Community Benefits from Net Zero Energy Developments: Analysis of responses to the consultation exercise

Executive Summary

This summary sets out headline findings from the analysis of responses to the Scottish Government’s public consultation on Community Benefits from Net Zero Energy Developments. The consultation exercise was launched on 19 December 2024 and ran until 11 April 2025. In total, 401 responses were received, of which 167 were from groups or organisations and 234 from individual members of the public.

Section 1: Offshore renewable energy developments

Offshore wind communities

Identifying the community who will benefit is a key principle of designing and providing a community benefit package, as set out in the existing Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments (the Principles).

Question 1.1: In the context of offshore wind development, what or who or where do you consider the relevant communities to be?

A general view was that any communities experiencing negative impacts arising from offshore wind development should be considered relevant.

In terms of communities of place there were suggestions that relevant communities should include those geographically closest to, or most impacted by, the development and the related onshore infrastructure. Suggestions relating to communities of interest included users of the same marine environment as the offshore development, including businesses where livelihoods are impacted.

A frequent view among local authority respondents, was that allocation of community benefits should be across a local authority area. It was suggested that a regional approach would support a more strategic approach and the ability to undertake higher value projects.

Question 1.2: When defining the relevant communities to receive benefits from offshore wind development, which factors should be considered, and by whom? Are there any factors which are most important, and why?

In terms of defining communities at the local level the factors identified most frequently were proximity to the development; the visual impact of the turbines, proximity to onshore/transmission infrastructure or the visual impact of onshore infrastructure.

Respondents advocating distribution of a portion of community benefit funds over a larger area highlighted the size/scale and dispersed nature of the developments, with an associated view that a large project would attract a large community benefit fund, which should be used to benefit more people over a wider area.

Maximising the impact of community benefits from offshore wind developments

Question 1.3: Who should decide how offshore wind community benefits are used (decision-makers)? Are there any groups, organisations or bodies you feel should have a formal role in this?

Respondents commented on the principles that should underpin any decision-making process, including that it must be transparent, inclusive, representative, publicly accountable and aligned with local priorities.

The most frequent suggestions were that decision-making should be led by the relevant community, with the community taking either a central role or control of the process or, specifically, should be led by community councils. However, there were also concerns that these bodies may be too small or lack capacity and resources to take on such a function.

Question 1.4: What are the best ways to ensure that decision-makers truly reflect and take into account the needs and wishes of communities when determining how community benefits are used?

National advocacy organisations were among those who suggested that, to ensure that the views of the community are taken into account, decision-making bodies must be community-led. Other suggestions included that they should also be properly constituted bodies and democratically representative of the relevant area.

A frequent view was that the needs and wishes of the community will already be reflected in existing local plans, such as Local Place Plans (LPPs) and Community Action Plans (CAPs) and that where these exist, they should guide the priorities for use of community benefit funds.

Question 1.5: What could be done to help maximise the impact of community benefits from offshore wind? What does good look like?

Suggestions for specific types of projects that should be supported to maximise impact included acquiring assets to generate long-term income and investment in training and upskilling to address current skills gaps.

A frequent theme was the current voluntary basis of community benefit payments, with a view shared by many that these should be made mandatory.

Question 1.6: How do you think directing community benefits towards larger scale, longer term, or more complex projects would affect the potential impact of community benefits from offshore wind?

Many respondents considered that using community benefits for larger, longer term or more complex projects could have positive effects, with the potential to bring transformational change. In particular, respondents anticipated that larger, more strategic projects could deliver major infrastructure improvements.

However, others disagreed in principle with directing community benefits to larger or longer-term projects including because it could result in less funding for small projects or the most impacted communities.

Question 1.7: The development of offshore wind is often geographically dispersed with multiple communities who could potentially benefit. To what extent do you agree or disagree that a regional and/or national approach to delivering community benefits would be an appropriate way to address geographical dispersal of development and multiple communities?

Respondents were most likely to disagree with a regional or national response. Among reasons for disagreeing with a regional approach was a concern that community benefits might be used to fill local authority funding gaps. Reasons given for opposing a national fund included that it would divert funds away from the most impacted communities and regions and would undermine the principle of local decision-making.

