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

Executive Summary

The Scottish Government Offshore Wind Directorate commissioned AECOM to conduct a social research study into the social and economic impacts of offshore wind energy on coastal communities in Scotland. The aim of the study was to build on and further develop the findings obtained from the draft Socioeconomic Impact Assessment (SEIA) for the Sectoral Marine Plan (SMP) for Offshore Wind Energy (OWE) and Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas Decarbonisation (INTOG) (hereafter referred to as ‘draft plan-level SEIA’). This draft plan-level SEIA was not undertaken by AECOM and was still in development at the time this project was conducted. AECOM was not commissioned to verify the projections of the draft plan-level SEIA within the scope of this project, but rather to undertake research including a desk-based review, and five focus groups with residents of coastal communities to explore, test and make recommendations for refining the draft plan-level SEIA.

The impacts of offshore wind farms (OWF) on the local economy, employment and distributional impacts were discussed at length within the focus groups. Participants discussed to what extent OWF can help to establish local employment opportunities, and recognised potential opportinites for local businesses in supplying components, equipment and support services. Indirect local economy benefits were anticipated through the in-migration of labour encouraging expansion and development within the local area, as well as spending within local businesses.

The focus group participants recognised the potential for employment opportunities across the construction, maintenance and operation stages of OWF developments. In particular, the maintenance stage was identified as the main source of long-term local employment with the support of training and upskilling schemes. However, all five groups expressed a concern that local residents may not benefit from new employment opportunities as these may be filled by international offshore renewables developers with workers from outside Scotland. Participants generally were sceptical that there would be any significant and long-term in-migration of workers (and their families) relocating to local areas. Anticipated impacts of in-migration ranged from contributing to additional pressure on local services, especially education and health services, to some distributional impacts as a result of higher-earners moving to the area. Impacts on current local infrastructure as perceived by participants were mixed across the five focus groups. Most participants anticipated no additional pressure on local infrastructure, whilst some were concerned about additional demand and usage of local roads.

Participants’ perceptions of tourism impacts were divided between OWF attracting visitors interested in eco-tourism on the one hand, and OWF deterring tourists as a result of the visual disturbance on the other hand. Health and socio-cultural impacts were not perceived as significant, with some participants mentioning that turbines could help reduce eco-anxiety, whilst others mentioned visual disamenity caused by wind farms as potentially affecting their mental health negatively.

A recurring suggestion across all five locations was that participants wanted developers and the Scottish Government to engage in an “open and transparent dialogue” with coastal communities proximate to OWF on the potential and impacts of new developments. Furthermore, most participants suggested that more effective management of Community Benefit Funds would increase communities’ acceptance of local OWF. The notion of community benefits ensuring that any negative impacts are mitigated and the local workforce benefits from employment and training opportunities was also mentioned in every focus group.

The research also indicated how views and attititudes towards OWF can change as a result of an informed debate. As part of the deliberative focus groups, the participants completed a survey (which included the presentation of an information pack) before and after the discussions to identify if their views had changed. Results were based on a small sample and should therefore be interpreted with caution. However, the pre- and post-survey indicated that participants’ confidence in their understanding and knowledge of OWF increased substantially, and it appears that overall support for OWF in participants’ local areas had improved due to more access to information on how communities would be impacted and could potentially benefit. Support for OWF in Scotland overall remained as positive as prior to the deliberation. This could indicate that for the particular sample, when provided with tangible and local-level information, opinions became more positive. This was particularly the case for women who were both less confident in their knowledge and less supportive of OWF than men pre-deliberation. Both groups became more supportive and confident as a result of the deliberation. However, for some themes views had become more negative. Especially the impact on the local economy was viewed more negatively, potentially because participants were sceptical that local residents may benefit from any new employment opportunities. Views with regards to impacts on human health also became more negative after deliberation.

Based on the desk-based review and the focus groups, this study makes a number of technical recommendations to refine the draft plan-level SEIA and, where relevant, SEIAs conducted at project-level by offshore developers when applying for a marine license (hereafter referred to as ‘project-level SEIAs’). Wider policy recommendations are also made to enhance the positive impacts and minimise potential negative impacts of OWF largely based on mitigation suggestions from participants during focus group discussions.

Most importantly, the report recommends that the draft plan-level SEIA should widen its focus and take into account social impacts such as health and distributional impacts, and to disaggregate some of its themes. For example, distinguishing between impacts on recreation and tourism separately. A key recommendation for future plan-level SEIAs is to engage early with communities for scoping of potential impacts to ensure that the themes covered are as relevant and comprehensive and help support the relationship between the government and OWF communities. Where possible, the draft plan-level SEIA should consider the groups within society that are likely to dispropotionately experience social, economic and/ or environmental change as a result of OWF proposals (hereafter referred to as ‘affected communities’).

With regards to policy recommendations, the report recommends conducting scoping research before SEIAs are developed (see recommendation above). Stakeholders could be engaged throughout the whole process of plan- and project-level SEIA development. This should be in addition to statutory and non-statutory consultation activities and consider appropriate methods for informing and engaging with the public.^[1] Another key recommendation is to explore how to share the benefits of OWF through, for example, Community Benefit Funds, monetary benefits or social value with binding targets embedded in the project-level procurement process.

For a full list of recommendations please see chapter 7 of this report.