by a standard list of measures roughly equivalent to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)* used now. All polluting heat systems (e.g. oil and gas) will be prohibited after 2045. There is a national communications campaign to set out the requirements. Home Energy Scotland offer free home energy checks which include recommendations on making energy improvements to your home. Scottish Government grants are available to households on lower incomes, but not to higher income households, landlords, or owners of second properties. Low or zero interest loans are available from the Scottish Government to all households (including landlords and second property owners). Private finance opportunities are also available, including long term repayment plans from energy companies or manufacturers of heating systems and from banks or other traditional lenders (meaning customers can avoid large upfront fees). Landlords could start to receive civil penalties if they don’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2028, but penalties for not switching to a clean heating system by 2045 would not be enforced right away to allow more time. Landlords are allowed to increase rent to help cover the costs, but there is a cap in place. Homeowners could be subject to additional charges on council tax if their home doesn’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2033, but penalties for not switching to a clean heating system by 2045 would not be enforced right away to allow more time. Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of these changes, based on things like personal circumstances or the nature of the property. There is an appeals process in place to make it easy for those who feel the requirements have been incorrectly or unfairly applied to them. If asked about the EPC rating, facilitators to read this out: An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) gives a property an energy efficiency rating from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient) and is valid for 10 years.* If asked about penalties, facilitators to read out: For landlords, civil penalties might include a fine for not responding to a compliance notice, and the landlord may not be able to let the property after 2028 if the required energy efficiency rating isn’t met by then. Option 2 discussion:* What do you think of this option? Why do you feel that way? What are the benefits? PROBE ON WHO BENEFITS What are the drawbacks? PROBE ON WHO MIGHT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED Overall, how fair or unfair does it feel? PROBE: What about in terms of: [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Replacing energy systems being a requirement for landlords and homeowners by 2045? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Making energy efficiency improvements by 2028 for landlords, and 2033 for homeowners? More financial support for low income households, but less for others? The availability of private finance options? Landlords being allowed to increase rent with a cap? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] The penalties for not meeting the required energy efficiency standard by 2028 (landlords) / 2033 (homeowners)? The penalties for not installing a clean energy system by 2045 not being enforced right away? If these requirements were introduced, what would need to be in place to make it more fair? PROBE What about: Sources of information/advice? What sources would you trust? Support options? How should these be communicated? Who Scottish Government funding is available to? IF LOTS OF GROUPS MENTIONED – which groups are most important? Repayment plans / timescales? What about for the energy efficiency improvements (by 2028/2033)? What about the clean heating system (by 2045)? The penalty for not meeting energy efficient standards by 2028/2033? And the exemptions – who should be exempt and why? The penalty for not switching to clean heating after 2045… when should these kick in? And the exemptions – who should be exempt and why? Protections and warranties? CHARACTERS (approx. 15 mins) AFTER GOING THROUGH EACH OPTION, FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THE CHARACTERS Let’s now think about what this would mean for some specific types of people. I’ll show these on screen and will read through them with you. SHOW CHARECTORS ON SCREEN, ONE BY ONE, EACH GROUP COVERING 1-2 CHARACTERS. ORDER: How do you think this person would feel about Option 1 / Option 2? What aspects seem fair? What aspects seem unfair? What would make that more fair?
BREAK 20.00-20.10 (10 mins)
Move to breakouts (20.10)
Conclusion-forming 30 mins	20.10-20.40	To bring everything together and form conclusions	We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. Working together, I’d like you answer this question: “If all households are going to be required to improve their home’s energy efficiency and switch to clean heating, what needs to be in place to make how we pay for it fair?” REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT IN THIS FINAL SECTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGES TO HEATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL, NOT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC OPTIONS ABOVE (BUT THEY CAN REFER TO THOSE IF THEY LIKE). ASK PARTICIPANTS TO COME UP WITH THREE STATEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THIS OVERARCHING QUESTIONS. PARTICIPANTS START BY CALLING OUT THEIR RESPONSES, WHICH ARE NOTED DOWN ON VIRTUAL POST ITS. THEY THEN DISCUSS / RANK THE 3 THAT THEY FEEL ARE MOST IMPORTANT. FACILITATOR HAS THESE 3 STATEMENTS WRITTEN UP (ON 3 BULLET POINTS ON A SLIDE), READY TO FEEDBACK IN PLENARY. (IF TIME) Reflections on the process With the few minutes remaining, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this process and your participation… Taking a minute, I’d like you to think of one word or phrase that best describes your experience taking part in these discussions… ALLOW PARTICIPANTS TIME TO THINK AND THEN INVITE PARTICIPANTS TO SHARE WHAT THEIR WORD/PHRASE (IF THEY’D LIKE TO). What, if anything, have you enjoyed most about being part of these discussions? What, if anything, have you not enjoyed as much? What, if anything, has been the most challenging part? What, if anything, will you take away from the process?
Move to plenary (20.40)
Feedback and wrap up 10 mins	20.40 – 20.50	Final reflections and exercise	CHAIR THANKS EVERYONE INVITES FEEDBACK FROM EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS, CONCENTRATING ON THEIR 3 CONCLUDING STATEMENTS THEY CREATED. CHAIR CONDUCTS END OF SESSION POLL. Thinking about the changes that will be required to how people heat their homes, and your own personal view on the issues we’ve discussed this evening, which of these statements would you agree with more? Public funding should be available to all households, with less time to make the changes Public funding should be available to particular groups (e.g. households on lowest incomes), with more time to make the changes I agree with A more than B I agree with B more than A I don’t agree with either I’m not sure THANKS PARTICIPANTS FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPLAIN NEXT STEPS FOR REPORTING AND THAT WE WILL SEND AN EMAIL TO CHECK PREFERENCES FOR KEEPING IN TOUCH ABOUT THAT, AND POTENTIAL FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE PART IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THIS. INVITE REP FROM CXC/SG TO SAY CLOSING REMARKS. THANK AND CLOSE.

Appendix D – Characters

The following character descriptions were provided to participants in the sector specific workshops to aide their deliberations. The characters were created by Ipsos, with input from Scottish Government and ClimateXChange, and were used as stimulus to help participants consider a range of different experiences from across Scotland. The design of the dialogue and development of characters was informed by interviews with stakeholders in each of the sectors who identified several groups who would be more likely to be impacted by the changes.

Phase 1

Phase 2

https://www.gov.scot/publications/securing-green-recovery-path-net-zero-update-climate-change-plan-20182032/documents/ ↑
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/15/enacted ↑
https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-commission-national-mission-fairer-greener-scotland/documents/ ↑
National Just Transition Planning Framework – Just Transition – A Fairer, Greener Scotland: Scottish Government response – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) ↑
https://www.gov.scot/publications/draft-energy-strategy-transition-plan/ ↑
https://www.gov.scot/publications/net-zero-nation-public-engagement-strategy-climate-change/ ↑
https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/4231/understanding-and-engaging-the-public-on-climate-change.pdf; https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-role-of-deliberative-public-engagement-in-climate-policy-development-university-of-lancaster/ ↑
https://sciencewise.org.uk/about-sciencewise/our-guiding-principles/ ↑
https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-transport-sector-discussion-paper/; https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-built-environment-construction-sector-discussion-paper/; https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-land-use-agriculture-discussion-paper/ ↑
Participants felt a fair tax system would be required, whereby those who can afford to pay a higher share. ↑
Discussions on a fair system of payment also led some participants to call for wider overhauls of the existing tax system, which they felt should be fairer and more equitable. However, this broader point fell beyond the remit of this dialogue. ↑
When discussing protecting those on low incomes, some felt that this should be widened to say “support those on differing incomes”. The point was that people not defined as “low income” may also need support. These two positions did not necessarily conflict, as both were based on the principle of protecting those who could not afford to make changes. However, the group that suggested “differing incomes” wanted to stress the point (made earlier in the report) that income was not the only determinant of ability of pay. ↑
In discussion about informing the public on the changes needed, it was specified that this should highlight how the changes will positively impact the future of transport, home energy and food production/consumption. ↑
In discussion about their aspirations related to leadership and accountability, one group suggested that there should be measures in place to prevent future leaders from totally reversing changes that have been agreed on. However, they also said leaders should have some flexibility to change the approach. They also hoped for cross-party consensus if possible. ↑
This conclusion built on discussions from previous sessions, and those who suggested it saw the role of a non-political body as providing independent monitoring of the transition and associated costs, ensuring that people are treated fairly. It was described as something akin to Ofgem (the independent energy regulator) but specifically for the transition to net zero. ↑
While participants did not specify what exact sources they would consider “credible”, they noted specific media outlets which they personally would not trust (which are not named in this report). They also suggested that specialist advisers should be placed in Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, in Job Centres, or at community meetings. This highlights some of the sources that they felt would be useful means of disseminating information. ↑
Some felt that empowerment would only be achieved through the use of incentives and not through the use of charges or penalties. They therefore suggested changing the language from “Empower people” to “Encourage people”. As this was only suggested by one group, the original language was kept but their views are noted here. ↑
It was emphasised that carrots should be identified based on investment in research. It was felt that sticks need to be carefully thought about in terms of where they should fall – e.g. taking into account individual circumstances. One group felt that certain industries should be exempt (from the sticks) where it is technically not possible to reduce emissions. They used the example of steel manufacturers, which falls outside of the remit of this research. ↑
https://www.futureeconomy.scot/publications/59-measuring-carbon-inequality-in-scotland ↑
https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-fairer-greener-scotland/pages/5/ ↑
https://www.justtransition.scot/publication/time-to-deliver-annual-report-2023/ ↑
https://es.catapult.org.uk/project/electrification-of-heat-demonstration/ ↑
Public Health Scotland define transport poverty as the lack of transport options that are available, reliable, affordable, accessible or safe that allow people to meet their daily needs and achieve a reasonable quality of life, see: https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/transport-poverty-a-public-health-issue/transport-poverty-a-public-health-issue/ ↑
Please note that participants did not generally distinguish between private landlords and the social rented sector when discussing issues relating to those in rental properties. The type of landlord is specified where participants did make this distinction. ↑
The achieved number of African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British participants was zero in phase one due to a last minute dropout. Additional targets were set in phase two to ensure representation from this ethnic minority group. ↑
Anyone agreeing with the statement “I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening” was screened out at the recruitment stage to help ensure that those convened for the dialogue could focus on how the costs/benefits of the changes could be distributed fairly to reach net zero (not whether changes should happen at all, though views on this – where expressed – were noted). ↑
A particular focus and boost was placed on the African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British minority ethnic group due to lack of representation of this group in phase one. ↑
Anyone agreeing with the statement “I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening” was screened out at the recruitment stage to help ensure that those convened to engage in the dialogue could focus on how the costs/benefits of the changes could be distributed fairly to reach net zero (not whether changes should happen at all, though views on this – where expressed – were noted). ↑

This report sets out key findings from an exercise that mapped public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.

The aim of the research was to help inform the delivery of the Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy by addressing questions related to who delivers engagement activities and to whom, the type of activities and messages, and gaps in engagement.

We conducted a web search, interviews with experts from organisations involved in the heat transition and an online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

Findings

Overview of ongoing activities:

A wide range of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have been delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.
The types of public engagement have also been varied, with the most common being advice services, workshops and information sharing online.

Target audience, messaging and accessibility as discussed by experts and organisations:

Engagement activities were mostly open to the general public. There were also some specific target groups identified, including residents within a specific geographic area, homeowners, people in fuel poverty, low-income households and energy sector professionals.
Despite attempts to engage a broad range of audiences, those actually engaged in the activities were typically more climate aware than the general public overall.
Messaging that was focused on home energy efficiency and reducing energy bills, rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, resonated better with wider audiences in the context of the cost of living.
Engagement on “simple fixes” (e.g. turning boiler temperature down) was therefore more widespread than messaging around bigger steps (e.g. installing a heat pump).
Activities delivered through trusted messengers and existing local channels were accessible forms of engagement.
Tailoring messages to the specific target audience was an effective approach to accessible engagement as it helped to improve understanding.

Gaps in public engagement identified by experts and organisations:

Audiences under-engaged on the heat transition included private landlords, renters, professionals in the energy sector, young people and the digitally excluded.
Lack of regulatory clarity on clean heat and energy efficiency was a key reason for the engagement gap among landlords and the energy sector.
The upfront costs of transitioning were a barrier to widening reach among the general public, especially in the context of the cost of living crisis.
Key messaging gaps in public engagement included:
- A lack of public understanding of heating systems.
- Insufficient practical and transparent advice on installing and operating clean heating systems.
  - Interviewees thought that certain aspects of the transition, such as what clean heating systems are and how to install them, were not successfully communicated to the wider public due to their perceived complexity.
  - They felt that communication about the efficacy of clean heating systems, based on real use cases, was lacking.
There was a shortage of trusted messengers providing reliable, impartial advice, as well as a lack of tradespeople able to provide technical support on the practical aspects of the transition.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Research completed in September 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4915

This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research, ISO 20252.

Executive summary

This report sets out key findings from an exercise that mapped public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.

We conducted a web search, interviews with experts from organisations involved in the heat transition and an online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

Findings

Overview of ongoing activities:

A wide range of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have been delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.
The types of public engagement have also been varied, with the most common being advice services, workshops and information sharing online.

Target audience, messaging and accessibility as discussed by experts and organisations:

Engagement activities were mostly open to the general public. There were also some specific target groups identified, including residents within a specific geographic area, homeowners, people in fuel poverty, low-income households and energy sector professionals.
Despite attempts to engage a broad range of audiences, those actually engaged in the activities were typically more climate aware than the general public overall.
Messaging that was focused on home energy efficiency and reducing energy bills, rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, resonated better with wider audiences in the context of the cost of living.
Engagement on “simple fixes” (e.g. turning boiler temperature down) was therefore more widespread than messaging around bigger steps (e.g. installing a heat pump).
Activities delivered through trusted messengers and existing local channels were accessible forms of engagement.
Tailoring messages to the specific target audience was an effective approach to accessible engagement as it helped to improve understanding.

Gaps in public engagement identified by experts and organisations:

Audiences under-engaged on the heat transition included private landlords, renters, professionals in the energy sector, young people and the digitally excluded.
Lack of regulatory clarity on clean heat and energy efficiency was a key reason for the engagement gap among landlords and the energy sector.
The upfront costs of transitioning were a barrier to widening reach among the general public, especially in the context of the cost of living crisis.
Key messaging gaps in public engagement included:
- A lack of public understanding of heating systems.
- Insufficient practical and transparent advice on installing and operating clean heating systems.
  - Interviewees thought that certain aspects of the transition, such as what clean heating systems are and how to install them, were not successfully communicated to the wider public due to their perceived complexity.
  - They felt that communication about the efficacy of clean heating systems, based on real use cases, was lacking.
There was a shortage of trusted messengers providing reliable, impartial advice, as well as a lack of tradespeople able to provide technical support on the practical aspects of the transition.

Conclusions

To ensure that public engagement on the heat transition builds on what has been done before and is effective in prompting action, consider:

Prioritising the private rented sector, professionals in the energy sector and those who are digitally excluded:
Firstly, engage with the energy and private rented sectors to drive engagement and action forward, for example by sharing information and practical advice among the wider public.
Secondly, engage with the general public, emphasising the experiences of early adopters to build trust in the efficacy of clean heating systems.
Tailoring messages to the audience:
For industry professionals, provide clarity on the changes required and reassurance on the support available.
For the general public, make it easier for those who are more highly motivated by the climate crisis to take action, so that there are more operational examples to encourage those who may be more hesitant to take action.
Highlight the financial benefits and availability of grants and loans.
Building trust:
Improve the baseline public understanding of clean heating systems.
Communicate transparently around the needs, benefits and risks of transitioning to a clean heating system.
Use trusted messengers who are already embedded in local communities.
Providing regulatory clarity, as organisations feel they cannot deliver effective public engagement activities without knowing if and when clean heat and energy efficiency regulations will come into force, and what specific changes will be required.

Introduction

This report presents the findings from research conducted by Ipsos on behalf of ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government, mapping public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland.

Background

Scotland’s climate change legislation sets a target date for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2045. The Scottish Government reports that domestic buildings account for around 12% of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions, and non-domestic buildings contribute another 7%. Urgently reducing emissions from Scotland’s buildings is therefore a crucial part of achieving net zero, and will require the majority of households in Scotland to change their heating systems. Plans for this are set out in the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy (HiBS). The process of transitioning heating from using fossil fuels to using clean heating systems, is often referred to as the ‘heat transition’.

To ensure success in decarbonising Scotland’s home heating, public engagement is key. Existing research by Consumer Scotland highlights a general lack of awareness among the Scottish public about the heat transition, clean heating systems, and low-carbon technology. Building on this, research conducted for ClimateXChange included recommendations about the ways in which messages around the heat transition should be communicated to the public, including making a positive case for change in a highly visible way, harnessing the influence of existing trusted messengers to deliver information consistently, and giving plenty notice in advance of any legislation being announce. The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland published a report in July 2023 which highlighted the need for clear and tailored messaging, backed up with accessible resources, to encourage action at the scale and pace required to reach net zero.

In this context, the Scottish Government published its Heat Transition Public Engagement Strategic Framework in December 2023 to guide its engagement work around clean heat and energy efficiency. The Framework aims to ensure the Scottish public are aware of and understand the changes required in the heat transition, know how to access support, can actively participate in shaping policy, legislation and delivery schemes, and importantly can take action in decarbonising their homes.

Research aims

ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government commissioned Ipsos Scotland to map existing public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland to help inform the delivery of the Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy.

This public engagement mapping aimed to address the following research questions:

Who is delivering engagement activities?

What types of activities are being delivered?

Which audiences are being targeted?

What types of messages are being communicated?

How accessible are messages and activities?

Where are the gaps in engagement?

Method

The research involved three strands:

A web search to identify public engagement activities.

Interviews with 10 experts representing a range of organisations involved in the heat transition.

An online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

A brief overview of each strand is provided below, and a more detailed methodology can be found in Appendix A.

Web search

First, a web search was conducted using defined search parameters and search strings (see Appendix B) in May 2024. The web search included a traditional search using Google and Google Scholar, and Ipsos’s proprietary social media listening tool, Synthesio.^[1]

Over 2,500 references to public engagement across social media channels were reviewed and, from those initial results, 62 instances of engagement matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The results from the web search also informed the sample development for the expert interviews and online survey, and the design of the interview topic guide and questionnaire.

Expert interviews

Interviews were conducted with 10 organisations involved in the Scottish heat transition from 30 May to 7 Aug 2024 (identified via web search and recommendations from the Scottish Government and ClimateXChange). The profile of expert organisations included a mix of charities/advice services, climate hubs, private companies, non-government organisations and industry bodies.

This strand of the research explored the different types of public engagement activities currently being delivered in Scotland in more detail. A topic guide was developed by the Ipsos research team and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix C). Interviews also helped to identify potential organisations for inclusion in the online survey sample.

Online survey

The third strand of the research involved a five-minute online survey with organisations delivering public engagement activities in Scotland to explore the purpose and nature of these activities. The questions were designed by Ipsos and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix D).

An initial sample of 78 contacts was generated by Ipsos through the web search and interviews, and the survey link was also shared by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government, through various email networks and communications channels, to broaden participation.

The survey was live for five weeks, from 19 June to 24 July 2024, and 34 completed responses were received. Of these, 25 organisations reported that they had delivered some form of public engagement in the last three years.

Analysis

The data generated from the web search, interviews and online survey was used to map the range of activities (including details such as the type of activity, who delivered it, when it happened, who it was aimed at, and the topics covered). More reflective themes relating to impact, challenges and possible gaps in engagement were drawn from online survey results and the interviews.

Scope and limitations

The web search identified a wide range of public engagement activities across Scotland over a number of years. However, this search was not exhaustive, as it was limited to what was available online, and provided varying levels of detail depending on what was published. Data collected from interviews with experts provided more in-depth and reflective insights from a range of perspectives, but on a much smaller range of activities than that of the web search. Meanwhile the online survey provided insights on activities across a wider range of activities, but not in as great a depth, as those gathered from the interviews.

Using multiple data sources has enabled a more comprehensive understanding of public engagement activity in Scotland than any one source would be able to provide. However, it is important to acknowledge that the research parameters may have overlooked some forms of public engagement (particularly those at a small community level or those not promoted online). Furthermore, not all perspectives on the heat transition (such as those of the intended target audiences) have been captured.

The online survey was an open link and responses were gathered anonymously. This means that the data may contain multiple responses from the same organisation and duplication of responses between the survey and web searches. Interviews were also conducted confidentially, and so their views have been reported anonymously. Any examples or organisations mentioned in the report are taken from publicly available information and it should not be assumed that they correlate with organisations taking part in either the depth interviews or online survey. Where more detailed case studies are provided (e.g. in relation to Impacts), these have been shared with the permission of the main delivery organisation responsible.

Lastly, online survey results are based on a small sample and so should be read and interpreted with this in mind. Where percentage figures don’t sum to 100, this is due to computer rounding. Where counts do not sum to the base, this is due to questions allowing multiple responses.

Public engagement on the heat transition

This chapter provides an overview of the types of public engagement that have taken place in Scotland between October 2021 and May 2024 and the organisations delivering them. It addresses the following research questions:

Who is delivering current heat transition-related engagement activities and messaging in Scotland?
What types of activities are being delivered?

This chapter also explores awareness of the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy among the organisations delivering public engagement.

Key findings

A wide range of organisations from across the public, private and charitable sectors, have been delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland.
The types of public engagement have also been varied, with the most common being advice services, workshops and information sharing online.
Awareness of the HiBS is high among those delivering public engagement.

Who is delivering current heat transition-related engagement activities and messaging in Scotland?

The web search, survey and expert interviews identified a range of organisations delivering public engagement activities in relation to the heat transition since October 2021, including:

Charities, such as One Parent Families Scotland, Age Scotland, Under One Roof, and Community Energy Scotland.
Non-profit organisations and social enterprises, such as Nesta, Scarf and Energy Action Scotland.
Community groups, such as climate hubs and local interest groups.
Private sector organisations, such as UK energy companies.
Advice and support bodies, such as Energy Savings Trust (who administer the Scottish Government’s Home Energy Scotland service).
Collectives, consortiums, networks or member groups that include organisations representing a range of sectors (e.g. Built Environment-Smarter Transformation and the Poverty Alliance).
Local authorities.
Education and research institutes, such as the University of Strathclyde and the Energy Training Academy.

The Synthesio (social media listening) search provided an indication of the extent of activity and messaging from particular organisations, based on volume of online mentions (see Figure 1). This does not necessarily mean that these organisations have delivered more engagement, but rather reflects higher levels of posts on the heat transition by organisations directly or by other actors citing them.

Figure 1. Organisations delivering public engagement by volume of online mentions

What types of activities are being delivered?

The types of activities being delivered were broad, and included advice services, workshops and various types of information and knowledge sharing. The online survey data and Synthesio search provided a snapshot of this range (see Figure 2), which was also reflected in the interviews.

Figure 2. Types of public engagement activities

Among the most common types of public engagement activity were advice and support services, which have been delivered by a range of organisations (including non-profits, non-government bodies, charities and community groups). This was a broad category encompassing free impartial advice on energy saving measures and keeping homes warm, through to practical advice on installing renewable technologies and verifying providers of retrofitting work. A range of advice and support services were accessible online, in-person and via telephone.

Advice and support services example

Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation supporting households and businesses towards decarbonisation, and is one of the Scottish Government’s main partners in addressing the climate emergency.

Their Green Homes Network connects those interested in low carbon heating with householders who have installed clean heating systems through a database. Households give permission to post case studies so others can find out about their journeys and contact them for further advice. Households may also be invited to speak at webinars or to the press about their conversion to a new heating system.

Workshops were delivered by a range of actors (including local authorities, charities, non-government organisations, social enterprises and community groups). Some were one-off events while others were run as a series of workshops. The aims of the workshops included: to generally increase knowledge and understanding around the Scottish Government’s heat policy, to help community groups and individuals reduce costs, and to inform individuals on the availability of grant funding for heat transition projects and energy efficiency improvements.

Workshop example

Transition Black Isle is a community group that aims to help Black Isle communities respond to the climate emergency and to encourage non-car travel, local food production and energy saving measures. The group organised a series of workshops in March 2022 on low carbon home heating which involved expert speakers and group discussions:

Session 1 explored ways to make houses warmer and cheaper to heat without compromising air quality or risking damage to building fabric.
Session 2 identified various low carbon methods of home heating and circumstances which suit each approach.
Session 3 covered managing these changes, including financial support, choosing contractors and incorporated advice from those who had already been through the process.

Lectures and talks were delivered by organisations of all types. Some events were open to the public, either as stand-alone events or pop-ups as part of other events or festivals, and provided opportunities to learn about opportunities and risks in making properties more energy efficient. Others engaged industry professionals specifically and provided information on the Scottish Government’s energy policy, availability of funding, best practice for retrofitting schemes and challenges in heat pump deployment. There was also evidence of employee engagement, with organisations being invited to give talks to advise employees on ways to save energy at home.

Training and knowledge sharing were typically targeted at industry and policy makers. These took the form of panel discussions and events, as well as online networks/hubs to facilitate knowledge exchange and practical training modules on aspects of the heat transition.

Training and knowledge sharing example

HeatSource is a programme funded by Scottish Enterprise that aims to better equip companies involved in manufacturing, installation, training and the wider supply chain to deliver clean heating systems.

The programme seeks to support the decarbonisation of Scotland’s built environment through the creation of an online information hub to help industry maximise the opportunities around new zero carbon heating.

Various organisations have provided information online and delivered public information campaigns aimed at the general public, including:

- Get a Heat Pump – a website that provides information on what a heat pump is, how to get one installed and the associated costs (Nesta).
- Heat pump heroes – an annual awareness-raising campaign to promote conversion to heat pumps (Home Energy Scotland).
- Money-saving boiler challenge – a public-facing campaign which aimed to raise awareness about how to use energy more efficiently and save on bills (set in the context of the cost of living crisis) (Nesta).

Other public engagement activities included:

Showcases, including live demonstrations and trial installations of heat pumps in different types of homes to gather user feedback.
Consultations, typically delivered by community groups to gather responses to the Heat in Buildings (HiBs) proposal and the Scottish Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies (LHEES).
Advocacy work, such as speaking up for consumers who have had issues with clean heating systems (e.g. increased energy costs) and opinion pieces published in media outlets to raise awareness and tackle myths around the heat transition.

Awareness of Heat in Buildings Strategy

Among organisations that have delivered public engagement activity and responded to the online survey, the majority (88%) reported knowledge of the HiBS, of which just under two-thirds (64%) said they knew a fair amount or great deal about it. Just over one in ten (12%) had either heard of the strategy but knew nothing about it, or had never heard of it (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Awareness of the HiB strategy among survey participants

Experts interviewed for the research also reported that their organisations had high levels of awareness and understanding of the HiBS. This was based on their existing relationships with the relevant policy teams in Scottish Government, involvement in the initial consultation process, and/or providing responses to it. Other ways in which experts mentioned becoming familiar with the strategy included through the introduction of new build heat standards and working with local authorities.

Target audiences and messaging

This chapter provides an overview of the types of public engagement that have taken place between October 2021 and May 2024 and the organisations delivering them. It addresses the following research questions:

Who is the target audience of these activities?
What types of messages are being communicated?
How accessible are the activities being delivered?

Key findings

Activities were mostly open to the general public, however, there were some target groups identified (e.g. residents within a specific geographic area, homeowners, people in fuel poverty, low-income households and energy sector professionals).
Messaging focused on home energy efficiency and reducing energy bills, rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, was felt to resonate more with wider audiences.
Engagement on “simple fixes” (e.g. turning boiler temperature down) was therefore more widespread than practical messaging around bigger steps (e.g. installing a heat pump).
Activities delivered through trusted messengers and existing local channels were felt to be more accessible forms of engagement. Tailoring messages to the specific target audience was also a key consideration.
However, there was a clear distinction between intended target audiences and those actually being engaged, who typically were those who were already more climate aware in any case.

Who is the target audience of these activities and messaging?

Public engagement activities were mostly targeted at a broad, general public audience. Evidence gathered from the Synthesio search, interviews and survey showed that activities were often advertised as open to all, rather than targeting a specific demographic. This was driven by the understanding that there are high levels of concern about climate change among the general public (an assertion supported by public opinion research), and that the environmental impact of energy use affects everyone, which requires a wide reaching approach to engagement.

However, the research highlighted a clear distinction between audiences being targeted and audiences actually being engaged.

Intended target audiences

While most engagement activities were targeted at the general public, the research also found evidence of some activities targeted at specific groups, including local residents of a specific geographic area, people in fuel poverty and low-income households, homeowners, and energy sector professionals (see Figure 4).

However, it should be noted that delivery organisations responding to the online survey often mentioned targeting multiple different groups rather than one group in particular.

Figure 4. Target audiences (number of mentions by organisations delivering public engagement activities)

Public engagement at regional or local levels was found to be happening across Scotland, with most events concentrated in Edinburgh and Glasgow and a smaller number of activities being delivered in East Lothian, Falkirk, Perth and Kinross, Dundee, West of Scotland, Fife, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and Highlands. There was some evidence of public engagement activities happening on the islands, highlighted by experts, however this was more limited (which could reflect the fact that engagement was more localised and less promoted online).

People in fuel poverty and low-income households were frequently identified as a key target group for engagement activities. However, evidence from the Synthesio search and from the interviews indicated that the primary focus of those activities was encouraging simple energy efficiency changes that would lead to lower energy bills rather than promoting a transition to clean heating systems.

There was also some evidence of engagement targeting energy sector professionals (e.g. through conferences, knowledge-sharing and training). However, there was a broad view among experts that this group had not been sufficiently engaged (see Gaps).

Audiences actually being engaged

While activities were advertised as open to all (with some targeting), experts observed that they tended to draw interest from those who were typically more climate aware, highly engaged on the topic of sustainable home energy solutions, and more involved in their community anyway. This is consistent with earlier research conducted for ClimateXChange which found that early adopters tend to have higher than average knowledge of, and interest in, climate change as well as time and willingness to research energy alternatives.

In line with this research, the demographic profile of those who experts perceived to be more engaged was described as homeowners over the age of 40 with disposable income. It was also suggested that men were more likely to be interested in installing low-carbon heating technology than women. Experts cited lower attendance rates among other groups as a particular challenge to widening reach (see challenges).

What types of messages are being communicated?

Messaging around the heat transition mainly focused on energy efficiency rather than the adoption of clean heating systems, according to both the survey (see Figure 5) and Synthesio findings.

The focus on energy efficiency measures was seen to be driven by the cost of living crisis and rising energy prices. Experts highlighted energy efficiencies and reducing energy bills as messaging that had resonated most with the public and led to greater engagement. Some examples of this type of messaging included:

“Warmer Homes, Cheaper Bills, Greener Lives” (an event organised by Sustaining Musselburgh and advertised on Eventbrite).
“How to save cash with a single change to your boiler settings” (from Nesta’s Money-saving boiler challenge).
“To help you lower your energy bills and have more energy efficient homes, whilst also reducing your carbon footprint” (from Thurso Community Development Trust’s home energy advice webpage).

Organisations that had delivered engagement activities with more of a focus on retrofit and the installation of heat pumps reported using the benefit of cheaper bills as a “pitch” to increase engagement among the wider public. This type of messaging was considered to resonate more with the public than messaging around heating systems.

There was also a perception among experts that the public have a limited understanding of their current heating systems. Experts felt that this, coupled with existing financial pressures, was contributing to a lack of curiosity about installing greener alternative systems. As highlighted in the examples above, some delivery organisations have focused on smaller, easier steps to address this and encourage engagement.

Organisations reported that they had found messaging focused on easy steps and “simple fixes”, such as turning down the flow temperature of a boiler, to be more effective than discussions around new heating systems. This reflects other recent research findings on heat transition communication, which suggested that messaging should be breaking down behaviour into small steps. Experts also felt that ensuring a basic understanding of how existing heating solutions affect bills would be an essential first step to engaging households about further decarbonisation measures beyond energy efficiency.

The web search and online survey found more limited evidence of practical messaging around bigger steps such as how to install and operate clean heating systems like a heat pump. Experts felt that this type of messaging was primarily engaging people who were already motivated to change their heating system.

How accessible are messages and activities being delivered?

Delivering engagement through trusted messengers was highlighted by experts as one of the more effective approaches in terms of accessibility. For example, engaging the public through existing community networks was a way in which some organisations had engaged hard-to-reach demographics, such as older people, people in poverty and vulnerable groups.

“That type of engagement [with vulnerable demographics] has to come from local trusted messengers – it’s about building that relationship. It’s not going to come from anywhere else for the most vulnerable. I think that is where there’s a role for community organisations to play.”

Climate Hub (interview)

Experts also highlighted local community events that are already well-attended by local residents as an effective way of promoting transition messaging to the broader public and extending the reach of engagement beyond the climate aware audiences. For example, one organisation had delivered entertainment for children at family-friendly local events to engage parents.

Synthesio search findings suggest that most activities had been held either online or in hybrid form and experts felt that this had promoted greater accessibility across Scotland. Social media was also used as a method of advertising and delivering engagement, particularly to reach younger demographics more effectively. Nevertheless, while the value of online activity for promoting wider reach was acknowledged, face-to-face engagement was still widely considered by experts to be the most effective.

Among the activities delivered, there was also evidence of public awareness campaigns utilising TV and printed media to reach a broad audience, including Nesta’s “Money Saving Boiler Challenge”, Citizens Advice Scotland’s “Big Energy Saving Winter” and Smart Energy GB’s “Smart Energy Heroes”. According to experts, wider public campaigns (in combination with simple and accessible messaging) have been most accessible for members of the public not already aware of, or engaged on, energy and climate issues.

Delivery organisations also reported the use of simple and clear messages to improve the accessibility of their public engagement activities. Experts felt that emphasising the energy efficient changes that individuals could easily adopt in their homes and outlining the financial benefits of making them was most effective in improving understanding of the impact of heating systems on the climate. In particular, the importance of clearly presenting the financial case for change was highlighted, recognising the challenges people face currently with their energy bills.

“The challenge is making sure the information is really simple and easy to access and reflects the fact that people are in crisis at the time – just transition terminology, for example, doesn’t work.”

Charity (interview)

Using informal (“chatty”) language in communication with the wider public on energy advice was felt to have promoted both accessibility and trust. The importance of positive, hopeful and uplifting rhetoric was highlighted, such as an emphasis on the short-term benefits (e.g. immediate decrease in energy bills). This was seen as particularly effective for effectively reaching low-income households and those in fuel poverty.

“The scale of the transition is immense and the potential opposition to some of what’s needed is also significant, so there’s a need to make sure that there are as many positive and supportive voices as possible to counter the noisy negativity.” Charitable organisation (interview)

Experts also emphasised the importance of tailoring messages to the specific target audience as a way to improve accessibility and understanding of information. For example, one expert described how their organisation changed the focus and language of any transition-focused activity depending on who they were aiming to reach. When speaking to tenants, they would highlight the links between climate change and heating and assert the case for the need for transition, while when addressing flat owners, they would discuss the specific challenges this group faces and focus on heat networks rather than heat pumps as a solution.

Some experts reported offering advice and information services in different languages and providing materials accessible to people with different reading abilities. However, among those delivering engagement, evidence of organisations making these accessibility considerations was limited.

Despite these considerations for delivering accessible engagement, our interviews identified accessibility as a challenge. This related primarily to the complexity of the topic and the highly technical language of certain aspects of the heat transition which was widely considered to be inaccessible and, therefore, limiting the reach of engagement beyond those who are already engaged on climate issues. Some examples that were recognised as particularly difficult for the wider public to understand included EPC ratings and the practicalities of choosing and installing clean heating systems. This is discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

Reflections on the effectiveness of public engagement

This chapter reflects on the perceived impact of public engagement activity and the challenges that delivery organisations have experienced, before summarising any future public engagement being considered or planned by delivery organisations who participated in this research.

Key findings

Impacts

Simple messaging that focuses on easy energy efficiency actions and outlines financial benefits were felt to be the most effective forms of public engagement, building trust through the use of trusted messengers.
Building trust with the audience was identified as one of the most important aspects of delivering successful engagement. Community-level engagement was seen as an effective way to foster that trust and reach hard-to-reach groups.

Challenges

Lack of regulatory clarity on clean heat and energy efficiency was identified as the main barrier to delivering effective engagement.
Misconceptions and lack of public awareness around sustainable heating solutions was also seen as a challenge.
The cost of living crisis was recognised as a barrier to widening the reach of engagement. In this context, the general public was seen as unwilling to accept the upfront cost of transitioning.
Certain aspects of the transition, such as installation of clean heating systems, were not seen to have been successfully communicated to the wider public due to topic complexity and specialised language that is not widely understood.

Impacts

Those delivering public engagement largely felt that their activities had had a positive impact on people’s understanding of issues relating to the heat transition in Scotland (see Figure 5). Among those taking part in the online survey, 89% reported that their audience’s understanding of the topic had improved as a result of engagement. There was less certainty over the extent to which public engagement had led to action, with fewer than half of organisations (44%) reporting that those activities had led to action and 26% reporting that individuals had decided to switch to a clean heating system as a result of the engagement.

Figure 5. Perceptions of impact

Both the interviews and the Synthesio search also identified a number of impactful initiatives centred around simple energy efficiency actions that organisations felt had been effective at reaching the broader public and prompting people to action small changes, often framed around saving money as well as reducing carbon emissions (see Figure 6).

“The stuff that lands better with people, unsurprisingly, is – there’s a pretty quick fix that you can organise yourself and it saves you money.” Charity (interview)

Community-driven engagement was also highlighted by sector experts as a success factor in terms of reaching certain demographic groups, such as older people, families in in-work and fuel poverty and vulnerable groups (see figure 6). This was felt to be important because of the perception that community organisations enjoy high levels of trust from members of the community. Building trust was identified as one of the most important aspects of delivering effective engagement.

Figure 6. Evidence of impact

Money Saving Boiler Challenge Campaign

The campaign was delivered by Nesta, in partnership with energy providers and other organisations in the energy industry, which focused on providing basic and simple energy efficiency advice. The activity aimed to reach the general public and convince people to turn down flow temperature on their boiler, thus reducing carbon emissions and energy costs.

The campaign also aimed to promote better understanding of existing heating systems and their environmental impact among the general public. This activity was part of a wider campaign on decarbonisation.

Following the campaign, close to 240,000 households turned their boiler flow temperature down, resulting in savings of £112 per year for an average household and a reduction of carbon emissions by 37,000 tonnes.^[2]

Success factors:

Simple and straightforward messaging that resonated with people in the context of the cost of living crisis.
Promoted small and easy changes.
Partnership with trusted voices – public-facing organisations offering energy advice and energy providers.
Clearly communicated individual financial benefits of making the changes.
A wide public campaign that was advertised on TV and mainstream media.

Home Energy Advice Portal

The web portal was developed by Thurso Community Development Trust together with the Highlands and Islands Climate Hub.^[3] The website aims to improve pathways to support and uptake of grants by providing energy advice and a comprehensive overview of the energy support services available to residents in Scotland. The portal is accessible to all but is aimed primarily at local community organisations. It provides training to staff and volunteers in offering energy advice, recognise struggling households most in need of energy support, how to approach them and signpost residents to local energy service providers and financial support.

As of May 2024, 435 community groups in the region had been trained on the portal, which has led to improved knowledge and confidence among staff on the topic of energy. The portal has been actively used, with an average of 3,000 hits per month and approximately 5,000 people supported through it to date. It has also reached some hard-to-reach and vulnerable groups, including older people and low-income families.

Success factors:

Clear and accessible messaging.
Community-based engagement.
Use of trusted voices in the community.

Challenges

The research identified a range of challenges in delivering engagement that were perceived to have negatively impacted attendance rates and limited overall effectiveness.

A perceived lack of clarity around clean heat and energy efficiency regulations was one of the key challenges identified in the interviews. There was a shared sense that public engagement activities would be limited in their effectiveness until the legislative requirements are known. Experts felt there had been frequent changes in proposed legislation in the past and that there is currently a lack of clarity around the requirements for properties, which has created confusion among some groups and limited the reach and effectiveness of some engagement activities. Landlords in particular were identified as a group at risk of disengaging on the topic until there is clarity on what they will be required to do. The perceived frequency of changes in proposals was felt to have made it difficult for organisations to deliver effective public engagement because they feel they are unable to provide straightforward advice.