Local authority respondents were amongst those indicating that they would welcome a regional approach, and there was a view that the approach to delivering community benefits should sit at local authority area level, but no higher. Among respondents who would either support or consider a national approach to delivering community benefits, the most frequent reason was that this would be the most inclusive and equitable.

Question 1.8: Are you aware of any likely positive or negative impacts of the Good Practice Principles on any protected characteristics or on any other specific groups in Scotland, particularly: businesses; rural and island communities; or people on low-incomes or living in deprived areas.

Rural and island communities were frequently referenced, with the Principles seen as a key opportunity to benefit the rural, island and coastal communities most affected by net zero projects. These communities were described as experiencing significant deprivation linked to low incomes. Intersection with other groups, including with a higher prevalence of older people, was also highlighted.

In terms of specific impacts for rural, island and coastal communities, there was reference to economic development and enhancement of infrastructure, and reduced energy costs if community benefits support local renewable projects or energy efficiency improvements. Possible negative impacts for businesses included a risk that small local businesses might lose out to larger external contractors with respect to either capacity to deliver or costs.

Determining appropriate levels of community benefits from offshore wind

A fundamental of community benefits, as set out in the existing Principles, is that each package should be tailored to reflect the characteristics of the development, allowing communities and developers to agree an approach which delivers the best outcomes for the circumstances at hand.

Question 1.9: In your view, what would just and proportionate community benefits from offshore wind developments look like in practice?

With respect to features of community benefits, the most frequent suggestion was that payments should be mandatory, with arguments that they should also be index-linked, paid annually and paid over the whole life of the project. A benchmark for offshore wind was also seen as important, providing clear expectations and creating a level playing field between developers.

However, energy developer respondents in particular highlighted the extent of variation between projects, sharing their view on the need for flexibility and funding levels that are based on the impact on communities. They also set out that offshore wind projects are inherently more challenging and more expensive, so an equivalent level of community benefits to onshore developments should not be expected.

It was also suggested that developers should offer opportunities for shared ownership as a mechanism for providing more significant levels of benefit for communities.

Question 1.10: What processes and guidance would assist communities and offshore wind developers in agreeing appropriate community benefits packages?

A requirement for earlier or more meaningful engagement between developers and communities to shape schemes was a frequent theme, with an associated view that existing consultation exercises can be superficial. There was a call for discussions to start at an early stage of project planning.

The importance of providing advice and support to help communities when negotiating with developers was also noted, with reference to professional services (such as facilitation, legal, planning and financial expertise) and signposting to existing organisations such as Local Energy Scotland or Community Energy Scotland. Creating Community Benefit Champion posts, to bring specialist knowledge of the renewables industry along with skills in facilitation and community development, was also proposed.

Shared ownership of offshore wind developments

Question 1.11: What do you see as the potential of shared ownership opportunities for communities from offshore wind developments?

Those respondents who saw potential benefits in shared ownership anticipated some significant opportunities, including providing a direct, secure, regular, long-term or sustainable income to fund community projects, with greater financial returns than provided by traditional community benefit funds.

However, potential problems and challenges were also highlighted including by energy developer respondents who noted that, although supporting the principle of shared ownership, they considered opportunities in relation to offshore wind to be limited or to require major challenges to be overcome first.

There was a clear view of shared ownership as something to complement rather than replace community benefits.

Question 1.12: Thinking about the potential barriers to shared ownership of offshore wind projects, what support could be offered to communities and developers to create opportunities and potential models, and for communities to take up those opportunities?

High capital cost was often identified as a potential barrier to shared ownership, requiring support for communities to access affordable finance, for example via government-backed loan and grant schemes. The need for long-term (patient) capital was also highlighted.

The complexity of the legal and financial structures associated with shared ownership were highlighted, with resulting concerns around either the confidence or capacity of communities to negotiate these issues. Requirements for access to sources of expert, technical, financial and legal advice and guidance and for capacity building within communities were noted.

