Offshore wind energy – sectoral marine plan: further research for social impact assessment

7. Recommendations

The recommendations from this research are three-fold. The first set of recommendations are targeted at refining the findings of the draft plan-level SEIA based on the analysis above. These recommendations may apply to the draft plan-level SEIA or, where specified, to project-level SEIAs conducted by the developers for specific OWF developments. Secondly, recommendations are provided to enhance the positive impacts and minimise potential negative impacts of the offshore wind industry in Scotland. These recommendations are largely based on mitigation suggestions from participants during focus group discussions, alongside wider contextual analysis. Thirdly, a number of limitations and recommendations for future research are listed.

Technical recommendations

Wider social focus: SEIAs, both at the plan and project level, tend to focus on employment and economic impacts, and social impacts tend to be underreported. Whilst economic impacts should remain an integral part of any SEIA, the findings from the focus groups and the wider evidence review emphasised the importance of social impacts such as health and distributional impacts. We therefore recommend that both project- and plan-level SEIAs in the context of OWF also take these areas of impact into account. It may be difficult to model these impacts, however recognising wider social impacts at a high level could make SEIAs more comprehensive. Furthermore, we recommend:

• Disaggregation of themes: Tourism was not covered separately in the draft plan-level SEIA and was only indirectly included through the assessment of recreational impacts. However, based on the evidence available on the impacts on tourism and the discussions during the focus groups, we suggest including tourism impacts as a separate topic in the draft plan-level SEIA, not least due the sector’s importance to some coastal communities.
• Consideration of demographic factors: Where possible, both plan- and project-level SEIAs should consider the groups within society that are likely to be disproportionately affected. For example, whether job creation is likely to disproportionately benefit groups that are overrepresented in offshore wind sector jobs. We therefore recommend producing plan- and project-level SEIAs alongside social-based statutory impact assessments that the Scottish Government is required to undertake, for example Equality Impact Assessments, Fairer Scotland Duty Assessments, and Island Communities Impact Assessments, to ensure that any findings are integrated and consistent.
• Scoping of potential impacts: The analysis shows that there is some discrepancy between the themes covered in the draft plan-level SEIA and those discussed during the focus groups and desk-based research. We therefore recommend for future plan-level SEIAs that the Scottish Government, developers and/or authors of plan-level SEIAs conduct early scoping studies including primary research to explore what potential impacts communities may identify and to also help educate on misconceptions. Scoping studies at an early stage could help inform the themes and approach of plan-level SEIAs ensuring that the themes covered are as relevant and comprehensive as possible. This could also apply to project-level SEIAs. This would be distinctly different to formal consultations, as scoping studies could be conducted before any plans or project are fully defined and do not need to be based on a formalised plan to consult on.
• Specificity of projections: Whilst not always technically possible especially for plan-level SEIAs, we recommend that SEIAs provide more detail with regards to employment data projections. For example, many focus groups participants wanted to know specifically where workers would come from (i.e., local or from abroad). However, these specific projections may be more feasible at the project level.
• Robustness of evidence: Some of the claims made in the draft plan-level SEIA (e.g., impact of OWF on waves and therefore on recreational activities) were questioned by focus group participants and supporting evidence from the wider literature review was limited. We therefore recommend ensuring that all claims are based on robust evidence and to highlight where this is limited. A reviewer independent from the developers or government could provide additional quality assurance to support the inclusion of impacts. For plan-level SEIAs such as the one considered in this study, this independent review should be commissioned and paid for by the Scottish Government. For project-level SEIAs, these should be paid for and commissioned by developers.
• Data: Project- and plan-level SEIAs tend to rely on quantitative data only. However, some social impacts and more disaggregate economic impacts may not be quantifiable at the SEIA stage, especially for plan-level SEIAs. We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government conducts additional primary research with local communities and businesses where evidence is limited, for example on impacts on human health. This could be done through collecting qualitative evidence either to support quantitative findings or, where quantitative data is limited, using qualitative data to assess and identify impacts.
• Accessibility: Due to the technical and detailed nature of impact assessments, key findings and their relevance to affected communities can be challenging to understand as highlighted by many participants. We therefore recommend publishing an easy-read version of the draft plan-level SEIA and any future project-level SEIAs in the context of OWF.
• Mitigation: The draft plan-level SEIA reviewed for this study focused on the projection of impacts, but underreported or excluded mitigating measures to counteract negative impacts or ensure full utilisation of positive impacts. Stakeholder engagement should be considered in order to include relevant mitigating measures, ownership of any measures and accountability in the draft plan-level SEIA.

Policy recommendations

Wider policy recommendations are listed below.