“Until there’s clarity on what the requirements are going to be, it’s difficult to go out there with firm messaging. You always have to caveat your messaging with “it’s just a proposal and it might change.”

Private company (interview)

It was also suggested in the interviews that the concern over further changes in requirements has caused hesitation among organisations to engage with the public until the legislation is finalised.

“[When] things can still change, that’s a disincentive to people actually doing works in their properties. Because they don’t know if the money they’re going to spend and the improvements they’re going to make are going to be beneficial when it comes to complying with possible future standards because we still don’t know what those possible future standards are going to be.” Private company (interview)

Representatives of the homebuilding sector highlighted that while homebuilders “are ready, understand and are committed to what needs done in supporting the transition”, there are concerns within the sector regarding limited communication from the Scottish Government about availability of the technology required to support the transition.

At the same time, interviewees stressed that there are still misconceptions, misinformation and lack of public awareness around sustainable heating solutions. It was suggested that the general public is still widely uninformed about the costs associated with the transition and whether low-carbon technology would be an effective heating solution for their home. Moreover, some stakeholders suggested that there is confusion around the different regulations in England and Scotland.

“…There’re still too many barriers to retrofitting – heat pumps are still considered pretty unusual and there’s a lot of myths, misinformation and misconceptions around how effective low-carbon tech is, which highlights the need for the public engagement strategy.” Membership organisation (interview)

The wider socio-economic context of the cost of living crisis was highlighted by experts as the key structural barrier to engaging the general public in the conversation about the heat transition and decarbonisation, particularly given the upfront costs of retrofitting and installing clean heating systems. They felt that, for most people, the kinds of interventions that will be required for the transition would be unaffordable.

“There is certainly a general gap in terms of people wanting to decarbonise their homes because of cost.” Private company (interview)

It was suggested that the public would be largely unprepared and unwilling to accept the cost of transitioning upfront based on a promise of future energy savings.

“We’re considering how we can get that messaging out to the public to make the public aware of the changes that will be required of them – yes, it might cost them more upfront but it should create longer- term benefits – but I don’t think the public is ready to make that connection yet and I don’t think any government messaging that I’ve seen to date has been explicit about that.” Private company (interview)

The complexity of the changes required and language accessibility around those changes was also identified by experts as a significant challenge. It was suggested that the language around the heat transition (e.g. clean heating systems) is specialised and requires a certain level of knowledge on the subject. It was therefore felt to be less accessible to people who don’t already have awareness on the topic.

“The challenge is making sure the information is really simple and easy to access and reflects the fact people are in crisis at the time – just transition terminology, for example, doesn’t work.” Statutory body (interview)

Despite attempts by organisations delivering engagement to address this challenge, such as by delivering energy advice through simple messaging, it was felt that other aspects of the transition such as installation of new heating systems have not been successfully communicated in a way that can be more widely understood. One expert, reflecting on their own experience installing a clean heating system, commented that even they found it difficult to navigate existing advice despite being highly engaged and knowledgeable on the topic.

“The challenge is that we were asking people to do the absolute low-hanging fruit thing in terms of decarbonisation of heating. So, it’s not as simple to take that framing – do this simple thing and save money – to almost any other part of the heat transition. The rest of the message is much harder.” Charity (interview)

Notwithstanding these challenges, over half of organisations who completed the survey (59%) and several of the interviewees said their organisations planned to deliver public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland in the future. These were mainly charities, but also included a range of other organisation types mentioned in Chapter 3. The types of activities planned included a continuation of existing advice and support services and information sharing campaigns, as well as further workshops or knowledge sharing events and new pilot schemes (such as for retrofitting).

Delivery organisations mentioned that these future activities would be open to all, but some specific target groups included homeowners, the social rented sector (landlords and tenants), those in fuel poverty, those living in flats, people with protected characteristics, and small businesses. It was felt that schemes like the Green Homes Network and Heat Pump Heroes should be promoted more widely to encourage further uptake of clean heating systems.

However, there was also reluctance among delivery organisations to carry out further public engagement until more is known about Scottish Government policy on the heat transition and the specific requirements needed for the different target groups.

“It is not worth individuals investing in bespoke renewables or low carbon heating systems. We need to know more about when the heat networks will be coming.” Charity (online survey)

Overall, while public engagement efforts have made good progress in raising awareness of the heat transition, substantial challenges remain in translating understanding into widespread action.

Gaps in public engagement

This chapter addresses the final research question: where are the gaps in engagement?

While the research has identified a range of different engagement activities that are reaching the broader public as well as targeted demographic groups, it has also identified some clear gaps in engagement. The identified gaps broadly relate to target audiences and messaging, but also relate to potential messengers (i.e. those who could have a role in supporting public engagement on the heat transition).

Key findings

Audiences identified as having been under-engaged on the heat transition included private landlords, renters, professionals in the energy sector, young people and the digitally excluded.
The key messaging gaps in public engagement include addressing the general lack of understanding among the public about current heating systems, as well as insufficient practical and transparent advice on installing and operating clean heating systems.
Using existing case studies was also felt to be lacking, but could provide an opportunity to show how the technologies have been implemented in Scotland and elsewhere.
A general lack of trusted messengers providing reliable and impartial advice was also identified, as well as those able to provide technical support on the practical aspects of the transition.

Target audience

Delivery organisations responding to the online survey felt that most groups of people would benefit from support or information on the heat transition in Scotland, with young people being a notable exception (Figure 7). Experts interviewed suggested that, although public engagement activities have largely been open to all because the transition is seen as an issue that will affect everyone, there were some groups who should be prioritised. The top four groups who would benefit from more information on the topic, as identified in the survey, were people in fuel poverty, homeowners, low-income households and landlords (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Groups who would benefit from support

As highlighted in the previous chapter, experts suggested that there had been limited engagement with private landlords. This was reflected in the survey results too, with 77% of participants highlighting landlords as one of the groups who would benefit from support or information on the heat transition. This was seen as an important gap to address, since private landlords are expected to play an essential role in driving the heat transition forward and to be directly affected by the upcoming regulations around clean heat and energy efficiency under the current HiBS.

Experts perceived that the benefits of making the transition were not clear to landlords who would be bearing the costs of retrofit, leading to a reluctance to engage on the subject. Stakeholders who had conducted activities aimed at this group said that engaging with them had proven particularly difficult because of the sector’s resistance to being regulated, with both individual landlords (and some organisations representing them) pushing back and advocating against the legislation.

However, it was also acknowledged that responses to the HiBS have varied across this group. Some landlords, particularly the more climate conscious, were described as “very keen” to make sustainable improvements, but it was felt that a lack of clear and consistent information on the extent of upcoming regulations has held them back from taking action.

“It’s such a shame because people will phone us up – they have the money and the inclination to do the work and I have to tell them – actually, you’re better off not doing the work and spending the money just now because we don’t know what the requirements are going to be.”

Membership organisation (interview)

Lack of information and means to take action were felt to be even more of an issue in relation to renters. Out of all 62 public engagement activities identified through the Synthesio search, only two were targeted directly at tenants. Moreover, 66% of survey participants believed that private renters would benefit from more advice on the heat transition and 63% said the same in relation to social housing renters. Experts interviewed for this research felt that renters have been widely disengaged from the topic because they feel very limited in their power to make any changes in a rented home and the resources advising them are sparse. Moreover, it was suggested that renters were largely apprehensive about discussing the transition with their landlords due to concerns about losing housing in a competitive rental market.

“Those in rented accommodation often don’t know who to turn to – you may know that certain property standards exist but are not necessarily able to enforce them. In a rental market where renters are under pressure and aware that there is competition to rent, it doesn’t encourage you to speak to your landlord about these additional measures, for fear of losing housing.” Charity (interview)

Experts therefore perceived that those renting from private landlords would benefit from more sources offering practical advice on what changes they can make and how to discuss these with their landlords. In relation to social housing tenants, experts suggested that messaging should focus on building a stronger case for the need for transition. They felt that it was important to ensure that social housing tenants understood why retrofitting works were being carried out in their homes and what the benefits would be, and that they did not feel like the changes were being imposed on them. This echoes findings from the 2024 research on social housing decarbonisation conducted for ClimateXChange which highlighted the importance of tenant engagement and agreement prior to conducting decarbonisation works.

Limited engagement with professionals working in the energy sector was highlighted as a substantial gap in engagement on the heat transition. The Synthesio search and expert interviews identified some activities targeted at industry professionals being delivered, including professional conferences, training and workshops. However, it was widely felt by experts that this group has not been sufficiently engaged.

Industry-level engagement was described as a missed opportunity by experts who considered industry professionals and energy service providers as trusted messengers. It was felt they could provide technical and tailored advice to the public to mitigate the challenge highlighted earlier of poor understanding of clean heat technologies (see Challenges).

Beyond being a potential engagement opportunity, this gap was also seen by some experts as a risk; for example, if heat engineers do not understand clean heating systems themselves, they may provide incorrect advice to consumers. A comprehensive nationwide effort was deemed necessary to address the gap, and a particular focus on addressing any training or skills gap in rural areas.

Across the interviews, there is a widely shared sentiment that young people were one of the groups who have been least engaged on the heat transition. Experts suggested this related to the cost of living and the availability of affordable housing being more prevalent and pressing challenges for this group. It was also partly explained by young people in the rented market having limited agency to make any energy saving changes to their homes (with that responsibility resting upon the landlord) and therefore considering the heat transition as having limited personal relevance.

“Young people are not thinking about how they heat a home because they’re just trying to find a home in the first place. […] There’re so many issues in terms of housing for young people – particularly, if they are in the rented sector, they usually have no control over how that home may be heated.” Climate Hub (interview)

Despite these reflections expressed during the interviews, survey findings suggest that organisations involved in delivering engagement did not consider young people as a group that would benefit from more advice on the heat transition, with no participants identifying this as a priority group.

While it was felt that activities being delivered online have enabled broader participation (see Accessibility), it was also acknowledged by experts that those who are digitally excluded are potentially being left out of the conversation. Although organisations such as Scarf and HES do provide multimodal advice (via telephone, in-person, or online), these are often promoted online which experts felt could be limiting reach.

Messaging

One of the main perceived messaging gaps was addressing the lack of understanding among the general public about their existing heating systems. It was felt that this lack of awareness could act as an obstacle to the success of the longer-term strategy for decarbonisation, as people are unlikely to take action on changing their boiler to a different heating system if they do not fully understand the current one. Experts highlighted that energy efficiency advice promoting better understanding of how heating systems work and their impact on the climate should be a pre-requisite for any required action on the transition.

Interviewees also widely felt across interview that insufficient practical advice had been offered to the wider public around how to install and operate clean heating systems. This gap was closely linked to the limited engagement with the energy sector professionals who are seen as the key actors who would be able to offer such advice. Experts contrasted the availability of sources offering grant and funding support – which was felt to be plentiful – with the lack of reliable sources offering tailored practical advice.

“If you’ve got a property and you have absolutely no idea whether it has a wall that can be insulated, there are few sources that you can go to for advice – some of them are great and some of them aren’t so great. So, it’s very difficult when it comes to actually making changes.” Membership organisation (interview)

It was also stressed by some experts that there needs to be transparency in the practical advice about the things that can go wrong and any potential risks around the transition to ensure that consumers are making an informed choice and are equipped with the practical knowledge of what to do if issues arise. For example, some experts reported engaging with members of the public who had transitioned to clean heating systems and had experienced issues such as an increase in energy bills but did not know how to deal with those issues and could not find information about them. It was suggested that the lack of transparency around potential risks, coupled with negative experiences such as these, could limit progress on the heat transition.

“Once something has been installed, people need to be clearly shown how to use this system and that they’re not left with something that they don’t know how to work. […] we risk putting people into more expensive systems when they’ve been told they’ll be able to save money […] We’re sitting on quite a lot of evidence around where things aren’t working particularly well or where they can act against the just transition, e.g. increasing costs.” Statutory body (interview)

However, experts also emphasised the importance of demonstrating the efficacy of these heating systems, by showing how they have been implemented in homes across Scotland and in other countries. It was also felt that the experiences of those adopting low-carbon heating technologies could be amplified. By drawing on and learning from real-life experiences, whether positive or negative, it was felt that this could help to build trust in the systems and encourage more widespread uptake over time.

One expert also suggested that public engagement on the heat transition should focus more on heat networks. This was felt to be lacking in current discussions but a likely solution for lots of people, particularly those living in flats.

Messengers

When it comes to those delivering engagement and communicating these messages, despite sharing some examples of engagement activities delivered through trusted messengers, experts shared a view that there is a general lack of impartial and reliable sources offering tailored practical advice on managing clean heating systems. This was seen as significant given the importance of building trust in, and understanding of, clean heating systems for effective engagement (see Section 5.2).

Experts defined trusted messengers in different ways. Some considered private energy providers and installers of clean heating systems to be trusted voices given their technical expertise on the matter and consumer-facing branding. Others felt that local community organisations trained in providing energy advice should play that role as they are embedded in communities already and seen as trusted sources.

Another suggestion was that there should be a separate group of messengers who are impartial (i.e. not private contractors) and able to provide technical and tailored advice to people depending on their property, location, and circumstances. This group was seen as a missing link in the process which could help connect people with verified installers.

“If someone approached us asking if we could recommend someone they could speak to about insulating their property, I honestly don’t know where the best place for them to go to would be. It would be nice if somebody could tell us where we can signpost them to. You don’t necessarily want a contractor, you want someone who could give you independent advice on what you best options are, what the likely cost would be and ideally signpost you to some reliable contractors. It feels like there is a missing stage in the process.” Membership organisation (interview)

Reflecting on the gaps in audiences, messages, and messengers, there was a dominant perspective that more needed to be done to drive effective public communication and engagement activity on the heat transition in Scotland. One expert suggested that they would benefit from more guidance and insight into the effectiveness of the Scottish Government’s own engagement on the topic, as this would help organisations when developing their own engagement strategies.

Conclusions

This research has identified several considerations for ensuring future public engagement on the heat transition builds on what has be done before and is effective in prompting action.

Prioritising groups

Delivery organisations felt that public engagement activities should be open to all on the basis that the heat transition will affect everyone some way. However, certain priority groups were identified, including:

The private rented sector, as landlords will be expected to play an essential role in driving the heat transition forward under the current HiBs proposals, which would require landlords to make energy efficiency improvements by 2028, and tenants will be affected by the changes.
Professionals in the energy sector, including energy providers and engineers who can be trained in clean heating systems, amplifying messaging around the transition, and providing tailored technical advice to households.
Those who are digitally excluded, who may not be accessing the full range of engagement activities given so much of it is being promoted online.

It was suggested that there should first be a focus on engaging professionals in the energy sector (e.g. providers and engineers) and housing sector (e.g. landlords and housing associations). This was based on the view that they represent groups who have been under-engaged but who will be key to driving the transition forward. It was also felt that engagement with industry professionals first would present an opportunity to harness their influence among wider groups, to encourage action by sharing information and practical advice, and helping to tackle the spread of misinformation.

With the support of these sectors, focus should then be given to engaging the general public. There was a view among experts that focusing on early adopters first could help to encourage action among other more hesitant groups by building up a larger body of evidence of successful examples across different types of properties. This was seen as key to building trust in the efficacy of clean heating systems.

Tailoring messages

For engaging with industry professionals, it was felt that messages should provide clarity on the changes required and reassurance on the support available, as well as addressing any issues or hesitations that might be prevalent among these groups. An in-person approach to engagement with this group was considered necessary for this, to ensure any barriers are addressed directly.

For engaging the general public it was recognised that framing activities around the climate benefits would engage those who are already highly motivated by the climate crisis and more likely to be early adopters. It was felt that making it easier for them to take action (with clear and consistent messaging and practical advice) would in turn make it even easier for those less motivated by the climate crisis to take action as they could benefit from the experiences and knowledge of those who have already done it.

Highlighting the financial benefits and availability of grants and loans was identified as a key message that could be amplified more. This was seen to be particularly important for engaging members of the public for whom the upfront costs would be off-putting or those who are struggling with their energy bills already.

It was also felt that messages should be tailored, based on an understanding that different solutions will be needed for different groups and that the benefits/challenges associated will also be different depending on people’s circumstances (e.g. for those in houses compared to those in flats, and for those living in urban areas compared to those living in rural areas).

Overall, experts were in favour of more national-level campaigning – coordinated between the Scottish Government and key stakeholders – to raise awareness around the HiBs proposal and emphasise positive messaging around the heat transition. It was also felt that this would need to be supported by local-level public engagement that is tailored to, and addresses, the needs of different groups.

Building trust

There was a broad sense that any public engagement activity on the heat transition needs to first build a baseline understanding of heating systems, before engaging on transitioning between current and future systems. It was felt that priority should be given to improving basic understanding among general public about how boilers operate and start with simple changes they can make their homes more energy efficient.

Building on this, it was felt that public engagement should emphasise the needs and benefits of the transition to clean heating systems. At the same time, the importance of transparency in communicating the potential risks was also highlighted. Ensuring the availability of practical advice on how to navigate these risks and deal with challenges (particularly around installation and unforeseen costs), was felt to be missing from engagement currently.

Using trusted messengers – whether organisations already embedded in communities, those with technical knowledge (e.g. industry professionals), or a new group of independent advisers from a range of backgrounds – was seen as an effective vehicle for communicating these aspects of the transition. Experts interpreted trusted messengers in a range of ways, and further research would be beneficial to determine who the public would trust to deliver messages.

Regulatory clarity

Organisations delivering public engagement reported feeling limited in what they can deliver until it is clearer when the regulations will come into force, and what the regulations will include (i.e. the changes that people will be required to make in relation to clean heat and energy efficiency). There was a general understanding of the direction of travel, but it was felt that a lack of detailed information was limiting the effectiveness of communication and engagement on the heat transition in Scotland.

Regulatory clarity was therefore widely called for, although it was recognised that this would be difficult to provide until the legislation is finalised. Nevertheless, it was strongly suggested that regulatory and financial decisions need to be made first. Organisations delivering public engagement activities felt they needed clarity on what the regulations will be, when they will come into force, and what financial support will be available, so that they can be equipped to support their members, service users and the general public through the transition.

Appendices

Appendix A – detailed methodology

The research involved three strands:

A web search to identify public engagement activities.
Interviews with 10 experts representing a range of organisations involved in the heat transition.
An online survey of organisations delivering public engagement activity.

Web search

The web search was initially conducted using a traditional online search method, whereby “Boolean search strings” were used in Google and Google Scholar. Search strings were created beforehand and then refined throughout the search process where necessary, to improve the relevance of results (see Appendix B for the full list of search strings used).

Ultimately, the traditional online search results were limited, and the majority of public engagement examples analysed were identified through using Ipsos’ proprietary social listening software, Synthesio. The software works by identifying mentions of specified terms (in a similar way as search strings) across the web, including platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.

The initial Synthesio search (using the search string listed in Appendix B) produced around 2,500 references to public engagement across these social media channels, which were reviewed by the research team. Through search refinement using key word filtering and further manual review, most mentions were ultimately excluded due to duplication or being out of scope.

An analysis of 62 instances of engagement that matched the inclusion criteria (as specified below). Details of these engagement examples were recorded in a mapping spreadsheet in Excel, by the research team. Examples from a previous, brief web search by the Scottish Government that did not appear in Ipsos’ web search were also included in the spreadsheet, along with a very small number of activities that Ipsos were already aware of.

Expert interviews

A longlist of potential organisations was generated by Ipsos following an initial web search and initial recommendations from the Scottish Government and ClimateXChange, and was reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government. Organisations were selected on the basis that they could comment on public engagement on the heat transition (either from direct delivery experience or from involvement on the heat transition in other ways) and that they represented a range of perspectives. Experts were invited to take part via email and the profile of expert organisations included a mix of charities/advice services, climate hubs,^[4] private companies, non-government organisations and industry bodies.

This strand of the research explored the different types of public engagement activities in more detail. A topic guide was developed by the Ipsos research team and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix C). Interviews lasted around 45 minutes each, and covered public engagement activities/communications recently delivered or known about, target audiences, perceived impact of engagement, any future activities planned, and views on current gaps in engagement.

Interviews also helped to identify potential organisations for inclusion in the online survey sample. Interviews were originally planned to be completed before the online survey fieldwork began. However, the decision was made to hold four interviews back until the online survey was underway. This decision was partly practical to be flexible around participants’ availability, but also to allow for survey responses to inform discussions and identify potential organisations to interview for a broader range of perspectives.

Online survey

The third strand of the research involved a five-minute online survey with organisations delivering public engagement activities in Scotland to explore the purpose and nature of these activities (e.g. key topics, target audience and impact). The questions were designed by Ipsos and reviewed by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government (see Appendix D).

An initial sample of 78 contacts was generated by Ipsos through the web search and interviews, and the survey link was also shared by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government through various email networks and communications channels, such as X (formerly Twitter) and the CXC newsletter, to broaden participation.

Two reminder emails were sent to the sample during the fieldwork period to boost response rates. The survey was live for five weeks, from 19 June to 24 July, and 34 completed responses were received. Of these, 25 organisations reported that they had delivered some form of public engagement in the last three years.

Appendix B – overview of web search

Web search strings

The following strings were placed into Google or Google Scholar:

‘Public engagement’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
‘Public participation’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
‘Deliberative/deliberation’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
‘Public consultation’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
‘Public dialogue’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR
‘Citizen engagement’ AND ‘Scotland’ AND [heat transition/ heat decarbonisation/ clean heating/ energy efficiency/ net zero heating/ green heating/ zero emission heating/ zero direct emission heating/ fabric first] OR

The following string was placed into Synthesio

(Scotland OR Edinburgh OR Glasgow OR Aberdeen OR Aberdeenshire OR Dundee OR Inverness OR Isles OR Isle OR Ayrshire OR Arran OR Islands OR Lothian OR Fife OR Highlands OR Perth OR “Outer Hebrides” OR Shetland OR Orkney OR Stirling OR Angus OR Dumfries OR Galloway OR Argyll) NEAR/5 (advice* OR consultation* OR discussion* OR event* OR conference* OR talk* OR “public service” OR report* OR session* OR lecture* OR conversation* OR public OR forum* OR seminar* OR workshop* OR outreach OR community OR engagement OR dialogue OR meeting* OR briefing* OR presentation* OR program* OR survey* OR roadshow* OR “public outreach”)) AND (“heat transition” OR “heat decarbonisation” OR “clean heating” OR “energy efficiency” OR “net zero heating” OR “green heating” OR “zero emission heating” OR “zero direct emission heating” OR “fabric first” OR “#EnergyEfficiency”)

Parameters

Across both searches, the following inclusion criteria were used:

Topic: Public engagement related to heat transition/ energy efficiency. The research team included public engagement that is wider than just the Heat in Buildings agenda, but focused on engagement that is exclusively focused on the heat transition. (The relative focus on the heat transition in general climate change engagement was also mapped where relevant).

Date: From October 2021 onwards (introduction of the Heat in Buildings Strategy in Scotland). This was reviewed during initial stages of searching and was deemed to be appropriate based on the volume of material available. The final eligible date for inclusion was 20th May 2024, corresponding with when the web review strand of the research ended.
Methodology: “For the purposes of this research, “Public engagement” was understood as including various forms (e.g. public participation, public consultation, public dialogue) and methods.
Geographical coverage: Scotland.
Level: National- and potentially regional-level public engagement was initially prioritised for this project, rather than community-level. However, much of the engagement examples identified were at the more local, community-level and so relevant examples of these were also reviewed and included in the mapping.
Language: English language (it was agreed that the research team would also record any search results in Gaelic, but this was not called for).

Appendix C – Topic guide for expert interviews

Introduction (3 mins)

Ipsos has been commissioned by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government to conduct research into public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland.

As part of the research, we are conducting interviews with organisations across Scotland who have carried out, been involved in, or have a good awareness of, engagement activities with the public on the heat transition. This includes engagement on topics like clean heating and energy efficiency, low carbon technology and zero direct emissions heating systems. These interviews will help us obtain a fuller understanding about the types of activities that have been carried out so far.

The research will inform the delivery of the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy.

The interview should last about 45 minutes and everything you say will be treated in the strictest confidence. No identifying information about individuals will be included in the report, for example, if we would like to quote you, we will do it anonymously. ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government will not receive notes from individual interviews or attributable comments.

Participation is voluntary and you can change your mind at any time, up until the report is published.

We would like to record the discussion for analysis purposes. It will not be provided to anyone outside of the Ipsos research team. The recordings will be securely stored and will be destroyed three months after we have completed the evaluation.

Do I have your permission to record?

Turn on the recorder and record consent to take part and for the discussion to be recorded.

Do you have any questions before we begin? Are you happy to proceed?

Background (3-5 mins)

To start with, can you tell me a bit about yourself and your role at [organisation].

What, if anything, do you know about the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy?

IF NECESSARY: The strategy was published in October 2021, and sets out how the Scottish Government will achieve warmer, greener and more energy efficient heating in domestic and non-domestic buildings in Scotland. It established a target of decarbonising all properties in Scotland by 2045, including the approximately 2 million homes that currently use mains gas as their primary heating fuel.

And what, if anything, do you know about the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy?

IF NECESSARY: The Heat in Buildings Public Engagement Strategy provides an overview of how Scottish Government will work with other stakeholders to deliver a programme of public awareness raising, education and participation around clean heat and energy efficiency, in order to meet targets set out in the Heat in Buildings Strategy.

PROBE:

General views on strategy – any positives, negatives
Does organisation have a specific strategy / business plans in relation to this?

Overview of activities (10-15 mins)

We are interested in finding out about the different types of activities organisations may have carried out over the last three years to engage members of the public in relation to the heat transition to net zero emissions in Scotland. Can you tell me about any activities that your organisation has…

Carried out over the last three years to engage the public on this topic?
Contributed to or supported in some way?
Been aware of (but not been involved in)?

Interviewer: note down examples initially raised by stakeholder, then gather information about each one in relevant section (apportioning time on each section depending on the number of examples relavant to each).

At this stage probe for brief details about each activity (explain you will ask for more detail after you’ve heard about all the different types of activities carried out):

what was it about?
what did it involve / how was it carried out?
who was it carried out with? target audience?
was anything published / any information available online?
- (if yes – interviewer does not need to spend time collecting factual information that will likely be in the report – focus on key questions instead).

Note to interviewer: if there are lots of activities to discuss and the stakeholder is not able to stay on the call, ask if they would be willing to share details of the remaining examples by email.

A – Information about activities the organisation delivered themselves (10-15 mins)

I’d now like to ask you a bit more about the [activity/activities] you mentioned.

It would be useful to know more about what took place, and your thoughts on how well you think this method of engagement worked and any impact it may have had.

You might not have all the answers, which is absolutely fine.

Interviewer: ask about each (relevant) activity mentioned in turn with remaining time. ask or adapt questions depending on the type and format of engagement activity being described. if short on time or if there are lots of examples, prioritise those that are newly uncovered, unpublished or that we have not collected details about already.

ensure that you leave five minutes at end to ask the future engagement section.

What was the purpose or overall aim of the activity?
Who was the activity aimed at? General public or specific groups?

Probe on groups such as:

Particular geographical areas;
Socio-economic groups;
People living in particular types of properties
Homeowners/landlords/renters
Based on protected characteristics – disability, ethnicity
other groups
Why were you interested in engaging with [this group / these groups] in particular? Why was this important?

PROBE IF NECESSARY:

How did you identify there was a need to engage with this group?

I’d now like to ask about the topics that were covered and the way those topics were communicated to the public…

What areas / topics did the activity cover?

PROBE:

What were the main / key messages being communicated / delivered by the activity?
Why were these particular messages chosen?
And were any steps taken to make it easier for people to take part or engage with the activity?

PROBE:

Design of materials
Language (e.g. use of plain English; terminology used; Gaelic)
Location of activity (any considerations for urban/rural audiences)
How engaged / method of engagement
Why did you do this? Were there any groups of people you thought may have struggled to understand/engage with the activity otherwise?
What is your understanding of the impact this activity has had? Did it achieve its goals/aims?
- If yes – In what ways would you say the activity was successful?
- If too early to tell / not sure:
  - Why is that? (clarify whether activity was too recent, or if the impact is expected to be over longer term e.g. it will take a while for people to install heat pumps)
  - What do you hope that the impact of the activity will be?
- PROBE: Was the impact or success of the activity measured in any way?
- Why do you think it was successful / unsuccessful?
If not previously mentioned: And do you think it was it successful at reaching the target audience?
- Were there any groups of people missing?
- IF YES: What were the reasons for that?
Does your organisation have any future plans to further engage the public on the heat transition to net zero emissions?
- IF YES:
- What? When?
- Who is the target audience (and why)?
Are these plans based on learnings from any previous engagement?

B – Information about activities the organisation contributed to in some way (5-10 mins)

Thinking now about the other [activity], which you mentioned being involved in.

If not covered already – What was involved in the activity?
What was the purpose or overall goal of the activity?
If not covered already – What was your organisation’s involvement?
What were the main / key messages being communicated / delivered by the activity?
Who was the activity aimed at? General public or specific groups? Probe on reasons for this (if known)
Do you know if the target audience was reached successfully?
- Any groups not reached successfully?
Do you think it was it easy or difficult for people to take part and engage with the information provided [or to attend the activity]?
What is your understanding of the impact the activity had? Probe on what went well, any challenges, what could be improved

C – Information about activities that the organisation is aware of (5-10 mins)

Moving onto [activity], which you said you were aware of.

If not covered already – What was involved in the activity?
If not covered already – Who delivered the activity?
What were the main / key messages being communicated / delivered by the activity?
Who was the activity aimed at? General public or specific groups? Probe on reasons for this (if known)
Do you know if the target audience was reached successfully?
- Any groups not reached successfully?
Do you think it was it easy or difficult for people to take part and engage with the information provided [or to attend the activity]?
What is your understanding of the impact the activity had? Probe on what thought went well, any challenges, what could be improved

Engagement gaps (5 minute)

Interviewer: ask all

Finally, I’d like to ask if you think there are any gaps in the engagement activities that have been carried out so far on the heat transition. For example, in terms of the groups of people being targeted or the types of activities being carried out.

First of all, as far as you are aware, are there any groups of people you think are missing from the activities that have been carried out the heat transition in Scotland so far?

Probe:

Why do you think this is?
Are there any groups of people that your organisation would have liked to have engaged but have been unable to so far?
And are there any particular types of public engagement activities not currently happening that you think should be?
- If yes: What? When? Who should the target audience be (and why)?
Do you think you would benefit from any advice or support on public engagement in relation to the heat transition in Scotland?
- If yes: What would you find useful?

Close (3 mins)

That’s all the questions I wanted to ask you today, unless you think there is anything else we might have missed which would be useful for us to know?

Thanks. In the next few weeks, we will be conducting follow up research among organisations across Scotland responsible for delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition. This will comprise a short, 5-minute online survey asking about activities or communications being delivered. Would you, or someone else from your organisation, be willing to take part in the survey?

If yes: take contact details (name, email)

We are keen to invite as many organisations as possible to take part in the survey. Can I check, are there any other organisations or people you are aware of who are delivering public engagement activities on the heat transition that you think we should invite to take part in the survey?

Finally, the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government research teams may wish to conduct follow up research about this topic within the next 2 years. Are you willing to have your name and contact details passed on to the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government teams for this purpose?

Thank you so much for taking the time to speak to me today, it’s been really helpful.

Appendix D – online survey questionnaire

ASK ALL.

QWORK: First of all, which of the following best describes who you work for?

Charitable organisation
Community group
Education or research institute
Local authority
Non-Governmental organisation
Non-profit organisation
Private sector organisation
Scottish Government department
Social enterprise
Other – please specify:
Don’t know

ASK ALL.

How much, if anything, would you say you currently know about the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy?

A great deal
A fair amount
Just a little
Heard of it but know nothing about it
Never heard of it

ASK ALL.

Q1. As you may know, the Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy aims to transform Scotland’s buildings and the systems that supply their heat, as part of the transition to net zero emissions by 2045. This includes working to support the rapid adoption of zero emissions systems for home heating, such as heat pumps and district heat networks.

Have you, or your organisation, carried out any activities over the last three years to engage members of the public about changing their home heating systems?

Yes
No
Don’t know

IF YES AT Q1.

Q2. Which of the following categories would those activities most closely fall under? MULTICODE

Workshops
Public information campaigns
Open days or showcases
Lectures / talks
Training or knowledge-sharing sessions
Providing information online
Consultations
Citizens Panel
Advice service (in person)
Advice service (online)
Advice service (telephone)
Other – please specify:

ASK IF YES AT Q1

Thinking about the most recent activity that you / your organisation carried out…

Q3. Which of the following topics, if any, were covered by the activity? MULTICODE

General provision of energy efficiency advice/information
Information about Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan / net zero targets
Improving the energy efficiency of households (such as through improving home insulation)
Installing air source or ground source heat pumps
District heating networks
Other types of clean heating systems*
Provision of information about grants / loans
Other – please specify:
Don’t know

ASK IF YES AT Q1

Q4. Which groups, if any, was the activity targeted at? MULTICODE

General public (no specific target groups) at national level
General public (no specific target groups) at regional or local level
Businesses or people working in the energy sector
Homeowners
Private renters
Those renting their home from a local authority or housing association
Landlords
Low-income households
Households in urban areas
Households in rural areas
Households using gas/oil heating
People with protected characteristics (e.g. disabled people, minority ethnic groups)
People in fuel poverty
Older people
Younger people
Other – please specify:
Don’t know

Q5. What was the main reason or reasons for focusing the activity on those groups in particular?

OPEN TEXT
Don’t know / not sure

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q1.

Q6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the activity?

The activity was effective at reaching its target audience.
The activity was effective at improving the target audience’s awareness / understanding of the issue.
Members of the public took action as a result of engaging with the activity.
Members of the public decided to change their home heating system to a zero direct emissions heating system as a result of engaging with the activity.
It was easy for members of the public to take part and engage with the activity / the information provided.

ANSWER OPTIONS

Strongly agree
Tend to agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Tend to disagree
Strongly disagree
Too early to tell
Not relevant
Don’t know

ASK IF YES AT Q1.

Q7a Has your organisation carried out an evaluation of any of its public engagement activities?

Yes
No
Don’t know

ASK IF YES AT Q7a.

Q7b. Would you be willing to share this information with the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government research team, to allow them to understand more about the impact of public engagement activities on this topic? SINGLE CODE

Yes
No
Don’t know

SHOW IF CODE 1 AT Q7b

Thank you, please send this information to UK-PA-HeatTransition@ipsos.com and let us know if there is anything you would not like to be shared with the ClimateXChange and Scottish Government research team.

Select ‘Next’ to move on to the next question.

ASK ALL.

Q8. Do you or your organisation have any plans to deliver public engagement activities on the heat transition in Scotland in the future?

Yes
No
Don’t know

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q8

Q9. Could you tell us more about your future plans, including what the activities will involve and who they will be targeted at?

OPEN TEXT
Don’t know / not sure

ASK ALL.

Q10: Are you aware of any activities that have been carried out over the last three years by other organisations to engage members of the public in relation to the heat transition to net zero emissions in Scotland?

Yes
No
Don’t know / Can’t remember

IF YES AT Q10.

Q11. What types of public engagement activities are you aware of that have been carried out over the last three years? MULTICODE.

Workshops
Public information campaigns
Open days or showcases
Lectures / talks
Training or knowledge-sharing sessions
Providing information online
Consultations
Citizens Panel
Advice service (in person)
Advice service (online)
Advice service (telephone)
Other – please specify:

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q10.

Q12. What topics did that activity / did those activities relate to? MULTICODE

General provision of energy efficiency advice/information
Information about Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan / net zero targets
Improving the energy efficiency of households (such as through improving home insulation)
Installing air source or ground source heat pumps
District heating networks
Other types of clean heating systems*
Provision of information about grants / loans
Other – please specify:
Don’t know

ASK IF CODE 1 AT Q10.

Q13. And, as far as you are aware, which of the following groups of people / households did this activity/ those activities focus on? MULTICODE

General public (no specific target groups) at national level
General public (no specific target groups) at regional or local level
Businesses or people working in the energy sector
Homeowners
Private renters
Those renting their home from a local authority or housing association
Landlords
Low-income households
Households in urban areas
Households in rural areas
Households using gas/oil heating
People with protected characteristics (e.g. disabled people, minority ethnic groups)
People in fuel poverty
Older people
Younger people
Other – please specify:
Don’t know

ASK ALL

Q14. Which of the following groups of people, if any, do you think would benefit from more support or information on the heat transition in Scotland? MULTICODE

General public (no specific target groups) at national level
General public (no specific target groups) at regional or local level
Businesses or people working in the energy sector
Homeowners
Private renters
Those renting their home from a local authority or housing association
Landlords
Low-income households
Households in urban areas
Households in rural areas
Households using gas/oil heating
People with protected characteristics (e.g. disabled people, minority ethnic groups)
People in fuel poverty
Older people
Younger people
Other – please specify:
Don’t know

Synthesio is an Ipsos proprietary tool that trawls the social web and mainstream media to monitor online presence and identify posts, re-posts and tags on a given topic (in this case, public engagement on the heat transition in Scotland). ↑
https://moneysavingboilerchallenge.com/ ↑
https://www.thursocdt.co.uk/helpandsupport ↑
Climate hubs are volunteer-led networks that supports community-led action across Scotland’s regions: https://www.gov.scot/policies/climate-change/community-led-climate-action/ ↑

Scotland is already experiencing climate change impacts, including increasing water scarcity, flooding and extreme weather events. The Scottish Government is preparing for these challenges with the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3).

This report presents indicators for monitoring the four domestic outcomes of SNAP3. It establishes a baseline prior to the implementation of the Plan for monitoring and determining progress at the end of its five-year period.

The research was undertaken through desk-based review and stakeholder engagement.

Findings

The proposed indicators for monitoring each of the four domestic outcomes of SNAP3 are presented below.

Nature Connects

Habitat Connectivity Index
Proportion of surface water bodies classified in high and good condition
Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition
Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion
Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas
Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

Communities

Level of community awareness around climate change
Level of community climate action
Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans
Level of community wellbeing

Public Services and Infrastructure

Level of collaboration across public services
Level of adaptation actions across public services

Economy, Business and Industry

Proportion of businesses monitoring climate-related risks
Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change
Number of green jobs
Uptake of grants for agriculture storage reservoirs and off-season storage lagoons

Recommendations

Key recommendations for the outcome indicators include:

Consistent application of indicators.
Maintain continuity, quality and availability of data required by each indicator.
Maintain flexibility regarding potential for additional indicators.
Establish a working group to sustain the functioning of the indicators.

For further details please read the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Related Scottish Government publications

Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029 (www.gov.scot)

Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (www.gov.scot)

Research completed August 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4836

Executive summary

Aims

This report presents indicators for monitoring the four domestic outcomes of the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3). These outcomes are summarised as:

Nature Connects
Communities
Public Services and Infrastructure
Economy, Business and Industry

It establishes a baseline prior to the implementation of SNAP3 for monitoring and determining progress at the end of the Plan’s five-year period.

The report addresses the challenges of developing indicators for a national adaptation plan by adopting an approach that balances robustness and practicality, considering available resources and data. We have developed a set of indicators for each outcome, assessing their relevance and feasibility for monitoring, through desk-based review and stakeholder engagement. The assessment has been grounded in the practical reality of what data is available rather than theoretically ideal indicators.

Findings

The indicators proposed for each of SNAP3’s outcomes are listed below. For each indicator, there was sufficient data available to allow for a pre-SNAP3 baseline to be established and then reported against after a five-year period.

Nature Connects – outcome indicators
Habitat Connectivity Index
Proportion of surface water bodies classified in high and good condition
Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition
Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion
Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas
Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

These six indicators cover elements of ecological connectivity, ecosystem health, and nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate adaptation. A marine ecosystem indicator could not be included due to insufficient data availability.

Communities – outcome indicators
Level of community awareness around climate change
Level of community climate action
Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans
Level of community wellbeing

The four indicators cover elements of community resilience, wellbeing, and climate action. It was particularly challenging to capture the complexity of health and equity in relation to climate adaptation with only a few high-level indicators. The onus was placed on monitoring levels of community action in creating resilient, healthy, and equitable places.