Section 2: Onshore net zero energy developments

Extending the scope of the Good Practice Principles

The consultation paper outlined the different onshore net zero technologies which exist or are emerging in Scotland, noting their different stages of maturity and different experience of the use of community benefits.

Question 2.1: Which of the following onshore technologies should be in scope for the Good Practice Principles? (Select all that apply)

• Wind
• Solar
• Hydro power (including pumped hydro storage)
• Hydrogen
• Battery storage
• Heat networks
• Bioenergy
• Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS)
• Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs)
• Electricity transmission
• Other – please specify

Respondents were most likely to suggest that all of the technologies set out should be in the scope of the Principles, including because all can have an impact on local communities, with some form of mitigation hence reasonable and fair.

Whether the technology is established, and by extension can be significantly scaled up to meet net zero targets, was seen as significant. There were references to viability and profit generation and a suggestion that, as a general principle, only developments at commercial scale and/or generating profits should be in scope.

Question 2.2: Should the same Good Practice Principles apply in a standard way across all the technologies selected, or should the Good Practice Principles be different for different technologies?

Most respondents favoured an approach which offered a degree of standardisation, paired with technology-specific differences where appropriate. For example, it was suggested that the Principles could be standardised in relation to streamlined processes, shared learning, community views, and impact and risk, but could vary in relation to mitigation and benefits.

The area in which energy developer respondents in particular saw the need for technology-specific variation was in relation to levels of funding and benchmark contributions.

Improving the Good Practice Principles

Question 2.3: Do improvements need to be made to how eligible communities are identified?

Energy developer respondents were amongst those suggesting that the existing Principles provide an effective framework for identifying eligible communities while retaining the flexibility to respond to local circumstances and needs. However, most respondents who gave a clear view thought that some improvements are needed.

For example, it was suggested that interpreting the community solely as the community council area containing or nearest to a wind farm overlooks other communities that may be affected but lie outside these boundaries. It was also suggested that eligibility decisions are best made by the local community themselves.

Question 2.4: Should more direction be provided on how and when to engage communities in community benefit opportunities, and when arrangements should take effect?

One view, expressed primarily by energy developers, was that further direction is not required and that the current Principles are sufficient, albeit they could be reviewed to ensure they comply with the commitments made in the Scottish Onshore Wind Sector Deal.

However, most respondents who expressed a clear view thought that more direction should be provided. A frequent theme raised across respondent groups was the importance of early engagement, in order that developers have a clear understanding of the aspirations and priorities of the community.

Question 2.5: How could the Good Practice Principles help ensure that community benefits schemes are governed well?

A frequent theme, raised across the respondent groups, was the importance of transparency, including in terms of both governance structures and operations.

In terms of key features or components of an effective and transparent approach, there was a range of views about where the main decision-making powers should lie, albeit a broad consensus that local communities should play a key role, generally through properly representative and constituted groups.

There was a view that establishing a legally enforceable governance framework, with mandatory governance structures, would be the best route to ensuring consistency across all projects.

Question 2.6: How could the Good Practice Principles better ensure that community benefits are used in ways that meet the needs and wishes of the community?

Many respondents pointed to the need for, or benefits of, community benefits being used to support the priorities set out in various local plans and strategies. There were references from across respondent groups to the role and potential of LPPs and CAPs, including that alignment with them would be an effective way to ensure that community benefits are used to address community needs and wishes.

In relation to what community benefits could or should be used for, there was a view that this should be entirely at the disposal of local communities. An alternative perspective was that the Principles could play a useful role and could provide guidance on use of community benefits, or on exclusions that should apply.

Question 2.7: What should the Good Practice Principles include on community benefit arrangements when the status of a new or operational energy project changes?

Many of the comments supported community benefit arrangements being reviewed when the status of a project changes or after a set period of elapsed time. Reviewing and adapting arrangements was seen as a way of ensuring continued relevance and fairness.

In terms of general requirements or recommendations to be put in place, suggestions included that it should be a requirement for developers to review their arrangements when a site is repowered, extended or sold, with a call for a structured and legally enforceable review process whenever an energy project undergoes significant changes.

