Energy Policy 34 (2006) 30413048

nin

Sz

of B

line 1

to ne

the li

licy

into

its co

meas

g of

informed by eld-work in the wind sector in Denmark, security; and (3) the reduction of environmental

to a limited extent. Thus the rst section of this article

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Tel.:+1225385181; fax: +1225826099. 1It thus concurs with the contention of Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.05.011

E-mail address: J.P.Szarka@bath.ac.uk.

URL: http://staff.bath.ac.uk/mlsjps.

(1999, p. 118) that policy change (y) requires a time perspective of adecade or more.France and the UK, this article explores the extent towhich policy learning over the long term has brought uscloser to policy models that integrate economic,environmental and societal desiderata in a mannercongruent with the sustainable development aspirationsespoused by the European Union and its constituent

externalities, notably atmospheric emissions. Further,since renewables are considered to be inexhaustible,they contribute to progress towards sustainability. Theintegration of economic, environmental and socialconcerns into policy making is a hall-mark of thesustainability approach, but to date this conceptualisa-tion of policy making has only informed energy policy1. Introduction

The aim of this article is to study how policy learninghas led to new understandings of ways to supportrenewable energies, based on experience in the windpower sector. To date, analysis of the sector has largelybeen undertaken by technologists and economists, butnow that wind power has attracted public attention andgreater political salience, increased numbers of socialscientists are seeking to move beyond partial analysesand look for more comprehensive explanations of itsdynamics. Drawing on analysis of the literature and

states.1 It contributes to policy theory development byarguing in favour of a new policy paradigm that reachesbeyond measures to increase production capacity per seto embrace both the institutional dynamics of innova-tion processes and the fostering of societal engagementin implementation processes.The current increase in interest in the renewables

sector relates to its privileged position in the energy-environment nexus since it is seen as a solution, albeiton a partial and contributory basis, to three coredilemmas faced by contemporary societies: (1) theprovision of energy supply; (2) the assurance of energyWind power, policy lear

Joseph

Department of European Studies, University

Available on

Abstract

The aim of this article is to study how policy learning has led

on experience in the wind power sector. Drawing on analysis of

Denmark, France and the UK, it explores the extent to which po

that integrate economic, environmental and societal desiderata

development aspirations espoused by the European Union and

arguing in favour of a new policy paradigm that reaches beyond

institutional dynamics of innovation processes and the fosterin

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Renewable energy; Wind power; Policy learningg and paradigm change

arka

ath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK

4 July 2005

w understandings of ways to support renewable energies, based

terature and informed by eld-work in the wind power sector in

learning over the medium term has brought us closer to models

renewables policy in a manner congruent with the sustainable

nstituent states. It contributes to policy theory development by

ures to increase production capacity per se to embrace both the

societal engagement in implementation processes.

social development. This should result in a greaterawareness of the environmental dimension, notably

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Szarka / Energy Policy 33042in the elds of agriculture (including forestry andsheries), energy, industry, transport and tourism.Ofcial Journal, 1983, I, 8.

The concept was reiterated in the Fifth Environmen-tal Action Programme (19932000) in relation to thesesame ve policy sectors, which of course includedenergy. The 1992 Treaty of European Union and the1997 Amsterdam Treaty enshrine the environmentalpolicy integration principle, though with debateablelegal effects.2

Meanwhile, the sustainable development agenda, thatarose inter alia from the 1987 Brundtland report,systematically linked environmental problems andsets the stage by considering how environmental andsocietal dimensions have been introduced at the macro-level of energy policy making. The second section movesto the micro-level of electricity generation from renew-ables. In particular, it considers how policy learning inrelation to wind power has developed along threedimensions: (1) measures to increase production capa-city, (2) measures to increase institutional capacity and(3) measures to increase societal capacity. The conclu-sion proposes that a new paradigm of renewables policylies in a systemic approach that embraces not only thetechnical and economic dimensions of policy making,but provides a greater and more central place forinstitutional and societal dimensions.

2. Bringing environmental and societal dimensions intoenergy policy

By policy learning is understood relatively enduringalterations of thought or behavioural intentions thatresult from experience and are concerned with theattainment (or revision) of policy objectives (Sabatier,1993, p. 19). An exemplary illustration is the aim ofachieving environmental policy integration, concep-tualised as a greening of sectoral policies (Lenschow,2002). This normative concept proposes that environ-mental considerations, rather than remaining a stand-alone policy-making sphere, must become an integralpart of policy arenas across the board. It emergesstrongly in European Community policy making fromits 1983 Third Environmental Action Programmeonwards:

The Community should seek to integrate concern forthe environment into the policy and development ofcertain economic activities as much as possible andthus promote the creation of an overall strategymaking environmental policy part of economic and2See Nollkaemper, 2002.development issues. Brundtland offered the canonicaldenition of the new approach as development thatmeets the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their own needs(World Conference on Environment and Development,1987, p. 43). The report reiterated a view that hadgained momentum over the 1980s that environmentalprotection, economic growth and social developmentwere not contradictory but complementary goals. Thisview also argued for a deepening and broadening ofenvironmental policy integration into not just thesubstance of economic and industrial policies, but alsointo policy-making procedures. It opened the door togreater recourse to deliberative and inclusionaryprocesses, involving a broader cross-section of thepopulation. Calls to develop this societal dimensionwere taken up at the 1992 Rio world conference,integrated into the Rio Declaration (principles 10 and2022) and developed subsequently. In the EU, thesustainable development framework has led to a broador horizontal conceptualisation of the policy integra-tion theme, in order to complement and reinforce thesectoral or vertical one (Aguilar Fernandez, 2003). TheCardiff Process, initiated in 1998, has sought todevelop both these conceptualisations within EU policymaking spheres. The Sixth Environmental ActionProgrammeEnvironment 2010: Our Future, OurChoicewhich runs between 2001 and 2010, calledfor a deepening of environmental policy integrationindicating that all Commission policy initiativesshould be fully assessed in this light, with greateruse of environmental indicators and best practicebenchmarking.In the energy sector, the combined aims of environ-