First and foremost, we recommend a more systematic and strategic approach to stakeholder involvement at all stages. Specifically, this means that scoping research could be done before SEIAs are conducted (see recommendation above), stakeholders could be engaged throughout the life span of project- and plan-level SEIAs and, as already done by the Scottish Government, formal consultations should be conducted. In all focus groups, participants mentioned the need for involving communities in close proximity to planned OWF from the start of the process, going beyond one-off stakeholder engagement. Based on the findings from this report, we therefore suggest the following:

• Informed opinions: The level of knowledge on OWF was low amongst most participants. However, almost all participants felt more confident in their knowledge as a result of the evidence session and more equipped to discuss potential impacts. We therefore recommend interactive stakeholder engagement using accessible and easy-read information, transparently describing the potential impacts on coastal communities, including negative and positive impacts. This will help people to establish informed opinions and be equipped to provide their own views on how OWF can be used to benefit their communities or to identify risks.
• Objectivity: Many participants were sceptical of information provided by the UK or Scottish Government, and we therefore recommend involving independent experts when communicating findings of the draft plan-level SEIA to stakeholders to provide additional validity.
• Means of engagement: We recommend engaging with residents using a variety of engagement methods, including online webinars or workshops as well as in-person townhalls. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring diversity of attendees. From our research, we noticed men and more educated residents for example were more likely to engage than women or those with no or low levels of qualifications. It is also important to undertake diversity monitoring to understand difference of opinion and experience amongst different groups.
• Consistency of engagement: All participants agreed that benefits needed to be sustainable and take a long-term approach. We therefore recommend engaging with communities at several crucial points to work with communities in order to harness the benefits of OWF more effectively. For plan-level SEIAs these points could be at an early scoping stage (see recommendations above). For project-level SEIAs, we would suggest for engagement to take place at the scoping/planning stage, during construction, the operational phase, and the decommissioning stage. For feasibility considerations and to avoid response fatigue, we suggest for engagement to take place between every 2 to 5 years.
• Communication: To enable more acceptance from communities, we suggest focusing on better demonstrating the benefits of the offshore wind industry, such as using investments into ports as powerful case studies. We however also suggest being transparent about the limitations of any benefits and to communicate decisions to communities clearly and promptly.

Sharing the benefits: We recommend that the Scottish Government and developers consider the following suggestions presented by focus group participants on helping to ensure that communities harness benefits of positive impacts and negative impacts of OWF are mitigated:

Community Benefit Funds: When recognising the impact of OWF on local communities, many participants agreed with the idea of funding for community-led initiatives as a result of the profits made from OWF. These initiatives should be sustainable and take a long-term approach. For example, facilities such as buildings should only be provided if the community had the necessary access to funds to maintain these. We understand Community Benefit Funds are managed by developers and therefore recommend that developers should be required to do this as part of the consenting process.

Social Value: Many participants asked for benefits to the local economy and communities to be incorporated into the procurement stages. For example, offshore wind developers could be required to provide a certain proportion of jobs to the local workforce and/ or those from under-represented backgrounds. Training initiatives could become part of the social value commitments for developers as well and help to build sustainable career paths for the local community. This is already the case as part of the supply chain commitments, however, specific mandatory targets with strong monitoring and evaluation processes in place could further contribute to social value being produced locally.

Monetary benefits: Some participants also suggested being compensated at the household-level for any negative impacts, for example, by reducing electricity bills and/ or direct payments.

Sustainability: Participants highlighted that any investments and benefits needed to be sustainable and not temporary investments that result in additional pressures on communities in the long-term, e.g., through maintenance of any services or facilities.

Just Transition: Detailed assessments of job losses as a result of the phasing out of oil and gas need to be mapped against new jobs being created in the renewables sector. This is to identify gaps in the Just Transition and help put mitigating actions in place.

Innovation: To maximise the usage of OWF, we recommend for the offshore sector and the Scottish Government to continue to explore and support innovation to couple renewable energy mechanisms such as tidal and wind power.

Evaluation: In response to the scepticism amongst participants of employment benefits materialising, we recommend including an evaluation of plan- and project-level SEIAs at the outset and half-way through its appraisal timeframe to compare projected impacts with impacts observed to that stage, and to verify findings and assumptions. This is also to take into account any impacts due to decommissioning of wind turbines as this is not fully considered in the current draft plan-level SEIA which only assumed that after 25 years sites would be repowered rather than decommissioned.

Research limitations and recommendations

As with any research project including primary data collection, there are a number of limitations to consider and recommendations to be made for future research.

Firstly, the number of participants was limited, and findings can therefore not be assumed to apply to the overall population in coastal Scotland. Whilst this is the norm for qualitative research, we recommend for future projects to allow for a brief nationally representative survey.

Secondly, budget and timescales of this project were limited and therefore did not allow for larger-scale deliberative workshops. Whilst the deliberative focus groups were successful and participants engaged well with the information they were provided with, we would recommend organising longer or more sessions per group in order to allow for more time for discussion and engaging with the information. This would have also allowed for additional experts to contribute to the sessions.

Thirdly, whilst not a limitation, we noticed reluctance from the majority of people recruited to attend in-person engagement. We would therefore suggest in the future to concentrate on virtual engagements with the option of in-person engagement only if the demand is there.

Fourthly, however, online engagement is particularly challenging for those groups that are less confident with the usage of smartphone and laptops/ computers. Whilst the research team offered individual support before and during each session, this potentially made it more difficult for some groups to engage fully. However, at the same time, the ability to switch cameras off and make use of the chat function also may have resulted in higher participation from other participants that otherwise would not have chosen to engage for various reasons.

Lastly, we recommend exploring whether further research into the potential effects of offshore wind on human health is required. This was identified as an evidence gap in the desk-based review.