There were also references to the importance of existing commitments being honoured when changes are made, with a principle of no detriment to communities and a presumption that replacement arrangements are as good as or better.

Question 2.8: Should the Good Practice Principles provide direction on coordinating community benefit arrangements from multiple developments in the same or overlapping geographic area? If so, what could this include?

Overall, there was support for the Principles providing direction on coordinating community benefit arrangements from multiple developments in the same or overlapping geographic areas, including because coordination could help minimise the administrative burden for communities that have multiple developers with whom to engage.

Where there was some divergence in opinion was in terms of the nature of any direction the Principles might include, but respondents tended to refer to the Principles encouraging coordination but not necessarily setting it as an expectation or requirement.

Question 2.9: What improvements could be made to how the delivery and outcomes of community benefit arrangements are measured and reported?

Reflecting an ongoing theme across the consultation, there were a number of comments about the status of any reporting arrangements and, in particular, that developers should be mandated to record and report on community benefits associated with their renewable projects.

Many of those referring to standardisation and/or more stringent reporting requirements linked these to a national reporting system, or the existing Community Benefits Register (the Register). A frequently raised theme was the importance of supporting an outcome- and impact-focused approach to monitoring and evaluating community benefits.

Question 2.10: In addition to the Good Practice Principles, what further support could be provided to communities and onshore developers to get the most from community benefits?

The importance of community capacity building was one of the most-frequently raised issues, and it was noted that smaller communities face particular resource challenges.

Respondents were most likely to highlight the importance of providing external support and generally the importance of this being funded by developers. It was suggested that being able to buy in expertise and, by extension, create a more level playing field in terms of which communities have access to that expertise, would strengthen community benefits practice generally.

Setting a funding benchmark

Question 2.11: Do you think that the Good Practice Principles should continue to recommend a benchmark value for community benefit funding?

A majority of respondents, 73% of those answering the question, thought that the Principles should continue to recommend a benchmark value for community benefit funding. The energy developer respondent group was the only one in which a significant proportion of respondents did not think so.

Question 2.12(a): Should the benchmark value be the same or different for different onshore technologies?

Points raised by those supporting a higher benchmark value included that the benchmark for year one of a new project has not been revised to account for inflation since it was introduced, and there was a call for an uprating of the current benchmark to account for inflation.

Those favouring a lower benchmark, or arguing against any increase, highlighted the potential for community benefits to undermine the economic viability of some projects. Respondents highlighted a range of factors that were seen as relevant in setting benchmark values across different technologies, including differing development and operating costs, funding models and revenue structure and scale.

Question 2.12(b): How could we ensure a benchmark value was fair and proportionate for different technologies?

Respondents proposed a range of potential alternatives to the current benchmark value. These included suggestions based on a per-MW benchmark, and alternatives such as revenue-based measures.

Revenue and/or profitability-based measures were the most commonly supported, This approach was seen as better suited to ensuring community benefit values reflect the market value and financial returns of generated energy and/or storage projects. Measures based on local impact included reference to the land area used, such as a land use related MW benchmark to ensure community benefits reflect larger landscape and environmental impacts.

Assessing impacts of the Good Practice Principles

Question 2.13: Are you aware of any likely positive or negative impacts of the Good Practice Principles on any protected characteristics or on any specific groups in Scotland, particularly: businesses; rural and island communities; or people on low-incomes or living in deprived areas?

A common view was that the Principles are an opportunity to achieve positive impacts for all communities. It was suggested that they will enable the negotiation of fairer and more proportionate community benefit packages, which in turn can have a positive impact on a range of groups, including rural and island communities, people on low incomes and in deprived areas, and local businesses.

Rural, island and coastal communities were the most referenced, and it was suggested that the Principles can generate significant positive impacts, especially given the significant challenges affecting some communities. However, it was also reported that rural and island communities often have limited capacity, relative to developers and landowners, to participate fully in community benefits processes, particularly when there are a number of developments nearby.