Public Services and Infrastructure – outcome indicators
Level of collaboration across public services
Level of adaptation actions across public services

The two indicators monitor collaboration and adaptation action among public bodies. While these indicators provide high-level insights into public sector collaboration and adaptation efforts, they do not measure the effectiveness or inclusiveness of these actions, which would require numerous sector-specific indicators that would be onerous to monitor.

Economy, Business and Industry – outcome indicators
Proportion of businesses monitoring climate-related risks
Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change
Number of green jobs
Uptake of grants for agriculture storage reservoirs and off-season storage lagoons

The five indicators cover elements of business preparedness, adaptation actions, and economic opportunities related to climate change. These indicators provide an overview of Scotland’s economic adaptation to climate change. However, they do not cover investment in climate adaptation initiatives or economic resilience to climate-related hazards, as there were insufficient available data.

Recommendations

Key recommendations for the outcome indicators following this project include:

Consistent application of indicators. The indicator set for SNAP3 should be finalised as soon as possible and consistently applied to enable meaningful and coherent monitoring over the Plan’s five-year period. Any changes made to individual indicators or the data that underpin them may compromise the ability to track progress consistently relative to the baseline.
Maintain continuity, quality and availability of data required by each indicator. It is vital to maintain the allocation of resources to the collection, maintenance and accessibility of datasets used by the indicators across all relevant Scottish Government departments.
Maintain flexibility regarding potential for additional indicators. New indicators may be added in the immediate term if relevant data becomes available, as may be anticipated regarding, for example an ecosystem functions indicator for Nature Connects or a green finance indicator for Economy, Business, and Industry. While the suite of indicators addresses the needs for monitoring the outcomes of SNAP3, it may be viewed as a foundation to build upon regarding monitoring of SNAP4.
Establish a working group to sustain the functioning of the indicators. The working group could comprise key stakeholders and data providers who could meet annually to review the functioning of the indicators and address any issues regarding their deployment, e.g., continuity and availability of data and its quality.

The findings of this report may also be of interest to anyone interested in monitoring and evaluation of climate adaptation planning more generally.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

BICS	Business Insights and Conditions Survey
CCAH	Community Climate Action Hubs
LPP	Local Place Plans
MEL	Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
NAP	National Adaptation Plan
NbS	Nature-based solutions
ONS	Office of National Statistics
SEPA	Scottish Environment Protection Agency
SHeS	Scottish Health Survey
SHS	Scottish Household Survey
SNAP3	3^rd Scottish National Adaptation Plan
SSN	Sustainable Scotland Network
WEMWBS	Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale

Introduction

Aims of this report

The third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3)^[1] will be published in Autumn 2024 and Scottish Ministers have agreed that there is a need to improve monitoring of its outputs and outcomes, as compared with the way previous adaptation plans in Scotland have been monitored. The central aim for monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) of SNAP3 is to ensure that the indicators are as robust and relevant as possible for monitoring its specific outcomes, while remaining practical and accessible to implement in terms of resources and data available. We have sought to strike this balance between robustness and feasibility in the outcome indicators presented in this report.

The structure of SNAP3 is based around five long term outcomes and 23 objectives that set out adaptation priorities for the Scottish Government between 2024-2029. These five outcomes are (with abbreviations used hereinafter in brackets):

“Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts, and seas” (Nature Connects)
“Communities are creating climate-resilient, healthy, and equitable places” (Communities)
“Public services are collaborating in effective and inclusive adaptation action” (Public Services and Infrastructure)
“Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition” (Economy, Business and Industry)
“Scotland’s international role supports climate justice and enhanced global action on climate adaptation” (International Action)

The indicators developed here address the first four outcomes, which are focused on Scotland’s resilience at the national level. Through a process of desk-based research and engagement with the Scottish Government’s departments and relevant organisations, we have developed a suite of indicators to monitor progress of these outcomes. Each indicator was assessed using criteria to determine its inclusion. The criteria addressed the indicator’s conceptual relevance and practical implications, including availability of baseline data. Our development of indicators for the four outcomes of SNAP3 took place concurrently with work undertaken by the Scottish Government to develop a suite of indicators for the 23 objectives that sit beneath the outcomes.

This report takes the following structure: first, Section 1.2 provides a brief overview of MEL in national adaptation contexts. Section 2 outlines the process undertaken to develop the outcome indicators. Section 3 provides information for each indicator and is structured by each outcome. Baseline data is presented in the Section 4. Section 5 concludes with a discussion and recommendations for next steps. Annexes provide further details on methodology and technical information.

Context

A key takeaway from the COP28 in December 2023 was the importance of monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) to understand and report on the effectiveness of the design and implementation of national adaptation planning processes (Beauchamp & Józefiak, 2023). Due to the iterative nature of climate adaptation, MEL is essential to periodically understand the effectiveness of adaptation plans effectiveness and improve their design accordingly (GEF, 2016). Furthermore, national MEL systems are of importance for fulfilling national reporting commitments, such as the Enhanced Transparency Framework under the Paris Agreement (UNDP, 2022).

Developing indicators of climate adaptation is challenging, conceptually and practically, due to the complex, multi-sectoral and context-specific nature of climate impacts that need to be addressed (UNFCC, 2022). Challenges include: the length of time it can take to implement adaptation actions due to their scope and scale; the length of time for adaptation actions to mature and deliver measurable outcomes; and the need for monitoring to be sustained, which poses practical issues regarding maintenance of a consistent methodology using comparable data and associated long-term funding and policy cycles.

No standard metrics exist to capture adaptation nor an off-the-shelf indicator framework to apply to a country’s context (New et al., 2022). Nevertheless, there are numerous efforts to structure MEL of climate adaptation in the form of checklists and toolkits. Examples include: the BASE Evaluation Criteria for Climate Adaptation, which offers a checklist for evaluation focused on outcomes and processes; and the ‘Toolkit for MEL for National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Processes’ for developing countries (Beauchamp et al., 2024).

The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) framework adopted at COP28 (known as the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience) represents a concerted effort at a global level to establish universal targets to guide countries’ adaptation pathways. However, identifying a set of indicators to monitor progress remains a fundamental challenge (Gabbatiss & Lempriere, M, 2024). This is exemplified by the wide-ranging list of potential indicators found in the recent UAE – Belém work programme that synthesises countries’ submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (UNFCCC, 2024).

In Scotland, the approach to climate adaptation M&E monitoring and evaluation has been robustly developed through the previous Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programmes (SCCAPs). The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has provided significant recommendations on enhancing the M&E framework within Scotland. A key recommendation from the CCC has been to establish clear, measurable outcomes and associated indicators that can effectively capture the progress and impact of adaptation initiatives (CCC, 2022). Recognising the benefits of this approach, the Scottish Government has adopted an outcomes-focused approach for its Adaptation Plan. The importance of aligning national adaptation indicators with local contexts, ensuring that the indicators are relevant and actionable for Scotland’s unique environmental, social, and economic conditions has been highlighted in previous ClimateXChange research (Moss, A., 2019). he work presented in this project builds upon this background of previous MEL work.

Developing the suite of indicators

To develop the suite of indicators for monitoring the four outcomes of SNAP3, we followed a five-step approach, as illustrated in Figure 1 and described below.

The first step was a desk-based, data-mapping process. This involved reviewing draft SNAP3, the previous adaptation national plans, the published relevant Scottish policies and some international guidelines on MEL to identify possible indicators. The second step involved developing criteria to rank the indicators and facilitate their selection. At the third and fourth steps, this first longlist of indicators was presented and discussed with several stakeholders, during both one-to-one interviews and four workshops organised on each of the four SNAP3 outcome areas. This dynamic process enabled us to refine and amend the longlist of indicators, clearly identify gaps and limitations, and provide some recommendations. The final step of the process was the presentation of the indicator framework containing 12 outcome indicators.

Figure 1: The five-step approach to develop the suite of indicators

Figure 2:: visualisation of the indicator development process

Desk-based research

The first stage of developing indicators involved data mapping through review of:

Sectoral policies listed in the draft SNAP3 and their implementation plans, where published, to search for relevant existing indicators and associated datasets (See Annex 1).
Relevant existing indicators and associated datasets used by previous Scottish adaptation plans (CCC, 2023; Moss, A., 2019,) and unpublished meeting notes from a stakeholder workshop led by CXC in May 2023 entitled ‘Monitoring and evaluation of Scotland’s Climate Change Adaptation Programme 2024-2029’.
A selection of international guidelines and frameworks on national climate change adaptation monitoring and evaluation (EPA, 2017; FAO, 2017; Mäkinen et al., 2018; OECD, 2015; UNFCCC, 2023; UNFCCC, 2024) to learn from others’ approaches to the identification of outcome indicators and to identify if they used any adaptation outcome indicators that might be modified for use regarding SNAP3.

The four outcomes cover a wide range of different elements. Therefore, we used an approach based around theory of change (ToC) to identify those core elements that the indicators for each outcome should cover. This approach complemented the ToC work undertaken by Scottish Government as part of the draft SNAP3. We identified core elements through interpretation and analysis of each outcome section in the draft SNAP3. The core elements identified were:

Nature Connects: Ecological connectivity (terrestrial, marine, and coastal); ecosystem health (terrestrial, marine, and coastal); and connection to nature.
Communities: Community action; community resilience; health and equity.
Public Services: Public sector collaboration; public sector adaptation action; effectiveness of public sector action; and inclusiveness of public sector action.
Economy, Business, and Industry: Business preparedness and action; and economic adaptation.

This approach provided a broad structure and scope for the development of a longlist of potential indicators. The latter emerged from this desk-based research (See Annex 2). The longlist was refined by applying the indicator criteria (see Section 2.2 below) and amended based on the inputs gathered during the stakeholder engagement.

Indicator criteria

The indicator criteria (see Table 1) built upon established indicator criteria, such as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-Bound) (Biden, 2022) and RACER (Relevant, Accepted, Credible, Easy and Robust) (Peter & Peter, 2009), while refining elements to the specific context (e.g. adaptation relevance). Indicator ranking “low” for any criterion were excluded.

Table 1: Criteria for selecting outcome indicator for SNAP3

Criterion	Description	Low	Moderate	High
Adaptation relevance	The indicator should relate to key elements of climate adaptation, including vulnerability, risk, exposure, and adaptive capacity.	Minimal to no relevance to key climate adaptation elements.	Some relevance to key climate adaptation elements.	Clear relevance to key climate adaptation elements.
Representativeness	The indicator represents a core element of the outcome area within the adaptation plan that it fits under.	Indicator only represents a small element of the outcome area.	Indicator somewhat represents the key characteristics of the outcome area.	Indicator represents well the key characteristics of the outcome area.
Understanding	The indicator should be easily understandable by a wide range of stakeholders, including non-experts, to ensure effective communication.	Technical expertise required to fully understand indicator.	Some technical expertise required but broadly understandable to non-expert audiences.	Indicator is clearly understandable to a wide audience.
Data availability	Data for the indicator is readily available and accessible for use by wide range of stakeholders	No data available or heavily restricted access to necessary data.	Data exists but requires resources and expertise to fully access.	Data fully and freely available.
Sensitivity	The indicator is sensitive enough to detect changes over five-year period.	Changes in indicator not detectable over the required time-period.	Indicator data is somewhat sensitive enough to detect changes over the required time-period.	Indicator data is sensitive enough to detect changes over the required time-period.
Baseline	It should be possible to set clear, quantifiable baseline for the indicator to track progress.	Data not available to establish a baseline.	Baseline data is possible but requires resources to obtain.	Baseline data is easily accessible.
Practicality	Indicator should be cost-effective to use and have low resource requirements for data collection and analysis.	Prohibitively expensive and/or impractical to use indicator data.	Some expenses and resources required to use indicator data.	Cost-effective and low-resource to use indicator data.

Stakeholder engagement

With support from the Scottish Government’s steering group, and drawing upon our desk-based research, we identified relevant stakeholders that could help validate and refine indicators within each outcome area. Stakeholders were considered from various backgrounds relevant to outcome areas, who could offer insights into data availability and gaps, as well as practicality of indicators.

We conducted one-to-one interviews with experts who could offer insights into data availability and gaps to discuss specific areas of the SNAP3 and four stakeholder workshops were organised; one for each outcome area^[2]. We also gathered 66 participants over four workshops, from more than 25 different organisations, detailed in Annex 3. They were invited based on their expertise in fields relevant to each outcome area discussed and their knowledge of climate adaptation. The participants received the longlist of indicators before the workshop and were asked: (a) whether the indicators proposed covered well the targeted outcome area and (b) if there were any aspects missing.

The overall aim of stakeholder engagement was to engage with relevant teams across the Scottish Government on existing monitoring work to date, review existing available datasets, and amend the longlist of quantitative indicators developed by Ricardo. Experts confirmed, advised against, or suggested indicators that would best reflect the outcome areas. The workshops helped identify limitations of the selected indicators, as well as highlighting suggested outcomes that should not be included (for example, due to lack of data availability).

Outcome indicators

This section presents the proposed outcome indicators for SNAP3. Figure 2 visually presents the proposed outcome indicators, with each indicator categorised under the relevant outcome area. An overview is provided for each outcome before detailing each indicator. This information includes the indicator title, description, data holder, unit and rationale for inclusion. Detailed information for how the indicator criteria was applied to each indicator is provided in Annex 4.

Figure 2: Proposed outcome indicators for SNAP3

Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts, and seas

Overview

The outcome Nature Connects places emphasis on nature’s role in climate adaptation. It emphasises connectivity across landscapes, settlements, coasts, and seas to bolster ecosystem resilience. Key actions include developing nature networks in every local authority area, managing invasive species, and enhancing natural carbon stores like peatlands and forests. Taking a holistic approach aims to improve Scotland’s climate resilience while delivering co-benefits for biodiversity, flood mitigation and human wellbeing. Figure 3 illustrates the SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for the Nature Connects outcome.^[3]

Figure 3: SNAP3’s pathway for the Nature Connects outcome

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Nature Connects outcome:

The importance of acknowledging that connectivity indicators do not necessarily reflect habitat quality or overall ecosystem resilience. Hence, ideally, there would be a focus on ecosystem functions and processes. However, while indicators focused on ecosystem functions are currently under development by Nature Scot, they will not be operational in time for use in monitoring SNAP3.
Despite the high-level nature of indicators, there is a need to reflect Scotland’s diverse environment. Freshwater environments were highlighted as both a useful proxy for the extent of ecological connectivity and with a comprehensive and accessible dataset.
Urban green infrastructure is an important aspect of this outcome and the indicators should capture the extent of accessibility to nature and green spaces.
Species indicators are not sufficiently sensitive to show a significant trend over SNAP3’s five years. Changes in species abundance and distribution due to climate change are often gradual. Species’ adaptation, whether through genetic changes, changes in behaviour, or moves to new areas, often require longer than five years to be observable. Over a shorter period, it can be difficult to distinguish between short-term fluctuations and longer-term changes driven by climate change. While five-year studies can provide valuable snapshots and early indicators, longer timeframes are typically needed to confidently assess significant trends in species abundance and distribution related to climate adaptation. Therefore, indicators like “terrestrial species’ abundance” developed by Nature Scot were deemed inappropriate for inclusion.
As outlined in SNAP3, marine ecosystems will make a vital contribution to Scotland’s adaptation to climate change. However, there is very limited data available to measure marine habitat connectivity. Furthermore, there is difficulty capturing adaptation of the marine environment in a single, general indicator. For example, NatureScot’s marine species’ abundance indicator focuses upon the average abundance of 14 species of breeding seabird. Such an indicator was not considered to be suitably representative of marine ecosystems and, therefore, not selected.
Not all the natural habitat types are captured in this framework. Specific indicators were considered but not selected. For example, the baseline for the Woodland Ecological Condition indicator was too old and the indicator would not cover the 2024-2029 period.

Nature Connects – proposed indicators

When setting out to develop a list of indicators for the Nature Connects outcome, it was important to cover ecological connectivity between habitats across land and sea, ecosystem health, and the implementation of NbS for climate adaptation. To a large extent, the six indicators chosen for this outcome efficiently achieve this coverage by using established indicators and available data held for various Scottish Government agencies.

The proposed indicators are:

Habitat Connectivity Index
Proportion of surface water bodies classified in high and good condition
Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition
Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion
Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas
Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space.

Immediately below we present the baseline information foreach of the six indicators proposed to monitor the Nature Connects outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. This is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Nature Connects – baseline

Habitat Connectivity Index

Description: In 2020, the total Equivalent Connected Area (Probability of Connectivity) (ECA (PC) value for Scotland was 35,570 ha for semi-grassland (2.9%), 5,655 ha for woodland (1.4%) and 214,277 ha for heathland (8.3%).
Recent trends: None.
Desired trend: Increase
Baseline
- Semi-grassland: 2.9%
- Woodland: 1.4%
- Healthland: 8.3%

Proportion of surface water bodies classified in good and better condition

Description: In 2022, 445 (13.7%) surface water bodies were in better condition and 1664 (51.2%) surface water bodies were in good condition.
Recent trends: This percentage has remained broadly stable in recent years, rising slightly from 61.8% in 2014.
Baseline: 64.9%
Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition

Description: In March 2024, the proportion of natural features in favourable condition on protected sites was 75.6%.
Recent trends: The trend between 2023 and 2024 is relatively stable, slightly decreasing by 0.9%. However, the proportion of features in favourable condition has decreased by 4.8 percentage points since 2016 when it peaked at 80.4%.
Baseline: 75.6%
Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion

Description: In 2021, 46% of the soft coast is affected by coastal erosion. The average rate of erosion is 0.43 m/year.
Recent trends: In 2017, 38% of the soft coast was affected by coastal erosion, representing an 8% increase in eight years. Note, the proportion of shorelines experiencing coastal erosion, and the rate of erosion, increases under all climate change emissions scenarios.
Baseline: 46%
Desired trend: Decrease

Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas

Description: The total area of urban greenspace in Scotland as defined by Ordnance Survey is 3,167 km².
Recent trends: April 2024 represents the only OS MasterMap Greenspace data currently available from the Ordnance Survey.
Baseline: 3,166km²
Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of adults who live within a 5-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

Description: In 2022, 70% of adults reported living within a 5-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space.
Recent trends: This percentage has remained broadly stable since 2013, where it was 68%. There has been a slight, steady increase from 2017 from 65% to 70%.
Baseline: 70%
Desired trend: Increase

Nature Connects – indicator summaries

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND CONNECTIVITY

Habitat Connectivity Index

Indicator	Habitat Connectivity Index
Description	This habitat connectivity indicator measures ‘functional connectivity’. This refers to how well species can move from one habitat patch to another. This indicator shows the functional connectivity of three habitats (Woodland; Heathland; Grassland;).
Data holder	Nature Scot
Unit	% of total habitat area per catchment

The Habitat Connectivity Index was selected to represent the functional health of natural ecosystems in Scotland. Habitat networks enable species to follow their shifting climate envelope and move to new habitats, ensuring their survival and the continuity of ecosystem services. Connectivity is crucial for promoting the survival, migration, and adaptation potential of species populations in response to climate change. By assessing functional connectivity, this indicator provides valuable insights into ecosystem resilience, highlighting areas where habitat fragmentation might increase the risk and exposure of species to climate-related impacts. Enhancing habitat connectivity directly supports the adaptive capacity of species by facilitating movement and gene flow, thereby reducing vulnerability, and supporting biodiversity conservation (Haddad et al., 2015). It reflects the interconnectedness of ecosystems and underscores the importance of maintaining and improving habitat connectivity to mitigate climate risks and enhance the adaptive capacity of natural systems (Krosby et. al., 2010).

Proportion of surface water bodies classified in good or better condition

Indicator	Proportion of surface water bodies classified in high or good condition
Description	This indicator shows the proportion of surface water body with an overall status classified either “good” or “high”. SEPA monitors the environment to assess the condition of water quality, water resources, physical condition, fish migration and the impact of invasive non-native species. If any single aspect of a water body is classified as below good, that water body’s overall condition is reported as below good.
Data holder	Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
Unit	%

We chose ‘proportion of surface water bodies classified in high or good condition’ as a proxy for climate change adaptation because it reflects the health and quality of water ecosystems. Healthy water bodies are more resilient to climate change impacts such as altered precipitation patterns, increased temperatures, and pollution. By maintaining high and good conditions, these water bodies can better support biodiversity and delivery of ecosystem services that fulfil human needs, particularly regarding climate adaptation (Palmer et al., 2009).

Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition

Indicator	Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition
Description	This indicator shows the efforts to improve the condition of natural features in protected sites as they will ensure terrestrial habitats are in good ecological health in Scotland. This indicator relates to the quality of natural habitats.
Data holder	Nature Scot
Unit	%

We chose ‘proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition’ as a proxy to reflect the health and resilience of Scottish ecosystems. Healthy and well-managed protected sites are better able to withstand and adapt to the impacts of climate change, such as shifting species distributions and extreme weather events (Watson et al., 2014). This indicator shows how effectively Scotland is preserving biodiversity and ecosystem services, which are crucial for climate resilience. It is important to look at the proportion of sites in favourable condition by habitat type. Indeed, habitats such as native woodland, which are vulnerable to overgrazing and invasive non-native species, have a lower percentage (56.8%) of sites in favourable condition than the other types of habitats (average of 73.4%).

Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion

Indicator	Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion
Description	This indicator shows the proportion of shorelines experiencing coastal erosion in Scotland.
Data holder	Ordnance Survey
Unit	%

Scotland’s coastline is estimated to be 18,743 km in length along the high-water line. This indicator was chosen as coastal erosion affects society’s assets such as infrastructure and cultural heritage, and contributes to more frequent coastal flooding. Coastal erosion is exacerbated by climate change. Implementing adaptation strategies to protect Scotland’s coasts is crucial to protect the biodiversity of coastal ecosystems. It also ensures the safety and resilience of coastal communities against climate impacts, as well as the resilience of regional and national infrastructure (McGranahan et al., 2007).

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas

Indicator	Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas
Description	This indicator shows the accessible and non-accessible greenspaces (woodland open semi-natural areas, inland water, beach or foreshore, manmade surface, multi-surface) in urban areas in Scotland.
Data holder	Ordnance Survey
Unit	%

This indicator is chosen as a proxy for integration of nature into urban settlements. Green infrastructures within towns and cities are NbS designed to reduce the urban heat island effect, improve resilience to flooding and provide an opportunity for people to enjoy and benefit from nature. Compared to technology-based solutions to climate challenges, NbS like green-blue land cover in urban areas are often more cost-effective and longer lasting. They also have multiple co-benefits, such as reducing net emissions, providing habitats for biodiversity, enhancing human health and well-being (Demuzere et al., 2014; Gill et al., 2007).

Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

Indicator	Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space.
Description	This indicator measures the proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space.
Data holder	Scottish Household Survey
Unit	%

This indicator is chosen as a proxy to reflect the extent communities have access to natural spaces. Easy access to green and blue spaces enhances community resilience in the face of climate stressors by promoting well-being (e.g. air quality improvement, mental and physical health, etc.) (Maas et al., 2006). Access to green and blue spaces helps mitigate the urban heat island effect, providing cooler areas that can reduce heat-related health risks during extreme weather events. Lastly, green and blue spaces contribute to biodiversity and water management, supporting ecosystems that buffer against climate impacts such as flooding (Demuzere et al., 2014).

Communities are creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places

Overview

This outcome focuses on empowering communities to create climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places. It adopts a place-based approach, acknowledging that climate impacts vary by local context. Key initiatives include establishing Climate Action Hubs, developing collaborative planning partnerships and providing capacity-building support. This community-centred approach seeks to ensure adaptation efforts are inclusive, address local needs and build societal resilience to climate impacts. Figure 4 presents the SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for the Communities outcome.^[4]

Figure 4: SNAP3’s pathway for the Communities outcome

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Communities outcome:

Data on exposure to climate-related hazards provides information on the places where efforts need to be intensified to limit inequalities, for example, if hazard data is coupled with data on deprivation or social vulnerability (Sayers, PB., et al., 2021). We explored one indicator related to the exposure of vulnerable populations to climate-related hazards. This indicator sought to understand inequality in how communities are impacted by climate hazards. There are limitations to such an indicator focusing on exposure to flood, heat, drought, or wildfire, as it does not consider the resilience of the population exposed. While exposure is unlikely to change in the short to medium term, measures to reduce the vulnerability of those most exposed to risks will be key to increasing their resilience. It is, therefore, important data but less suitable as an indicator measuring increased community resilience for the purposes of this work. The overall conclusion was that the indicators for the Communities outcome should focus more on actions being taken by communities that are indicative of resilience.
Flooding and the action taken to adapt to this hazard was a focus for consideration due to its significance as a climate-related hazard for Scotland. Example indicators include the ‘proportion of flood resilience action undertaken’ or ‘uptake of property flood protection measures in deprived areas’, or ‘responses to surveys on adaptation action’. Indicators around property flood protection measures and insurance were considered. However, although schemes such as “Build back better” exist, there were insufficient national data available to include this indicator.
A combination of two indicators, ‘progress of actions in local flood risk management plans’ and ‘percentage of the population declaring that they understand what actions they should take to help tackle climate change’ were selected as proxies to capture community action in climate adaptation.
Collaboration at community level was often mentioned as essential when it comes to adaptation to ensure the salience, credibility and legitimacy of actions and common understanding, ownership, and a desire to implement. The level of community climate collaboration is captured through monitoring the Community Climate Action Hubs (CCAH) and Local Place Plans.
Health is embedded in all the areas of SNAP3. This makes it difficult to have a general indicator linking health to climate-related hazards and issues, such as heatwaves, cold, flooding, vector-borne diseases, and food systems. This could only be captured by a fuller set of indicators focusing on health and well-being. A dataset measuring climate morbidity in Scotland could be relevant as a future outcome indicator for SNAP4 should suitable data become available. For this indicator set, a focus on wellbeing is taken using national data on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS).

Communities – proposed indicators

When setting out to develop a list of indicators for the Communities outcome, we aimed to cover aspects of community resilience, health, and equity. Of the four indicators selected for this outcome, three indicators reflected the community resilience aspect (level of community awareness; level of community climate action; and progress of actions in local flood risk management plans). There was a particular challenge in capturing the complexity of health and equity in relation to climate adaptation with only a few high-level indicators in this framework. Instead of health, a focus on community wellbeing was taken with the use of national data on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). With elements of health and equity not explicitly covered, we have instead put onus on using established indicators and available data to monitor levels of community action in creating resilient, healthy, and equitable places. Monitoring this level of community action, be it in increased community awareness, the growth of Community Climate Action Hubs (CCAH) and Local Place Plans (LPP) or in specific community actions around flood management, provides important insight on how communities are adapting to climate change.

The proposed indicators are:

Level of community awareness around climate change
Level of community climate action
Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans
Level of community wellbeing.

Below we present the baseline information for each of the four indicators proposed to monitor the Communities outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. This is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Communities – baseline

Proportion of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem

Description: In 2022, 74% of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem.
Recent trends: The Scottish population concerned about climate change representing an immediate and urgent problem has risen every year since 2013, where 46% held this view. In 2017, 61% held this view.
Baseline: 74%
Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of the population declaring that they understand what actions they should take to help tackle climate change

Description: In 2022, 80% of adults agreed that they understood what actions they should take to help tackle climate change.
Recent trends: In 2018, 74% of adults stated they understood what actions they should take to help tackle climate change.
Baseline: 80%
Desired trend: Increase

Number of Community Climate Action Hubs

Description: In 2024, 20 hubs across Scotland support community-led climate action, covering 81% of the Scottish council areas.
Recent trends: The first two hubs launched in September 2021 and the network has now expanded, consisting of the 20 hubs.
Baseline: 81%
Desired trend: Increase

Number of Local Place Plans

Description: In 2024, no local place plans have been adopted.
Recent trends: Many councils have recently invited communities to prepare Local Place Plans so that they can play a proactive role in defining the future of their places.
Baseline: 0
Desired trend: Increase

Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans

Description: In 2019, 90% of the actions to avoid an increase in flood risk were complete. By 2021, 100% of the actions were expected to be complete. In 2019, 84% of the actions to reduce flood risk were complete. By 2021, 96% of the actions were expected to be complete.
Recent trends: progress was assessed for cycle 1 (2015-2021).
Baseline: 90% (completed actions to avoid an increase in flood risk), 84% (completed actions to reduce flood risk)
Desired trend: Increase

Level of community wellbeing

Description: In 2022, the mean WEMWBS score for all adults was 47.0
Recent trends: The mean WEMWBS score for all adults remained stable between 2008 and 2019, between 49.4 and 50.0. Since 2019, it has decreased to 48.6 in 2021 and now 47.0 in 2022.
Baseline: 47.0
Desired trend: Increase

Communities – indicator summaries

Community awareness around climate change

Indicator	Level of community awareness around climate change
Description	This indicator is measured by the following: Percentage of the population declaring that they understand what actions they should take to help tackle climate change. Percentage of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem.
Data set holder	Scottish Household Survey
Unit	%

This indicator is chosen as it combines the knowledge of what is required to tackle climate change with the perception of urgency in addressing climate change. This combination is a critical aspect of community resilience. A well-informed community that recognises the urgency of climate action is more likely to engage in adaptive behaviours (Marshall et al., 2013; Shi et al., 2016). This indicator provides insights into the adaptive capacity of communities and their readiness to implement adaptation measures.

Community action on climate change

Indicator	Level of community climate action
Description	This indicator covers the number of Community Climate Action Hubs (CCAH) and Local Place Plans in Scotland. Community Climate Action Hubs are centers that support local initiatives focused on climate resilience, providing resources, education, and networking opportunities to empower communities in addressing climate challenges. This indicator will look at the percentage across all Scotland’s regions that have at least one CCAH. Local Place Plans are community-led plans that detail the aspirations and priorities of residents for the development and improvement of their areas, ensuring that local voices are integrated into the broader planning process.
Data set holder	Scottish Government
Unit	CCAH – % / LPP – Number

This indicator was selected as the number of Community Climate Action Hubs in Scotland indicates strong community resilience. This is done through fostering local engagement, resource distribution, capacity building, innovation, network-building, and policy advocacy for climate adaptation (Agrawal, 2008). Local Place Plans act as a good proxy for community-led collaboration and action. The data is available and how the hubs and plans relate to action is understandable to wider audiences.

Community flood resilience

Indicator	Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans
Description	This indicator measures the progress of actions to reduce or avoid flooding set in the Flood Management Plans.
Data set holder	The 14 lead local authorities in charge of local Flood Risk Management Plans
Unit	% of actions completed

This indicator focuses on actions of local authorities to build community flood resilience. It emphasises the importance of communities playing an active role in reducing the impact of climate change effects, in this case increased flooding (McEwen et al., 2014). This aspect is a key part of communities creating climate-resilient, healthy, and equitable places. These flood risk management plans are part of Scotland’s route map for reducing the effects of flooding on communities. This is key to Scotland’s health, wellbeing and economic success, with an estimated 284,000 homes, businesses and services identified as at risk of flooding.

Community wellbeing

Indicator	Level of community wellbeing
Description	This indicator measures adults (aged 16+) average score on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). The WEMWBS scale comprises 14 positively worded statements designed to assess positive affect, satisfying interpersonal relationships and positive functioning.
Data set holder	Scottish Health Survey
Unit	Mean score on WEMWBS scale

This indicator captures the extent of wellbeing within communities. Evidence shows that experience of the effects of climate change, for example a flooding event, and the capacity to adapt or react to it has a direct impact on mental health (Berry et al., 2018; Palinkas & Wong, 2020). Therefore, it is representative of communities and their health in relation to adaptation.

Public services are collaborating in effective and inclusive adaptation action

Overview

This outcome addresses the need for public services to collaborate effectively on adaptation. It aims to enhance governance, culture, skills and resources within public services to enable effective adaptation. Key actions include strengthening the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network, modernising water industry adaptation and embedding adaptation across transport networks. This approach seeks to ensure continued delivery of essential services and infrastructure resilience amidst climate change. Figure 5 presents the SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for Public Services.^[5]

Figure 5: The SNAP3’s pathway for the Public Services outcome

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Public Services outcome:

We determined that focusing on specific sectoral indicators related to the adaptation of critical infrastructure would result in numerous indicators. This would go against a core aim of our work to develop a concise and clear set of indicators. As discussed, the Scottish Government’s work developing indicators at an objective level has taken place alongside development of the outcome indicators presented in this report. Specific sectoral indicators have been determined at the objective level rather than being included in the high-level outcome indicators developed through this work.
We explored the possibility of an indicator around participation levels at a recently established infrastructure adaptation forum. However, the objectives and the ambitions of this forum are still at an early stage and it was not possible to determine a baseline, so it was not included here.
Collaboration is an important aspect of this outcome. The extent of collaboration of public service bodies is captured through the Sustainable Scotland Network annual report. The quality of collaboration is equally as important to capture. However, there is currently insufficient data available to incorporate this element within the outcome indicators.

Public services – proposed indicators

When setting out to develop a list of indicators for the Public Services outcome, we aimed to cover the extent of collaboration between public services, as well as the extent of effective and inclusive adaptation. These indicators use data available to capture high-level insights on the extent of public sector collaboration and adaptation actions that public bodies are taking. These indicators do not cover the extent to which these actions are effective or inclusive. Ultimately, this can only be captured at a sector-specific level, as no generalised metric for effectiveness or inclusiveness of public services and infrastructure exists. It was not possible to go to the level of sector-specific indicators for public services and infrastructure as this would result in numerous indicators.

The proposed indicators are:

Level of collaboration across public services
Level of adaptation actions across public services.

Below we present the baseline information for each of the two indicators proposed to monitor the Public Services outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. The is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Public services – baseline

This section presents baseline information. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the desired trend for each indicator and recent trends for each baseline to provide context.

Number of public bodies members in the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network

Description: In 2024, the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network counted 50 members.
Recent trends: the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network was launched in 2019 with 40 major organisations. 10 additional 10 organisations joined the Network in October 2023.
Baseline: 50
Desired trend: Increase

Number of public bodies citing the Work in partnership & collaborations as a priority for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation

Description: In 2022-2023, 53.2% of the 188 listed public bodies (100 public bodies) submitting an annual compliance report cite “Work in Partnerships & Collaborations” in their top five priorities for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation.
Recent trends: In 2021/22, 36.2% of public bodies declared that they prioritized “Work in Partnerships & Collaborations”.
Baseline: 53.2%
Desired trend: Increase

Level of risk assessment across the public sector

Description: 70.2% of the public bodies submitting an annual compliance report have completed some form of risk assessment during or prior to the 2022/23 reporting period. 43.6% of bodies have carried out a limited risk assessment. 20.7% of bodies have carried out a comprehensive risk assessment. 5.8% have completed an advanced risk assessment, involving stakeholders and considering a range of climate or socioeconomic scenarios.
Recent trends: In 2021/22 reporting, 66.0% of public bodies submitted some form of adaptation risk assessment.
Baseline:
- Limited risk assessment: 43.6%
- Comprehensive risk assessment: 20.7%
- Advanced risk assessment: 5.8%
Desired trend: Increase

Level of adaptation action taken across the public sector

Description: 71.8% of all listed public bodies submitting an annual compliance report have taken adaptation action during or prior to the 2022/23 reporting period. 44% of bodies have taken some action, 21% of all bodies are taking good action. 6% of bodies are taking advanced action.
Recent trends: In 2021/22 reporting, 67.0% of public bodies reported taking some form of action on adaptation.
Baseline:
- Some actions taken: 44%
- Good action taken: 21%
- Advanced action taken: 6%
Desired trend: Increase

Public Services – indicator summaries

Level of collaboration across public services

Indicator	Level of collaboration across public services
Description	This indicator is a combination of: the number of public bodies participating in the Public Climate Adaptation Network run by Adaptation Scotland and The proportion of the 188 public bodies citing the “work in partnership & collaborations” as a priority for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation. This information is reported according to Section 44 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The Sustainable Scotland Network manages the annual reporting process and analyses the returns on behalf of the Scottish Government.
Data set holder	Adaptation Scotland and Sustainable Scotland Network on behalf of Scottish Government
Unit	Number of public bodies / %

This indicator is selected as a proxy to demonstrate the level of collaborative effort between different public bodies on shared outcomes and priorities. Collaboration is vital to tackling the complex challenges involved in strengthening climate resilience. Effective collaboration can enhance adaptive capacity, reduce vulnerability, and ensure a cohesive response to climate change (Runhaar et al., 2018).

Level of adaptation actions across public services

Indicator	Level of adaptation actions across public services
Description	This indicator is measured by the following: The level of risk assessment across the public sector The level of adaptation action taken across the public sector This indicator is a combination of two pieces of information reported by 188 public bodies according to Section 44 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The level of risk assessment (none, limited, comprehensive, advanced) and of adaptation action (none, some, good, advanced) taken across the public sector are assessed. The Sustainable Scotland Network manages the annual reporting process and analyses the returns on behalf of the Scottish Government.
Data set holder	Sustainable Scotland Network on behalf of the Scottish Government
Unit	%

This indicator captures the level of climate adaptation actions undertaken by public bodies. The public sector must assess and address climate risks through adaptation planning and action to ensure the quality of its services to the population in a changing climate (Runhaar et al., 2018). By monitoring the level of risk assessment and adaptation actions, this indicator provides insights into the preparedness and resilience of public services.

Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition.

Overview

This outcome focuses on adapting the economy and industries to realise opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition. It aims to support businesses in understanding and responding to climate risks, whilst fostering innovation in adaptation solutions. Key actions include increasing business awareness of climate risks, supporting adaptation in sectors like farming and forestry, and promoting Scotland as an innovation hub for adaptation solutions. This approach seeks to ensure Scotland’s economy remains competitive and resilient whilst capitalising on emerging opportunities. Figure 6 presents SNAP3’s pathway from objectives to outcome and impact for Economy, Business and Industry.^[6]

Figure 6: SNAP3’s pathway for the Economy, Business and Industry outcome

Considerations for indicator selection

Following the desk-based review and stakeholder engagement, several considerations emerged regarding indicator selection for the Economy, Business and Industry outcome:

Investments in climate resilience, with a specific taxonomy for adaptation-related investment, was considered a potential indicator. Such a taxonomy would prove a useful indicator for how the economy is adapting to climate change. However, while initiatives are emerging, this has not been fully implemented at national level yet. It is something to consider for inclusion in the next SNAP.
The direct economic loss associated with climate-related hazards, such as flooding was considered. Some stakeholders felt that many businesses could be reluctant to invest in resilient infrastructure because its benefits are not easily quantified. Capturing direct loss associated with climate-related hazards helps industries understand the value of investments in adaptation. Nevertheless, no viable dataset currently exists for such an indicator in the Scottish context.
An indicator on green jobs is included in the indicator set. However, it does not capture the development of adaptation skills needed by existing Scottish businesses to address the challenges of climate change. Training employees to increase adaptation knowledge and skills specific to the needs of individuals or businesses is an important aspect that is not captured as no viable dataset currently exists.
Sustainable practice in the agriculture sector is the focus of one indicator, given it accounts for 69% of Scotland’s total land use. Another area of the economy initially considered was the forestry sector. An indicator “percentage of certified woodland area in Scotland” was considered. However, considering that certification mostly applies to woodlands used for timber production and not woodlands more generally, the coverage of this indicator was considered too limited.
The proportion of agricultural land categorised as High Nature Value (HNV) Farming has initially been chosen as a proxy of adaptation to climate change in agriculture in Scotland. High Nature Value (HNV) Farming is an indicator used to identify agricultural systems that support high levels of biodiversity through low-intensity, traditional farming practices. HNV farms are more likely to be resilient to climate variability and extreme weather events. However, this indicator was not selected because the latest baseline is from 2013 and has not been updated since then. Should new data become available this indicator could be reviewed in the future.
Capturing innovation in Scotland’s economy was considered as an important aspect of this outcome. However, given the broad scope, complexity and subjectivity around what constitutes innovation, it is a difficult aspect to capture in a single quantitative indicator and is, therefore, not included.

