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Focus on local acceptance outdated; Impediments in two other dimension of Social Acceptance Wüstenhagen e.a., 2007.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

‘Cape Wind’ project at Nantucket soundCape Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 2008

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.

Nearshore US: Nantucket Sound and Delaware Bay.

‘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

‘most environmentally sound’ alternative

‘Image-quality’ alternative 2

Chosen ‘alternative’ (by Governmental architect)

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