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

Cross-cutting themes

This short chapter presents a number of cross-cutting themes to emerge from the analysis of the questions relating to both offshore and onshore net zero energy development community benefits.

Current Principles: Views were divided on whether the current Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments (the Principles), are broadly fit-for-purpose, or whether significant revisions are required. Those suggesting that the Principles are fit-for purpose tended to be energy developers, who pointed to them supporting current good practice and offering the flexibility needed to work across a range of technologies and in a diverse range of local contexts.

However, most respondents were looking for revision or changes, including to address issues they saw with lack of standardised governance models, limited community involvement in decision-making and a need for greater transparency. A frequently made point was that to deliver the improvements suggested, the Principles, or other relevant guidance, need to be mandatory or statutory.

Local, regional or national funding: There was a consensus that the local communities most directly affected by net zero developments are the ones most entitled to be in receipt of community benefits.

Themes from the conversations

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 negative economic impact.

There was limited support for regional or national funding approaches and, where respondents did see potential, this tended to be linked to local communities also receiving good levels of benefit. However, local authority respondents were amongst those advocating for a local authority-level funding approach, with national community advocacy organisations most likely to make the case for a national approach to the distribution of some community benefits.

Robust, transparent governance arrangements: A frequent theme, raised across the respondent groups, was the importance of transparency, including in terms of both governance structures and operations. The importance of consulting with communities before decisions are made, rather than presenting them with fixed models, was also highlighted, with good governance said to begin with co-creation, not top-down design.

In terms of key features or components of an effective and transparent approach, governance bodies being competent and accountable was seen as important, including with local communities playing a key role through representative and properly constituted groups. There was reference to clear demarcation between local decision-making panels, for example community councils, and grant recipients, such as development trusts, local organisations and social enterprises that deliver projects and initiatives.

Defining local communities: Defining local communities was often seen as challenging, especially in relation to offshore developments. There were calls for communities themselves to be involved in making these decisions. In terms of the factors that should be taken into account, the focus was not just on geographical proximity but also issues such as visual disturbance, noise and additional traffic.

Early engagement: A frequently made point was that the Principles should make clear that engagement with communities should take place as early in the process as possible, in order that developers have a clear understanding of the aspirations and priorities of the community and to avoid communities feeling sidelined or excluded from the decision-making process.

Themes from the conversations

The importance of community-led decision-making was also emphasised by conversation participants, with no appetite for public sector control of funding.

Experiences with developers were mixed. Some communities felt that developers controlled the funds strictly and set tight criteria, or that negotiations were difficult, whereas others reflected their experience where developers had provided community benefits funding and trusted the community to manage it independently.

Capacity building: The importance of community capacity building was one of the most-frequently raised issues. It was noted that engagement with developers, and sometimes the management of funds, can often fall to volunteers, but that the pressure on volunteers is increasing. Addressing the skills and capacity gap was seen as essential to ensuring fair and effective community benefit decision-making, particularly in rural and smaller communities and areas of deprivation.

There were calls for energy developers to fund the provision of independent advice or support for communities, for the creation of Community Benefit Champion posts, and for the work of the Scottish Government’s Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) to be continued or expanded.

Themes from the conversations

Capacity building was also an important issue for those participating in the conversations, with community members referencing the challenges in negotiating and managing community benefit funds. Participants were looking for access to independent expert support, including legal, financial and governance advice, and for opportunities to share their experience and learning with each other.

Coordinated approaches: In terms of the types of problems a coordinated approach might address, there were references to the risk of unequal distribution of benefits, missed opportunities for strategic investment and inefficiencies in community engagement and administration.

There was a broad consensus that the Principles should support and enable coordinated approaches, both between developers and between communities, particularly given that, as renewable developments increase in number, it is inevitable that there will be more instances of local communities being impacted by multiple developments. It was suggested that a focus on joint approaches could help minimise the administrative burden for communities and also simplify the landscape for organisations applying for community benefit funding.

Strategic, longer-term use of community benefits: A frequent theme across questions was the importance enabling the use of community benefits to deliver longer-term, strategic outcomes for communities. This was sometimes linked to delivering priorities identified through existing strategic plans, including Community Action Plans (CAPs). The types of projects referenced included improvements to transport infrastructure, housing and energy efficiency initiatives, and other measures that would support economic development.

Although there generally remained a clear focus on delivering for local communities, there was also a recognition that some larger, longer-term projects were likely to be delivered at a local authority or regional level.

Themes from the conversations

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. 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.

There was a greater appetite for sharing benefits from offshore renewable energy across a wider geographical area than for onshore, due to the typically larger scale of offshore developments.

Financial viability and benefit benchmarks: Most respondents thought the Principles should continue to set out a benchmark value for community benefit for onshore developments. However, very much reflecting the wider issue of whether the Principles should become mandatory, there was a view that this should also apply to a benchmark figure.

The alternative view was that flexibility remains key, especially given the varied development costs and profit margins associated with different technologies. There were particular concerns that benchmarks for emerging technologies should not undermine their financial viability and, by extension, their expansion.

Themes from the conversations

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.