Economy, Business and Industry – proposed indicators

It is important that the indicators cover the preparedness and adaptation of businesses and industries and the extent into which they take advantage of economic opportunities linked to climate change. The five indicators selected cover business preparedness and action using data periodically recorded by the Business Insights and Conditions Survey. The use of Office of National Statistics (ONS) data on green jobs provides an indicator for the transition towards a climate-smart economy and workforce skills development for the green economy. Another indicator focused specifically on adaptation action in the agricultural sector, which is a significant part of the Scottish economy. Taken together, this set of indicators uses available data to provide a broad indication of whether Scotland’s economy is adapting to climate change. Nevertheless, there are some key aspects that are not covered. These include levels of investment in climate adaptation initiatives and economic resilience (e.g., economic loss related to climate-related hazards) as well as the level of innovation from businesses in responding to climate risks.

The proposed indicators are:

Proportion of businesses monitoring climate-related risks
Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change
Number of green jobs
Uptake of grants for agriculture storage reservoirs and off-season storage lagoons.

Below we present the baseline information for each of the five indicators proposed to monitor the Economy, Business and Industry outcome. For each indicator, we provide the baseline value, a description of the baseline, the recent trend and desired trend for each indicator to provide context. More information on baseline data is available in Annex 5. This is followed by a further detailed summary of each indicator and the rationale for their inclusion.

Economy, Business and Industry – baseline

Proportion of businesses monitoring climate related risks

Description: In 2023, 15.6% of Scotland businesses have assessed risks for supply chain disruption and distribution, 6.2% for increased flooding and 4.4% for temperature increase.
Recent trends: August 2023 was the first time the question related to businesses monitoring climate related risks was asked.
Baseline:
- Supply chain disruption: 15.6%
- Increased flooding: 6.2%
- Temperature increase 4.4%
Desired trend: Increase

Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change

Description: In 2023, 26.5% of Scotland businesses have taken action to adapt supply chain disruption and distribution, 11.5% to adapt to increased flooding and 4.4% to adapt to temperature increase.
Recent trends: August 2023 was the first time the question related to businesses taking adaptation action was asked.
Baseline:
- Supply chain disruption: 25.6%
- Increased flooding: 11.5%
- Temperature increase 5.7%
Desired trend: Increase

Number of green jobs

Description: In 2022, Scotland employment in green jobs in 2022 was estimated at 46,200 full-time equivalents (FTEs).
Recent trends: This number has increased yearly since 2015 (32,800 FTE), except between 2021 and 2022.
Baseline: 46,200
Desired trend: Increase

Uptake of grants for agriculture irrigation lagoons

Description: In 2024, 5 AECS applications for irrigation lagoons were successful. 14 applications were submitted.
Recent trends: the number of applications submitted and successful are usually between 0 and 2 per year.
Baseline: 5
Desired trend: Increase

Economy, Business and Industry – indicator summaries

Business awareness of climate adaptation

Indicator	Proportion of businesses monitoring climate related risks
Description	This indicator is a survey question from the Business Insights and Conditions Survey.
Data holder	Office for National Statistics
Unit	%

This indicator captures the level of knowledge and awareness of climate-related risks by businesses. Ensuring businesses across Scotland are aware of the risks that climate change may pose to their operations, premises, staff, and supply chains is a crucial component of a climate resilient economy (Linnenluecke et al., 2013; Surminski, 2013).

Business preparedness in climate adaptation

Indicator	Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change
Description	This indicator is a survey question from the Business Insights and Conditions Survey.
Data holder	Office for National Statistics
Unit	%

This indicator captures businesses’ capacity to respond to the risks posed by climate change. Ensuring businesses across Scotland have a plan to face the risks climate change may pose to their operations, premises, staff and supply chains will be crucial to building a more climate resilient economy (Linnenluecke et al., 2013; Surminski, 2013).

Green jobs in the Scottish economy

Indicator	Total Scotland employment in green jobs
Description	This indicator looks at green jobs, as defined as “employment in an activity that contributes to protecting or restoring the environment, including those that mitigate or adapt to climate change”; they can be estimated using industry, occupation, and firm approaches. This indicator follows an industry-based approach which includes all jobs in a green industry or sector and provides our headline estimate of employment in green jobs.
Data holder	Office for National Statistics
Unit	Number

This indicator monitors the adaptation opportunity in Scotland’s Just Transition as it directly tracks employment in environmentally sustainable sectors. This indicator reflects the economic growth and industry shift towards sustainable practices, essential for climate adaptation and effective Just Transition (Martinez-Fernandez et al., 2010).

Agriculture water-use efficiency

Indicator	Uptake of grants for agriculture irrigation lagoons
Description	This indicator follows the number of applied and approved agricultural projects (AECS) to improve water-use efficiency by collecting and storing water in an irrigation lagoon.
Data set holder	Scottish Government
Unit	Number of applications and approved grants

This indicator represents proxy of adaptation by the agricultural sector. Improving water storage efficiency through irrigation lagoons is a strategic adaptation measure that addresses several challenges posed by climate change: it helps mitigate the variability of rainfall patterns and allow farmers to store water during periods of excess rainfall to ensure a steady water supply for crops. It will also contribute to reduce the stress on Scotland’s water resources and reduce flood risk at times by capturing and storing excess rainfall runoff (Schmitt et. al., 2022).

Discussion

Conclusions

Climate adaptation is complex and multifaceted, spanning across sectors and scales. Therefore, MEL of climate adaptation will always be challenging. Nevertheless, monitoring the extent to which an adaptation plan’s outcomes are achieved is essential to understand the effectiveness of its associated activities and policies. Ultimately, efforts to monitor adaptation plans, such as SNAP3, must navigate this complexity, seeking a balance of indicators that is relevant, robust, and practical to implement. We have sought to achieve this balance by taking a systematic approach to the selection of indicators through desk-based review and extensive engagement with stakeholder groups across Scottish governmental departments and associated organisations. The assessment has been grounded in the practical reality of what data is available rather than theoretically ideal indicators.

In relation to the relevance and robustness of indicators, we have developed outcome indicators that efficiently capture most of the core elements of four of SNAP3’s outcomes.

For the Nature Connects outcome, the indicators proposed cover ecological connectivity, ecological health, and urban-nature connection. Taken together, these indicators will provide useful insights on progress in securing the resilience of Scotland’s natural ecosystems to climate change. Lack of an indicator specifically for marine ecosystems, due to inadequate available data, is a key, is a key limitation.

For the Communities outcome, capturing health and equity in high-level, generalised indicators was challenging due to the complexity of these issues. Therefore, the proposed indicators focus on monitoring community action of relevance to climate adaptation.

For the Public Services outcome, the proposed indicators focus upon collaboration and adaptation actions at a high-level. It was impractical to address the effectiveness of actions, as the number of different sectors associated with this outcome would result in numerous indicators.

For the Economy, Business, and Industry outcome, the indicators proposed cover areas of business preparedness and action, the extent of the transition to green economy, and the extent to which an important sector of the economy (agriculture) is undertaking climate adaptation. While acknowledging that the level of investment in climate adaptation initiatives and economic losses resulting from climate-related hazards is not addressed, these indicators will still provide useful insights about the delivery of this outcome.

Regarding practical implementation, the proposed indicators redeploy established indicators that, crucially, are based on accessible data. Most are publicly reported, although some require correspondence with the relevant Scottish Government data holder. The proposed indicators allow for a baseline to be established at the start of SNAP3 and then reported against after a five-year period. There is variation on the extent of historic data available across the indicators; there; there is more extensive data on previous trends for some than others. Importantly, we believe the relevance of proposed indicators is clear and they are straightforward to apply. As such, they can be used at the end of the five-year period by those who have not been closely involved in their development.

The stakeholder engagement process was critical in the development of the outcome indicators. A wide range of relevant stakeholders across Scotland engaged in one-to-one calls, workshops or written feedback to provide insights both conceptually on what indicators might capture SNAP3 outcomes and practically on what data are available. This engagement provided sector- and topic-specific knowledge, as well as offering validation of the final proposed set of indicators. Several themes emerged from this process of engagement. First, there was an inherent tension between what is ideal and what is possible. Discussions sometimes veered more towards enthusiasm about theoretically ideal indicators that monitor outcomes rather than being grounded in the practical reality of what data is available. While this certainly did not negate the importance of discussing ideal indicators, it was important to ensure, insofar as possible, that an onus on what is practically possible influenced the discussion.

Second, often data limitations lay at the heart of challenges regarding identification of suitable indicators. The limitations took different forms: no data existed (e.g., economic loss from climate-related hazards); it was insufficiently captured (e.g., marine species’ abundance); or it was not easy to access or publicly available (e.g., data on Build Back Better grants). It is not uncommon for data limitations to be a significant obstacle to developing indicators for climate adaptation (Vallejo, 2017).

Third, the SNAP3 outcomes are structured in a clearly defined way, which was beneficial for developing the set of proposed indicators, these outcomes overlap in ways that should be acknowledged. One example relates to the Communities outcome and the Public Services outcome, as collaboration is of significance for both community resilience and for effective public services. Hence, community actors and public service actors cannot be clearly distinguished from each other. Another example is the emphasis of Nature Connects outcome on access to green space and associated health benefits that overlaps with the community health and wellbeing aspects of the Communities outcome. Such overlaps are not inherently problematic but did point to the need for the net to be cast as wide as possible when considering stakeholder engagement for when identifying indicators.

Recommendations

Several recommendations and next steps emerge from this work. It is important to finalise the outcome indicators for SNAP3 as soon as possible, as applying these indicators consistently will be crucial to enable meaningful comparisons against the baseline. Any changes made to individual indicators or the data that underpin them may compromise the ability to track progress consistently relative to the baseline. Furthermore, it is important to maintain continuity, quality and availability of data required by each indicator. It is vital to maintain the allocation of resources to the collection, maintenance and accessibility of datasets used by the indicators across all relevant Scottish Government departments.

Whilst the indicators represent a complete and operational indicator set, there should be a flexibility regarding potential for additional indicators. New indicators may be added in the immediate term if relevant data becomes available. For example, an ecosystem functions indicator for Nature Connects or a green finance investment indicator for Economy, Business, and Industry are anticipated in the near future. While the suite of indicators addresses the needs for monitoring the outcomes of SNAP3, it may be viewed as a foundation to build upon regarding monitoring of SNAP4.

Lastly, we recommend establishing a working group to sustain the functioning of the indicators. The working group could comprise key stakeholders and data providers who could meet annually to review the functioning of the indicators and address any issues regarding their deployment, e.g., continuity and availability of data and its quality. Furthermore, this working group would build on the strong interest evident across a wide range of stakeholders to engage in the topic of climate adaption MEL.

References

Agrawal, A. (2008). The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate change. In Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World (pp. 173-198). World Bank.

Beauchamp, E. & Józefiak, I., 2023. Breaking the Glass Ceiling at COP 28: Four key elements to ensure a successful global goal on adaptation. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://www.iisd.org/publications/report/global-goal-on-adaptation-monitoring-evaluation-learning-framework-cop-28 [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Beauchamp, E., Leiter, T., Pringle, P., Brooks, N., Masud, S., and Guerdat, P., 2024. Toolkit for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning for National Adaptation Plan Processes. NAP Global Network. Available at: https://www.adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/resources/internal_brief_transparency-mrv-me-april202249_adjusted_doc_revised.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Berry, H. L., Waite, T. D., Dear, K. B., Capon, A. G., & Murray, V. (2018). The case for systems thinking about climate change and mental health. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 282-290.

Biden, A., 2022. 5 Smart Indicators in Monitoring and Evaluation. tools4dev. Available at: https://tools4dev.org/blog/smart-indicators-in-monitoring-and-evaluation/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Climate Change Committee (CCC), 2022, Is Scotland Ready? 2022 Report to Scottish Parliament. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/asc-writes-to-scottish-government-about-outcomes-based-approach-for-the-sccap/

Climate Change Committee, 32023. Adapting to climate change – Progress in Scotland. Climate Change Committee. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/adapting-to-climate-change-progress-in-scotland/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Bhave, A.G., Mittal, N., Feliu, E. & Faehnle, M. (2014) Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure, Journal of Environmental Management, 146, pp. 107–115.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2017. Tracking adaptation in agricultural sectors. FAO. Available at: https://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/1193260/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Global Environmental Facility (GEF), 2016. Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation. Global Environment Facility. Available at: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/EN_GEF.STAP_.C.51.Inf_.03_M%26E_of_CCA.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Gabbatiss, J. & Lempriere, M., 2024. Bonn climate talks: Key outcomes from the June 2024 UN climate conference. Carbon Brief. Available at: https://www.carbonbrief.org/bonn-climate-talks-key-outcomes-from-the-june-2024-un-climate-conference/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115-133.

Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D., Cook, W.M., Damschen, E.I., Ewers, R.M., Foster, B.L., Jenkins, C.N., King, A.J., Laurance, W.F., Levey, D.J., Margules, C.R., Melbourne, B.A., Nicholls, A.O., Orrock, J.L., Song, D.X. & Townshend, J.R. (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems, Science Advances, 1(2), e1500052

Krosby, M., Tewksbury, J., Haddad, N. M., & Hoekstra, J. (2010). Ecological connectivity for a changing climate. Conservation Biology, 24(6), 1686-1689.

Linnenluecke, M.K., Griffiths, A. & Winn, M.I. (2013) Firm and industry adaptation to climate change: a review of climate adaptation studies in the business and management field, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), pp. 397–416.

Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006) Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 587–592.

Mäkinen, K., Prutsch, A., Karali, E., Leitner, M., Völler, S., Lyytimäki, J., Pringle, P., and Vanneuville, W., 2018. Indicators for adaptation to climate change at national level – Lessons from emerging practice in Europe. European Topic Centre on Climate Change impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (ETC/CCA) Technical paper 2018/3. DOI: 10.25424/CMCC/CLIMATE_CHANGE_ADAPTATION_INDICATORS_2018.

Marshall, N. A., Park, S. E., Howden, S. M., Dowd, A. B., & Jakku, E. S. (2013). Climate change awareness is associated with enhanced adaptive capacity. Agricultural Systems, 117, 30-34.

Martinez-Fernandez, C., Hinojosa, C. & Miranda, G. (2010) Green jobs and skills: The local labour market implications of addressing climate change, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working Papers, 2010/02, OECD Publishing, Paris.

McEwen, L., Jones, O. & Robertson, I. (2014), ‘A glorious time?’ Some reflections on flooding in the Somerset Levels, The Geographical Journal, 180(4), pp. 326-337.

McGranahan, G., Balk, D., & Anderson, B. (2007). The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 17-37.

Moss, A., 2019. A monitoring and evaluation framework for the second SCCAP. ClimateXChange. Available at: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/publications/a-monitoring-and-evaluation-framework-for-the-second-sccap/ [Accessed 16 July 2024].

New, M., Reckien, D., Viner, D., Adler, C., Cheong, S.-M., Conde, C., Constable, A., Coughlan de Perez, E., Lammel, A., Mechler, R., Orlove, B., and Solecki, W., 2022. Decision-Making Options for Managing Risk. In: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A., and Rama, B. (eds.) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2539–2654, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.026.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015. National Climate Change Adaptation: Emerging Practices in Monitoring and Evaluation. OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229679-en [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Peter, S., & Peter, F., 2009. Evaluation of Indicators for EU Policy Objectives. Ecologic Institute. Available at: https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/publication/2016/1901-research_note-d2-1-evaluation-of_indicators-for-eu-policy-objectives-2009.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Palinkas, L. A., & Wong, M. (2020). Global climate change and mental health. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 12-16

Palmer, M. A., Lettenmaier, D. P., Poff, N. L., Postel, S. L., Richter, B., & Warner, R. (2009). Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management, 44(6), 1053-1068.

Runhaar, H., Wilk, B., Persson, Å., Uittenbroek, C., & Wamsler, C. (2018). Mainstreaming climate adaptation: taking stock about ‘what works’ from empirical research worldwide. Regional Environmental Change, 18, 1201-1210.

Sayers, PB., Lindley. S, Carr, S and Figueroa-Alfaro, R. W, 2021. The impacts of climate change on population groups in Scotland. Research undertaken by Sayers and Partners in association with the University of Manchester for ClimateXChange.

Schmitt, R.J. P., Rosa, L., Daily, G. (2022), ‘Global expansion of sustainable irrigation limited by water storage’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (47), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2214291119.

Shi, J., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M. & Arvai, J. (2016) Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed, Nature Climate Change, 6, pp. 759–762.

Surminski, S. (2013) Private-sector adaptation to climate risk, Nature Climate Change, 3(11), pp. 943–945.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2022. Transparency, MRV, and M&E. United Nations Development Programme. Available at: https://www.adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/resources/internal_brief_transparency-mrv-me-april202249_adjusted_doc_revised.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2024. Synthesis of submissions on the UAE – Belém work programme on indicators, Advance Unedited Version. UNFCCC. Available at: https://unfccc.int/documents/638384 [Accessed 16 July 2024].

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2023. Draft technical paper on monitoring and evaluation of adaptation at the national and subnational level (AC22). UNFCCC. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ac22_7c_monitoring_evaluation.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2024].

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017, . Development of a Climate Resilience Screening Index (CRSI): An Assessment of Resilience to Acute Meteorological Events and Selected Natural Hazards. EPA. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=335758 [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Vallejo, L. (2015). Insights from national adaptation monitoring and evaluation systems. In Mullan, M., Kingsmill, N., Agrawala, S. & Kramer, A.M. (eds) National Adaptation Planning: Lessons from OECD Countries. Springer, Cham. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2017/06/insights-from-national-adaptation-monitoring-and-evaluation-systems_d2e677fe.html [Accessed 16 July 2024].

Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515, 67-73.

Annexes

Annex 1 – Policies reviewed

The following policies were reviewed for sectorial indicators that could be relevant for the SNAP3 outcome indicators.

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts and seas”:

Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045

Wild Salmon Strategy and Implementation Plan

Scotland’s Third Land Use Strategy (LUS3)

Scotland’s National Marine Plan

Scottish Forestry Strategy 2019-2029

River Basin Management Plan

Wastewater and Drainage Policy (consultation)

Flood Resilience Strategy (FRS) (consultation)

Land Use and Agriculture Just Transition Plan (LAJTP)

Draft Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Delivery Plan

UK Dolphin and Porpoise Conservation Strategy

The UK Forestry Standard – The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Communities creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places”:

National Planning Framework (NPF4)

National Museums’ Strategic Plan

Place Principle

PHS climate change and sustainability strategic approach 2023-2026

Verity House Agreement

The National Islands Plan

Flood Warning Development Framework

Our Past Our Future

Historic Environment Policy for Scotland

National Library of Scotland Climate Action Plan

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Public services are collaborating in effective, inclusive adaptation action”:

Property and Asset Management Strategy

Scottish Canals Corporate Plan 2023-2028

Adaptation Capability Framework

Keep Scotland running

LEIP – Learning Estate Investment Programme

SFC’s Net Zero Framework

SFC’s College Infrastructure Strategy: The approach to delivering Scotland’s College Infrastructure Plan

SEPA’s Energy Framework

Transport Scotland’s Approach to Climate Change Adaptation & Resilience

Scotland’s National Water Scarcity Plan

Scottish policies listed in the draft SNAP3 for the outcome area “Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition”:

Blue Economy Vision for Scotland

Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation

Water Resilient Places Policy Framework

The next step in delivering our vision for Scotland as a leader in sustainable and regenerative farming

RESAS Strategy for Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Research 2022-2027

Plant Health Strategy

Vision for sustainable aquaculture

FSS’s strategy for 2021-26

Annex 2 – Initial longlist of indicators

The initial longlist of indicators is listed below. This longlist was shared with stakeholders and revised through engagement as described in section 2.

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts and seas”:

Woodland connectivity indicator by catchment

Heathland connectivity indicator by catchment

Grassland connectivity indicator by catchment

Fen/marsh/swamp connectivity indicator by catchment

Seabird species’ abundance

Terrestrial species abundance

Terrestrial species’ occupancy

Proportion of adults who live within a 5-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

Number of visits to forests and woodlands

Population within a ten-minute walk

Provision per person of green space

Reduced negative health effects (respiratory distress and heat stroke)

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Communities creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places”:

Percentage of the population declaring that they understand what actions they should take to help tackle climate change

Proportion of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem

Percentage of vulnerable population (low multiple deprivation index areas, elderly) impacted by climate risks

Percentage of built-up area exposed to flooding risk

Percentage of the population living in flood risk areas

Percentage of population living in high heat hazard risk areas

Speed and reach of early warning systems

Local government and communities have clear response plans and procedures

Number of local communities and civil society included in planning and with recognized role in EWS

Percentage of community members who are aware of emergency procedures

Percentage of the population with access to Floodline

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Public services are collaborating in effective, inclusive adaptation action”:

Number of public bodies members in the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network

Number of public bodies citing the Work in partnership & collaborations as a priority s for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation

Number of Community climate action hubs

Affordability of energy: Price of electricity in Scotland

Quality of the public services in rural communities

Quality of the public services in the 20% most deprived areas

Level of adaptation action taken across the public sector

Level of risk assessment across the public sector

Number and length of power outrages

Percentage of roads considered for maintenance treatment

Number of new major infrastructure projects located in areas at risk

Level of satisfaction of island residents on mainland ferry services

Number of Water Quality Incidents reported to DWQR

Number and length of spills from sewer overflows events

Initial longlist of indicators for the outcome area “Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition”:

Number of businesses monitoring climate related risks (flooding, temperature increase, supply chain disruptions)

Number of businesses located in potential vulnerable areas

Number of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change

Gross Value Added (GVA) for rural local authorities

Number of Farmers receiving training about climate change and adaptation from the Farm Advisory Service

Number of Farmers entering the Forestry Grant Scheme

Total area of forests and woodlands

Sustainability of Fish Stocks indicator

Amount of green finance and investment mobilised for adaptation (via an established UK Green Taxonomy adaptation category)

Number of green jobs (as defined by the ONS)

Annex 3 – Workshop participation

The following organisations participated in the workshops.

Organisations represented in the workshop “Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts and seas”:

Centre of Expertise for Waters
Edinburgh Council
Forestry and Land
Glasgow City Council
Highlands and Islands Airports
James Hutton Institute
Marine Directorate of Scottish Government
National Centre for Resilience
Nature Scot
Public Health Scotland
SEPA
Scottish Government
Scottish Water
Sniffer

Organisations represented in the workshop “Communities creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places”:

FloodRe
Glasgow City Council
National Centre for Resilience
National Resilience Scotland
Nature Scot
Public Health Scotland
Scottish Dynamic Coast
Scottish Flood Forum
Scottish Government
Scottish Land Commission
Scottish Waters
Sniffer
Strathclyde University

Organisations represented in the workshop “Public services are collaborating in effective, inclusive adaptation action”:

Climate Change Committee
Glasgow City Council
MET Office
Nature Scot
Network Rail
Public Health Scotland
SEPA
Scottish Flood Forum
Scottish Government
Scottish Water
Sniffer
Transport Scotland
University of Strathclyde

Organisations represented in the workshop “Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition”:

Climate Change Committee
Forestry and Land Scotland
Glasgow City Council
Marine Directorate of Scottish Government
Scottish Government
SEPA
Scottish Water
Sniffer

Annex 4 – Indicator criteria

OUTCOME: Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts, and seas

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND CONNECTIVITY

Habitat Connectivity Index

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation Relevance	Green	This indicator addresses habitat connectivity and quality, which are important aspect for assessing the vulnerability of ecosystems to climate change. By evaluating how well species can move and adapt to changing conditions, the indicator provides valuable insights into the adaptive capacity of habitats.
Representativeness	Amber	The indicator covers four key types of habitats: Woodland, Heathland, Grassland, and Fen/Marsh/Swamp – habitats that are representative of the broader landscape and crucial for maintaining ecological functions and services. However, the indicator does not cover freshwater, marine and coastal environments, and therefore has some limitations in its representativeness of indicating ecological health and connectivity.
Data Availability	Amber	Data is collected by NatureScot. Data for CSGN area is publicly available on NatureScot’s website. However, data for the whole Scotland is provided directly by NatureScot and is not published online.
Sensitivity	Amber	Updating this indicator every five years is considered a sensible frequency to observe meaningful changes in habitat connectivity. There may be a lag in reporting years, with data being published on average 2 years after. The up-to-date data may therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Green	This indicator on habitat connectivity can be widely understood by a broad range of stakeholders in relation to improved ecological health and associated resilience.
Baseline	Green	The indicator was last updated in 2022 for semi-natural grassland, heathland, and semi-natural woodland. Baseline maps are available on the Nature Scot website, providing a reference point for measuring changes over time. These baselines are crucial for assessing the progress and effectiveness of adaptation measures. The metric uses to calculate the habitat connectivity it is the Equivalent Connected Area (Probability of Connectivity), the ECA (PC).
Practicality	Green	The data is publicly available and detailed by catchment area, making it practical for use in planning and decision-making processes. This accessibility ensures that stakeholders can utilize the information to enhance habitat connectivity and support climate adaptation strategies. The practical application of this data supports localized adaptation efforts and helps to mitigate the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Proportion of surface water bodies classified in good or better condition

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	This indicator is relevant for climate adaptation as it addresses the quality and health of water ecosystems, which are critical for reducing vulnerability and enhancing adaptive capacity. By tracking the proportion of water bodies in good or high condition, this indicator provides insights into the resilience of water ecosystems and their capacity to adapt to changing climatic conditions.
Representativeness	Amber	The indicator is broadly effective for monitoring ecological health as it encompasses key aspects of ecosystem quality. Although it has limitations due to its primary focus on surface water bodies, it can be used as a useful proxy for the status of broader ecological and biodiversity conditions.
Data availability	Green	Full GIS data for this indicator is available on the SEPA website, ensuring that data is current and reliable. The data is updated every year by SEPA.
Sensitivity	Green	Changes in water quality and ecosystem health can be noted over a five-year timescale interventions.
Understanding	Green	This indicator on water quality can be widely understood by a broad range of stakeholders in relation to improved ecological health and associated resilience.
Baseline	Green	The indicator is publicly available on SEPA’s website has an established baseline from 2007 to 2022.
Practicality	Green	Statistical and mapping data for this indicator is already being collected and publicly accessible, making it practical to monitor as an indicator.

Proportion of Scotland’s protected sites in favourable condition

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Protected sites play a role in improving the adaptive capacity of vulnerable species by providing safe havens with the functional network that species can migrate from or too. This indicator is relevant for climate adaptation as it directly relates to the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Representativeness	Amber	While the indicator is a useful proxy for ecological health and connectivity, its limitation should be noted. The indicator does not include offshore marine sites and features in Scotland beyond 12 nautical miles, and primarily focuses on protected sites and not all natural sites, which may limit its representativeness of the broader ecological health and connectivity.
Data availability	Green	The Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) program is a rolling monitoring effort that aims to assess the condition of a sample of designated natural features each year. Detailed data per type of habitat is publicly available on the Nature Scot website, ensuring that data is current and reliable.
Sensitivity	Amber	The indicator has shown longer-term changes, though it may not reflect notable changes within shorter periods, such as from 2023 to 2024. While a five-year timescale may be too short to observe long-term trends, the indicator is suitable to detect significant changes over longer periods.
Understanding	Green	This indicator on condition of protected sites can be widely understood by a broad range of stakeholders in relation to improved ecological health and associated resilience.
Baseline	Green	The indicator has an established baseline from 2005 to 2024, with historical data available for comparison.
Practicality	Green	Statistical and mapping data for this indicator is already being collected and publicly accessible, making it practical to monitor as an indicator.

Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Monitoring the extent of coastal erosion is relevant to climate adaptation as it reflects the efficacy of implemented adaptation measures in enhancing coastal resilience.
Representativeness	Green	This indicator represents the coastal component of the Nature Connects outcome of the SNAP3.
Data availability	Amber	Data is publicly available, however, it is not specifically stated how long the programme hosting the data is running for.
Sensitivity	Green	Changes in this indicator are sufficient sensitive to the time-period of SNAP3.
Understanding	Green	The connection between the extent of coastal erosion as a proxy for coastal adaptation to climate change is generally recognised.
Baseline	Green	Baseline data available from 2017 and 2021.
Practicality	Green	The indicator is publicly available on the Center of Expertise for Waters (CREW) website. It has been developed under the Dynamic Coast project.

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Extent of green-blue land cover in urban areas

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Green-blue land cover in urban areas reflects the extent of natural spaces in cities that provide crucial ecosystem services. It is relevant for climate adaptation as it captures how well cities are prepared to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change, making urban environments more sustainable and liveable.
Representativeness	Amber	This indicator offers a good coverage of Scotland, with urban areas defined as those with a population more than 500. It covers public and private greenspaces, including woodland, open semi-natural, inland water, beach or foreshore, and manmade surface. It also distinguishes the different functions of greenspaces, such as public park or garden, school grounds, private garden, allotments, playing fields, etc. However, it does not cover the tree canopy over hard surfacing or green roofs, which are also relevant in terms of adaptation.
Data availability	Amber	This dataset “OS MasterMap Greenspace Layer” is updated every 6 months by Ordnance Survey, but requires a licence to access it.
Sensitivity	Green	Land use modification in urban areas can be noted over a five-year timescale.
Understanding	Green	This indicator on green-blue land cover in urban areas can be widely understood by a broad range of stakeholders in relation to the extent of natural spaces in cities associated with resilience.
Baseline	Green	This dataset “OS MasterMap Greenspace Layer” can be purchased on the Ordnance Survey website
Practicality	Amber	Data is available in ESRI Shapefile, GML 3.2.1, GeoPackage and Vector Tiles format. The GIS map has to be purchased and analysed to be transformed to actual percentage.

Proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Amber	The indicator captures the distance to the nearest public or open space, but does not reflect the level of accessibility, the perception of safety people have toward the green and blue spaces nor the frequency of access.
Representativeness	Green	The figures for this indicator come from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS). It covers the whole Scottish territory and includes people resident in Scotland aged 16 and over. The SHS sample has been designed to allow annual publication of results at Scotland level and for local authorities. To meet these requirements, the target sample size for Scotland was 10,450 household interviews with a minimum local authority target of 250.
Data availability	Green	The data is published annually in the Scottish Household Survey Annual Report.
Sensitivity	Amber	Changes in the proportion of adults who live within a five-minute walk of their local green or blue space can be noted over a five-year timescale. There is a lag in reporting years up to a maximum of one year (e.g. 2024 fieldwork ending in January 2025 with publication of results later in 2025) The up-to-date data will therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Green	This indicator can be widely understood by a broad range of stakeholders.
Baseline	Green	The figures for this indicator come from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) which is a National Statistics product produced by the Scottish Government. This indicator is also part of the National Performance Framework.
Practicality	Green	Statistical data for this indicator is already being collected and publicly accessible, making it practical to monitor as an indicator.

OUTCOME: Communities are creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places.

Community awareness around climate change

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Amber	This indicator is relevant for climate adaptation as it improves community adaptive capacity through knowledge enhancement. By understanding what actions are necessary to tackle climate change and recognizing the urgency of these actions, communities can better prepare for and respond to climate impacts. This knowledge reduces vulnerability and increases resilience. However, the question asked does not specifically address the impacts of climate change, the criteria is therefore orange.
Representativeness	Green	The survey provides useful snapshot on the awareness and knowledge of communities around climate change. The SHS sample has been designed to allow annual publication of results at Scotland level and for local authorities. To meet these requirements, the target sample size for Scotland was 10,450 household interviews with a minimum local authority target of 250.
Data availability	Green	The Scottish Household Survey climate awareness and action questions are asked biennially on odd years. The results are publicly available.
Sensitivity	Amber	This indicator is sensitive to changes for the purposes of SNAP3 monitoring, as observed the marked changes that occurred in public perception and knowledge between 2019-2022. There is a lag in reporting years up to a maximum of one year (e.g. 2024 fieldwork ending in January 2025 with publication of results later in 2025)The up-to-date data will therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Green	There is a clear connection on how understanding climate actions and the urgency of these actions relate to progress in climate adaptation.
Baseline	Green	The baseline data for this indicator is available since 2019, providing a reference point for measuring changes in community awareness and perception over time.
Practicality	Amber	The Scottish Household Survey has been collecting data since 1999, making it a practical, cost-effective, and well-established method for gathering information.

Community action on climate change

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Community climate action hubs will improve knowledge of communities and enhances the preparedness of communities.
Representativeness	Amber	This indicator does not capture the quality of action and may therefore not be fully representative of the effectiveness of climate actions. While it shows the presence of CCAHs and LPPs, it does not measure the depth or impact of the actions taken through these hubs/plans.
Data availability	Green	Data is held by the Scottish Government, and is publicly accessible on the Scottish Government website: Community climate action hubs: contact details – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) .
Sensitivity	Amber	This indicator is sensitive to changes for the purposes of SNAP3 monitoring, as observed by marked changes that between 2019-2022.
Understanding	Green	It is easy to see the connection between the existence and maintenance of CCAHs and LLPs as metrics for climate action, although it might not be clear what specific actions arise from these.
Baseline	Amber	20 CCAHs as of June 2024 (81% of the council areas covered).
Practicality	Amber	Information on LPPs is not located in one centralised place, so requires time and resource to obtain.

Community flood resilience

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	This indicator is relevant to climate adaptation progress as it indicates the implementation effectiveness of strategies to mitigate flood risks and enhance community resilience.
Representativeness	Green	Flooding is considered a significant climate hazard, as outlined in the SNAP3, therefore an indicator that captures action for this is representative of climate-resilient communities.
Data availability	Green	Updated data on progress will be publicly available in 2025 and 2028. Data will be published by the 14 lead local authorities in charge of local Flood Risk Management Plans, and information will be centralised by SEPA.
Sensitivity	Green	Changes in this indicator are sufficiently sensitive to the time-period of SNAP3 monitoring. However, reports are not published annually so the up-to-date data will therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Green	The extent that actions are taking place to manage the impacts of flooding are clear to understand for a wide audience.
Baseline	Amber	Actions to reduce or avoid flood are collated by the 14 lead local authorities in charge of Local Flood management Plans in their Flood Management Plan assessment report. The latest report was published in 2021, and the next one is expected in December 2025.
Practicality	Green	Data is easy to obtain and easy to use to understand progress.

Community wellbeing

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Amber	Not directly related to climate change adaptation, but the experience of the effects of climate change, for example a flooding event, and the capacity to adapt or react to it has a direct impact on mental health. This indicator highlights the intersection between mental wellbeing and climate resilience, showing how adaptive capacity influences community health.
Representativeness	Amber	Wellbeing metrics are useful indicators of community health, however, health and its impacts from climate change are wide-ranging in scope. Therefore, there is ultimately limitations that must be acknowledged with this indicator when representing overall community health.
Data availability	Green	Data is publicly available from Scottish Government.
Sensitivity	Amber	Whilst minor changes have been observed since 2006, this does not necessarily point to a lack of sensitivity in relation to the information this indicator provides. There is a lag in reporting years, with data being published on average one year later. The up-to-date data will therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Amber	Whilst the concept of mental wellbeing and its importance as a metric of community resilience is easy to understand, how this indicator relates to climate adaptation is not clear.
Baseline	Green	The baseline data from 2022 shows a mean score of 47.0 on the WEMWBS scale.
Practicality	Green	Data has been monitored since 2006, the established data collection processes ensure that this indicator can be consistently and reliably monitored.

OUTCOME: Public services are collaborating in effective and inclusive adaptation action

Level of collaboration across public services

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Collaboration is vital component of climate adaptation planning. Effective collaboration can enhance adaptive capacity, reduce vulnerability, and ensure a cohesive, equitable response to climate change.
Representativeness	Amber	While this indicator shows the level of participation and collaboration, it does not capture the quality or depth of progress in terms of collaboration. It measures quantity rather than the effectiveness of the collaborative actions being taken.
Data availability	Green	Data on the participation of public bodies in the Public Climate Adaptation Network is publicly available from Adaptation Scotland and the Sustainable Scotland Network.
Sensitivity	Amber	While the indicator data is sensitive enough for the purposes of SNAP3 monitoring, the number of public bodies participating to the Public Climate Adaptation Network is not expected to rise significantly because Adaptation Scotland’s strategy is to integrate few members at a time to insure their good and lasting integration into the network. For the Public bodies climate change duties reporting, there is a lag in reporting years, with data being published on average 1 year after. The up-to-date data will therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Green	This indicator is widely understood with the importance of collaboration in climate adaptation is broadly recognised and easily communicated.
Baseline	Green	The baseline data is from 2024 for the Public Climate Adaptation Network and from 2022/23 for the SSN report.
Practicality	Green	Data is easy to obtain and utilise to monitor progress over the SNAP3 monitoring period.

Level of adaptation actions across public services

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	This indicator is highly relevant to adaptation, providing information on levels of risk assessments undertaken by public sector and the extent that adaptation action is taking place.
Representativeness	Green	The indicator is representative insights on the extent public services are engaging in adaptation action. However, it only captures the level of risk assessment and action of public bodies subject to mandatory reporting.
Data availability	Green	Data is collected annually, providing a regular update on the level of adaptation action across public services. Data is publicly available.
Sensitivity	Amber	Changes in collaboration will likely be observed over a five-year time period. There is a lag in reporting years, with data being published on average 1 year after. The up-to-date data will therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Amber	This indicator requires some understanding of SSN’s analytical framework (and subjective nature of assessment) but the concept of risk assessment is widely understood.
Baseline	Green	The baseline for this indicator is established from data collected in 22022-3.
Practicality	Green	Data is easy to obtain and utilise to monitor progress over the SNAP3 monitoring period.

OUTCOME: Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition.

Business awareness of climate adaptation

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Business action in relation to adaptation can make them more resilient and prepared for climate hazards, thereby reducing vulnerability.
Representativeness	Amber	This indicator represents well the business adaptation component of the Economy, Business and Industry outcome area. It should be noted that it represents businesses with 10 or more employees.
Data availability	Green	Data is publicly available and reported on annually.
Sensitivity	Amber	Notable changes in the number of business monitoring climate risks is observable in the five-year period. This question was asked in August 2023. There exists potential for it to be asked soon after the end of the plan and therefore no lag in reporting.
Understanding	Green	There is a clear connection between the extent in which businesses are monitoring climate risks and how this relates to adapting economy, business and industry.
Baseline	Green	Baseline data available from August 2023.
Practicality	Green	Data is being captured by BICS already, and practical to use.

Business preparedness in climate adaptation

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Business action in relation to adaptation can make them more resilient and prepared for climate hazards, thereby reducing vulnerability.
Representativeness	Amber	This indicator represents well the business adaptation component of the Economy, Business and Industry outcome area. It should be noted that it represents businesses with 10 or more employees.
Data availability	Green	Data is publicly available and reported on annually.
Sensitivity	Amber	Notable changes in the number of business monitoring climate risks is observable in the five-year period. This question was asked in August 2023. There exists potential for it to be asked soon after the end of the plan and therefore no lag in reporting.
Understanding	Green	There is a clear connection between the extent in which businesses are monitoring climate risks and how this relates to adapting economy, business and industry.
Baseline	Green	Baseline data available from August 2023.
Practicality	Green	Data is being captured by BICS already, and practical to use.

Green jobs in the Scottish economy

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Amber	The green jobs definition signifies its relevance to adaptation. However, important to realise limitations around green jobs, for example – adaptation considered as thinking embedded into all businesses, and not just new jobs created.
Representativeness	Amber	In its focus on employment/skills in relation to climate adaptation, this indicator represents well the business adaptation component of the Economy, Business and Industry outcome area.
Data availability	Green	Data is publicly available and captured annually. It should be noted that this data is currently categorised as ‘official statistics in development’. This means the data is potentially subject to revision. However, as stated by the Office of National Statistics, this data, even when in development, is considered sufficient quality to be used.^[7]
Sensitivity	Amber	Changes in this indicator are sufficiently sensitive to the time-period of SNAP3 monitoring. There is a lag in reporting years, with data being published on average 2 years after (e.g. 2022 data was published in March 2024). The up-to-date data will therefore not be available immediately at the end of the Plan.
Understanding	Amber	The connection between a ‘green job’ and its relevance to climate adaptation is potentially unclear, therefore terminology and definitions used must be clearly stated.
Baseline	Green	Baseline data available between 2015-2022.
Practicality	Green	Statistical data for this indicator is already being collected and publicly accessible, making it practical to monitor as an indicator.

SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR

Agriculture water-use efficiency

Criterion	Rating	Assessment
Adaptation relevance	Green	Improve water use efficiency in agriculture increases the resilience of farms against several effects of climate change.
Representativeness	Amber	The east of Scotland is more concerned by drought risk than the west of the country. Moreover, irrigation lagoons are large-scale projects, but other ways to increase water-use efficiency can also be implemented on farms and will not be captured by this indicator.
Data availability	Amber	Data is captured annually by Scottish governmentGovernment but is not publicly available.
Sensitivity	Green	Changes in this indicator are sufficiently sensitive to the time-period of SNAP3 monitoring.
Understanding	Green	There is a clear connection between water use efficiency and adaptation in the agricultural sector.
Baseline	Green	Data has been collated annually since 2015.
Practicality	Amber	This information is not publicly available.

Annex 5 – Baseline information for each indicator

Indicator	Year	Baseline	Data source
Nature Connects Nature connects across our lands, settlements, coasts, and seas
Habitat Connectivity Index	2020	Equivalent Connected Area (Probability of Connectivity) (ECA (PC)) values from 2020 are available for Scotland for semi-grassland, woodlands and heathland. The data used was the 2020 EUNIS Level 2 landcover map produced by Space Intelligence. To get an overall ECA (PC) value from the local authorities data, each value needs to be squared, the totals summed and then the square root taken. The total Equivalent Connected Area (Probability of Connectivity) (ECA (PC) value for Scotland was 35,570 ha for semi-grassland (2.9%), 5,655 ha for woodland (1.4%) and 214,277 ha for heathland (8.3%). The overall national percentage figure is always going to be lower for each habitat than the individual local authority figures.  This is because in a larger area you have more individual habitat patches which results in a lower connectivity measurement.	For CSGN data visualisation: Habitat Connectivity Indicator – CSGN (arcgis.com) The data for whole Scotland was provided directly by NatureScot.
Proportion of surface water bodies classified in good or better condition	2022	445 (13.7%) surface water bodies in high condition, 1664 surface water bodies in good condition (51.2%) on a total of 3 249 surface water bodies monitored.	Water Classification Hub (sepa.org.uk)
Proportion of Scotland’s Protected Sites in Favourable Condition	2024	65.1% of natural features in favourable condition ‘Site condition monitoring assessment). If we include the sites where monitoring has detected signs of recovery, but favourable condition has not been reached (6.1%) and the sites with positive management is in place that is expected to improve the condition of the site (4.4%), the overall number reaches 75.6%. For woodlands (the least favourable habitat type), the proportion of sites in favourable condition is 56.8%.	The Proportion of Scotland’s Protected Sites in Favourable Condition 2024 \| NatureScot
Proportion of soft shorelines affected by coastal erosion	2021	46% of the soft coast is affected by coastal erosion. The average rate of erosion is 0.43 m/year.	CREW_DC2_SYNOPSIS_FINAL+link.pdf
Extent of green-blue landcover in urban areas	2024	As of April 2024, the total area of urban greenspace in Scotland, as defined by Ordnance Survey, is 3,166 km².	Ordnance Survey website
Proportion of adults who live within a 5-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space	2022	70% of adults reported living within a 5-minute walk of their nearest green or blue space.	Supporting documents – Scottish Household Survey 2022: Key Findings – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Communities creating climate-resilient, healthy and equitable places
Proportion of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem	2022	74% of adults viewing climate change as an immediate and urgent problem. “Adult” refers to those aged 16 and over.	7. Environment – Scottish Household Survey 2022: Key Findings – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)7. Environment – Scottish Household Survey 2022: Key Findings – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Proportion of the population declaring that they understand what actions they should take to help tackle climate change	2022	80% of adults agreed that they understood what actions they should take to help tackle climate change. “Adult” refers to those aged 16 and over.	7. Environment – Scottish Household Survey 2022: Key Findings – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)7. Environment – Scottish Household Survey 2022: Key Findings – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Number of Community Climate Action Hubs	2024	There are currently 20 hubs across Scotland supporting community-led climate action. It covers 81% of the Scottish council areas (26 council areas covered by the 20 hubs).	Community climate action hubs: contact details – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)Community climate action hubs: contact details – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Number of Local Place Plans	2024	No local place plans have been adopted yet. Many councils have recently invited communities to prepare Local Place Plans so that they can play a proactive role in defining the future of their places.	This information has not been centralised and published in one place by the Scottish government.
Progress of actions in local flood risk management plans	2019/21	90% of the actions set out in the strategies to avoid an increase in flood risk are green. 10% of the actions are amber. By 2021, 100% of the actions are expected to be complete. 84% of the actions described in the strategies to reduce flood risk are green, 12% of the actions are amber and 4% are red. With 96% of the actions completed or underway by 2021, the actions developed to meet the reduce objectives will mostly be achieved.	Flood Risk Management Plans \| SEPA
Mental wellbeing score (WEMWBS)	2022	In 2022, the mean WEMWBS score for all adults was 47.0.	Scottish Health Survey 2022 Main Report Volume 1 (www.gov.scot)
Public services are collaborating in effective, inclusive adaptation
Number of public bodies members in the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network	2024	50 organisations are currently members of the Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network.	Adaptation Scotland :: Public Sector Climate Adaptation Network
Number of public bodies citing the Work in partnership & collaborations as a priority s for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation	2022/23	53.2% of the 188 listed public bodies (100 public bodies) submitting an annual compliance report cite “Work in Partnerships & Collaborations” in their top 5 priorities for the year ahead in relation to climate change adaptation.	Public Bodies Climate Change Reporting – Analysis Report 2022/23 (sustainablescotlandnetwork.org)
Level of risk assessment across the public sector	2022/23	70.2% of all listed public bodies submitting an annual compliance report have completed some form of risk assessment during or prior to the 2022/23 reporting period. 43.6% of bodies have carried out a limited assessment which does not provide an in-depth risk assessment addressing a range of climate hazards or risks. 20.7% of bodies have carried out a comprehensive risk assessment. 5.8% have completed an advanced risk assessment involving stakeholders and considering a range of climate or socioeconomic scenarios.	Public Bodies Climate Change Reporting – Analysis Report 2022/23 (sustainablescotlandnetwork.org)
Level of adaptation action taken across the public sector	2022/23	71.8% of all listed public bodies submitting an annual compliance report have taken adaptation action during or prior to the 2022/23 reporting period. 44% of bodies have taken some action where a range of actions or policies exist but it is unclear how the actions are contributing to addressing specific climate risks or hazards. 21% of all bodies are taking good action, meaning the bodies are taking action to reduce specific risks and/or taking significant sector-specific adaptation actions. 6% of bodies are taking advanced action where a comprehensive set of actions are in place to address specific climate risks and plans are in place to measure progress against the management of these risks.	Public Bodies Climate Change Reporting – Analysis Report 2022/23 (sustainablescotlandnetwork.org)
Economies and industries are adapting and realising opportunities in Scotland’s Just Transition
Proportion of businesses monitoring climate related risks (flooding, temperature increase, supply chain disruptions)	2023	15.6% of Scotland businesses have assessed risks for supply chain disruption and distribution. 6.2% of Scotland businesses have assessed risks for increased flooding. 4.4% of Scotland businesses have assessed risks for temperature increase. 60.6% of Scotland businesses have not assessed any risks related to climate change. The scope of “businesses” taken into account by this survey are businesses which have not permanently stopped trading, with 10+ employees and with a presence in Scotland (n=1,061).	Climate Change – BICS weighted Scotland estimates: data to wave 88 – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Proportion of businesses taking action to adapt to the effects of climate change	2023	26.5% of Scotland businesses declare they have already taken action to adapt to supply chain disruption and distribution. 11.5% of Scotland businesses declare they have already taken action to adapt to increased flooding. 5.7% of Scotland businesses declare they have already taken action to adapt to temperature increase. 21.2% of Scotland businesses have not assessed any risks related to climate change. 18.1% of businesses reported that they do not expect to be impacted by these climate change effects. The scope of “businesses” taken into account by this survey are businesses which have not permanently stopped trading, with 10+ employees and with a presence in Scotland (n=521).	Climate Change – BICS weighted Scotland estimates: data to wave 88 – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Number of green jobs	2022	Using the industry approach, Scotland employment in green jobs in 2022 was estimated at 46,200 full-time equivalents (FTEs).	Experimental estimates of green jobs, UK: 2015 to 2022 – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)
Uptake of grants for agriculture storage reservoirs/ off season storage lagoons	2024	5 AECS applications for irrigation lagoons were successful in 2024. 14 applications were submitted.	Scottish government – unpublished data

ClimateXChange
Edinburgh Climate Change Institute
High School Yards
Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

https://www.gov.scot/isbn/9781836017264 ↑
Meeting notes from the four workshops are provided as supplementary materials to this report. ↑
Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP3 differs slightly. ↑
Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP differs slightly. ↑
Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP differs slightly. ↑
Note: the objectives used here are taken from the draft SNAP3. The wording in the final SNAP differs slightly. ↑
See Office of National Statistics – https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/experimentalestimatesofgreenjobsuk/2024#measuring-the-data ↑

The UK Climate Change Committee states that adjustments to dietary patterns are necessary to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets for Scotland. Food-based dietary guidelines have a policy role to play in supporting such adjustments.

This study reviewed international evidence including three case studies. The report presents findings on whether and how greenhouse gas emission criteria could be included in Scottish food-based dietary guidelines.

Main findings

Out of 33 jurisdictions reviewed, only seven have food-based dietary guidelines with extensive climate focus. However, this number is increasing over time. Emissions-focused guidelines advise:

reducing meat, in particular ruminant meat
moderating dairy
increasing vegetables, fruits and plant proteins
sourcing sustainably
avoiding highly processed foods
reducing food waste

Guidelines for Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden offer good examples of how dietary linkages between human and planetary health can be explained with clear recommendations for food consumers.

Development of climate-focused guidelines suits a ‘science first’ approach, involving cross-disciplinary expert panels and reviews. Stakeholder inputs are restricted to the final steps of messaging and implementation.

Policy implementation for climate-friendly diets requires coordinated effort and strategic packages of measures, to tackle the food system holistically.

In Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, policy coordination has been lacking. Measures to date are largely limited to information campaigns and voluntary actions in public catering. More recently, Flanders and the Netherlands have launched more integrative food strategies. They are starting to combine policy measures across the food chain to encourage more sustainable diets.

Implications for Scotland:

Adopting climate-focused food-based dietary guidelines would require time and effort, but would be a generally low-regret action, aligning with dietary goals and the net zero agenda.
Some micronutrient deficiency risks are possible for certain population groups, depending on which foods are substituted. Other potential risks include displacement of greenhouse gas emissions from import/export activities.
To address such issues, a coordinated cross-departmental policy approach would be needed, deploying a mix of supply-side and demand-side measures.
In particular, households at risk of micronutrient deficiencies due to constrained access to healthy foods would need targeted support, including improvements to their food environments.

Research completed in August 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4792

Executive Summary

Background

The UK Climate Change Committee states that adjustments to dietary patterns are necessary to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for Scotland. Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) have a policy role to play in supporting such adjustments.

Drawing on international evidence including three case studies, this report presents findings on whether and how greenhouse gas emission criteria could be included in Scottish FBDGs.

Main findings

Out of 33 jurisdictions reviewed, only seven have FBDGs with extensive climate focus. However, this number is increasing over time.
Emissions-focused FBGDs advise reducing meat, in particular ruminant meat; moderating dairy; increasing vegetables, fruits and plant proteins; sourcing sustainably; avoiding highly processed foods and reducing food waste.
FBDGs for Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden offer good examples of how dietary linkages between human and planetary health can be explained with clear recommendations for food consumers.
Development of climate-focused FBDGs suits a ‘science first’ approach, involving cross-disciplinary expert panels and reviews. Stakeholder inputs are restricted to the final steps of messaging and implementation.
Policy implementation for climate-friendly diets requires coordinated effort and strategic packages of measures, to tackle the food system holistically.
In Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, policy coordination has been lacking. Measures to date are largely limited to information campaigns and voluntary actions in public catering.
More recently, Flanders and the Netherlands have launched more integrative food strategies. They are starting to combine policy measures across the food chain to encourage more sustainable diets.

Implications for Scotland:

Adopting climate-focused FBDGs would require time and effort, but would be a generally low-regret action, aligning with dietary goals and the net zero agenda.
Some micronutrient deficiency risks are possible for certain population groups, depending on which foods are substituted. Other potential risks include displacement of GHG emissions from import/export activities.
To address such issues, a coordinated cross-departmental policy approach would be needed, deploying a mix of supply-side and demand-side measures.
In particular, households at risk of micronutrient deficiencies due to constrained access to healthy foods would need targeted support, including improvements to their food environments.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

BMI	Body Mass Index: a weight to height ratio used to indicate whether an individual is underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese.
CAP	Common Agricultural Policy: the overarching framework for supporting agricultural production across the EU.
CCC	Climate Change Committee: the statutory advisory body to the UK government and Devolved Administrations in relation to climate mitigation and adaptation.
Demand-side	Used to describe policy measures seeking to influence the demand for (in this case) different foods. For example, raising or lowering consumer prices through taxation or subsidies.
Eatwell Guide	A policy tool used to define government recommendations on eating healthily and achieving a balanced diet within the UK.
Eco-labelled	Voluntary certification of products to indicate their environmental impact.
FBDG	Food Based Dietary Guidelines offer advice on foods, food groups and dietary patterns to provide the required nutrients to the general public to promote overall health and prevent chronic diseases. Some now also include environmental considerations.
Food Environment	The physical, economic, political and socio-cultural contexts in which people engage with the food system to make their decisions about acquiring, preparing and consuming food. Can significantly affect consumers’ access to different foods.
GHG	Greenhouse Gases: gases in the atmosphere that contribute to climate change. Notably carbon dioxide and methane.
HFSS	Food and drink high in fat, sugar or salt.
Micronutrient decencies	A lack of certain dietary elements required in low concentrations. For example, various vitamins and minerals.
NNR	Nordic Nutritional Requirements: these constitute the scientific basis for national dietary guidelines and nutrient recommendations across the Nordic and Baltic countries.
Nutrient dense	Nutrient-dense foods contain relatively high levels of vitamins, minerals, complex carbohydrates, lean protein, and healthy fats for a given weight of food.
Protein Strategy	A stated EU-wide and domestic approach to encourage greater production and consumption of plant proteins.
Science first	The approach adopted in some countries for developing FBDG, basing recommendations on scientific evidence first before only later considering stakeholder views on implementation.
Scottish Dietary Goals	The Scottish Dietary Goals describe the diet that will improve the health of people in Scotland by reducing the number of people who are overweight and obese, and the number of people getting diet related diseases.
Supply-side	Used to describe policy measures seeking to influence the supply of (in this case) different foods. For example, production subsidies or regulatory controls.
UPF	Ultra Processed Foods. Food items at the extreme end of the NOVA food classification system, characterised by a very high degree of processing and often including artificial ingredients.

Introduction

Background

The food system is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), accounting for up to 30% of emissions globally and at least 20% within Scotland.^[1] As other sectors of the economy (e.g. energy) decarbonise, food’s share of total emissions will increase over time. Mitigation of this can be (and is being) attempted through changes to the production methods of the foods that currently comprise our diets (e.g. via improved plant and animal health and reductions in chemical inputs).

Yet meeting GHG emission targets will also require changes to diets themselves, towards those featuring greater proportions of climate-friendly foods. Dietary shifts for climate reasons must also, of course, promote human health, a dual imperative that is captured in concepts such as the Planetary Health Diet.^[2]

Scottish Government commitments to a sustainable, healthy food system and associated emission reductions are expressed in the Programme for Government 2023/24 and underpinned by, for example, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (and subsequent amendments) and Climate Change Plan Updates.^[3] In the Scottish Dietary Goals, the aim to reduce red and red processed meat intake to no more than 70g/day, due to the links with colorectal cancer, is also broadly consistent with the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendation of a 20% reduction in meat by 2030 to reduce emissions.^[4]

The current UK Food Based Dietary Guidance (FBDG) is the Eatwell Guide^[5]. Studies indicate that a diet following the Eatwell Guide generates lower emissions than the current UK diet^[6]. However, diets based on many FBDGs globally, including the Eatwell Guide, exceed emissions targets for 1.5 degrees global warming^[7]. Hence this report was commissioned to gather international evidence on more climate-focused FBDGs, and explore how they may potentially apply in Scotland.

The specific project objectives were to:

(i) explore dietary guidelines and recommendations in other jurisdictions;

(ii) explore the extent to which these have a climate focus;

(iii) identify what policies, strategies and actions have been taken to encourage progress to the guidelines;

(iv) discuss what could potentially apply in Scotland, drawing on Scottish data and evidence, and

(v) explore impacts on different groups in Scotland, e.g. gender, age, social class, vulnerable groups.

The findings are relevant to the UK Climate Change Committee’s statement that meeting Scottish emission reduction targets will require changes to dietary patterns. The findings are also relevant to future revisions of the Scottish Dietary Goals.

Project Methods

The project was undertaken in five steps, from October 2023 to March 2024. The steps are shown in Figure 1.1 and described below.

Step 1: Guided by the Steering Group, and with reference to published studies, we selected the FBDGs of 33 international jurisdictions for inclusion in the study. The set comprised mainly European and anglophone jurisdictions.

Step 2: Using FAO resources and online documentation, we accessed the FBDGs in all 33 jurisdictions, and reviewed each one for reference to climate. We allocated each FBDG to one of three categories, according to the extent of climate focus: from ‘red’ (little to no reference to climate) to ‘green’ (extensive climate focus).

Step 3: Following discussion with the Steering Group, we selected three example ‘green’ FBDGs to examine in more detail. These were Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden. In each case, we identified the main advice and how it is linked to climate. We also studied the development process for the FBDGs. Lastly, we reviewed key policies, strategies and actions taken to implement the FBDGs. The main data sources were online materials and grey literature. These were supported by semi-structured interviews with officials involved in the development of the guidance in each jurisdiction (see Appendix A).

Step 4: We compared the insights from the 3 jurisdictions with the current situation in Scotland, drawing from official data sources and recent studies. We then reflected on what could potentially apply in Scotland, in terms of more climate-focused FBDGs and supporting policies. These reflections drew from published studies and official statistics, and were also informed by semi-structured interviews with a range of Scottish stakeholder groups. Guided by the Steering Group, these groups were: ASSIST FM; the British Dietetics Association; Food and Drink Federation Scotland; National Farmers Union Scotland; Nesta; Soil Association Scotland.

Step 5: We explored the impacts of more climate-focused FBDGs on different sub-groups in Scotland. The key data sources were official dietary statistics and recent studies of potential impacts of climate focused diets in Scotland.

Figure 1.1. Flow chart of project steps

International review of FBDGs

Review of FBDGs in other jurisdictions, with reference to climate criteria

Appendix B provides a tabulated summary of information for all 33 FBDGs included in the review, on a country by country basis. Appendix C summarises the intakes for key food groups (all meat, red/processed meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables) as stated in the FBDGs for 22 of the 33 jurisdictions.

Of the 33 FBDGs studied, we found the majority (19) contained no or extremely limited reference to climate impact. Six contained moderate reference, while seven contained extensive reference (Table 2.1). It is worth noting that although the majority of countries have yet to explicitly include reference to climate in their FBDGs, or are still at the development phase, the number is increasing over time. For example, all the entries in the Extensive column have emerged in the past decade.

No reference, or very limited reference

Moderate reference

Extensive reference

Australia

Austria

Brazil

Canada

Croatia

Cyprus

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Latvia

Malta

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Switzerland

USA

Belgium (national)

Chile

Estonia

France

Italy

Poland

Denmark

Finland

Belgium (Flanders)

Germany

Netherlands

Spain

Sweden

Table 2.1: extent of reference to climate impacts in FBDG of other jurisdictions (n=33)

Jurisdictions in the red column: these have FBDGs which make no reference to climate impact, or only very limited reference, in either background or consumer-facing documents. ‘Limited reference’ denotes guidance which mentions sustainability, but only in an isolated way, and without any explanation or context. For example, the FBDGs of Austria and the UK (Eatwell Guide) both recommend choosing ‘sustainably sourced’ fish, by looking for MSC or similar labelling. However, this is the only reference to sustainability in the documents (i.e. no other food group has a similar recommendation), and there is no explanatory connection to the underlying sustainability issue with fishing.

Jurisdictions in the amber column: these FBDGs – in either consumer-facing or background documents – make more reference to climate than those in the red column. However, those references appear either in a circumscribed way, disconnected from the main guidance, or are individually brief or superficial within the body of the main guidance. An example of ‘circumscribed reference’ is the national guidance for Belgium. In the background document, there is a short stand-alone chapter dedicated to sustainability and climate, which explains the relevance to dietary issues. However, the contents are not connected to other chapters, and sustainability is not referred to in the consumer-facing guidance. An example of ‘superficial reference’ is the guidance for France. There are three individual references to climate and the environment in the consumer-facing guidance, however each one is very brief, without explanation of the underlying issues.

Jurisdictions in the green column: these FBDGs – in either the consumer-facing and/or background documents – make extensive reference to climate impact. The most advanced of these have climate impact as an integral component of the guidance, rather than an added feature, or set of ideas in development. Features that the ‘green’ FBDGs have in common include (i) introductory sections which make a clear connection between human health and planetary health, (ii) frequent references to climate impact throughout sections and applied to different food groups, (iii) effort (some more than others) to explain the reasons behind the climate-related guidance, and how consumers may navigate complexities and trade-offs between health and climate impacts.

Content of FBDGs with extensive climate focus

Overview of content

The jurisdictions found to have the most extensive reference to climate impact in their FBDGs were Denmark, Flanders, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. Germany and Spain are also included in this group, although their coverage is less extensive and integrated than the others^[8].

These FBDGs make a clear link between human health and planetary health, by pointing out that what we eat affects not only our own well-being but also the environment. In terms of over-arching consumption advice, these FBDGs recommend:

eating less meat and animal products;
eating more plants, plant proteins and wholegrains;
choosing nutrient dense foods over nutrient poor;
drinking tap water;
not overeating;
avoiding waste.

The following sections describe what these climate-focused FBDGs advise, by food group. Advice from the Eatwell Guide is also referenced, for comparison.

Advice relating to meat

All seven FBDGs advise reducing meat consumption, due to the high GHG emissions from meat production, in particular ruminant meat. Table 2.2 shows the maximum recommended intake levels for meat in the seven FBDGs, and the Eatwell Guide. Germany specifies the lowest maximum weekly intake for all meat (240g), while Finland and the Netherlands specify the highest (500g). The Eatwell Guide does not specify a maximum level for all meat. The Netherlands specifies the lowest maximum intake for red/processed meat (300g) while Sweden specifies the highest (500g). The Eatwell Guide specifies the second highest maximum intake for red/processed meat at 490g.

	All Meat (max g/wk)	Red/Processed (max g/wk)
Denmark	350	ns
Finland	500	ns
Flanders	ns	330
Germany	300	60
Netherlands	500	300
Spain	375	ns
Sweden	ns	500
Eatwell Guide	ns	490

Table 2.2: Recommended intakes for meat, in jurisdictions with climate-focused FBDGs

ns: not specified. Germany: ‘all meat’ includes beef. Red/processed is processed only.

Examples of qualitative advice on meat in these FBDGs:

When choosing meat, select more sustainably produced options, e.g. organic or agroecological, following a ‘’less but better” approach (The Netherlands, Sweden).
Diets based on small amounts of meat can support the positive effects of grazing livestock on landscape and biodiversity (The Netherlands, Sweden)
Meat-free days per week are specifically recommended by Denmark, Finland (1) Flanders (up to 4), Netherlands (up to 6), Spain (up to 7) and Sweden (up to 3).

The Eatwell Guide advises eating less red and processed meat. It gives no advice on production systems, nor on meat-free days.

Advice relating to dairy

The seven climate-focused FBDGs advise moderation in dairy product consumption, due to the GHG emissions associated with dairy farming. Table 2.3 shows the recommended daily intake levels for selected dairy products in these FBDGs. For milk/yoghurt, Denmark and Germany recommend c.250ml, while most others recommend a range extending to 500ml at the upper boundary. For hard cheese, the lowest recommended intake is 20g (Denmark) and the highest maximum is 60g (Spain). Four out of the six FBDGs do not specify a set intake level for cheese, although Germany offers guidance on how to allocate a total dairy amount between different product types. The Eatwell Guide does not specify intake levels for any dairy products.

	Milk, yoghurt (ml/d)	Hard Cheese (g/d)
Denmark	250	20
Finland	ns	ns
Flanders	250-500	ns
Germany	250	ns
Netherlands	300-450	40
Spain	250-500	40-60
Sweden	200-300	ns
Eatwell Guide	ns	ns

Table 2.3: Recommended intakes for dairy products, in jurisdictions with climate-focused FBDGs

Examples of qualitative advice for dairy consumption in these FBDGs:

Take enough dairy to avoid chronic diseases and get enough nutrients, but not more than that, because dairy products come from cows, which have a high environmental impact (The Netherlands).
Eating moderate amounts of dairy can support the positive effects of grazing livestock on landscape and biodiversity (Sweden).
Where possible, choose eco-labels like organic for the more sustainably produced options (Sweden).
Eat fewer processed dairy products, to get the nutritional benefits without the added climate burden from extra processing stages (Finland).

The Eatwell Guide advises eating ‘some’ milk and dairy food (or dairy alternatives). It gives no advice on production systems or levels of processing.

Advice relating to vegetables, fruit and plant proteins

All seven FBDGs give very clear recommendations to eat more vegetables, fruits and plant proteins for climate reasons. Table 2.4 shows the specified daily intake levels for these foods. For vegetables and fruit, recommended intakes range from 450g (Netherlands) to 690g (Spain). By comparison, the Eatwell Guide recommends the lowest minimum intake: at least 400g. In terms of legumes, only Denmark, Germany and Spain specify minimum intakes, from 100g (Denmark) to 200g (Spain) per week. For nuts, all jurisdictions except Sweden recommend intakes, from 15g to 30g per day. The Eatwell Guide does not recommend intake levels for legumes or nuts.

Examples of qualitative advice for vegetables, fruits and plant proteins in these FBDGs:

Eat vegetables and fruit in season, for lower carbon footprint (Flanders, Sweden).
Choose field grown rather than glasshouse grown (Flanders, Sweden), although glasshouses powered with renewable energy can have similar footprints (Finland).
Locally grown is not necessarily lower carbon (Flanders).
Choose ecolabelled and organic to reduce climate impact (Sweden).
Legumes are nitrogen-fixing, which saves use of nitrogen fertilizer (Finland).

The Eatwell Guide does not advise on production methods or seasonality in this group.

	Vegetables and Fruit (min g/d)	Legumes (min g/wk)	Nuts (g/d)
Denmark	600	100	30
Finland	500	ns	30
Flanders	550	ns	15-25
Germany	550	125	30
Netherlands	450	ns	25
Spain	690	200	20-30
Sweden	500	ns	ns
Eatwell Guide	400	ns	ns

Table 2.4: Recommended intakes for vegetables, fruit and plant proteins, in climate-focused FBDGs

Advice relating to cereals, grains, fats and oils

All climate-focused FBDGs highlight that, in general, grains and cereals have relatively low carbon footprints. Recommended intakes range from 75g (Denmark) to 90g (Sweden) wholegrain foods per day. Rice is identified as a grain with a higher carbon footprint (Denmark, Sweden, Finland), hence, advice is to swap rice for other grains or potatoes.

In terms of fats and oils, plant-based oils are recommended over butter and spreads due to their lower carbon impact (Denmark, Finland, Sweden). Within plant oils, rapeseed oil is presented as a particularly sustainable option, with a low carbon footprint (Sweden).

The Eatwell Guide does not advise about types of grains or fats from a climate perspective. This means that rice is recommended equally alongside pasta and potatoes. It recommends oils from plant sources, such as rapeseed and olive oil, as these are unsaturated fats. The outcome is that the same oils are recommended by Eatwell and the climate-focused FBDGs.

Advice relating to high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods ^[9]

The seven FBDGs, advise to consume as few foods as possible from this category. This benefits the environment because (i) many foods in this category are ultra-processed (UPF), containing ingredients/processes which are carbon intensive, and (ii) they are nutrient poor. As all food production has an environmental impact, it is best to consume foods that are nutrient dense, to make the environmental impact ‘count’. All the FBDGs recommend tap water as the lowest carbon impact beverage, and that bottled drinks, including bottled water, should be avoided for the sake of the planet.

For HFSS foods, the Eatwell Guide’s recommendations are to avoid or eat in small amounts. The outcome is therefore the same as climate-focused FBDGs. For beverages, unlike the climate-focused FBDGs, the Eatwell Guide does not distinguish between bottled and tap water, and includes milk and diet/sugar-free drinks as recommended drinks.

Advice relating to sustainability

All climate-focused FBDGs contain the strong common messages of (i) only eat as much as you need and (ii) avoid food waste. The latter is advised as important for the planet because every food item wasted has an environmental impact that could have been avoided. The Eatwell Guide advises to eat only as much food as you need. It does not include any advice about food waste.

Summary of similarities and differences between climate-focused FBDGs and the Eatwell Guide

Advice within climate-focused FBDGs which is in common with the Eatwell Guide:

Limit intake of red and processed meat (although 5 out of 6 FBDGs set maximum intakes lower than the Eatwell Guide)
Eat plenty of vegetables and fruit (although all 6 FBDGs recommend minimum intake levels higher than the Eatwell Guide)
Choose vegetable oils, e.g. rapeseed or olive oil, over animal fats
HFSS foods are non-essential to diet so only eat in small amounts
Only eat as much as you need

Advice within climate-focused FBDGs, which is different from the Eatwell Guide:

Eat less meat and animal products, while increasing intake of plants and plant proteins (includes advocating meat-free days)
Moderate dairy intake
Choose seasonal, field grown vegetables and fruits
Choose foods from more sustainable production methods, e.g. organic
Choose potatoes, pasta or other grains over rice
Favour unprocessed or lightly processed foods, and avoid UPFs
The only recommended drinks are tap water, tea and coffee
Avoid food waste

Sub-national variation

Of the seven FBDGs reviewed in this section, several come from jurisdictions with a degree of sub-national devolution, with regional powers able to adopt different approaches to certain policy areas. However, although guidance may be presented with regional badging, most often we found the substantive content of FBDGs is the same in different parts of a given country. The Flanders region of Belgium was the only clear example of sub-national variation in FBDGs found by this study. Yet policies to encourage uptake of nationally uniform FBDG do vary regionally in some jurisdictions. For example, across Dutch and Swedish municipalities and Australian States and Canadian Provinces.^[10]

Case study: Flanders

This chapter provides an overview of the FBDGs in Flanders, how they were developed, and policy implementations to date. Appendix E provides more details.

FBDGs in Flanders: the Flanders Food Triangle

In Flanders, the FBDGs are captured in a 24-page consumer-facing document “Eating According to the Food Triangle: Good for Yourself and the Planet” (2021). It was developed by the Flemish Institute of Healthy Living (“Gezond Leven”), in cooperation with the Department of the Environment of the Flemish Government. The context of the guidance emphasises that the environmental impact of our food is currently greater than what our planet can bear, so dietary change is needed.

In terms of content, the Food Triangle (Figure 3.1) is offered as the basis for a healthy and environmentally responsible diet. It advises eating more vegetables, fruits, wholegrains and plant proteins, while eating less meat, butter and cheese. Discretionary foods (high in fat, salt and sugar) are separated from the triangle as non-essential to the diet, to be eaten ‘as little as possible’. This category includes processed meat. The guidance also recommends up to three or four days per week of meat-free meals. It provides links to support materials developed by Gezond Leven, including recipes for vegetarian meals and a seasonal buying guide for fruit and vegetables.

Figure 3.1: Flanders food triangle

How the FBDGs were developed

A ‘science first’ approach was taken to develop the guidance. First, Gezond Leven and the Department of the Environment commissioned a review of scientific literature on the health and environmental impacts of dietary choices. Next, they convened a cross-disciplinary academic expert panel to help analyse the evidence and determine the core content of the final guidance. After this, public-facing messaging was designed and tested amongst citizens, with the support of experts in behaviour and communication. Only after the guidance was finalized were stakeholders consulted. Importantly, these consultations related only to the coordination and implementation of the guidance: they did not influence or change its substance.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

Various policy documents in Flanders have content aligned with the goals of the FBDGs, although they do not refer specifically to the guidance. For example, the ‘Strategic Plan: Flanders Lives Healthier in 2025’ and the ‘The Flemish Climate Policy Plan’ both refer to the need for changes to food consumption habits in the jurisdiction, for reasons of health and climate impact.

Recent strategies have also been launched with the aim to encourage more holistic, systems-based action on food than has been achieved historically. (In the past, policies for food have reflected departmental silos in government.) For example, the 2022 Flemish Food Strategy (“Go4Food”^[11]) sets out 11 ‘Food Deal’ themes, around which cross-cutting actions are encouraged to coalesce. Funding is intended for these, albeit not specified in the document.

Another cross-cutting example is the ‘Flemish Protein Strategy 2021-2030’. This aims to increase the ratio of plant protein consumption vs animal protein consumption in Flanders to 60:40. Using CAP funding for domestic plant protein production as a catalyst, the strategy supports collaborations between food supply chain actors, research institutes and NGOs.

In practice, the Protein Strategy has led to increased domestic production of plant protein crops, research/innovation in processing, and promotion of plant proteins by food retailers. Overall, it represents an effort to fund coherent cross-sectoral work on sustainable food, by leveraging EU funding and private sector investment. CAP funding has similarly been used to encourage greater organic food production, albeit to a lesser degree than plant protein production.

Actions specifically to promote climate-friendly diets have been more limited in scope and scale. They have been largely focused on public communications campaigns and work with public catering (Table 3.1).

Policy type	What activities?
Public information campaigns	Gezond Leven has produced various materials and resources for use by public and professionals, including videos, recipe cards, seasonal buying guides, etc. It has also entered into partnership with food retailers to promote increased consumption of plant proteins.
Labelling	No introduction of new product labelling for climate impact.
Regulation	No introduction of new demand-side regulations for climate impact of food. On supply side, targets have been set for levels of sustainable soya used in animal feeds.
Taxes and Subsidies	The Belgian Government introduced a sugar tax in 2015. However no demand side taxes or subsidies on foods have been implemented for climate reasons. On the supply side, funding is available for plant protein production under the Protein Strategy.
Public Procurement and Catering	Gezond Leven works with frontline staff in public catering, supporting them to change menus and practices for health and sustainability. All activity is voluntary, there are no mandatory changes.

Table 3.1: Policies applied in Flanders to encourage take-up of climate-friendly FBDGs

Evaluations of effects of FBDGs and/or policies

The Flanders Government conducts a National Food Survey on a 10-year cycle, with the next round due in 2024. This will be the first opportunity to gauge any changes in public dietary habits from the latest FBDGs. In the meantime, a recent small-scale survey on protein consumption showed trends in the desired direction (increases in plant consumption, decreases in meat consumption), but only to a very small extent. More formal evaluations of policy effectiveness are needed.

Case study: The Netherlands

This chapter provides an overview of the FBDGs in the Netherlands, how they were developed, and policy implementations to date. Appendix F provides more details.

FBDGs in the Netherlands: The Wheel of Five and Seven Steps to Sustainability

In the Netherlands, climate-focused dietary guidance is captured in the “Eating more sustainably: fact sheet” (2022), which accompanies the main “Wheel of Five” dietary model. The factsheet is a 10-page document targeted at professionals/policymakers. It sets out the case for environmentally sustainable diets, and explains how the Dutch diet should change to be in line with science-based planetary health recommendations.

The factsheet states that shifting from the current diet to the Wheel of Five is good for health and climate, but it also gives more specific advice about the most sustainable options to choose (Figure 4.1). The 7 ways are: (i) eat less meat (opt more often for pulses, nuts or eggs); (ii) waste as little as possible (buy and cook what you need); (iii) eat recommended amounts (moderate your snacks and sweets); (iv) drink mostly tap water; (v) eat enough dairy and cheese (but within bounds); (vi) buy seasonally (and check product origins); (vii) choose premium sustainability labels.

Figure 4.1: ‘Seven ways to adopt a more sustainable diet’ graphic, the Netherlands

How FBDGs were developed

In 2015, the NIPHE reviewed the scientific evidence on health and climate impacts of diets, with input from academic subject experts. NIPHE used this intelligence to model dietary guidelines as close as possible to the existing Dutch diet, while meeting parameters of health, climate impact, feasibility and impact on different target groups.

The NNC used the modelled solutions to draft the public facing dietary guidance, including the graphics. A transparent consultation process followed with experts, to check for any errors/omissions in the science, and also with health professionals, to advise on practical implementation.

The food industry was specifically not involved in the consultation. Only after the final guidance was completed were meetings held with industry representatives. This approach was taken to maintain both the real and perceived independence of the NIPHE and NNC. In total, the development process took several years.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

Policies relevant to food in the Netherlands appear to reflect the traditional priorities of host ministries, with relatively little integration of health and climate goals. For example, the 2018 ‘National Prevention Agreement: Towards a Healthier Netherlands’ makes no reference to climate or sustainability, while the 2019 ‘Climate Agreement’ contains only one brief reference to the need for change in food consumption habits. The 2015 ‘National Food Policy’ includes goals to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, but these are justified for health not climate reasons.

However, the Dutch National Protein Strategy is more integrative. As in Flanders, CAP funding has been used to encourage plant protein production at farm level. This is being combined with further funding under economy-wide ‘green growth’ schemes, from both public and private sources, to encourage market growth along the supply chain.

Actions specifically to encourage take-up of the FBDGs are led by the NNC. They are centred on public communication tools and work with public caterers. In addition, one Dutch municipality (Haarlem city) is imposing a ban on outdoor advertising of meat. Table 4.1 provides more details.

Policy type	What activities?
Public information campaigns	The NNC has launched two apps, to help consumers make healthier, more sustainable food choices. One of these, “Mijn Eetmeter”, allows users to record their eating habits and get tailored advice to improve their diet. This app has >2 million downloads and good ratings on GooglePlay and Apple Store.
Labelling	No new labelling regime introduced, instead the NNC advises consumers on a set of the most reliable existing labels/certification schemes for making sustainable product choices.
Regulation	At municipal level, the city of Haarlem will implement a ban on outdoor advertising of meat products in 2024. Climate impact is part of the motivation for the ban. There are no similar restrictions at national level.
Taxes and Subsidies	There are no demand-side taxes or subsidies on foods for climate reasons (a sugar tax was introduced in 2023). In 2018 the Dutch Government stated an intention to remove VAT from fruit and vegetables. However, this was not implemented due to concerns about feasibility and effectiveness. On the supply side, funding is available for plant protein production and processing under the Protein Strategy.
Public Procurement and Catering	The NNC works with public caterers to support and encourage them to develop more sustainable menus and practices. However, there are no mandatory measures imposed for climate impact.

Table 4.1: Policies applied in the Netherlands to encourage take-up of climate-friendly FBDGs

Evaluations of effects of the FBDGs and/or policies

The NNC undertakes consumer research and also administers the Dutch National Food Survey. Their data indicate that awareness of the Wheel of Five dietary model in the Dutch population is 71%, and trend analysis from the Dutch National Food Survey indicates small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption, and small decreases in meat consumption between 2007 and 2021. The changes are small, but in the right direction. However, policy effectiveness has not been evaluated formally.

Case Study: Sweden

This chapter provides an overview of the FBDGs in Sweden, how they were developed, and policy implementations to date. Appendix G provides more details.

FBDGs in Sweden: “Eat greener, not too much, and be active”

In Sweden, the FBDGs are captured in the 28-page consumer-facing document “Find your way to eat greener, not too much, and be active” (2015). It was developed by the Swedish National Food Agency (SNFA), in cooperation with the Swedish Public Health Agency, Board of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. In terms of context, the guidance makes the argument for a holistic approach to eating, and for considering the environmental impact of food choices.

