When community funding causes conflict

Community benefit funds from renewable energy developments are a good and valuable mechanism for sharing the benefits of generation with host communities in principle.  However the Good Practice Principles should be strengthened to recognise that in some circumstances, particularly in very small rural communities, large levels of funding can unintentionally create conflict that undermines both community cohesion and the value of the fund itself.

I propose that the refreshed guidance should:

  1. Place stronger emphasis on governance and conflict resolution, with recognition that the funding can be a source of conflict.

  2. Introduce a clear "duty of care" expectation for developers going beyond simply making payments.

  3. Formally recognise household energy grants as a core and recommended delivery model, particularly in communities where consensus on project spending is difficult or where prolonged disagreement has stalled decision making.

    Household energy grants (a direct payment to each household) offer a practical, equitable and low-conflict way of distributing benefits. They ensure that funds reach all households on a fair and transparent basis, reduce administrative and governance burdens, and align community benefit spending directly with cost of living pressures.

  4. Encourage flexible benefit structures so that communities can choose to allocate some or all of their community benefit towards household level support where this better reflects local circumstances and social cohesion.

In short, the Good Practice Principles should move beyond a "one project per community" project funding model and explicitly support approaches that prioritise fairness, simplicity, social cohesion, and real-world impact especially in smaller or divided communities.

Why the contribution is important

While community benefit funds are well intentioned and often successful, real world experience shows that they can also generate serious unintended consequences. In some cases, large multi-year funds have become a source of division rather than unity with prolonged disagreement over priorities leading to deadlock. The delayed spending erodes the value of the benefit through inflation. 

Smaller communities are particularly vulnerable to this. When disagreements arise they can become entrenched, personal and corrosive to community cohesion. A handfall of individuals can alienate the majority as that majority shun the aggrevation generated by opposing or even simply questioning a project. In these circumstances the current model inverts a "community benefit" into a source of community harm. 

Recognition that problems have and can arise allows for proactive steps to limit future strife.

Household energy grants offer a constructive and socially stabilising alternative when problems occur:

  • They are inherently fair and transparent since eligibility is clear and benefits are distributed broadly rather than captured by competing interest groups.

  • They directly address the cost-of-living and energy affordability pressures faced by households, delivering immediate and visible benefit. It is hard to argue against the benefit of a wind farm, for example, when it is paying a significant portion of your electricity bill. This builds local buy in via immediate recognition of the benefit of local build out.

  • If there is conflict then it allows resolution without a single group "winning" over another.

By embedding a clearer developer duty of care the refreshed Good Practice Principles would better protect communities from harm induced by community benefit funding to ensure that these funds genuinely strengthen rather than weaken the host community.

This is not an argument against community benefit funds. It is a reflection of real life problems from community funding.

by tom1 on February 23, 2026 at 12:38AM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.5
Based on: 4 votes

Comments

  • Posted by smithm31 February 24, 2026 at 11:37

    While community benefit funds are well intentioned and often deliver positive outcomes, it is important that the refreshed Good Practice Principles recognise that large, long-term funding streams can unintentionally create division in very small rural communities. In small populations, disagreements over spending priorities can quickly become personal and entrenched. When this happens, funds may sit unspent, their value reduced by inflation, and the very mechanism intended to strengthen a community can instead weaken cohesion.
    Strengthening governance expectations and embedding access to mediation or conflict resolution support would be a sensible and proactive step. Introducing a clearer developer duty of care ensuring that appropriate governance structures are in place and that communities are not left to manage complex funding without support would also help protect communities from harm.

    The option of household energy grants is particularly compelling in circumstances where consensus cannot be reached. Direct, transparent distribution to households reduces administrative burden, ensures fairness, and delivers immediate and visible benefit, particularly in the context of ongoing cost-of-living pressures.

    Community benefit policy should allow flexibility. A single project-based model does not always reflect the realities of smaller or divided communities. Recognising alternative delivery models would strengthen the Principles and help ensure that community benefit genuinely enhances, rather than undermines, local resilience and cohesion.

  • Posted by killie97 March 01, 2026 at 18:49

    Agree that some form of direct household benefit (reduced bills, funding towards energy efficient facilities in individual houses)

  • Posted by zephr March 06, 2026 at 21:48


     An outside body to oversee the use of the money when a community first realises how much it will get would be very helpful - rather like financial advice given to lottery winners! A few people in closed meetings with the spending of hundreds of thousands at their disposal can quite naturally make strange decisions that result in enormous demands on the future funding stream.
    Big ideas can result in huge running costs if the benefit is used to build large 'community'buildings out of all proportion to the size of the community for example entailing massive staffing costs , mortgages and loans.
    It is extremely important that all members of the community are given the chance to vote on how the money should be spent and made aware of the various options including Local Electricity Discount Schemes.

  • Posted by GMH March 13, 2026 at 11:12

    In response to zephr - there is a risk that you move control of CB funding from the developer to an organisation such as Foundation Scotland or similar. The problem with this is that some of these structures have embedded preferences/policies for how funds are spent and tend to favour capital projects rather than maintenance/sustainability needs or tend to try and support all charities in a local area for "fairness" rather than larger infrastructure projects so that othing is actually achieved. Oversight and guidance is important so that funds aren't wasted but it should be for the communities to choose what level of help is required and be given access to support and guidance rather than it being imposed in a top down fashion.

  • Posted by Bonanza March 16, 2026 at 11:36

    Either communities are empowered or they are not. By all means establish the rules they must operate by by then leave the community to get on with it, within the rules. By all means audit that they are acting correctly by stop interfering.

  • Posted by Clephan March 17, 2026 at 09:26

    The Good Practice Principles must recognise the conflict between early stage engagement with developers on Community Benefit and/or Community Ownership vs early-stage engagement on Community concerns with the development itself. It is difficult to be seen engaging on Community Benefit when many in the community are strongly opposed to the development.

  • Posted by Insight26 March 18, 2026 at 17:06

    Yes agree with GMH -- making this part of good practice guidelines can impose things on communities that might have higher priorities.

    For example, insulating homes is a very good and sustainable long-term way to reduce energy bills rather than just paying a subsidy for your energy bill.

    However, in some communitites, providing dscouts for energy bills say for households on benefits or with special needs could be a good move. But this should be up to the community, not the developer.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas