Good practice principles for renewable energy developments consultation: analysis of responses

Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Offshore Renewable Energy Developments

Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Offshore Renewable Energy Developments

3.1 Do you think that the Scottish Government’s Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Offshore Renewable Energy Developments remain relevant and valid?

Key Figures

• 28 responses (59.6%) were received for this question 
• 11 comments obtained from respondents

Summary 

Of those that provided a response to this question the majority were either in agreement (35.7%) or selected “Don’t Know” (42.9%) regarding whether these specific GPPs remained current and valid. 

As the table above shows, there were no patterns of specific groups providing certain answers.

Those communities who responded positively stated that the approach taken by developers who they have experience with reflected the GPPs – however, there was a belief that more detail is required at a process-level to protect and link coast communities. 

Also, there was a belief that more emphasis should be placed on ensuring groups such as displaced fishing communities are engaged.

Although a minority of respondents (21.4%) disagreed with the question, a number of comments were received. These has been summarised below:

• Comments were provided around the terminology used throughout the document. This included, for example, replacing “community” with “host” or “area of benefit”, as well as the general use of language and terminology that could imply that community benefit is a method of compensation.
• Several responses were submitted around managing the expectations of communities who might expect to benefit. Responses here focused on setting the context appropriately to make the factors influencing a developer’s financial decisions clear to stakeholders, and to set out why offshore wind is unlikely to be able to achieve the value (£) per MW guideline for onshore wind. Also, some respondents felt there would be value in detailing the timeline for a developer to commit to community benefit funding (for example, post-consent). Finally, concerns were also raised that there is a perception that the responsibility for the success of community benefit packages lies disproportionately with developers.
• It was apparent that respondents felt that community benefit packages should be encouraged – however, this should be at the discretion of each individual project. 
• It was noted that the GPPs could helpfully provide recognition of the benefit to communities through the economy itself, and the wider contribution to reducing greenhouse gases - regardless of a separate community benefit package. 
• There were also concerns around floating wind technology itself – with feedback provided that this is not a mature technology, and is still in development (similar to wave and tidal technology). 

Although the majority of respondents did not provide an answer (67.8%), a number of comments were received – predominately around how the GPPs should reflect the growth of the offshore wind industry.