Advice is structured around 3 sections: 1. things to eat/do more of; 2. things to switch; and 3. things to eat less of (Figure 5.1). For each named food group (vegetables and fruits; seafood; wholegrains; healthy fats; low fat dairy products; red and processed meat; salt; sugar), there is a dedicated page which explains the advice in more detail, including the link to environmental impacts. These pages also offer specific ingredient and recipe suggestions to help make the change.

Figure 5.1: Headline recommendations in the Swedish FBDGs

How FBDGs were developed

The Swedish National Food Agency is an independent, government-funded body, which administers public diet and health activities. It is one of 25 government agencies with special responsibility for achieving the government’s environmental objectives.

The FBDGs development process was science led, although stakeholder input happened earlier in the process than in Flanders and the Netherlands. From 2008-13, the Swedish Food Agency commissioned a series of reports on the environmental impacts of different foods, alongside evidence on the health effects of diet gathered from Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR)^[12]. The joint evidence was reviewed, with experts from the Swedish Public Health Agency, Board of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. The review was supported by a stakeholder panel.

In 2014, a public consultation took place, including participants from industry, consumer and patient organisations, and public health professionals. Then the guidance was drafted and tested with consumers. The guidance was published in 2016/17. The whole process from initial discussions to publication took almost 10 years.

Since the development of this guidance, the latest revision of the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR), in 2023, has been published. It includes explicit reference to climate impact. It therefore provides a very high standard, scientifically informed evidence base on climate-friendly diets.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

In Sweden, the policy landscape for sustainable diets appears fragmented. For example, the 2016 “National Food Strategy for Sweden”, and subsequent 2019 “Action Plan”, focus almost exclusively on agricultural production. Meanwhile, the 2016 “Strategy for Sustainable Consumption” contains only a brief reference to food. The 2018 “Climate Framework Policy”, which sets out the Swedish Government’s net zero targets for the whole economy, also makes no reference to food consumption or dietary change.

In 2021, the Swedish Government tasked the Swedish Food Agency and Public Health Agency to propose areas of action needed for a more sustainable food system in Sweden, and indicators to measure progress^[13]. The work was based on consultations with authorities, industry and civil society. The report, published 2024, emphasizes the need for joined-up policies to tackle health and climate problems. However, given recent shifts in politics in Sweden and hardening resistance from industry stakeholders to food system change, it may be challenging for officials to take forward many of the recommended Actions in the report.

Actions specifically to encourage take-up of the FBDGs are led by the Swedish Food Agency. To date, they have focused on public communications activities and work with public caterers, in particular schools. Table 5.1 provides more details.

Policy Type	What Activities?
Public information campaigns	The Swedish Food Agency provides online information and manages a citizen panel to discuss healthy and sustainable eating. The Consumer Agency promotes food waste reduction within a circular economy.
Labelling	No new product labelling introduced for climate-friendly food. Consumers are encouraged to refer to ‘Keyhole’ symbol (Swedish labelling scheme for healthy foods) and organic labels.
Regulation	No regulatory changes applied.
Taxes and Subsidies	No direct taxes or subsidies on the demand side to encourage shift to climate friendly diets. On supply side, there has been direct government investment in organic farming, to increase domestic land area under organic production.
Public Procurement and Catering	Post-launch of FBDGs, the Swedish Food Agency undertook engagement work in school catering, this included encouragement of vegetarian days (voluntary). In 2020, “A New Recipe for School Meals” was launched, a collaboration between the National Food Agency and Vinnova, the Government research and innovation agency. The latter funded 4 municipalities to trial different projects, including measurement of waste and selling leftover meals^[14].

Table 5.1: Policies applied in Sweden to encourage take-up of climate-friendly FBDGs

Evaluations of effects of the FBDGs and/or policies

No formal evaluations have been conducted of the effect of the FBDGs on dietary habits. However, consumption trend data show that meat consumption peaked in 2016 and has subsequently declined whilst the proportion of Swedish meat within total meat consumed has increased. This suggests there has been some response to the “eat less but better” messaging, with ‘better’ meaning ‘Swedish’.

Implications for the potential development and implementation of climate-friendly FBDGs in Scotland

Having assessed climate-friendly FBGDs in other jurisdictions, and explored their development and policy implementation in Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, this chapter considers the possible implications for Scotland. Throughout this chapter, the FBDGs of Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden are used as climate-focused comparators.

Dietary profile of Scotland compared with jurisdictions having climate-focused FBDGs

Studies show repeatedly that the diet of the average Scottish adult is unhealthy. It comprises higher than recommended intakes of calories, fat, sugar and salt, and lower intakes of fibre and fruit and vegetables^[15]. These are associated with a range of chronic health problems, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension and certain cancers.

In addition, average diets for some groups of Scottish consumers are deficient in micronutrients such as selenium and iodine. These deficiencies are also associated with a range of health problems, including fatigue, mental impairments and weakened immune systems. However, intake rates of red and processed meats are within the Scottish Dietary Goals maximum recommended for almost three quarters of the population^[16].

	Belgium (2014)	Netherlands (2021)	Sweden (2010/11)	Scotland (2021)
Fruit	115	134	128	134
Vegetables	155	174	176	131
Meat	104	92	110	80
Dairy	202	329	245	230
18 <= BMI <25	49%	50%	49%	32% (42%)*
25 <= BMI <30	35%	35%	35%	36% (35%)*
BMI >= 30	14%	13%	14%	31% (20%)*
Population	6.8m	18.0m	10.6m	5.4m

Table 6.1: Estimated adults’ mean consumption (g/day) of selected food types, and percentage of adults categorised as overweight or obese, in selected comparator jurisdictions^[17]

* Scottish-specific BMI figures with UK figures in brackets from same Eurostat source as other countries. Comparisons are indicative given differences in survey methods, definitions and timings. See also Appendices B and C.

Table 6.1 above shows intakes for different food groups in Scotland, compared with Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden. Notwithstanding caveats regarding precise comparability, the figures suggest that Scottish fruit consumption is relatively high compared to the other jurisdictions, while meat and vegetable intakes are relatively low. Dairy consumption appears similar to Sweden but lower than the Netherlands. Body Mass Index (BMI) scores, as indicators of broader diet-related health, are also similar for the proportion of the population overweight, but Scotland (and the UK) have markedly higher obesity rates.

Potential impacts on the Scottish population from take-up of climate-focused FBDGs

	Potential Revisions to Eatwell Guide	Potential Risk to Population Health
Meat	Clearer advice to reduce intake of all meat, in particular red meat New maximum intake level for all meat Lower maximum intake level for red/processed meat	Low, depending on substitution scenario
Dairy	New advice to moderate dairy intake	Deficiency risks for iron and iodine, depending on substitution scenario
Vegetables, fruits and plant proteins	Higher minimum intake levels for vegetables and fruit New intake levels for plant proteins Strengthened advice on choosing processed plant protein foods Strengthened advice on choosing vegetarian and vegan diets	Low
Cereals and grains	New advice to favour potatoes, pasta and other grains over rice	Low
HFSS foods	Strengthened advice to favour less processed foods and avoid UPFs	Low
Beverages	New advice to favour tap water	Low
Other	New advice to choose foods from sustainable production sources, including organic, agroecological, seasonal, fieldgrown New advice to avoid food waste	Low

Table 6.2. Examples of likely revisions needed to Eatwell Guide to align with more climate-focused FBDGs, and potential risks to Scottish population

The key features of climate-focused FBDGs were discussed in Chapter 2, summarizing similarities and differences between climate-focused guidance and the Eatwell Guide. Table 6.2 lists possible revisions for guidance in Scotland, to align with more climate-focused FBDGs. It also indicates the potential risks of negative impacts on the Scottish population, should the revised guidance be taken up. The potential risks for meat, dairy and sustainable sourcing advice are further discussed below. Potential risks for population sub-groups are discussed in section 6.3.

Potential impacts of revised meat intake advice

For greater climate focus, revisions to the Eatwell guidance would likely specify a lower maximum intake for red/processed meat, a new maximum intake for all meat, and strengthened messaging on reducing meat generally in the diet.

Comrie et al (2024) modelled the effects on micronutrient intake and of chronic disease risks from a 20% reduction in meat intake in Scotland, i.e. to levels consistent with the recommendations of UK Climate Change Committee (CCC).

They found that a 16% reduction could be achieved by encouraging the 28% highest red/processed meat eaters to limit their intake, of those meats alone, to the current Eatwell/SDGs maximum of 70g per day. To achieve the CCC’s 20% reduction target, the average intake of red/processed meat would need to reduce to 60g per day. This would impact the highest 32% of current red/processed meat consumers.

If meat intakes are substituted with alternative protein sources, e.g. fish, dairy or eggs, both scenarios above represent low risk options in terms of nutritional impacts. They would also bring health benefits associated with lowering red and red processed meat intakes. However, if meat intakes are substituted with refined grains or HFSS foods, then there are risks of diets becoming less rather than more healthy^[18]. Therefore, revised dietary guidance needs to include advice about healthy and accessible substitutions for meat. Other policies need to make those substitutions affordable and accessible.

Non-GHG related environmental impacts are also possible from reduction in meat intakes, depending on which foods people switch to. Increases in demand for fish could exacerbate marine pollution/ecosystem problems. Also, switching from red ruminant meat (beef, lamb) to non-ruminant meat may lead to increases in intensive pig and poultry systems. Whilst these systems are more carbon efficient, they can increase air and water pollution problems^[19]. To address these risks, a holistic perspective on environmental impact is needed during the scientific evidence gathering phase of the FBDG revisions. Other policies need to address environmental impacts of fish, pig and poultry systems.

Potential impacts of revised dairy intake advice

For greater climate focus, revisions to dietary guidance would likely set new advice to moderate dairy intake^[20].

Comrie et al (2024) modelled the nutritional and chronic disease impacts of reducing dairy intake across the population by 20%, alongside meat reduction. They find that unless substituting with eggs, there are deficiency risks in the general population for iron and iodine. They highlight that as dairy is consumed in greater quantities across the population than meat, there is more reliance on it for micronutrients. Dairy is also a source of protection against Type 2 diabetes. Therefore, some nutritional and disease risks are possible, at the population level, from moderation of dairy intake.

In principle, nutritional and disease risks could be addressed with plant-based substitutes. However, these could require considerable changes to current dietary habits for many, and substitutes may have cost and accessibility issues. These have implications for the structure of the food environment. New advice on such changes would be needed, as the current guidance gives limited explanation. The new advice would need to address the composition of processed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes, in terms of fat, salt and sugar, and potentially , the use of fortification to supply key micronutrients. As is the case with existing meat and dairy products, at present, there is high variability between products and brands in the market, in terms of composition.

Potential impacts of advice on sustainable sourcing

For greater climate focus, revisions to the Eatwell guidance would likely introduce new advice on sustainable sourcing, for example choosing organic or agroecological products. These products are typically more expensive than conventional alternatives. In periods of generally squeezed incomes and high food price inflation, this advice may be unobtainable for many. Careful messaging would be needed within the guidance to address risks of frustration/alienation. At the same time, policy measures are needed to make sustainably sourced food more affordable and accessible^[21].

Potential impacts on sub-groups of Scottish population from take-up of climate-focused FBDGs

With reference the likely changes to Eatwell guidance presented in Table 6.2, potential impacts are as follows:

Advice to reduce meat intake and moderate dairy intake

The modelling work conducted by Comrie et al (2024), on the impacts of reducing meat and dairy intakes across the population by 20%, also considered sub-groups. Depending on the substitution scenario, the authors found risks of some micronutrient deficiencies. These included selenium and zinc intakes for women and calcium intakes for young adults. Revised guidance on meat and dairy intakes would therefore need to include careful messaging and tailored advice for sub-groups, such as these, who may be at greater risk of micronutrient deficiencies. These problems may be exacerbated for women and young adults in lower income groups, who may find it more difficult to afford or access suitable meat alternatives, such as fish, eggs or plant proteins. Ability and capacity to cook meals using alternatives may also disproportionately affect these groups.

Advice to increase vegetable, fruit and plant protein intakes

Some population sub-groups may find it more difficult than others to access the range of vegetables, fruits and plant proteins recommended by revised guidance. As a result, they could face nutritional and disease risks, disproportionate to the wider population. These sub-groups could include lower-income consumers, who may struggle to afford more expensive items and/or cook the recommended foods. They could also include people in rural areas, or in urban food deserts/swamps, who face more limited ranges of foods and food retail options.

Advice to choose sustainably sourced foods

Citizens in lower income groups may be disproportionately unable to follow this advice. This could be particularly alienating. Careful messaging would be needed within the guidance. Programmes and initiatives are also needed to make sustainably sourced food more accessible and affordable.

Advice to favour potatoes, pasta and other grains over rice

This advice could disproportionately impact sub-groups whose diets rely more heavily on rice than the wider population. Tailored messaging would be needed, as well as advice on how to make the most climate-friendly choices for rice.

Advice to avoid UPFs and avoid food waste

Reducing consumption of processed and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) requires access to alternatives and a capacity for more labour and/or energy intensive food preparation. Hence consumers with restricted access due to income and/or food environment constraints and/or lacking the necessary time or facilities for food preparation (e.g. kitchen equipment) will be less likely to be able to avoid processed and UPFs. For similar reasons, consumers with limited or no access to appliances such as fridges and freezers may find it more difficult to follow advice to avoid food waste.

Policies, strategies and actions to implement climate-focused diets

Policy coordination for climate-focused diets

Policies to encourage take-up of climate-focused diets should make sustainable choices the easiest choices for consumers. This means tackling the food environment in a holistic way, using strategic packages of policy measures and instruments^[22]. This requires collaboration and co-ownership between multiple government departments^[23].

The case studies of Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden reveal problems with coordination and coherent policy implementation on climate-friendly diets, to date. Siloed thinking has been evident, reinforced by resource allocations tied to narrow departmental remits rather than cross-cutting goals.

More recent food strategies aim to encourage more holistic, systems-based action on food and diets (e.g. the Flemish Food Strategy). However, implementation is at an early stage, and formal evaluations of their effectiveness have yet to be conducted.

Policy measures and actions for climate-focused diets.

Table 7.1 gives examples of specific policy measures for climate-focused diets that may feature in holistic packages. It also shows whether any of these measures have been applied in Flanders, the Netherlands or Sweden.

On both the demand and supply sides of the food system there are fiscal and regulatory measures. Also on the demand side are public information provision, labelling and public catering. The supply side also includes influencing voluntary industry action. In Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden, public information campaigns and public catering dominate on the demand side, while fiscal measures and influencing industry dominate on the supply side. The pros and cons of these measures are discussed below, with implications for Scotland.

	Policy Measure	Examples	At least one example applied in Flanders, Netherlands, Sweden?
Demand Side	Public information provision	Climate-friendly dietary guidance and information via websites, brochures, social media, digital technologies, face-to-face.	Yes (F, N, S).
	Labelling	Certifications for organic/agroecological production; carbon labels.	No new climate labels developed.
	Fiscal Measures	‘Cash first’ programmes for lower income groups; taxes on higher carbon foods; VAT reductions on lower carbon foods.	No food taxes or subsidies for climate reasons.
	Regulation	Advertising restrictions on higher carbon foods; food waste restrictions.	One city-level ban on outdoor advertising of meat (N).
	Public catering provision	Climate-friendly public food procurement standards; lower carbon menu design; carbon literacy training for catering staff.	Yes, voluntary actions for climate (F, N, S)
Supply Side	Influencing industry actions	Voluntary industry actions to reformulate products, give shelf space to plant proteins	Yes (F, N)
	Regulation	Climate-friendly domestic food production standards; climate-friendly standards for imported foods; mandatory carbon measurement and reporting.	Yes (F, N, S)
	Fiscal measures	Subsidies for climate-friendly farming; funding for climate-friendly research and innovation.	Yes (F, N, S)

Table 7.1. Examples of specific policy measures for climate-focused diets that may feature in holistic packages and adopted by at least one case-study jurisdiction

Public information provision

This is a popular measure to encourage climate-friendly consumption. All three case study jurisdictions have applied it. Public information campaigns are relatively quick and inexpensive to implement, and the range of options now includes digital tools that offer interactivity (e.g. the Mijn Eetmeter diet tracking app in the Netherlands^[24]).

However, there is little evidence that information alone can shift dietary habits. Population heterogeneity is significant, and people engage with or avoid information for multiple reasons^[25]. Nevertheless, public information has a role to play in packages of policy measures. It may help to address low awareness of diet and sustainability issues in the population. Also, public information can signal the government’s priorities and direction of travel to citizens, industry and public bodies. This can be a way to show leadership to stakeholders^[26].

Implications for Scotland:

Develop public information campaigns or messaging for climate-friendly diets as part of strategic policy packages, rather than stand-alone actions. Consider the multiple audiences for information on climate-friendly diets, and explore the potential for campaigns to signal clearly the policy agenda to a range of stakeholders.

Labelling

In theory, labelling schemes for climate-friendly foods can have an ‘industry pull’ effect. As producers change their practices in order to get certified, this brings widespread improvements^[27]. However, evidence for the capacity of labels to change consumer behaviour is mixed at best^[28]. Consumers already face multiple labelling schemes which compete for their attention. Also, environmental impact labels for food products are beset with technical challenges. For example, standardised, reliable metrics for carbon scores are lacking. In addition, labels which only show carbon values are ignoring other important environmental impacts.

For these reasons, climate-friendly labelling is uncommon^[29]. None of the case study jurisdictions have sought to develop climate labels. Instead, they recommend existing certification schemes that are already familiar to consumers, as ways to identify more sustainable options. These include organic labels.

Implications for Scotland:

The development of any new carbon-specific labelling is unlikely to be worthwhile. Following the examples of the Netherlands and Sweden, it would be more feasible to focus on existing certification schemes (e.g. organic, meat quality assurance schemes), and explore ways to strengthen their climate relevance.

Fiscal measures and regulation (demand side)

Demand side regulation has been used actively in the food sector for public health reasons. Examples include restrictions on advertising unhealthy foods to children, and on the use of trans fats in food manufacturing. Fiscal measures (e.g. subsidies, taxes) have also been implemented for health reasons, for example, the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Both types of measure are associated with stronger behaviour change outcomes than information or labelling. They are also associated with driving positive changes in industry practices, including reformulation of products^[30].

However, these measures are less commonly applied explicitly in relation to climate-friendly diets, as they can have unintended consequences and evidence on effectiveness is mixed^[31]. A risk of taxing high carbon foods like meat, for example, is that some consumers switch to foods of lower nutritional value, such as HFSS foods. As lower income households are already more likely to purchase such foods, such taxes risk exacerbating health inequalities. Furthermore, taxes on domestic high carbon foods may lead to carbon ‘leakage’ through import/export substitution effects, with no net reduction in global climate impact.

Implications for Scotland:

Taxes on foods for climate reasons may lead, unintentionally, to regressive outcomes. To address risks of exacerbating health inequalities, taxes should be partnered with policies to make healthier substitutes affordable and accessible to lower income groups. To address risks of GHG leakages, domestic carbon taxes should be partnered with appropriate trade policies.

Importantly however, not all tax/subsidy powers reside with the Scottish Government. Even those that do are subject to UK-wide agreement under the Internal Market Act 2020 and/or the Subsidy Control Act 2022.^[32] Hence not all fiscal policy options are necessarily feasible within Scotland.

Public catering provision

Public catering is frequently presented as a policy area with the potential for direct behaviour change towards more climate-friendly diets^[33]. There are two main ways this can happen. First, procurement standards and criteria can be revised to be more climate-focused. Criteria can relate to food and non-food purchases, facilities and equipment. Second, catering service practices can be revised to reduce climate impact. This can include, for example, recipe and menu design, and food waste reduction.

Flanders, the Netherlands and Sweden have all taken climate-related public catering actions, including introduction of meat-free days in school menus. To date, these actions have largely been voluntary for their sectors.

Implications for Scotland:
In the Scottish public sector, food procurement and catering provision are governed by separate standards. Often, they are also managed by different teams and processes, which presents challenges to coherent decision-making on climate impact.

To make public food procurement more climate friendly, a higher minimum weighting could be applied to climate criteria in contract awards. Suppliers could be asked to provide more carbon information, or be part of certification schemes. However, such demands may disproportionately impact small suppliers or first-time bidders. This would conflict with wider goals to encourage greater diversity in public procurement. Measures to reduce this risk may include supporting suppliers to meet more exacting climate requirements. Procurement officers could also be offered additional sustainability training.

Catering provision standards vary according to sector. In schools, statutory standards for food are based on nutritional not climate goals^[34]. These standards could be revisited to explore ways to make them more climate-friendly. This would increase their consistency with local authority obligations to measure and reduce the carbon footprints of their services^[35]. Extension of the Food For Life programme to all local authorities (currently voluntary) could also be a route to more climate focus.

In practice, school catering managers are increasingly taking voluntary climate actions, e.g. food waste reduction and meat-free days. Measures are needed to better support these actions, e.g. by strengthening public information on sustainable diets, and offering training and support for climate-friendly catering to service teams.

Influencing voluntary industry actions

Governments have well-established engagement with industry to encourage voluntary actions for public health reasons. Actions are now being encouraged to promote more climate-friendly food choices, for example, by reformulating products or changing microenvironments in-store to shape choice architecture^[36]. Such approaches can be attractive to government since they avoid the time and effort needed to design and implement formal regulatory controls or taxes. However, industry actors may withdraw if market circumstances alter or industry leadership changes. Hence, voluntary agreements need to be monitored. They are often encouraged through the threat of imposing non-voluntary arrangements (e.g. regulation, fiscal measures) if engagement levels drop^[37].

Both Flanders and the Netherlands are currently encouraging voluntary industry agreements related to sustainable diets. Under their Protein Strategies, they are encouraging domestic processors and retailers to increase activity in plant proteins. They have done this by presenting direct investments in domestic plant protein, derived from CAP Green Deal funding, as a market growth opportunity (see below). This is an example of more holistic policymaking, with coherence across supply and demand side measures.

Implications for Scotland:

Persuading industry partners to voluntarily adjust their practices requires either a perceived threat of future regulatory controls/fiscal distinctives from non-adjustment, or perceived benefits from doing so. Achieving either requires repeated engagement with industry stakeholders to establish mutual understanding of objectives, constraints and feasible options. Scottish industry stakeholders are already routinely involved in agricultural and food policy discussions, but voluntary actions by different stakeholders often progress at different rates. This can lead to poorly coordinated outcomes.^[38]

Regulation and fiscal measures (supply side)

Various regulatory controls are applied to agricultural production across the EU, and some of these relate explicitly to mitigating GHG emissions. For example, farmers’ support funding requires adherence to Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) criteria. EU-level efforts also seek to regulate food imports on the basis of their GHG emissions. However, the link between all regulatory measures and domestic dietary guidance is often implicit at best.

Similarly, fiscal support for domestic agricultural production is also deployed under the EU-wide CAP. Much of this takes the form of decoupled payments not tied explicitly to the production of any particular (or indeed any) food product. However, some support is targeted explicitly at specific sectors, such as organic production and plant protein production. For the latter, further public funding from other sources has been deployed for R&D activities and to leverage private funding along the supply chain. This has been the case in Flanders and Netherlands’ Protein Strategies.

Implications for Scotland:

Agricultural production is already subject to various regulatory controls. Revision to agricultural funding support is likely to introduce new requirements related to GHG emissions. This will include obligations to monitor and report emissions^[39]. Such improvements to the climate impact of Scottish agricultural production can be connected to advice within FBDGs, to choose more sustainably sourced foods.

Regulatory controls on imported food items fall outwith Scottish Government devolved powers.

Supply-side fiscal measures are already deployed within Scotland, most notably with respect to holders of agricultural land but also through investment and training grants for other parts of the supply-chain and funding for a range of research institutions. The majority of funding through such measures is not currently linked strongly to climate-related dietary change. However, as in some other countries, there may be scope to do so. This will require greater cross-departmental working and reprioritization of current budgets. Such issues feature in current parliamentary scrutiny of the Agricultural and Rural Communities Bill, including in relation to Good Food Nation ambitions.^[40]

The scope for deploying new tax measures is more limited given constraints on devolved powers.

Conclusions

Listed by project objectives, the key findings are summarised here.

Dietary guidelines and recommendations in other jurisdictions

Out of 33 jurisdictions studied, only seven have FBDGs with extensive climate focus.

The main differences between health-focused and climate-focused guidance are that the latter recommends greater meat reduction, in particular ruminant meat, moderating dairy intake, choosing sustainably sourced foods, avoiding highly processed foods and avoiding food waste.

In three jurisdictions with climate-focused FBDGs (Flanders, the Netherlands, Sweden), the guidance was developed via a ‘science first’ approach, using expert panels and reviews. Stakeholder inputs were restricted to the final steps of messaging and implementation, to preserve the independence of the guidance.

Policies, strategies and actions taken to encourage progress to the guidelines

Policy implementation for climate-focused guidance requires coordination across government departments and budgets, and strategic packages of policy measures. These are needed to tackle food environments holistically, to make climate-friendly choices affordable and accessible.

Policy implementation of FBDGs in the three jurisdictions has lacked coordination, and measures have been largely limited to public information campaigns and encouragement of voluntary actions in public catering (e.g. menu adjustments).

Potential applications in Scotland and impacts on different groups

Adoption of climate-focused FBDGs would be a generally low-regret action, consistent with the direction of travel for policies relating to climate and health.

Some micronutrient deficiency risks are possible for certain population groups, depending on which foods are substituted. These include women, young adults, and lower income households. Other risks include import/export carbon leakage.

To address such issues, a coordinated cross-departmental policy approach would be needed, deploying a mix of supply-side and demand-side measures.

References and other supporting literature

Abrahamse, W., 2020. How to effectively encourage sustainable food choices: a mini-review of available evidence. Frontiers in psychology, 11, p.589674.

Aguirre-Sánchez, L., Teschner, R., Lalchandani, N.K., El Maohub, Y. and Suggs, L.S., 2023. Climate change mitigation potential in dietary guidelines: A global review. Sustainable Production and Consumption.

Ahrens, W., Brenner, H., Flechtner-Mors, M., Harrington, J.M., Hebestreit, A., Kamphuis, C.B., Kelly, L., Laxy, M., Luszczynska, A., Mazzocchi, M. and Murrin, C., 2022. Dietary behaviour and physical activity policies in Europe: learnings from the Policy Evaluation Network (PEN). European journal of public health, 32(Supplement_4), pp.iv114-iv125.

Ammann, J., Arbenz, A., Mack, G., Nemecek, T. and El Benni, N., 2023. A review on policy instruments for sustainable food consumption. Sustainable Production and Consumption.

Andretta, I., Hickmann, F.M., Remus, A., Franceschi, C.H., Mariani, A.B., Orso, C., Kipper, M., Létourneau-Montminy, M.P. and Pomar, C., 2021. Environmental impacts of pig and poultry production: insights from a systematic review. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, p.750733.

Angelsen, A., Starke, A.D. and Trattner, C., 2023. Healthiness and environmental impact of dinner recipes vary widely across developed countries. Nature Food, pp.1-9.

Astbury, C.C., Aguirre, E., Cullerton, K., Monsivais, P. and Penney, T.L., 2021. How supportive is the global food supply of food-based dietary guidelines? A descriptive time series analysis of food supply alignment from 1961 to 2013. SSM-Population Health, 15, p.100866.

Bailey, R. and Harper, D.R., 2015. Reviewing interventions for healthy and sustainable diets. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Barton, K.L., Wrieden, W.L., Sherriff, A., Armstrong, J. and Anderson, A.S., 2015. Trends in socio-economic inequalities in the Scottish diet: 2001–2009. Public health nutrition, 18(16), pp.2970-2980.

Barton, K.L., Masson, L.F. and Wrieden, W.L., 2018. Estimation of food and nutrient intakes from food purchase data in Scotland, 2001-2015: report to Food Standards Scotland.

Barton, K.L., Ronald, C. and Savage, A., 2022. Estimation of food and nutrient intakes from food purchase data in Scotland between 2001 and 2018. Report to Food Standards Scotland

BDA 2020. Eating patterns for health and environmental sustainability: A Reference Guide for Dietitians. British Association of Dietitians.

Bechthold, A., Boeing, H., Tetens, I., Schwingshackl, L. and Nöthlings, U., 2018. Perspective: food-based dietary guidelines in Europe—scientific concepts, current status, and perspectives. Advances in nutrition, 9(5), pp.544-560.

Benton, T.G. and Bailey, R., 2019. The paradox of productivity: agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency. Global Sustainability, 2, p.e6.

Bergman, K., Lövestam, E., Nowicka, P. and Eli, K., 2020. ‘A holistic approach’: incorporating sustainability into biopedagogies of healthy eating in Sweden’s dietary guidelines. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(8), pp.1785-1800.

Binns, C.W., Lee, M.K., Maycock, B., Torheim, L.E., Nanishi, K. and Duong, D.T.T., 2021. Climate change, food supply, and dietary guidelines. Annual review of public health, 42, pp.233-255.

Blomhoff, R., Anderson, R., Arnesen, A. et al. 2023. Nordic Nutrition recommendations 2023. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Brennan, M., 2023. Food Systems Transformation in Scotland—The Journey to, Vision of, and Challenges Facing the New Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act. Sustainability, 15(19), p.14579.

Brink, E., van Rossum, C., Postma-Smeets, A., Stafleu, A., Wolvers, D., van Dooren, C., Toxopeus, I., Buurma-Rethans, E., Geurts, M. and Ocké, M., 2019. Development of healthy and sustainable food-based dietary guidelines for the Netherlands. Public health nutrition, 22(13), pp.2419-2435.

Burke, D.T., Hynds, P. and Priyadarshini, A., 2023. Quantifying farm-to-fork greenhouse gas emissions for five dietary patterns across Europe and North America: A pooled analysis from 2009 to 2020. Resources, Environment and Sustainability, p.100108.

Caleffi, S., Hawkes, C. and Walton, S., 2023. 45 actions to orient food systems towards environmental sustainability: co-benefits and trade-offs. London, UK: Centre for Food Policy

Cámara, M., Giner, R.M., González-Fandos, E., López-García, E., Mañes, J., Portillo, M.P., Rafecas, M., Domínguez, L. and Martínez, J.A., 2021. Food-based dietary guidelines around the world: A comparative analysis to update AESAN scientific committee dietary recommendations. Nutrients, 13(9), p.3131.

Cara, K.C., Goldman, D.M., Kollman, B.K., Amato, S.S., Tull, M.D. and Karlsen, M.C., 2023. Commonalities among dietary recommendations from 2010-2021 clinical practice guidelines: A meta-epidemiological study from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. Advances in Nutrition.

Cobiac, L.J. and Scarborough, P., 2019. Modelling the health co-benefits of sustainable diets in the UK, France, Finland, Italy and Sweden. European journal of clinical nutrition, 73(4), pp.624-633.

Comerford, K.B., Miller, G.D., Boileau, A.C., Masiello Schuette, S.N., Giddens, J.C. and Brown, K.A., 2021. Global review of dairy recommendations in food-based dietary guidelines. Frontiers in nutrition, 8, p.671999.

Comrie, F., Jaacks, l., Kennedy, J., Mcdonald, A., McNeill, G., Runions, R., Stewart, C., Vonderschmidt, A. (2024). Approaches to modelling impact of reduction in meat and dairy intakes on micronutrient intakes and disease risk. CXC, University of Edinburgh, Food Standards Scotland.

Crippa et al., 2021. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), pp.198-209.

Cullum, A., 2024. Developing food-based dietary recommendations in the UK. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 83(1), pp.55-61.

Darmon N, Drewnowski A. Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutr Rev. 2015;73:643–660.

Dawkins, E., André, K., Leander, E., Axelsson, K. and Gerger Swartling, Å., 2023. Policy for sustainable consumptionan assessment of Swedish municipalities. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, p.1265733.

Djojosoeparto, S.K., Kamphuis, C.B., Vandevijvere, S., Murrin, C., Stanley, I., Romaniuk, P., Harrington, J.M., Poelman, M.P. and PEN Consortium, 2022. Strength of EU-level food environment policies and priority recommendations to create healthy food environments. European Journal of Public Health, 32(3), pp.504-511.

Djojosoeparto, S.K., Kamphuis, C., Vandevijvere, S. and Poelman, M.P., 2022. How can national government policies improve food environments in the Netherlands? International Journal of Public Health, 67, p.1604115.

Drewnowski, A., 2020. Impact of nutrition interventions and dietary nutrient density on productivity in the workplace. Nutrition reviews, 78(3), pp.215-224.

EC. 2023. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Knowledge Gateway. European Commission https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/food-based-dietary-guidelines-europe-source-documents-food_en

EC. 2023. Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Europe. European Commission. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/topic/food-based-dietary-guidelines-europe_en

Eluwa, T.F., Eluwa, G.I., Iorwa, A., Daini, B.O., Abdullahi, K., Balogun, M., Yaya, S., Ahinkorah, B.O. and Lawal, A., 2023. Impact of unconditional cash transfers on household livelihood outcomes in Nigeria. Journal of Social Policy, pp.1-16.

FAO 2023 Food-based dietary guidelines. https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/en/

Fischer, C.G. and Garnett, T., 2016. Plates, pyramids, and planets: developments in national healthy and sustainable dietary guidelines: a state of play assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Food Standards Scotland 2020. The Scottish Diet – It needs to change, 2020 update. Food Standards Scotland.

Galli, A., Antonelli, M., Wambersie, L., Bach-Faig, A., Bartolini, F., Caro, D., Iha, K., Lin, D., Mancini, M.S., Sonnino, R. and Vanham, D., 2023. EU-27 ecological footprint was primarily driven by food consumption and exceeded regional biocapacity from 2004 to 2014. Nature Food, 4(9), pp.810-822.

Garnett, T., Mathewson, S., Angelides, P. and Borthwick, F., 2015. Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: what works. Foresight, 515(7528), pp.518-522.

Gladding, T.L., Rolph, C.A., Gwyther, C.L., Kinnersley, R., Walsh, K. and Tyrrel, S., 2020. Concentration and composition of bioaerosol emissions from intensive farms: pig and poultry livestock. Journal of environmental management, 272, p.111052.

Godin, L. and Sahakian, M., 2018. Cutting through conflicting prescriptions: How guidelines inform “healthy and sustainable” diets in Switzerland. Appetite, 130, pp.123-133.

Gržinić, G., Piotrowicz-Cieślak, A., Klimkowicz-Pawlas, A., Górny, R.L., Ławniczek-Wałczyk, A., Piechowicz, L., Olkowska, E., Potrykus, M., Tankiewicz, M., Krupka, M. and Siebielec, G., 2023. Intensive poultry farming: A review of the impact on the environment and human health. Science of the Total Environment, 858, p.160014

Hansen, K.L., Golubovic, S., Eriksen, C.U., Jørgensen, T. and Toft, U., 2022. Effectiveness of food environment policies in improving population diets: a review of systematic reviews. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76(5), pp.637-646.

Harrington, J., Kenny, T. and O’Mahony, L. 2023. Building ‘sustainability’ into national healthy eating guidelines. Review of international practice and practical implications for policy. Safefood report.

Henchion, M., Moloney, A.P., Hyland, J., Zimmermann, J. and McCarthy, S., 2021. Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal, 15, p.100287.

Hendrie, G.A., Lyle, G., Mauch, C.E., Haddad, J. and Golley, R.K., 2021. Understanding the variation within a dietary guideline index score to identify the priority food group targets for improving diet quality across population subgroups. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(2), p.378.

Herforth, A., Arimond, M., Álvarez-Sánchez, C., Coates, J., Christianson, K. and Muehlhoff, E., 2019. A global review of food-based dietary guidelines. Advances in Nutrition, 10(4), pp.590-605.

Hoek, A.C., Malekpour, S., Raven, R., Court, E. and Byrne, E., 2021. Towards environmentally sustainable food systems: decision-making factors in sustainable food production and consumption. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, pp.610-626.

Jaacks, L., Frank, S., Vonderschmidt, A., Stewart, C., Runions, R., Kennedy, J., McNeill, G., Alexander, P. (2024). Understanding the climate impact of food consumed in Scotland. CXC report.

James-Martin, G., Baird, D.L., Hendrie, G.A., Bogard, J., Anastasiou, K., Brooker, P.G., Wiggins, B., Williams, G., Herrero, M., Lawrence, M. and Lee, A.J., 2022. Environmental sustainability in national food-based dietary guidelines: a global review. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(12), pp.e977-e986.

Jennings, R., Henderson, A.D., Phelps, A., Janda, K.M. and van den Berg, A.E., 2023. Five US Dietary Patterns and Their Relationship to Land Use, Water Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Implications for Future Food Security. Nutrients, 15(1), p.215.

Kirwan, L.B., Walton, J., Flynn, A., Nugent, A.P., Kearney, J., Holden, N.M. and McNulty, B.A., 2023. Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Food Consumption in Ireland—Informing a Transition to Sustainable Diets. Nutrients, 15(4), p.981.

Kovacs, B., Miller, L., Heller, M.C. and Rose, D., 2021. The carbon footprint of dietary guidelines around the world: a seven country modeling study. Nutrition journal, 20, pp.1-10.

Kwasny, T., Dobernig, K. and Riefler, P., 2022. Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite, 168, p.105739.

Laine, J.E., Huybrechts, I., Gunter, M.J., Ferrari, P., Weiderpass, E., Tsilidis, K., Aune, D., Schulze, M.B., Bergmann, M., Temme, E.H. and Boer, J.M., 2021. Co-benefits from sustainable dietary shifts for population and environmental health: an assessment from a large European cohort study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(11), pp.e786-e796.

Lassen, A.D., Christensen, L.M. and Trolle, E., 2020. Development of a Danish adapted healthy plant-based diet based on the EAT-Lancet reference diet. Nutrients, 12(3), p.738.

Leme, A.C.B., Hou, S., Fisberg, R.M., Fisberg, M. and Haines, J., 2021. Adherence to food-based dietary guidelines: a systemic review of high-income and low-and middle-income countries. Nutrients, 13(3), p.1038.

Lindström, H., Lundberg, S. and Marklund, P.O., 2020. How Green Public Procurement can drive conversion of farmland: An empirical analysis of an organic food policy. Ecological Economics, 172, p.106622.

Lobos, M.F., L’Abbé, M., Ng, S.H., Phulkerd, S., Ramirez‐Zea, M. and Rebello, S.A., 2019. An 11‐country study to benchmark the implementation of recommended nutrition policies by national governments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index, 2015‐2018. Obesity Reviews, 20, pp.57-66.

Macura, B., Ran, Y., Persson, U.M., Abu Hatab, A., Jonell, M., Lindahl, T. and Röös, E., 2022. What evidence exists on the effects of public policy interventions for achieving environmentally sustainable food consumption? A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 11(1), pp.1-9.

Martini, D., Tucci, M., Bradfield, J., Di Giorgio, A., Marino, M., Del Bo’, C., Porrini, M. and Riso, P., 2021. Principles of sustainable healthy diets in worldwide dietary guidelines: efforts so far and future perspectives. Nutrients, 13(6), p.1827.

Matthews, A., Candel, J., Mûelenaere, N.D. and Scheelbeek, P., 2023. The political economy of food system transformation in the European Union. In Resnick, D. and Swinnen, J., 2023. Political Economy of Food System Transformation. The Political Economy of Food System Transformation, Routledge.

Mazac, R., Renwick, K., Seed, B. and Black, J.L., 2021. An approach for integrating and analyzing sustainability in food-based dietary guidelines. Frontiers in sustainable food systems, 5, p.544072.

Milner, J., Green, R., Dangour, A.D., Haines, A., Chalabi, Z., Spadaro, J., Markandya, A. and Wilkinson, P., 2015. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK. BMJ open, 5(4), p.e007364.

OECD. 2021. Making Better Policies for Food Systems. OECD.

Pineda, E., Poelman, M.P., Aaspõllu, A., Bica, M., Bouzas, C., Carrano, E., De Miguel-Etayo, P., Djojosoeparto, S., Blenkuš, M.G., Graca, P. and Geffert, K., 2022. Policy implementation and priorities to create healthy food environments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI): A pooled level analysis across eleven European countries. The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, 23.

Purnell, J.Q., Gernes, R., Stein, R., Sherraden, M.S. and Knoblock-Hahn, A., 2014. A systematic review of financial incentives for dietary behavior change. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114(7), pp.1023-1035.

Reay, D. et al. 2020. From farm to fork: growing a Scottish food system that doesn’t cost the planet. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, p.72.

