In some instances, the community may not want to take on the work and risks involved in holding the community benefits package and carrying out related governance duties, but wishes to retain a role in making decisions on the projects or causes to which funds are directed. If this is the case, it may wish to enlist the support of a third party, such as an experienced trust or foundation that provides specialist services. In other cases, it may be the renewable energy business that insists that the community benefits are held, governed, and likely administered, by such an organisation.
In this model, the community fund is protected under the third party’s wider governance umbrella, but a locally-appointed Panel advises on fund strategy and spend decisions (see Section 6 below for more on Advisory Panels).
The key to making this model work is the agreement, or agreements, covering the relationships between those involved. For example, it may be that the third party is contracted by a relevant community body or by the renewable energy business. Whatever the case, the agreement or contract should set out clearly the responsibilities of the third party, terms of their payment, circumstances under which either party may terminate the agreement, and so on. Crucially, the agreement should enshrine the role of any Advisory Panel, ensuring the third party is responsible for convening, supporting, and responding to input from that group.
The upside of this model is that it may require less voluntary effort from members of the community than, say, a community company structure will. Moreover, depending on which organisation takes on this role, a professional, supportive and informed third party can provide comfort for the wider community as well as the renewable energy business that the community benefit package is being well managed and that some independence is being brought to bear. It can also help to develop the capacity of the Panel to manage community benefits themselves in the future.
Note that where the funds themselves are to be held by the third party, and where the third party is a registered charity, they will become the responsibility of that body in legal terms. The third party will, technically, be delegating decision making to the Panel. Nonetheless, where the correct agreements are put in place, this model can in fact provide a safeguard over the funds for the wider community – as the agreements can stipulate that the funds cannot be used for anything other than the benefit of the community in question nor for anything other than the agreed fund purposes. This would be the case even were the Panel to dissolve or go into abeyance.
