Post on 18-Dec-2015
transcript
Socio-political acceptance: facilitating market and community acceptance instead
of grand designs for wind power.
Seminar Wind Power6 May 2009
UniversitySt Andrews
Maarten Wolsink Geography, Planning & International Development Studies
University of Amsterdam
• Durgerdam (picture) 140 kW- initiative energy company- no involvement, only ‘inspraak’ (consultation)- opposition misunderstood- compensation (low tariff) offered: increased opp.
• Camperduin (2 x 80kW; 28 houses connected)- initiative local residents- investment e-company, with subsidies- low tariff (from start) to reinforce involvement- full acceptance by all- irritations about e-comp’s management
• From the late 90-ies onwards: rapidly increasing numbers of acceptance studies
2 studies in 1984 compared
Acceptance of wind power schemes:Fit to local identity in the eyes of the community
• Landscape AND social identity (cognitive/cultural)• Fit to the landscape, determined mainly by the choice of
the site (turbines and wind farm design minor factors) • Identity as experienced by local community• ‘Objective landscape characteristics’ are affecting
identity only after a process of PERCEPTION. • Embedding wind development in local economy• Socio-economic benefits for community• Fair decision making; exclusion causes trouble • Local options for investments, from ownership or
shareholdership to symbolic ‘sense of ownership’• Most significant: local acceptance is minor problem
Focus on local acceptance outdated; Impediments in two other dimension of Social Acceptance Wüstenhagen e.a., 2007. Energ Pol 35, 2386
Factors determining ‘trust’ highly determined by socio-political and market acceptance
• In 90-ies NL:- Focus on industrial policy- Focus on large scale- Acceptance issues focused on negative acceptance: considered problems of local and community resistance
• - No focus on implementation- No focus on optimal scale: local and (within energy generation) small scale- No focus on positive acceptance- Full disregard of very high social potential
• Refusal to focus on the optimal implementation conditions: low socio-political acceptance
No policies on how to foster wide public acceptance; instead series of counterproductive measures
• As usual in environmental conflict: TRUST is key• Distribution of benefits an costs:
- between community ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’- among members of the community - who is the investor? What are options for participation in the scheme?
• Equity / Fairness of Process (‘procedural fairness’) - who decides?- who is involved?- who is informed?- weight of the arguments in decision making as perceived by the members of the community
What were the choices?• Investment subsidies favouring larger scales (UK is even
worse here)• Industrial policy targeted at industry (disappeared) and
energy companies• Civil society initiative and new private enterprise: left to
gate-keepers: network managers (=energy companies)• Later: focus on ‘market’ instruments: tradable
certificates (in practice: favouring existing market parties, again mainly e-companies)
• Policies mainly ‘grand designs’; National ‘planning’ including tendencies for planning at the level of projects
Do energy companies support renewables?
• Small research in 1996:• Investment of Dutch e-companies in renewables 6% (of
which 3% from subsidies)• advertising (airplay on nation TV): 77% sustainability
initiatives, mainly E-companies’ renewables• Strong resistance against most effective financial
procurement system (low acceptance)• In NL also Government --> low acceptance• In Germany appeals to Highest Courts• In EU: still a strong lobby by E-companies for certificates
instead of feed-in
Do energy companies support renewables?
• Repeated request for ‘speed-up’ legislation (=instruments to overrule local decision making)
• Strong lobbies for new coal and nuclear (opt. CCS)• Pushing ‘green tarrifs’ as the way forward to
renewables• Leaving all options for free riders• Accountancy established collected funds from ‘green
tarriffs’ never invested in renewables (including waste to energy) and tax credits had to be refunded afterwards
• Does the public trust E-companies? (or the Government when sustaining E-companies position?)
Two examples of Grand Designs
• General:State policyEnergy company (outsider) using ‘community’Nationally regarded ‘iconic landscapes’
• As usually presented as: there is no alternative• Presented (‘framed’) as:
it is either Global Warming or the Wind farm• Not presented as: alternative wind farms at
different locations, with options for involvement
However …… project failedAgain: landscape identity. High variability of acceptance depending on site
There is strikingly higher public support for offshore wind development in the mid-Atlantic, and especially off Delaware.. Firestone, Kempton, Krueger, Wind Energy 2009.
‘Afsluitdijk’ project; IPWA Netherlands
• 1998-2001• 278 MW• 2 provinces• 4 municipalities• Nuon (E-company)• National government: ministries of
* Economic Affairs* Housing, Spatial Planning & Environment* Agriculture and Nature
• No further societal stakeholders, only an external advisory committee
Acceptability locations: as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’ Wolsink Land Use Policy, forthcoming
% rejecting siting in landscape
94
89
89
86
71
63
62
62
60
Island dunes
Nature ar
NorthS dunes
in WaddenS
Recr area
island polders
Lauwersmeer
Dikes WS
mounds
Acceptability locations: as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’
% not rejecting siting in landscape
59
43
41
33
26
22
19
19
16
2
Towns/vill
IJsselmeer
Marine clay p
NorthS dikes
NorthSea
Agricul area
Along tracks
Along Afsluitdijk
Military ar
Ind & harb
Conclusion
• Any policies of governments and existing energy market parties directed not opening up the market for entirely new parties, in particular parties that emerge from and that are rooted in the ‘communities’ where wind schemes should be established, reflect a lack of socio-political and market acceptance.
• The institutions determining market acceptance and socio-political acceptance are much more pressing problems than the assumed lack of local acceptance