Reisch, L.A., Sunstein, C.R., Andor, M.A., Doebbe, F.C., Meier, J. and Haddaway, N.R., 2021. Mitigating climate change via food consumption and food waste: A systematic map of behavioral interventions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, p.123717.

Reisch, L.A., 2021. Shaping healthy and sustainable food systems with behavioural food policy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 48(4), pp.665-693.

Romaniuk, P., Kaczmarek, K., Brukało, K., Grochowska-Niedworok, E., Łobczowska, K., Banik, A., Luszczynska, A., Poelman, M., Harrington, J.M., Vandevijvere, S. and Pen Consortium, 2022. The healthy food environment policy index in Poland: implementation gaps and actions for improvement. Foods, 11(11), p.1648.

Röös, E., Bajželj, B., Smith, P., Patel, M., Little, D. and Garnett, T., 2017. Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Global Environmental Change, 47, pp.1-12.

Röös, E., Larsson, J., Sahlin, K., Jonell, M., Lindahl, T., André, E., Säll, NS., Harring, N. and Persson, M. 2021. Policy Options for Sustainable Food Consumption – Review and Recommendations for Sweden. Mistra Sustainable Consumption report 1:10.

Rossi, L., Ferrari, M. and Ghiselli, A., 2023. The Alignment of Recommendations of Dietary Guidelines with Sustainability Aspects: Lessons Learned from Italy’s Example and Proposals for Future Development. Nutrients, 15(3), p.542.

Scheelbeek, P., Green, R., Papier, K., Knuppel, A., Alae-Carew, C., Balkwill, A., Key, T.J., Beral, V. and Dangour, A.D., 2020. Health impacts and environmental footprints of diets that meet the Eatwell Guide recommendations: analyses of multiple UK studies. BMJ open, 10(8), p.e037554

Schwingshackl, L., Watzl, B. and Meerpohl, J.J., 2020. The healthiness and sustainability of food based dietary guidelines. bmj, 370.

Scott, C., Sutherland, J. and Taylor, A., 2018. Affordability of the UK’s Eatwell Guide. The Food Foundation, p.17.

Sinclair, M., Combet, E., Davis, T. and Papies, E.K., 2023. Sustainability in food-based dietary guidelines: a review of recommendations around meat and dairy consumption and their visual representation. University of Glasgow preprint.

Some, S., Roy, J., Chatterjee, J.S. and Butt, M.H., 2022. Low demand mitigation options for achieving Sustainable Development Goals: Role of reduced food waste and sustainable dietary choice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 369, p.133432.

Speck, M., Wagner, L., Buchborn, F., Steinmeier, F., Friedrich, S. and Langen, N., 2022. How public catering accelerates sustainability: a German case study. Sustainability Science, 17(6), pp.2287-2299.

Springmann, M., Spajic, L., Clark, M.A., Poore, J., Herforth, A., Webb, P., Rayner, M. and Scarborough, P., 2020. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. bmj, 370.

Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Schmidt, U.J., 2017. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Regional Environmental Change, 17, pp.1261-1277.

Strid, A., Hallström, E., Hjorth, T., Johansson, I., Lindahl, B., Sonesson, U., Winkvist, A. and Huseinovic, E., 2019. Climate impact from diet in relation to background and sociodemographic characteristics in the Västerbotten Intervention Programme. Public health nutrition, 22(17), pp.3288-3297

Tetens, I., Birt, C.A., Brink, E., Bodenbach, S., Bugel, S., De Henauw, S., Grønlund, T., Julia, C., Konde, Å.B., Kromhout, D. and Lehmann, U., 2020. Food-based dietary guidelines–development of a conceptual framework for future Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Europe: report of a Federation of European Nutrition Societies Task-Force Workshop in Copenhagen, 12–13 March 2018. British Journal of Nutrition, 124(12), pp.1338-1344.

The Carnon Trust. 2016. The eatwell guide: A more sustainable diet.

Tucci, M., Martini, D., Marino, M., Del Bo’, C., Vinelli, V., Biscotti, P., Parisi, C., De Amicis, R., Battezzati, A., Bertoli, S. and Porrini, M., 2022. The Environmental Impact of an Italian-Mediterranean Dietary Pattern Based on the EAT-Lancet Reference Diet (EAT-IT). Foods, 11(21), p.3352.

van Dooren, C., Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H. and Vellinga, P., 2014. Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy, 44, pp.36-46.

von Philipsborn, P., Geffert, K., Klinger, C., Hebestreit, A., Stratil, J., Rehfuess, E.A. and PEN Consortium, 2022. Nutrition policies in Germany: a systematic assessment with the Food Environment Policy Index. Public Health Nutrition, 25(6), pp.1691-1700.

Vermeir, I., Weijters, B., De Houwer, J., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H., Spruyt, A., Van Kerckhove, A., Van Lippevelde, W., De Steur, H. and Verbeke, W., 2020. Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 11, p.520238.

Whybrow, S., Hollis, J.L. and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2018. Social deprivation is associated with poorer adherence to healthy eating dietary goals: analysis of household food purchases. Journal of Public Health, 40(1), pp.e8-e15.

Wijesinha-Bettoni, R., Khosravi, A., Ramos, A.I., Sherman, J., Hernandez-Garbanzo, Y., Molina, V., Vargas, M. and Hachem, F., 2021. A snapshot of food-based dietary guidelines implementation in selected countries. Global Food Security, 29, p.100533.

Wood, A., Moberg, E., Curi-Quinto, K., Van Rysselberge, P. and Röös, E., 2023. From “good for people” to “good for people and planet”–Placing health and environment on equal footing when developing food-based dietary guidelines. Food Policy, 117, p.102444.

Wrieden, W., Halligan, J., Goffe, L., Barton, K. and Leinonen, I., 2019. Sustainable diets in the UK—developing a systematic framework to assess the environmental impact, cost and nutritional quality of household food purchases. Sustainability, 11(18), p.4974.

Yin, J., Hua, J., Zhang, X., Tuyishimire, A. and Yang, D., 2023. Healthy Eating for All? The Challenge of Adhering to Dietary Guidelines for Low-Income Groups in China. Nutrients, 15(12), p.2704.

Yoong, S.L., Turon, H., Wong, C.K., Bayles, L., Finch, M., Barnes, C., Doherty, E. and Wolfenden, L., 2023. An audit of the dissemination strategies and plan included in international food-based dietary guidelines. Public health nutrition, 26(11), pp.2586-2594.

Appendices

Appendix A: Interviewees and discussion guide

Flanders:

Senior professional from Flanders Institute of Healthy Living (Gezonden Leven)

Senior professional from Flanders Department of the Environment and Spatial Planning

Netherlands:

Senior professional from the Netherlands Nutrition Centre (Voedingscentrum)

Sweden:

Senior academic from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Scotland:

Representative from NESTA

Representative from NFUS

Representative from the British Dietetic Association

Senior academic, University of Edinburgh

Representative from the Soil Association

Two representatives from ASSIST FM

Representative from the Food and Drink Federation Scotland

Other:

Team of academics from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (undertaking similar research on behalf of Defra)

Discussion Guide

Aims of Interview

The Scottish Government currently provides dietary guidance via the EatWell Guide, which promotes better health and nutritional outcomes. Scottish Government is exploring how to align the guidance with its climate objectives, to encourage diets that are both healthy and climate-friendly. The purpose of these discussions is to gather views on what climate-friendly dietary guidelines could look like in Scotland, what actions would be most effective to encourage their uptake, and what barriers, problems or unintended consequences Scottish Government should be aware of, from your perspective as a representative of [name of stakeholder group].

1.Explain privacy notice and confirm consent to undertake the interview [2 mins]

2. Opener [5 mins]

From the perspective of your organisation/profession, what does a climate-friendly diet mean to you?
What key features, or guidelines, would you expect in a climate-friendly diet?
If interviewees are familiar with the EatWell Guide, could also ask how climate-friendly they think it currently is, and what they would change/revise, to make it more climate-friendly.

3. Discussion of climate friendly dietary guidance, using prompt material [10 or 15 mins, depending on interviewee’s expertise]

In advance, we will share the attached montage of dietary guidelines assembled from climate-focused FBDGs, i.e. Flanders, Netherlands, Sweden:

On the slide are examples of climate-friendly dietary guidance, from other countries. Please tell me:

What is your impression of these dietary guidelines?
To what extent could they apply in Scotland?
In particular, what is your view about the advice to:
Reduce meat consumption, especially red meat (including specifying maximum intake per week)?
Moderate dairy consumption?
From your perspective, what difference does the addition of climate-focused guidance make to nutritional outcomes? Does it create any tensions? Will consumers be more or less receptive?
What problems or unintended consequences might come from guidance such as this in Scotland?
Which groups may particularly benefit, and which groups may be negatively impacted?
(If time – If ScotGov decided to develop climate-friendly dietary guidelines, what would your advice be about which stakeholders should be involved in the development process?
Who should lead the process?

4. Discussion of how to encourage take-up of dietary guidance, using prompt material [10 or 15 mins, depending on interviewee’s expertise]

In advance, we will share the attached montage of policy instruments from other jurisdictions, designed to encourage climate-friendly diets.

On the slide are examples of policy actions in other countries to encourage take-up of climate-friendly diets. Please tell me:

What is your impression of these policy actions?
To what extent could they apply in Scotland?
In particular, what is your view of:
Carbon labelling of food
Subsidising fruit and vegetables to targeted groups
Changing public catering standards to encourage more meat-free menus
Acting on the food environment

5. Wrap up

Do you have any questions you would like to ask?
Confirm how information will be used
Thank participant and end interview

Appendix B: FBDG information for selected countries

Dietary Guideline information for selected countries, citing official documentation and showing degree to which guidance is linked to environmental impact. Recommendations included where linked explicitly to environment/climate^[41]

All weblinks accessed during December 2023.

Austria

Document type	Publishing organisation	Document name (publication date) and weblink source	Document length (pages)	Comments
Consumer	Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety	Austrian Food Pyramid (2010)* https://www.fao.org/3/as659o/as659o.pdf also The Austrian Food Pyramid – AGES	12 (pdf)	Only ref to environment is sustainable fish. Recommends low meat consumption, and seasonal, regional and organic food, but not for environmental reasons. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.
Background	None found^[42]	None found	N/A	N/A

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
Consumer.	Consume sustainably sourced fish.	“In the spirit of sustainability”	“In the spirit of sustainability, when buying fish, look for certifications from MSC, ASC or organic”	“At least 300g fish per week”

* New Austrian Food Pyramids (plural) are due to be published in the autumn of 2024, https://www.sozialministerium.at/Themen/Gesundheit/Ern%C3%A4hrung/%C3%96sterreichische-Ern%C3%A4hrungsempfehlungen-NEU.html

Australia

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

National Health and Medical Research Council

Eat for Health. Australian Dietary Guidelines Summary (2013)

https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/n55a_australian_dietary_guidelines_summary_131014_1.pdf

2 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment.

No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

National Health and Medical Research Council

Eat for Health. Australian Dietary Guidelines (2013)

https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf

226 (pdf)

Briefly mentions climate and emissions, although cited examples do not relate to primary production. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which Document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

NB. National level guidelines apply everywhere but supporting policy measures vary across sub-national jurisdictions across Australia.

Belgium (country-wide)

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Superior Health Council

FPS Public Health, Walloon Agency for Quality Life (AVIQ) for the French version, Gezond Leven and Vlaanderen is zorg for the Flemish version.

FBDG: Eat and gain life-years? Doable! (2019)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GcH7x7unQY

The Food Tree (2019)

https://www.karott.be/karott-epi-alimentaire/ and https://www.foodinaction.com/nl/voedingstak-pijlers-beter-eten/ (in Dutch and French, machine translated to English via Google Translate and DeepL)

2.14 minutes (video)

6 (pdf)

Dietary recommendations are not linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Background

Superior Health Council

Dietary Guidelines for the Belgian Adult Population (2019) https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/‌‌fpshealth_theme_file/20191011_shc-9284_fbdg_vweb.pdf

91 (pdf)

Sustainability issues are noted and endorsed as relevant, but not in an integrated way. Dietary recommendations are not linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

NB. Guidance expected to be updated after 2023 see https://www.health.belgium.be/en/advisory-report-9284-fbdg-2019

Belgium (Flanders)

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Departement Omgeving (Department of Environment)

Eating According to the Food Triangle: Good for Yourself and the Planet (2021)

Food-triangle-EN.pdf (gezondleven.be)

24 (pdf)

Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Background

Vlaams Instituut Gezond Leven (Flemish Institute for Healthy Living)

Rationale for a substantive food and health vision (2017); Food & Environmentally Responsible Consumption (2021)

Achtergronddocument-Voeding-en-gezondheid.pdf (gezondleven.be) (in Dutch, machine translated to English via Google Translate and DeepL)

Background-food-and-environment-EN.pdf (gezondleven.be) and www.gezondleven.be/voedingsdriehoek .

30 (pdf)

133 (pdf)

Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?

What Advice?

Why Do This?

How Do This?

Quantification?

Consumer.

NB. Guidelines for Flanders are distinct from those issued by Wallonia, and indeed to those issued by the Superior Health Council for all adult Belgians.

Eat more plant-based food than animal-based food. Eat seasonal fruit and veg. Drink mostly tap water. Moderate fish consumption. Opt for less processed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes.

“Plant-based generally has lower environmental impact. Legumes very low impact compared to meat. Not only are seasonal fruits and veg at their best, but their environmental impact is also more limited. Did you know that buying local is not always better for the environment? They can have a higher environment impact if they are grown in heated greenhouses.”

“Given that no packaging and transport is required, tap water has a lower environment impact. Fish can have a significant environmental impact.”

“Make a week menu and plan one veggie day to begin with. Increase number of veggie days step by step. Website and app for tasty and healthy recipes

and a decision-tree to help choice. Better to opt for less processed variants like tofu, tempeh and seitan and use the Nutri-Score to make better choices. For dairy substitutes, soy drinks enriched with calcium and vitamins has nutritional value comparable to milk. Drinks based on nuts, oats or rice have lower protein content.”

“Start with one meat-free day per week and build from there. Eat handful of unsalted nuts every day.” “If opt for meat, have one meat meal per day and have a small portion… size of your palm.”

“It is recommended to eat (oily) fish once or twice per week.”

Brazil

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

Food Guide for the Brazilian population (2018)

https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/saude-brasil/publicacoes-para-promocao-a-saude/guiadebolso2018.pdf/@@download/file (in Portuguese, machine translated by Google Translate and DeepL).

49 (pdf)

Environmental sustainability is mentioned briefly, but no dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Background

Ministry of Health

University of São Paulo

Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population (2015)

https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf

Food and health: the scientific basis of the food guide for the Brazilian population (2019)

https://www.livrosabertos.sibi.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/view/339/298/1248

152 (pdf)

133 (pdf)

Environmental sustainability is acknowledged as important but no dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Canada

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Health Canada

Canada’s Food Guide (2019)

https://food-guide.canada.ca/sites/default/files/artifact-pdf/HEPs-Guide-nw-en.pdf

2 (pdf)

Does recommend choosing protein that comes from plants more often and notes lower environmental impact, but no dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

Health Canada

Canada’s Dietary Guidelines for Health professionals and Policy makers (2018/19) https://food-guide.canada.ca/sites/default/files/artifact-pdf/CDG-EN-2018.pdf

62 (pdf)

Background document briefly notes emissions from food waste. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

NB. National level guidelines apply everywhere but supporting policy measures vary across sub-national jurisdictions across Canada.

Chile

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

Food Guides for Chile (2022)

https://www.minsal.cl/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Guias-alimentarias-version-corregida-MINSAL.pdf

(in Spanish, machine translated into English by Google Translate, DeepL unable to do so)

12 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment beyond reducing food packaging and waste. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

Ministry of Health

Dietary Guidelines for Chile (2022)

https://www.minsal.cl/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/guias_alimentarias_2022_2ed.pdf

(in Spanish, machine translated into English by Google Translate and DeepL)

Updating Of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines Food-Based Dietary Guidelines (Fbg) For The Chilean Population”. Conceptual Development Framework Reports 1 & 2 (2022)

https://www.minsal.cl/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/02.11.2022-PRODUCTO-1.pdf

https://www.minsal.cl/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/02.112022-PRODUCTO-2.pdf

(in Spanish, machine translated into English by Google Translate and DeepL)

108 (pdf)

686 (pdf)

236 (pdf)

Sustainable, environment and climate are mentioned frequently, but no dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Croatia

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Croatian Institute for Public Health

Healthy living. Do you also eat healthy? (2018) https://www.hzjz.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Hrana-LETAK.pdf (in Croatian, machine translated into English by Google Translate and DeepL)

2 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

Croatian Institute for Public Health

Recommendations for the spring and summer nutrition (2018)

https://zivjetizdravo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Brosura-PROLJECE_LJETO-.pdf and

Recommendations for the autumn and winter nutrition, 2018

https://zivjetizdravo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Brosura-JESEN_ZIMA-LowRes.pdf (in Croatian, machine translated into English by Google Translate and DeepL)

2 x 28 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Cyprus

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

National Nutrition and Exercise Guidelines leaflet (2011)

(in Greek, machine translated into English by Google Translate, DeepL unable to do so)

Layout 1 (moh.gov.cy)

2 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

Ministry of Health

National Nutrition and Exercise Guidelines (2011)

Layout 1 (moh.gov.cy) (in Greek, machine translated into English by Google Translate, DeepL unable to do so)

16 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

NB. National level guidelines apply everywhere but supporting policy measures vary across sub-national jurisdictions across Canada.

Denmark

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

The Official Dietary Guidelines – Good for Health and Climate (2021)

https://foedevarestyrelsen.dk/publikationer/2021/de-officielle-kostraad-godt-for-sundhed-og-klima-pjece (in Danish, machine translated into English by Google Translate and DeepL). Website also includes other materials.

23 (pdf)

Frequent mention of climate/ environment. Recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

National Food Institute

Department of Risk Assessment and

Nutrition

Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023 Integrating Environmental Aspects (2023)

https://pub.norden.org/nord2023-003/

Advice on sustainable healthy eating. Professional basis for a supplement to

the Official Dietary Guidelines (2020)

https://www.food.dtu.dk/english/-/media/institutter/foedevareinstituttet/publikationer/pub-2020/rapport-raad-om-baeredygtig-kost.pdf (in Danish, machine translated into English by Google Translate and DeepL).

c.20 (web)

116 (pdf)

Explicit reference to Planetary Boundaries, SDGs, environment, climate change and EAT-Lancet etc. Recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?

What Advice?

Why Do This?

How Do This?

Quantification?

Consumer

“Eat more fruit and veg.” “Limit the use of butter”. “Eat less meat.”

Fruit and veg “…are among the foods with the lowest carbon footprint.” “A high intake of dairy products contributes to increased climate impact. “Cutting down on meat is also good for the climate. This applies to all types of mea, especially beef and lamb…. Poultry, pork and eggs have a significantly lower impact on the climate than beef and lamb.”

“Introduce meat-free days and use less meat in your meals. “Replace meat with vegetables, legumes or wholegrains.” “Choose vegetable oils and low-fat dairy products.” “Eat foods with wholegrains.”

“Around 350g or meat per week is sufficient.”

“Around 250ml milk product per day, 20g cheese per day”

“30g nuts per day, 1-2 tablespoons seeds per day”

“75g wholegrains per day”

“600g per day fruit and veg” plus “100g per day legumes”

Estonia

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

National Institute for Health Development

The Food Pyramid(2017)

tai_toidupuramiid_plakat_est_420x594mm_bleed_5mm_FIX (in Estonian, machine translated to English via Google Translate)

1 (pdf)

No mention of environment or climate No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

National Institute for Health Development

Estonian Diet and Exercise Recommendations (2017)

https://intra.tai.ee/images/prints/documents/149019033869_eesti%20toitumis-%20ja%20liikumissoovitused.pdf (in Estonian, machine translated to English via Google Translate)

338 (pdf)

Section on sustainable consumption and notes climate and environmental impacts. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Finland

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Finnish Food Authority

Nutrition and Food Recommendations (2020)

https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/foodstuffs/healthy-diet/

c.30 (web)

Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Background

State Nutrition Advisory Board

Health from food. Finnish Nutrition Recommendations 2014 (2018)

https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/teemat/terveytta-edistava-ruokavalio/kuluttaja-ja-ammattilaismateriaali/julkaisut/ravitsemussuositukset_2014_fi_web_versio_5.pdf (in Finnish, machine translated to English via Google Translate)

59 (pdf)

Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment and climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?

What Advice?

Why Do This?

How Do This?

Quantification?

Consumer.

“More fruit and berries, vegetables, leguminous plants, whole and nuts and seeds.”

“Less red meat and meat products”

“We should favour domestic plants of the crop season, i.e. local and seasonal food.”

“A higher proportion of vegetables, root plants, potatoes, berries and fruit as well as cereal products in the diet reduces the load on the climate and eutrophication.”

“The more colourful your food is, the better! Eat some of your vegetables uncooked. Oil-based dressings add juiciness and flavour to salads and grated vegetables. Eating berries and fruit whole is better than juicing them.”

“…it is advisable to select poultry meat rather than red meat.”

“Eat at least five handfuls of vegetables, berries and fruit a day.”

“No more than 500 g of red meat and meat products a week (cooked weight).”

France

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Santé publique France

50 Tips to Eat Better and Move More (2017) https://www.mangerbouger.fr/content/show/1501/file/Brochure_50_petites_astuces.pdf

(in French, machine translated using Google Translate and DeepL)

32 (pdf)

Document makes limited reference to the env, and only for meat and bottled water consumption. Other guidance, such as eating more veg, consuming organic, is made without linking to env outcomes. Eating to benefit the env is presented as choosing local and seasonal products.

Background

ANSES French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health & Safety

Santé publique France

Updating of the PNNS guidelines: revision of the food-based dietary guidelines ANSES opinion Collective expert report (2016)

https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/NUT2012SA0103Ra-1EN.pdf

Recommendations Concerning Diet, Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour for Adults (2019, Updated 2023)

https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/content/download/515446/3807453?version=1

282 (pdf)

Document gives explanation of the process by which the revised guidelines were arrived at, and justification/evidence for the decisions. It does not refer to the environment – it is entirely health-based.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
Consumer.	“Good eating also means taking into account the environment by showing preference for foods from local producers and foods in season.” “Eat less meat, eat more pulses.”	“Of all foods, it’s meat which has the biggest climate impact. Pulses are the heroes of sustainable agriculture, as they naturally enrich the soil without need for fertilisers, and use little water.”	Various meal suggestions for including more pulses. No actual direction on swapping meat with pulses	“Maximum of 500g per week of meat, of which maximum 150g processed meat. Eat minimum 2 portions of pulses per week.”

Germany

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

German Society for Nutrition (DGE)

DGE Nutrition Circle (2024) https://www.dge.de/gesunde-ernaehrung/gut-essen-und-trinken/dge-ernaehrungskreis/ but also Eat and drink well – the DGE recommendations (2024) Eat and drink well – the DGE recommendations | DGE and FAQ (2024) https://www.dge.de/gesunde-ernaehrung/faq/lebensmittelbezogene-ernaehrungsempfehlungen-dge/#c6508

1+ (web)

Explicit reference to environment impacts, albeit not explained in great detail

Background

German Environment Agency

German Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture

German Society for Nutrition (DGE)

Towards healthy and sustainable diets in Germany An analysis of the environmental effects and policy implications of dietary change in Germany (2023) https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/11740/publikationen/2023-05-10_texte_67-2023_towards_healthy_1.pdf

Key Issues Paper: Towards the Federal Government’s Food Strategy (2022)

https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ernaehrung/ernaehrungsstrategie-eckpunktepapier.html (in German, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

Scientific basis of food-related dietary recommendations for Germany (2024) https://www.ernaehrungs-umschau.de/fileadmin/Ernaehrungs-Umschau/pdfs/pdf_2024/03_24/EU03_2024_M158_M166_Online.pdf (machine translated via DeepL)

11 (pdf)

10 (pdf)

9 (pdf)

Environmental impacts of dietary choices acknowledged explicitly.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
Consumer	Take advantage of the variety of foods and eat a varied diet. Choose predominantly plant-based foods.	Predominantly plant-based diet have less impact on the environment and the climate. In the production of plant-based foods, the consumption of resources and the emission of harmful greenhouse gases is lower than in the production of animal-based foods	Incorporate vegetables and fruits into every meal, either raw or gently prepared, so that many nutrients are preserved. The more colorful, the better. For meat and sausage, choose the low-fat variants.	At least 550g of fruit and vegetables daily. No more than 500g of milk and dairy products daily. A weekly amount of meat and sausage of no more than 300g.

Greece

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

National Nutrition Guide for Greek Adults (2014)

http://www.diatrofikoiodigoi.gr/files/PDF/ADULTS.pdf (in Greek, machine translated to English via Google Translate)

Also http://www.diatrofikoiodigoi.gr/?page=summary-adults (English summary)

132 (pdf)

16 (web)

Pollution from food transport is mentioned. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

Ministry of Health

National Nutrition Guide for Greek Adults – Scientific Documentation (2014)

http://www.diatrofikoiodigoi.gr/files/PDF/ADULTS_PRO.pdf

250 (pdf)

Briefly notes climate and environmental impacts of animal production and benefits of plant based Mediterranean diet, but no dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Hungary

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

National Association of Hungarian Dietitians (endorsed by Food Science Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

OKOSTÁNYÉR® – SmartPlate, new Hungarian Dietary Recommendations (2016, renewed in 2021)

http://mdosz.hu/uj-taplalkozasi-ajanlasok-okos-tanyer/ (Hungarian, machine translated into English using Google Translate and DeepL) and https://www.okostanyer.hu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021_OKOSTANYER_ANGOL_felnott_A4.pdf (in English). Other web resources (2018 – 2021) at https://www.okostanyer.hu/ (some in English)

1+ (web)

3 (pdf)

Renewed version mentions more plant-based foods and restricting meat. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

None found

N/A

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Iceland

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Directorate of Health

Dietary Recommendations for Adults and Children from the Age of Two (2017)

https://island.is/en/nutrition-recommendations/radleggingar_spurningar_svor see also Radleggingar_mataraedi_vef_utgafa_2021.pdf (ctfassets.net) and diskamodel- skola (ctfassets.net) (both in Icelandic, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

28 (pdf)

Based on Nordic Nutrition Recommendations from 2013. No mention of environment or climate. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

Directorate of Health

Basis for dietary recommendations (2016)

Grundvollur_radlegginga_um_mataraedi_og_radlagdir_dagskammtar.pdf (ctfassets.net) (in Icelandic, machine translated to English using Google Translate)

25 (pdf)

Based on Nordic Nutrition Recommendations from 2013. Passing reference to environment and climate. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Ireland

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Health Service Executive

The Healthy Food Pyramid (2016)

https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/healthwellbeing/our-priority-programmes/heal/food-pyramid-images/food-pyramid-simple-version.pdf and Healthy Food for Life. The Food Pyramid guide to every day food choices for adults,

teenagers and children aged five and over (2016)

https://assets.gov.ie/7649/3049964a47cb405fa20ea8d96bf50c91.pdf

1 (pdf)

7 (pdf)

No mention of environment or climate No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

Health Service Executive

Healthy Food for Life Food Pyramid Questions and Answer (2016)

https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/healthwellbeing/our-priority-programmes/heal/food-pyramid-images/foodforlifefoodpyramidqas2016.pdf

Healthy Food for Life Revised healthy eating guidelines and Food Pyramid rationale (2016) https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/healthwellbeing/our-priority-programmes/heal/food-pyramid-images/foodforlifefoodpyramidrationale2016.pdf

4 (pdf)

8 (pdf)

No mention of environment or climate No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Italy

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

CREA Food and Nutrition Research Center

Guidelines for Healthy Eating (2019) https://sapermangiare.mobi/483/linee-guida.html (in Italian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL), with links through to sections of Background document (oddly ignoring meat)

Sustainable Diets

https://sapermangiare.mobi/N3567/diete-sostenibili.html (in Italian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

13 (web + vidoes))

1 (web)

Sustainable consumption discussed, but dietary recommendations are not linked explicitly to environment or climate, and env criteria are secondary to health and cultural criteria

Background

CREA Food and Nutrition Research Center

Healthy Eating Guidelines Revision 2018 (2019) https://www.crea.gov.it/en/web/alimenti-e-nutrizione/-/linee-guida-per-una-sana-alimentazione-2018 (in Italian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

231 (pdf)

Section on sustainable consumption and notes climate and environmental impacts, but dietary recommendations are not linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Latvia

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

Eat healthily using the plate principle (2020)

https://esparveselibu.lv/sites/default/files/2020-09/Skivja-princips-infografika.pdf (in Latvian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

1 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

Ministry of Health

Dietary Guidelines for Adults (2020)

https://esparveselibu.lv/sites/default/files/inline-files/VM_Uztura_ieteik_pieaug.pdf

(in Latvian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

13 (pdf)

Guidelines influenced by the WHO recommendations and Nordic Nutrition. No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Malta

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry for Health

Dietary guidelines for Maltese adults. Healthy eating the Mediterranean way! (2015)

https://hpdp.gov.mt/sites/default/files/2023-07/healthy_eating_the_mediterranean_way_en.pdf

Dietary Guidelines for Maltese Children the Mediterranean Way! (2018)

https://mariocaruana.com.mt/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Dietary-Guidelines-for-Maltese-Children_2018.pdf

16 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

N/A

None found (but strategy is published as https://health.gov.mt/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Food_and_Nutrition_Policy_and_Action_Plan_for_Malta_2015-2020_EN.pdf)

N/A

FAO cites “Dietary guidelines for Maltese adults: information for professionals” but links are broken

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Netherlands

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Netherlands Nutrition Centre

The Wheel of five (2020) https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/voedingscentrum/Documents/Service/English/Wheel-of-five.pdf

How do you eat healthy and sustainably? Sustainable eating in 7 steps (2020)

https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/duurzaam-eten/duurzaam-eten-in-7-stappen.aspx

https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/gezond-eten-met-de-schijf-van-vijf/hoe-eet-je-gezond-en-duurzaam.aspx (in Dutch, machine translated to English using Google Translate, DeepL unable to do so)

5 (pdf)

1 (web)

Mentions sustainability but no meaningful link to recommendations

Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

Netherlands Nutrition Centre

Eating More Sustainably: Fact Sheet for professionals (2022)

https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/voedingscentrum/Documents/FS%20Duurzaam%20eten%20-%20Engels%202022.pdf

8 (pdf)

Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?

What Advice?

Why Do This?

How Do This?

Quantification?

Background

”..eat less meat, and what meat you do eat, make it more sustainably produced meat” “within each food category, eat the most sustainably produced or lowest envtl impact option” “eat enough dairy and cheese, but within boundaries”. “navigate trade-offs between sustainability impacts of animal production systems”

“The current Dutch diet is not sustainable.” “The food we eat has a major impact on the environment” “Generally speaking, the greatest environmental benefit can be achieved by: eating less meat and more sources of plant-based proteins, such as pulses and nuts; wasting less food; only eating what you need”. “…meat is responsible for easily the largest proportion of GHG emissions”

“A diet based on the Wheel of Five can be food for your health as well as beneficial in terms of sustainability.”

“Opt more often for pulses, nuts or eggs”. “Select certified products from the list approved by Milieu Centraal”

“Consume fewer products that are not on the Wheel of Five”

“Buy and cook what you need”, “eat recommended amounts”

“…sometimes compromises are necessary…

“If you eat 400g of meat a week rather than the recommended maximum of 500g, this would result in a reduction in GHG emissions of 9% for men and 10% for women”. Also “If you stop eating meat and replace it with pulses, nuts and eggs, this would result in a reduction in GHG emissions of 35% for men and 37% for women”

New Zealand

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

Eating and Activity Guidelines for New Zealand Adults: Summary of Guidelines Statements and Key Related Information (2021)

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/eating-and-activity-statements-for-new-zealand-adults-summary-of-guidelines-statements-and-key-related-information-jan_21.pdf

6 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

Ministry of Health

Eating and Activity Guidelines for New Zealand Adults (2020) https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/eating-activity-guidelines-new-zealand-adults-updated-2020-oct22.pdf

164 (pdf)

Mentions environmental impacts and emissions but no dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Norway

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Norwegian Directorate of Health

Norwegian Dietary Guidelines (c.2014)

https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/brosjyrer/helsedirektoratets-kostrad-brosjyre-og-plakat/Helsedirektoratets%20kostr%C3%A5d%20-%20engelsk.pdf/_/attachment/inline/80f68126-68af-4cec-b2aa-d04069d02471:dcb8efdbe6b6129470ec4969f6639be21a8afd82/Helsedirektoratets%20kostr%C3%A5d%20-%20engelsk.pdf

28 (pdf)

No mention of climate or environment. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

National Council for Nutrition, Directorate of Health

Dietary advice to promote public health and prevent chronic illnesses: methodology and scientific knowledge base (2011). Not found online, only in printed form https://www.fagbokforlaget.no/Kostr%C3%A5d-for-%C3%A5-fremme-folkehelsen-og-forebygge-kroniske-sykdommer/I9788245022995

353 (physical)

N/A

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

NB New Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (2023) https://www.norden.org/en/publication/nordic-nutrition-recommendations-2023 explicitly address sustainability issues and may indicate likely revision to expected update of dietary guidelines

Poland

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

National Institute of Public Health

Eating and Activity Guidelines for New Zealand Adults: Summary of Guidelines Statements and Key Related Information (2021)

Talerz i zalecenia 3 strony www (pzh.gov.pl) (in Polish, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

3 (pdf)

Environment mentioned only once, in relation to recommendation for meat and meat products

Background

None found

N/A

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?

What Advice?

Why Do This?

How Do This?

Quantification?

Consumer

Substitute meat with plant-based protein products, i.e. pulses (beans,

chickpeas, soybeans, peas, lentils, broad beans) and nuts, as well as fish and eggs.

For health and the environment

Step 1 – Enter one day a week without meat.

Step 2 – Swap processed meats and red meat for poultry, fish, pulses and eggs.

Step 3 – Substitute meat with plant-based protein products, i.e. pulses (beans, chickpeas, soybeans, peas, lentils, broad beans) and nuts, as well as fish and eggs.

Do not eat more than 500 grams of red meat and processed meat (cold cuts, sausages) per week. Swap processed meats and red meat for poultry, fish, pulses and eggs.

Portugal

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Portuguese Health Directorate;

Portuguese Consumer’s Directorate

The New Food Wheel. Guide to daily food choices. (2016)

https://alimentacaosaudavel.dgs.pt/theme/alimentacao-saudavel-e-dieta-mediterranica/?topico=roda-dos-alimentos&formato=documento#a-ax433o.pdf

(in Portugese, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

The Mediterranean Food Wheel. Culture, tradition and Balance.(2020)

https://alimentacaosaudavel.dgs.pt/roda-dos-alimentos/ (in Portugese, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

5 (pdf)

1 (web)

Two sets of guidelines exist in parallel. Environment and climate are not mentioned in either. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

University of Porto

The Portuguese mediterranean diet wheel: development considerations (2022)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34530943/

7 (pdf)

Environment mentioned in passing. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Romania

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Ministry of Health

The Food Pyramid (2006)

https://www.ms.ro/documente/5%20recomandari%20nutritionale_8319_6030.pdf

(in Romanian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

1 (pdf)

Environment and climate are not mentioned. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

Romanian Nutrition Society

Guide to Healthy Eating (2006)

https://www.spitalsmeeni.ro/docs/ghiduri/ghid_alimentatie_populatie.pdf and https://www.fao.org/3/as693ro/as693ro.pdf (in Romanian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

48 (Word)

173 (pdf)

Environment and climate are not mentioned. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Spain

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition

Sustainable Dietary and Physical Activity Recommendations (2022)

https://www.aesan.gob.es/AECOSAN/docs/documentos/nutricion/RECOMENDACIONES_DIETETICAS_EN.pdf

19 (pdf)

Recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Background

Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition

Report of the Scientific Committee of the Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition (AESAN) on sustainable dietary and physical activity recommendations for the Spanish population (2022) https://www.aesan.gob.es/AECOSAN/docs/documentos/seguridad_alimentaria/evaluacion_riesgos/informes_cc_ingles/RRDD_SOSTENIBLES_INGLES.pdf

55 (pd)

Explicit reference to Planetary Boundaries, SDGs, environment, climate change and EAT-Lancet etc. Recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?

What Advice?

Why Do This?

How Do This?

Quantification?

Consumer

“Consume a minimum of 5 [fruit and veg] servings per day…3-6[cereals] servings a day….. a maximum of 3 [dairy]servings a day”. “0 to a maximum of 3 servings of meat per week” “At least 3 [fish] servings per week” “Consume a maximum of 4

medium-sized eggs a week” “Consume at least 4 [legume] servings a week”

“The environmental impact of cereals…vegetables and fruits is low…legumes have little environmental impact.” “The environmental impact of meat is greater than that of other types of food” “…high environmental impact of dairy products…”

Prefer buying fresh seasonal, local, and minimally processed products. Choose products from farms where animal husbandry meets the highest standards

of animal welfare and eat all parts of the animal (including fatty cuts and offals), to avoid waste. Prioritising the consumption of white meat of poultry and rabbit

Fruit & veg: 120g – 200g per portion

Cereals: 40g -80g per portion

Legumes: 50g – 60g per portion

Fish: 120g – 150g per portion

Eggs: 53g – 63g per portion

Dairy: <250g per portion

Meat: 100g – 125g per portion

Slovenia

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

National Institute for Public Health

12 Steps Towards Health Eating. Dietary recommendation (2018)

https://nijz.si/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/12_korakov_plakat_0.pdf (in Slovenian, machine translated to English using Google Translate and DeepL)

1 (pdf)

Meat free days and plant-based food mentioned. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

None found

N/A

N/A. However, a Strategic Council for Health & Nutrition was appointed in 2023 and endorses a shift to the Eat Lancet approach – implying it is not currently deployed https://www.gov.si/zbirke/delovna-telesa/strateski-svet-za-prehrano/

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Sweden

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Swedish Food Agency

The Swedish Dietary Guidelines. Find your way to eat greener, not too much and be active (2015)

https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/globalassets/publikationsdatabas/andra-sprak/kostraden/kostrad-eng.pdf

28 (pdf)

Frequent mention of climate/ environment. Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

Swedish Food Agency

The Swedish Dietary Guidelines – risk benefit and management report (2015)

https://www.fao.org/3/az907e/az907e.pdf

79 (pdf)

Frequent mention of climate/ environment. Dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?

What Advice?

Why Do This?

How Do This?

Quantification?

Consumer

“eat more.. fruit and veg…seafood, healthy fats… low fat dairy”

“., switch to wholegrain, eat less meat”. “Choose more sustainably produced foods”

“what you eat isn’t just important to your own personal well-being: it’s important to the envt as well… one quarter of the climate impact of Swedish households comes from the food we eat – or throw away. That’s why we’ve devised this advice on how you can eat sustainably – to the benefit of both your health and the envt. So that you don’t have to choose.”

“Ecolabels such as ‘organic’ help you choose foods produced with the envt in mind.”

“Focus more on vegetarian foods and eggs, and sometimes fish or poultry. Or eat meat a little more often, but in small quantities.” “If you cut back on meat, you’ll have enough money for meat produced sustainably, with attention paid to the welfare of the animals. Choose ecolabelled meats such as free range, organic or certified eco-friendly.”

Fruit & veg: 500g per day (does not include potatoes)

Fish: 2-3 times p/w (with caveats for oily fish from polluted waters

Wholegrain 70g per day women, 90g per day men

Red meat and processed meat; 500g per week

Dairy: 2-3 decilitres of milk or fermented milk per day, to ensure you get enough calcium

Switzerland

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Swiss Society for Nutrition

The Swiss Food Pyramid (2016)

https://www.sge-ssn.ch/media/sge_pyramid_E_basic_20161.pdf

5 (pdf)

Environment and sustainable diets mentioned. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

Federal Department of Home Affairs.

