Community benefits from net zero energy developments consultation: engagement findings report

Executive Summary

Background & Context

SCDC was commissioned to facilitate a series of community conversations to contribute to the Scottish Government’s review of the Good Practice Principles for community benefits from onshore and offshore renewable energy developments. The conversations ran alongside an online consultation on Community Benefits from Net Zero Energy Developments.

As part of the commissioned work, SCDC organised two national information webinars to raise awareness of the conversations and the wider consultation process, five face-to-face and four online local conversations and two national online conversations. 114 people participated in the webinars and 116 in the conversations.

Conversations comprised 116 self-selecting participants, either representing community groups or attending as individuals, and with a range of experiences: people involved in community benefit schemes; people involved in community activities who are not involved in community benefits; and individual community members. Participants’ experiences of community benefits were varied, including people who were completely new to community benefits and those with in-depth knowledge and hands on experience.

Given the number of participants involved, the conversations cannot be considered indicative of general feelings or wider consensus across Scottish communities, but they added an element of deliberative discussion that explored some of the conversation themes within place-based settings.

Key Findings

1. The purpose of community benefits. Scottish Government consultation materials clearly set out that community benefits are not a form of compensation for the impact of renewable energy developments, but are additional voluntary benefits that developers bring to the community, and which sit separately to the planning and consent system. They provide an opportunity for communities to share in the benefits of the energy resource and can have lasting social and economic impacts that sit alongside wider economic, employment and supply chain benefits from developing renewable energy.

It was made clear in the sessions that community benefits are not compensation for communities and communities were reminded of this by facilitators. However, some participants did not agree with this and there was consensus in all conversations that communities directly impacted by the development should be considered as a priority for community benefits.

2. Defining areas to benefit. In all community conversations, all participants who shared their views on the areas that should benefit stated that communities directly impacted by renewable energy development or infrastructure, including transmission, should be a primary consideration in relation to who should benefit. This included visual impact (communities in sight of developments), noise, disturbance, increased volume of traffic and perceived negative economic impact.

Some participants recognised that communities impacted by offshore developments covered a much wider geographic area than for onshore developments and could cross local authority boundaries, as well as including the point where offshore electricity transmission infrastructure comes onshore. There was a greater appetite among participants for sharing benefits from offshore renewable energy across a wider geographical area than would be the case for onshore developments, due to the typically larger scale of offshore developments.

There was a reasonable appetite for wider regional or national sharing of benefits, particularly to tackle inequalities, although opinions differed on what regional or national approaches should be taken. This was in relation to both onshore and offshore technologies, although there was greater appetite for wider sharing of offshore community benefits. In all conversations, all participants voicing an opinion agreed that any regional or national funds should be in addition to, and alongside, local community benefit funds.

3. Developer relationships. Experiences with developers varied both across and within communities, although generally, participants’ experiences related to onshore developments. Many communities suggested that clearer communication, early engagement, and more coherent practices across operators would enhance consistency, transparency, and trust in the process - both for onshore and offshore schemes.

4. Recommended levels and the voluntary nature of benefits. In all community conversations, all participants (voicing their opinion) agreed that the recommended level for community benefits for onshore developments was too low, suggesting it should be increased. Some participants with experience of managing community benefit funds suggested levels should be index linked, and no participants disagreed. It was also repeatedly proposed that it should be a mandatory requirement for developers to provide community benefits rather than a voluntary scheme, for all renewables.

5. Community empowerment and local control. The importance of community-led decision-making, community wide consultation and action planning to set priorities for community benefit schemes were emphasised. Community control of community benefit funding was considered important at all levels: local, regional, and national. Through the conversations, participants’ view that funds should not be controlled by the public sector emerged. At a regional level, this was often related to decreasing local authority budgets, with some participants wary that community benefits could possibly be used to fund core services instead of providing additional benefit.

6. Capacity building and support. There were several challenges identified in negotiating and managing community benefit funds by community members who undertake this role in a voluntary capacity. Participants felt that community benefit schemes need to be simple, flexible, and adaptive to community need. This included linking to, and support for, community-led action planning processes that can be used to drive community improvements and direct funds.

Participants requested access to independent expert support, including legal, financial and governance advice to help ensure schemes are robust and equitable. There was also significant support expressed for communities to access opportunities to share their experience and learning with each other.

7. Impact of community benefits. Many communities were also keen to explore the ability to invest community benefits funds or create endowment funds to create long term funding that would benefit their communities into the future. While communities saw the benefit in small project funding and support to local activity groups, bigger issues such as fuel poverty, the local economy and employability were identified as key to creating real change and addressing issues such as rural depopulation.

8. Diverse community needs. The conversations highlighted the diversity of Scotland’s communities and the need for Good Practice Principles to be adaptable to local contexts, including island, rural, and urban settings. Participants stressed that one-size-fits-all approaches may not be effective and noted for example that island and coastal communities would see much greater impact from offshore developments.

9. Good Practice Principles. Whilst conversations identified possible benefits that refreshed Good Practice Principles could bring, many felt unable to comment until the Principles had been developed and they could see what was being proposed.