See also Federal Office of Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs;

Federal Commission for Nutrition

Eating Well and Staying Healthy Swiss Nutrition Policy 2017–2024 (2017)

https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/en/dokumente/lebensmittel-und-ernaehrung/ernaehrung/schweizer-ernaehrungsstrategie-2017-2024.PDF.download.PDF/Ernaehrungsstrategie_Brosch_EN.PDF also Nutrition Strategy Action Plan (2017) https://www.plandactionnutrition.ch/

NB Reappraisal of the scientific evidence linking consumption of foods from specific food groups to NCDs (2020) https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/en/home/das-blv/organisation/kommissionen/eek/pyramide-neubewertung-lebensmittelkonsum-ncd.html

N/A

No mention of environment or climate. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

Public Health England in association with the Welsh Government, Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency in Northern Ireland

The Eat Well Guide (2016) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75564fed915d6faf2b2375/Eatwell_guide_colour.pdf (mirrored identically on official websites in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)

The Eatwell Guide. Helping you eat a healthy, balanced diet (2019)

https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/eatwell-guide-master-digital%20Final.pdf (mirrored almost identically on official websites in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)

1 (pdf)

12 (pdf)

No mention of environment or climate, sustainable mentioned briefly. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

As above

From Plate to Guide: What, why and how for the eatwell model (2016) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f73f7e5274a2e8ab4c461/eatwell_model_guide_report.pdf

The Eatwell Guide: a More Sustainable Diet. Methodology and Results Summary (2016)

https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/downloads/ The_Eatwell_Guide_a_more_sustainable_diet.pdf

37 (pdf)

12 (pdf)

Lack of a sustainability criteria acknowledged (and no dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate) but points to ex post estimation by Carbon Trust of positive environmental gains relative to current average diet

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

USA

Document type

Publishing organisation

Document name (publication date) and weblink source

Document length (pages)

Comments

Consumer

United States Department of Agriculture

MyPlate (2020)

https://myplate-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/2021-01/DGA_2020-2025_StartSimple_withMyPlate_English_color.pdf but see also broader web resources

https://www.myplate.gov/

4 (pdf)

c.30+ (web)

No mention of environment or climate. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Background

United States Department of Agriculture

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020 – 2025 (2020)

https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf

164 (pdf)

No mention of environment or climate. No dietary recommendations are linked explicitly to environment or climate.

Degree to which document links guidance to environmental impact: Extensive and frequent Partial Occasional or none

Which document?	What Advice?	Why Do This?	How Do This?	Quantification?
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

NB. Federal MyPlate guidance appears to apply across all individual States. Some (e.g. California) have State-badged material that is otherwise identical to Federal guidance. However, Alaska and Hawaii (plus Pacific Island dependencies) appear to also refer to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and The Pacific Food Guide. The latter was sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture to account for regional differences in culture and dietary challenges, but makes no mention of environmental or climate impacts of dietary choices: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/ctahr/pacificfoodguide/index.php/about-the-guide/. In response to academic criticism of the Federal guidance, Harvard University publishes the ‘Healthy Eating Plate’ as an alternative to MyPlate, https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/healthy-eating-plate

Appendix C: Recommended intakes for key food groups, in FBDGs for 22 jurisdictions

	All meat (g/wk)	Red/processed Meat (g/wk)	Dairy (ml/day)	Fruit and vegetables (g/d)
Austria	399-450g		600	650
Australia	–	455	625	675
Belgium Flanders	–	500	250-500	550
Denmark	350	–	>250	600
Finland	500	–		-500
France	–	500	–	–
Germany	300	60	250	550
Greece	450	150	500	690
Hungary	–	350-500	500	600
Iceland	–	500	500	500
Italy	300	100	375	800
Latvia	–	500	–	500
Malta	480	180	500	400
Netherlands	500	300	300-450	450
New Zealand	–	500	–	–
Norway	–	500	–	500
Poland	–	500	–	400
Portugal	595	–	500	820
Spain	375	–	500	690
Sweden	–	500	200-500	500
Switzerland	–	–	450-600	600

Source: derived from references listed in Appendix B

Appendix D: Summary dietary patterns, recommended intakes and population characteristics for Flanders, Netherlands, Sweden and Scotland

	Belgium (2014)	Netherlands (2021)	Sweden (2010/11)	Scotland (2021)
Fruit	115	134	128	134
Vegetables	155	174	176	131
Meat	104	92	110	80
Dairy	202	329	245	230
18 <= BMI <25	49%	50%	49%	32% (42%)*
25 <= BMI <30	35%	35%	35%	36% (35%)*
BMI >= 30	14%	13%	14%	31% (20%)*
Population	6.8m	18.0m	10.6m	5.4m

* Scottish-specific BMI figures with UK figures in brackets from same Eurostat source as other countries. Comparisons are indicative given differences in survey methods, definitions and vintage.

Dietary statistics sources:

Belgium.

Scientific Institute for Public health 2016 Food Consumption Survey 2014-2015 https://www.sciensano.be/en/biblio/enquete-de-consommation-alimentaire-2014-2015-resume-des-resultats

Healthy Belgium 2020 Nutritional habits https://www.healthybelgium.be/en/health-status/determinants-of-health/nutritional-habits

STATBEL 2023. Structure of the Population.

https://statbel.fgov.be/en/themes/population/structure-population

Statistics Flanders 2023. Gross domestic product per capita

https://www.vlaanderen.be/en/statistics-flanders/macro-economy/gross-domestic-product-per-capita

For a Healthy Belgium 2020. Weight status.

https://www.healthybelgium.be/en/health-status/determinants-of-health/weight-status#references

Netherlands.

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. 2022. The diet of the Dutch Results of the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2019-2021 on food consumption and evaluation with dietary guidelines. https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2022-0190.pdf

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. 2023. Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2019-2021: Consumption https://statline.rivm.nl/#/RIVM/nl/dataset/50110NED/table?ts=1706353152036

Statistics Netherlands 2023. Regional key figures; National Accounts https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/figures/detail/84432ENG

Statistics Netherlands 2023. Population Counter https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/visualisations/dashboard-population/population-counter

Sweden

Swedish National Food Agency 2012 National food – adults 2010-11. Food and nutrient intakes among adults in Swedenhttps://snd.gu.se/en/catalogue/dataset/ext0093-1

Swedish Board of Agriculture. 2023. Food consumption and nutrient content. Data up to and including 2019 https://jordbruksverket.se/om-jordbruksverket/jordbruksverkets-officiella-statistik/jordbruksverkets-statistikrapporter/statistik/2020-12-09-livsmedelskonsumtion-och-naringsinnehall.–uppgifter-till-och-med-2019

Official statistics of Sweden 2023. Population statistics https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/

Statistics Sweden 2023. Sweden’s GDP per capita ranks seventh in Europe

https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/prices-and-consumption/purchasing-power-parities/purchasing-power-parities-ppps/pong/statistical-news/purchasing-power-parities-20102012

Scotland

Barton, K. and Ronald, C. 2023. Estimation of Food and Nutrient Intakes from Food Purchase Data in Scotland 2001-2018 https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/downloads/FSS_-_Monitoring_Dietary_Intakes_-_Living_Costs_and_Food_Survey_-_LCFS_-_2001_to_2018_-_Report_for_Publication_-_FINAL_-_PDF_Version_for_Publication_on_Website_-_01_February_2022.pdf

Stewart, C., McNeill, G., Runions, R., Comrie, F., McDonald, A. and Jaacks, P.L.M., 2023. Meat and milk product consumption in Scottish adults: Insights from a national survey. Available at SSRN 4628199. https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=857005071031031000088070115122121000008032020031003054085010011001034115108111087086083066097092081020103030015004125120065026076016072087060115025026001021037011068002087078095090086003011000052053046070037015000090031072029087122085104109065002075126019112074019089127120092112074085122005&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

Scotland’s Census 2023. Scotland’s Census 2022 – Rounded population estimates.

https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/2022-results/scotland-s-census-2022-rounded-population-estimates

Obesity statistic sources:

Eurostat Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and country of citizenship https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/hlth_ehis_bm1c/default/table?lang=en&category=hlth.hlth_det.hlth_bmi

NCD-RISC NATIONAL ADULT BODY-MASS INDEX https://www.ncdrisc.org/data-downloads-adiposity.html

Scottish Government 2022. Scottish Health Survey 2021 https://www.gov.scot/collections/scottish-health-survey/#2022

Appendix E: Dietary guidance development and selected food policies and strategies in Flanders

Governance of the Flanders region

Flanders is a region of Belgium. At 483 km², it comprises less than half the land mass of Belgium, but with more than 6 million inhabitants it represents 57% of the population. Authority for many aspects of health and environmental policy are devolved to regional governments in Belgium, including Flanders, whilst fiscal policy, defence, etc are governed centrally.

FBDGs in Flanders: the Flanders Food Triangle

In Flanders, the FBDGs are captured in a 24-page consumer-facing document “Eating According to the Food Triangle: Good for Yourself and the Planet” (2021). It was developed by the Flemish Institute of Healthy Living (“Gezond Leven”), in cooperation with the Department of the Environment of the Flemish Government. The stated aims of the document are to draw from the latest science and expert advice, in order to provide concrete, achievable consumer recommendations for diets that can improve human health and that of the planet.

The context of the guidance emphasises that the environmental impact of our food is currently greater than what our planet can bear, so dietary change is needed. A graph (Figure 13.1) ranks foods according to their environmental impact, such that citizens are advised to eat more of the foods at the top (legumes, tofu, wheat and rye, potatoes, root vegetables and nuts), and less of the foods at the bottom (lamb, beef, pork, cheese and milk). It also emphasises that consumer choices and habits are strongly influenced by the food environment. Consequently, it argues a multi-stakeholder effort is needed to make healthy, climate-friendly diet choices the most obvious and appealing options for consumers.

Figure 14.1. ‘Know what you eat, for our planet’: graphic from Flanders FBDGs

In terms of content, the Food Triangle is offered as the basis for a healthy and environmentally responsible diet. It is underpinned by 3 principles: (i) eat proportionately more plant-based food than animal-based food (due to the former generally having lower environmental impact than the latter); (ii) eat and drink as few nutrient poor foods as possible (because every food production step adds an environmental burden, hence our foods need to ‘count’ more); (iii) avoid food waste and moderate your consumption (because every food item that is wasted is an environmental impact that could have been avoided).

The guidance offers specific advice for each of the food groups in the Triangle, which includes quantified amounts for each category, with continued reference/justification to environmental impact. Discretionary foods (foods high in fat, salt and sugar) are separated from the triangle as non-essential to the diet, and this category also includes processed meat.

The Flanders FBDGs emphasises gradual change, not radical shifts: “balance is key: take care of yourself and the planet, but don’t forget to enjoy yourself.” It also recommends up to three or four days per week of meat-free meals. Links are offered to relevant support materials, developed by Gezond Leven, such as recipes for vegetarian meals and a seasonal buying guide for fruit and vegetables.

The guidance offers detailed and nuanced advice about the environmental impacts of different types of production system, and of transportation. For example, it cautions against assumptions that locally sourced food is automatically lower carbon. The guidance also advises on processed meat substitutes, for example, by recommending substitutes like tofu and tempeh, which are less processed than alternatives. It also gives specific advice about nutritional contents to look for in milk and dairy substitutes.

How the FBDGs were developed

Gezond Leven was the lead partner developing the guidance. It is an independent agency working under contract to the Flanders Government, responsible for public health promotion. The other key partner was the Department of the Environment and Spatial Development. The steps of the development process are depicted in Figure 13.2, and can be summarised as follows. The process began with a commissioned review of the scientific literature on the health and environmental impacts of dietary choices. Next, a cross-disciplinary expert panel of academics was convened, to help analyse the evidence and determine the core content of the final guidance, including the visual model. This step also involved development of the underpinning reasoning for the guidance, based on a strong scientific foundation. After this, public-facing messaging was designed and tested amongst citizens. Only after the guidance was finalized were stakeholders consulted on matters related to coordination and implementation of the guidance. Stakeholders did not influence or change the substance of the guidance.

Figure 14.2: Development process for the Flanders Food Triangle (source: Rubens et al (2021) Background-food-and-environment-EN.pdf (gezondleven.be)

The primacy of science in the development process, and the exclusion of stakeholders from the core development, was a deliberate decision by Gezond Leven. It was based on its first experience of designing climate-focused guidance in 2017, where stakeholders were included in the development process, and less time was spent establishing the scientific underpinning. Gezond Leven received criticisms from stakeholders and the media that the ensuing guidance was biased and lacking in scientific evidence. This led to the ‘science first’ approach for the 2021 guidance.

A co-benefit of developing a solid science base for the current guidance has been the creation of a background document, which explains clearly the reasoning for the integration of climate aspects. This helps Gezond Leven, and the Department of the Environment, to keep the momentum in policy actions which might otherwise be delayed or distracted, with regressive ‘why are we doing this?’ questions.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

The Flemish FBDGs, ‘Eating according to the food triangle: good for yourself and the planet’^[43] do not exist in isolation but sit alongside several other food and/or climate-related government strategies and policies.

For example, the ‘Strategic Plan: Fleming Lives Healthier in 2025’ was published in 2018. This acknowledges multiple influences upon human health but makes explicit reference to nutrition and food and the importance of enabling healthy choices, plus monitoring dietary patterns. Similarly, the ‘The Flemish Climate Policy Plan’ commits to reducing agricultural emissions and acknowledges the role of diets and local production patterns in achieving this but notes the challenge of doing so against a backdrop of rising agricultural emissions.^[44] Reducing food waste is also addressed in the ‘Action Plan Circular Food Loss and Biomass (Residual) Flows 2021-2025’.^[45]

More particularly, the 2019-2024 Flemish Coalition Agreement included a commitment to create a strong food policy. This led to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries publishing ‘Go4Food: A Flanders Food Strategy for Tomorrow’ in 2020 (subsequently updated).^[46]

The Food Strategy explicitly recognises the importance of a healthy and environmentally responsible diet but highlights the need for an inclusive system-wide approach considering the interests of different groups of food consumers and producers. Moreover, the Strategy is acknowledged to exist alongside international (e.g. EU), national (i.e. Belgian) and municipal (e.g. city authorities) food strategies.

Figure 14.3: Go4Food Strategic Pillars and Objectives (source: Voedseltop Synthese (vlaanderen.be) (p8)

As shown in Figure 13.3 above, Go4Food presents four strategic pillars linked to 19 strategic objectives. The objectives include explicit reference to healthy and sustainable diets (SO1, SO2) and environmental sustainability (SO6 and SO7), plus more specific topics such as a circular economy (SO5), minimising food waste (SO8) and more sustainable protein production and consumption (SO9). In turn, these are linked to 11 ‘Food Deal’ ambitions, around which cross-cutting actions are encouraged to coalesce, supported by funding (albeit not yet specified).

The Strategy does not itself describe detailed policy measures but does list various possible policy. For example, public communications, education and training, research and development, voluntary agreements with private supply-chains, and financial incentives and regulatory controls.

A number of ‘food projects’ and ‘food deals’ with stakeholders have been initiated under the Strategy. However, no specific ring-fenced funding is attached to the Strategy, with budget allocations needing to be sought on an individual basis across multiple Departmental boundaries (and/or leverage private sector funding) and apparently encountering some political and administrative resistance (pers. comm).

One area in receipt of funding is protein production, reflecting the relative importance attached to the ‘Flemish Protein Strategy 2021-2030’ published in 2021.^[47] The Protein Strategy represents an evolution from similar, earlier strategies to increase the volume and range of domestically produced protein (to reduce reliance on imports, particularly where imports are deemed to be produced unsustainably).

In particular, there is an emphasis on growing additional plant protein for animal feed but also for domestic human consumption, with explicit recognition that this links to dietary change (novel protein sources such as insects and lab-grown cultures are also included). No specific targets are stated for reducing animal protein consumption, but health and climate advantages are noted.

A possible reason for specific funding being made available for the Protein Strategy may be that it aligns with EU-level ambitions to increase self-sufficiency in plant proteins. Such ambitions have recently been reinforced by the European parliament but were already stated to some degree in the EU’s Green Deal and the Farm-to-Fork Strategy, and have been translated into explicit funding commitments in the Flanders CAP Strategic Plan.^[48] Consequently, ring-fenced EU funding is available for increased on-farm production of plant proteins (e.g. in the form of specific public payments per hectare of crop grown). This has perhaps also made it easier to secure additional (if more modest) funding for product development and processing facilities (pers. comm.).

Ring-fenced funding under the Flanders CAP Strategic Plan is also available to increase the area of organic agriculture, and to increase the area of fruit and vegetables (not just protein crops) grown. Moreover, additional capital grant assistance is available for Producer Organizations (e.g. coops) wishing to invest in infrastructure or equipment for fruit and vegetable production. Such measures may increase the availability of locally produced food. Again, such measures align with EU-level ambitions, but it is notable that Flanders’ use of them is higher than in other Member States (including elsewhere in Belgium).^[49]

Appendix F: Dietary guidance development and selected food policies and strategies in the Netherlands

Background to the Wheel of Five and Seven Steps to Sustainability

In the Netherlands, climate-focused dietary guidance is captured in the “Eating more sustainably: fact sheet” (2022), which accompanies the “Wheel of Five” main dietary guidance, both produced by the Netherlands Nutrition Centre (NNC). The former is a 10-page document targeted at professionals/policymakers. The stated aims are to set out the case for environmentally sustainable diets, and how the Dutch diet should change to be in line with science-based planetary health recommendations.

In terms of context/framing, the document begins by conveying the environmental impacts of food production and consumption, and the urgent need for change. It states that the current Dutch diet is not sustainable (“the environmental footprint of the average Dutch diet is almost twice as large as the available area on the planet, per person, for food production”, p2) because the Dutch population (i) consumes too much animal products (ii) wastes huge amounts of food (iii) consumes more energy than is recommended.

The document then refers explicitly to the Dutch “Wheel of Five” model (Figure 15.1), which depicts the proportions in which different food groups are recommended to feature in the diet (vegetables and fruit; spreading and cooking fats; dairy, nuts, fish, legumes, meat and eggs; bread, grain/cereal products and potatoes; drinks). In the model, discretionary foods (high in fat, salt and sugar) are classed as ‘outside’ the model and non-essential to diet. The document states that shifting from the current diet to the Wheel of Five is good for health and climate.

Figure 15.1: the Wheel of Five

Finally, the document gives specific advice within food groups, about the most sustainable options to choose, and sums these up in ‘7 steps to a more sustainable diet’. These are: eat less meat (opt more often for pulses, nuts or eggs); waste as little as possible (buy and cook what you need); eat recommended amounts (moderate your snacks and sweets); drink mostly tap water; eat enough dairy and cheese (but within bounds); buy seasonally (and check product origins); choose premium sustainability labels.

Overall, there are three eye-catching features of the Dutch FBDGs. First, the dairy intake recommendations are to “eat sufficient dairy to avoid chronic diseases but not more than that”. Second, there is detailed and nuanced advice about meat. The guidance recommends clearly that eating less meat and dairy reduces the impact on the environment, however it explains that eating a small amount of meat (around once per week), requires less agricultural land than a totally meat-free diet. This is because animals can convert some inedible plants into edible proteins. Thus, the guidance advises that animal products have their place in a sustainable diet, but intake levels need to be less than current consumption. Finally, the guidance places emphasis on making diets more sustainable by choosing better options within food categories, by way of eco-labels, and in particular, from a defined set of ‘reliable’ eco-labels. This set has been compiled by the Dutch government to help address consumer confusion over labels, so they can choose with confidence.

Background to the FBDG development process

Two agencies led the development of the Dutch FBDGs. These were the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NIPHE), a research centre which collects and analyses scientific evidence and conducts data modelling, and the Netherlands Nutrition Centre (NNC), a body which translates the science into practical FBDGs for consumers and health professionals. Both are independent bodies, funded solely by the Ministries of Health and Agriculture. In 2015, the NIPHE reviewed the scientific evidence on health and climate impacts of diets, with input from academic subject experts. NIPHE used this intelligence to model dietary guidelines as close as possible to the existing Dutch diet, while meeting parameters of health, climate impact, feasibility and applicability to different target groups. Figure 15.2 shows the model constraints. For health reasons, minimum intake levels of vegetables, fruit, wholegrains, fish, legumes, nuts and dairy were specified. For climate reasons, maximum intake levels of fish, red meat, total meat, eggs and dairy products were specified. Maximum intake levels of red meat and eggs were specified also for health reasons.

Figure 15.2. Food constraints for adults in optimization modelling of FBDGs in the Netherlands.

The NNC used the modelled solutions to draft the public facing dietary guidance, including the graphics. A transparent consultation process followed with experts, to check for any errors/omissions in the science, and also health professionals, to advise on practical implementation.

At the time of writing, the Dutch Health Council are currently updating their nutritional guidance, and advances in climate science/data mean there is the opportunity for NNC to add more environmental indicators into their modelling (e.g. land and water use, pollution, and biodiversity), for the next revision. Another ambition is to set a clearer sustainability target for the FBDGs, for example, to achieve a certain percentage reduction of GHGs in the Dutch diet.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

Policies relevant to food in the Netherlands appear to reflect the traditional priorities of host ministries, with relatively little integration of health and climate goals. For example, the 2018 ‘National Prevention Agreement: Towards a Healthier Netherlands’ presents ambitions for healthier lifestyles by 2040 but without reference to sustainability. Similarly, the 2015 ‘National Health Policy’^[50] includes goals to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, but these are justified for health not climate reasons. Meanwhile, the 2019 ‘Climate Agreement’, which sets economy-wide emission reduction targets of 49% by 2030, contains only one brief reference to the need for change in food consumption habits (5 lines in a 247 page document).

In relation to agriculture, significant public funding has been allocated to support progress towards agricultural emission targets. This includes continuing production support measures under the CAP for organic farming, fruit and vegetable production, and protein production.^[51] For example, direct support to increase the area of particular crops grown, consistent with EU-level ambitions to expand organic agriculture and reduce dependency upon imported protein crops and fruit and vegetables.^[52] Dutch deployment of fruit and vegetable aid under the CAP is relatively high compared to most other Member States, although less than in Flanders.^[53]

The Dutch National Protein Strategy represents a more integrative policy approach. As in Flanders, CAP funding has been used to encourage plant protein production at farm level. This is being combined with further funding made available under the National Green Fund. It also includes leverage of private sector investment, on the basis of potential market opportunities for plant (and more novel) forms of protein. The Strategy also links to broader ambitions under the earlier ‘Strategic Biomass Vision for the Netherlands towards 2030’.^[54] Both Strategies acknowledge the health and climate motivations for reducing overall protein consumption by 10% to 15% whilst also decreasing the proportion of animal-based protein.

Example responses to encouragement for private funding to support the protein shift include bids for research and development, product innovations, and conversion of a meat processing plant to handle plant proteins.^[55]

Actions specifically to encourage take-up of the FBDGs are led by the NNC, and it has deployed a range of communication tools, including extensive use of social media and also diet tracker apps. Other policy measures include voluntary private sector agreements to reformulate processed products^[56] and reductions in advertising aimed at children. Certain municipalities have moved to ban advertising of fast food, and Haarlem is introducing a ban in outdoor advertising of meat.

In addition, reducing VAT on fruit and vegetables from the current rate of 9% to 0% has been proposed. This has, however, been delayed repeatedly because of political difficulties. A recent independent report commissioned by the government cautioned that implementation would be difficult. It also suggested that increased fruit and vegetable consumption would not be guaranteed.^[57]

Appendix G: Dietary guidance development and selected food policies and strategies in Sweden

Background to “Find your way to eat greener, not too much and be active”

In Sweden, the FBDGs are captured in the 28-page consumer-facing document “Find your way to eat greener, not too much, and be active” (2015). It was developed by the Swedish Food Agency, in cooperation with the Swedish Public Health Agency, Board of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. The Swedish Food Agency is an independent, government-funded body, which administers public diet and health activities, and is also charged with responsibility to achieve Swedish Government environmental targets.

The document explains that because what we eat has an impact on the environment as well as health, we need to eat more sustainably. In terms of context, it explains that one quarter of climate impact from Swedish households comes from food eaten or thrown away. Eating more sustainably means economising on Earth’s resources, to ensure there’s enough good food to eat in future. It refers to a wide range of environmental issues, including water quality, pesticide use and antibiotics in farm animals as well as climate change.

The guidance itself does not incorporate any plate or pyramid model. Instead, it structures advice around 3 sections: 1. things to eat/do more of; 2. things to switch; and 3. things to eat less of. For each of these actions, there is a dedicated page which explains the advice in more detail, including the link to environmental impact, offering specific ingredient and recipe suggestions to help make the change. There is strong emphasis on “making the changes work for you”. Figure 16.1 shows the page of guidance for red and processed meat. This includes practical advice for reducing consumption of these products, foods to swap with, dish and recipe suggestions, and advice on how to buy the most sustainable red meat.

Figure 16.1. Swedish FBDG advice about red and processed meat consumption

There are three points of particular interest in the Swedish guidance. First, as Fischer and Garnett (2016) note, the guidelines are nuanced and detailed about which types of foods to choose within a category, and why those are best for the environment. For example, the guidance advises high fibre vegetables over greenhouse salad crops, due to lower GHGs in production, and better transportation. It also recommends other grains and potatoes over rice, within the cereals group, because of the high carbon impact of rice production.

Second, the advice takes a nuanced approach to the environmental impacts of animal production systems, noting that livestock can contribute to landscape and biodiversity. This leads to a mantra of a ‘less but better’ approach to meat consumption, with ‘better’ meaning organic, eco-labelled and Swedish: “If you cut back on meat, you’ll have enough money for meat produced sustainably, with attention paid to the welfare of the animals. Choose eco-labelled meats such as free range, organic or certified eco-friendly.” There is no further discussion of this advice in relation to lower income households, for example.

Background to the FBDGs development process

The origins of the current FBDGs date back to 2007/08, when the Swedish Government was motivated to act on international evidence on climate change, including from the IPCC, which recognised that food is part of the climate problem. From 2008-13, the Swedish Food Agency commissioned analysis of the environmental impacts of different foods, alongside evidence on the health effects of diet gathered from Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR)^[58]. The joint evidence was reviewed, in collaboration with experts from the Swedish Public Health Agency, Board of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. The review was supported by a stakeholder panel.

Discussions during the review process were reportedly constructive, helped by the fact that the process was data-driven (e.g. no one could dispute that Swedes ate too much meat with the relevant statistics in front of them). Emphasis was also placed on finding points of agreement between the parties. For example, that although meat consumption should decrease, consumption of Swedish meat need not decrease, as Sweden is a net importer of meat. This led to the “less but better” messaging, which was supported by multiple stakeholders.

In 2014, a public consultation took place, including participants from industry, consumer and patient organisations, and public health professionals. From this process, the guidance was drafted and tested with consumers. The guidance was published in 2016/17, hence the whole process from initial discussions to publication took almost 10 years.

It is worth noting that since the development of this guidance, the latest revision of the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR), in 2023, has been published. The NNR is a forum and programme funded by the Nordic countries, including Sweden, to gather robust evidence on diet and nutrition. The latest revision includes explicit reference to climate impact. It therefore provides a very high standard, scientifically informed evidence base on climate-friendly diets.

Policies, strategies and actions related to the FBDGs

In Sweden, the policy landscape for sustainable diets appears fragmented. For example, the 2016 “A National Food Strategy for Sweden”, and subsequent “Action Plan” published in 2019, focus almost exclusively on supply-side measures, notably funding for farmers and technological innovation. This relies heavily upon pre-existing (ring-fenced) funding under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Strategy is justified in terms of increasing production for domestic and export markets and to increase self-sufficiency and rural employment. However, these measures are not connected to actions to stimulate domestic capacity or growth on the demand side.

In addition, the 2016 ‘Strategy for Sustainable Consumption’ contains only a brief reference to food (a short paragraph, which refers to a Government desire for country of origin labelling of meat in restaurants and canteens). Meanwhile, the 2018 “Climate Framework Policy”, which sets out the Swedish Government’s net zero targets for the whole economy, also makes no reference to food consumption or dietary change.

The gap between supply and demand side policy actions for healthy and sustainable food is also apparent in relation to organic food. The Government aims for 30% of Swedish agricultural output to be certified organic by 2030. It also aims for an increase in consumption of organic food, for 60% of public food to be certified organic by 2030. However, while direct funding has been allocated to support production, much less has been targeted at achieving the demand side ambitions.

In 2021, the Swedish Government tasked the Swedish Food Agency and Public Health Agency to propose areas of action needed for a more sustainable food system in Sweden, and indicators to measure progress^[59]. The work was based on consultations with authorities, industry and civil society. The report, published 2024, emphasizes the need for joined-up policies to tackle health and climate problems: for example, Action area 3 concerns “cooperation between public and commercial actors to promote a sustainable and healthy food environment”. However, given recent shifts in politics in Sweden and hardening resistance from industry stakeholders to food system change, it may be challenging for officials to take forward many of the recommended Actions in the report.

The National Food Strategy does not provide details of specific policy measures but does list types of measures. For example, the provision of information to consumers and the role of public sector catering. However, the main focus is on support to food supply-chains to increase productivity and reduce food waste. Efforts to improve productivity include support for research and innovation, but also deployment of funding under the CAP Strategic Plan. This includes coupled support for livestock production but also funding for organic production plus a limited amount for fruit and vegetable production.^[60]

A follow-up Action Plan to the National Food Strategy published in 2019^[61] does list more specific policy measures and projects, accompanied by budget allocations, but again focuses almost completely on production rather than consumption. The Action Plan also sets targets for 30% of Swedish agricultural and 60% of public food consumption to be certified organic by 2030.

The general absence of specific targets and policy measures in relation to sustainable food consumption has also attracted commentary from Swedish academics.^[62] Similarly, several published studies suggest that dietary change, particularly away from meat to more plant-based diets, has health as well as climate benefits.^[63] However, whilst meat consumption has reduced slightly in recent years, it is acknowledged that changing consumer behaviour to achieve further reductions is challenging.^[64]

Published academic studies have also commented on the general absence of specific policy measures. For example, over-reliance on public information, public sector catering and increased domestic production rather than direct regulatory controls and/or fiscal measures.^[65]

It is possible that the anticipated refresh of the National Food Strategy scheduled for 2024 will address some or all of the identified policy weaknesses. However, the Board of Agriculture and its Minister are still actively promoting production-based policy approaches (pers. comm.)

e.g. see Reay (2020), Crippa et al., (2021), Agriculture and climate change – Agriculture and the environment – gov.scot (www.gov.scot). ↑
e.g. see Planetary Health | UNFCCC and The Lancet Planetary Health Home Page ↑
equality-opportunity-community-programme-government.pdf (www.gov.scot), Good Food Nation – Food and drink – gov.scot (www.gov.scot), Climate change – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) ↑
See Comrie et al, 2024, Scottish Emission Targets & Progress in reducing emissions in Scotland – 2022 Report to Parliament – Climate Change Committee (theccc.org.uk) and 2. Response to CCC Recommendations – Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) annual progress report 2022 recommendations: SG response – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) ↑
The Eatwell Guide | Food Standards Scotland ↑
The eatwell guide: A more sustainable diet | The Carbon Trust (2016); Scheelbeek et al., 2020. ↑
Springmann et al (2020) The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study | The BMJ ↑
German guidance was updated in spring 2024, shortly before publication of this report. The consumer-facing documents now contain less reference to climate than before. However, background documents do retain a climate focus, and the guidance itself is based on optimization modelling for health, GHG emissions and land use. Hence, we have retained the German FBDGs in the ‘green’ category. ↑
For example, confectionery, sweet biscuits, savoury snacks, cakes, pastries, puddings and sugar containing soft drinks. See https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/briefing-on-discretionary-foods ↑
see Australia | Food Policy Index and FoodEPI_AB_Report_WEB-FINAL.pdf (utoronto.ca), Dawkins et al (2023) ↑
Voedseltop Synthese (vlaanderen.be) ↑
The NNR is a forum and programme funded by the Nordic countries, including Sweden, to gather the latest scientific evidence on diet and nutrition. The aim is to provide a robust evidence base that national governments in the Nordics can use to inform their dietary guidance. ↑
Government Offices Sweden 2021. Sweden’s pathway for sustainable food systems. ↑
School meals will speed up the transition to a sustainable food system | Vinnova ↑
E.g. Barton et al, 2015; Barton et al, 2022; Food Standards Scotland, 2020; Comrie et al, 2024. ↑
Comrie et al, 2024. ↑
See also Appendix D. ↑
Matthews et al, 2023. ↑
e.g. Gladding et al., 2020; Andretta et al., 2021; Gržinić et al., 2023. ↑
This would be to recognise the target of the Climate Change Committee. However, how that target would apply to Scottish dietary guidance is unclear, as no intake range for dairy is currently recommended. ↑
E.g. Strid et al., 2019; Hendrie et al., 2021; Leme et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2023. ↑
Matthews et al, 2023. ↑
Garnett et al., 2015. ↑
https://mijn.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/eetmeter/ ↑
Roos et al, 2021; Matthews et al, 2023. ↑
Bailey and Ross Harper, 2015. ↑
Roos et al, 2021. ↑
Roos et al, 2021; Burgaz et al, 2023. ↑
Matthews et al, 2023. ↑
Scarborough et al 2020 cited by Burgaz et al 2023 ↑
e.g. Purnell et al., 2014; Vermeir et al., 2020; Eluwa et al., 2023 ↑
See United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (legislation.gov.uk) and Subsidy Control Act 2022 (legislation.gov.uk) ↑
Roos et al, 2021 ↑
Healthy Eating in Schools: guidance 2020 (www.gov.scot) ↑
Sustainable Scotland Network – Public Bodies Climate Change Reporting 2021/22: Analysis Report ↑
Burgaz et al, 2023; Bailey and Ross Harper, 2015 ↑
Matthews et al 2023. ↑
For example, processors and retailers are progressing faster on adding climate-related criteria to their quality labels than sector-wide Quality Assurance or PGI schemes. The resulting fragmentation may not help consumers to make informed choices about climate-friendly options. ↑
https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/agricultural-reform-programme/arp-route-map/ and https://www.gov.scot/publications/climate-change-action-policy-package/ ↑
e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrmbyMaxZhk and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ-2NjQC1ag ↑
Tables adapted from style deployed in supplementary material presented by James-Martin et al. (2022). Where recourse has been made to machine translation via Google Translate and DeepL, the accuracy of terminology and titles in English may be imperfect. ↑
However, the FAO suggests Ministry of Health, the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, the National Nutrition Commission and the Austrian Nutrition Society; Ministry for Labour, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection ↑
Food-triangle-EN.pdf (gezondleven.be) ↑
https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/13458, be_final_necp_parta_en_0.pdf (europa.eu) and be_final_necp_partb_en_0.pdf (europa.eu) ↑
210706 English version VR 2021 0204 DOC. Actieplan voedselverlies en biomassa 2021-2025 EN (oneplanetnetwork.org) ↑
Go4Food, A Flanders food strategy for tomorrow. Synthesis | Vlaanderen.be ↑
Vlaamse Eiwitstrategie 2021-2030 (oneplanetnetwork.org) ↑
EU protein strategy (europa.eu), REPORT European protein strategy | A9-0281/2023 | European Parliament (europa.eu), The Commission approves the CAP Strategic Plans of Belgium – European Commission (europa.eu), 16925dca-08d0-4592-8c87-202d12ec8bcd_en (europa.eu) ↑
7b3a0485-c335-4e1b-a53a-9fe3733ca48f_en (europa.eu) (Fig 30), Organic action plan – European Commission (europa.eu), Fruit and vegetables – European Commission (europa.eu). Organic and fruit & vegetable support has been and remains available in Scotland under the CAP, albeit with more modest funding. ↑
https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/NLD%202015%20National%20Health%20Policy%20Note.pdf ↑
Including for organic production and fruit and vegetable production Microsoft Word – 20220209_Nederlands NSP GLB – versie 1.0 (overheid.nl) ↑
Organic action plan – European Commission (europa.eu), Fruit and vegetables – European Commission (europa.eu) , EU protein strategy (europa.eu), REPORT European protein strategy | A9-0281/2023 | European Parliament (europa.eu) ↑
7b3a0485-c335-4e1b-a53a-9fe3733ca48f_en (europa.eu) (Fig 30) ↑
92465_visie_biomassa_engels_def.pdf (europa.eu) ↑
Five major players launch masterplan for protein transition as economic engine in The Netherlands – WUR, The ‘master plan’ to double legume consumption in the Netherlands by 2030 (foodnavigator.com) , Test resolution 4K magazine design (investinholland.com) , ‘ME-AT the alternative’ launches first locally grown protein chain – Vion Food Group ↑
https://www.rivm.nl/publicaties/nieuwe-criteria-voor-productverbetering ↑
https://www.seo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-32-btw-nultarief-eindrapport.pdf https://www.seo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-32-btw-nultarief-eindrapport.pdf ↑
The NNR is a forum and programme funded by the Nordic countries, including Sweden, to gather the latest scientific evidence on diet and nutrition. The aim is to provide a robust evidence base that national governments in the Nordics can use to inform their dietary guidance. ↑
Government Office Sweden 2021. Sweden’s pathway for sustainable food systems. ↑
7b3a0485-c335-4e1b-a53a-9fe3733ca48f_en (europa.eu) ↑
The Government’s action plan part 2: A food strategy for Sweden – more jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country – Regeringen.se ↑
e.g. sei-wp-climate-food-transport-gong-2205a.pdf ↑
e.g. Less meat, more legumes: prospects and challenges in the transition toward sustainable diets in Sweden | Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems | Cambridge Core , Sustainability benefits of transitioning from current diets to plant-based alternatives or whole-food diets in Sweden | Nature Communications and Food Dishes for Sustainable Development: A Swedish Food Retail Perspective – PMC (nih.gov) ↑
e.g. Identifying barriers to decreasing meat consumption and increasing acceptance of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers – ScienceDirect, Livsmedelskonsumtion av animalier. Preliminära uppgifter 2020 – Jordbruksverket.se ↑
Dawkins et al. (2023) and 2023. Policy for sustainable consumptionan assessment of Swedish municipalities. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, p.1265733. and Policy-Options-for-Sustainable-Food-Consumption-2021-Mistra-Sustainable-Consumption-report-1.pdf (sustainableconsumption.se) ↑

Aims and highlights

Main issues discussed

1. Future-proofing climate action: Integrating mitigation and adaptation

2. AI for energy justice

3. Carbon pricing policies

4. Financing place-based home retrofit

5. Building net zero land use scenarios with Lego

6. Co-designing Glasgow’s future net zero hospitals

Reflections

How can market mechanisms and incentives be used to deliver emissions reductions?

Big things on the horizon

Conclusion and recommendations

Why it is important

How ClimateXChange supported policymakers

Impact

Related reports

Related links

Findings

Measuring a just transition

Executive summary

Introduction and method

Background to the research

Objectives

Methodology

Deliberative approach

Phase one overview

Online community

Recruitment

Materials

Phase two overview

Recruitment

Materials

How to read this report

Participants’ starting point

Familiarity with key terms

Reactions to the first presentations

Early thoughts on fairness

Principles of fairness across sectors

Cross-cutting themes

How our fictional characters fared across all sectors

Fair systems of payment in practice

Hypothetical scenario 1: Those who earn the most pay the most

What appealed?

What were the concerns?

How our fictional characters fared in scenario 1

A fair distribution of costs

Hypothetical scenario 2: Those who emit the most pay the most

What appealed?

What were the concerns?

How our fictional characters fared in scenario 2

A fair distribution of costs

Hypothetical scenario 3: Incentives for making low carbon choices

What appealed?

What were the concerns?

How our characters fared in scenario 3

A fair distribution of costs

Summary on systems of payment

Exploring policies

Road User Charging

Views on option 1: UK national road pricing

Views on option 2: urban local road user charging

Funding the heat transition in domestic properties

Views on option 1: widely available public funding

Views on option 2: targeted public funding

Conclusions

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?

How do we make that system of payment fair?

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

What needs to be in place to make Road User Charging fair?

What needs to be in place to ensure funding for the heat transition is fair?

Participants’ learning journey

Extent to which views changed

Early views

Participants’ gradual learning process

Views at the end of the process

Views on who should take the lead

What contributed to views changing

Implications from the research

Appendix 1. Transport sector detailed findings

Summary of findings related to transport

How can market mechanisms and incentives be used to deliver emissions reductions? 