mental policy integration and sustainable developmenthave been taken up to varying extents. Thus the FifthEnvironmental Action Programme stressed thatEnergy policy is a key factor in the achievement ofsustainable development (Commission of the EC,1993). However, as indicated by Collier (2002, p. 176),during the 1990s, there was little progress with thegreening of EU energy policy, although a numberof directives were implemented to reduce toxic atmo-spheric emissions. In recent years, concerns overclimate change, diversication of energy sourcesand security of supply have led to policy reformscontaining a measure of environmental policy integra-tion, with the Sixth Environmental Action Programmetargeting climate change as one of its priority areas forurgent action. Yet reforms in the wake of marketintegration and liberalisation have concerned energysupply rather than energy demand, seeking changesmostly in sourcing rather than use, and addressingeconomic and production issues rather than the societaland procedural issues enshrined within the sustainable

4 (2006) 30413048development concept.

ARTICLE IN PRESSolicy 33. Policy learning, electricity generation and wind power

The focus on the electricity sector is explained by thenecessarily restricted purview of this article, but it is alsojustied by the fact that EU energy policy, and muchnational policy, has in the 2000s taken a marked interestin electricity generation, whilst mostly letting otherforms of energy sourcing and use bump along in abusiness-as-usual fashion. The context for policymaking has been set by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whichcalled for greenhouse gas cuts by annex 1 countries of5.2% by reference to a 1990 baseline, to be achieved byvarious exible mechanisms. Because of the largelyuntried nature of the latter, progress to implementationhas been slow and uncertain. Although the EU is nowputting into place a market-based emissions tradingsystem (based on directive 2003/87/EC), the policyresponse has to date largely favoured state-centricmeasures. The electricity sector has been targeted sincemember states rely extensively on fossil fuel sources,producing substantial quantities of greenhouse gases.The main instrument is directive 2001/77/EC whichset targets for each member state regarding electricitygeneration from renewable energy sources (RES-E).The stress on renewable energy provides one route toenvironmental policy integration and the greeningof energy policy (although renewables such as hydroand wind can have environmental costs of their own).As the major near-market technology, the windsector is now budgeted to provide the bulk of newRES-E generation in a number of EU states. In relationto the achievement of renewables targets, questionsremain regarding preferences over policy instrumentsand the roles allotted to various economic and societalactors. Nevertheless, policy experimentation over thelong term in a number of countries offers scope forpolicy learning.To explore these opportunities, the present analysis

will consider policy learning processes along threedimensions. Firstly, measures to increase renewableproduction capacity are treated in the next sub-section.In the second sub-section, measures to increase institu-tional capacity are explored, arising from transversalresponses which stress innovation. A third sub-section isdevoted to the argument that there is nevertheless amissing link: namely, that societal policies are neededto enhance social acceptance and engagement.

3.1. Increasing production capacity: Boosting output

As succinctly put by Haas et al. (2004, p. 834) themain focus (of wind policy) must of course always be totrigger investment in new capacity. This is a commonstarting point, and taken in isolation it could suggest arather productivist or even reductionist view of the

J. Szarka / Energy Ppurpose of energy policy. Nevertheless, this aim opensout onto a number of associated objectives includingthe promotion of technological progress, reductionsin costs and prices, and indeed social acceptance. Sofar though, most of the policy debate has concentratedon identifying a fast-track to achieving productioncapacity increases. The main alternative has been tochoose between price-based and quota-based policies. Inthe jargon, these are often termed renewable energyfeed-in tariffs (REFIT) versus renewable portfoliostandards (RPS). The primary characteristic of a price-based system is that a price per kilowatt hour isguaranteed to all targeted suppliers. In a quota-basedsystem, the policy-maker requires that a particularquantity of national output (often expressed as apercentage) comes from dened sources, and puts inplace market mechanisms (usually tradable certicates)to attain that quota. Thus feed-in tariffs deal in pricesand are a form of supply push policy, while RPS dealin quantities and constitute a demand-pull approach.Table 1 summarises the key features of each policyinstrument.The three European nations with the largest

wind power capacityDenmark, Spain and Germany,are also those that implemented REFITs early andconsistently (see Table 2). On the other hand, theBritish RPSthe Renewables Obligation, has notproduced major expansion, but it was only introducedin April 2002. Thus some policy analysts are categoricalin their recommendations, with for example Chabot(2000), Hvelplund (2001), Meyer (2003) and Rickerson(2002) advocating feed-in tariffs on the groundsthat they alone have fostered dramatic capacity growth.Others make more qualied appraisals, pointing todifferential outcomes arising from contextual variationand arguing that the policy mix must evolve in parallelwith technological developments and productioncost reductions (Ackermann et al., 2002; Haas et al.,2004; Lauber, 2004; Reiche and Bechberger, 2004;Sawin, 2004).Over the 20-year history of REFITs, some of their

economic weaknesses have been attended to. So-calledadvanced renewable tariffs offer stepped and degres-sive rates which are location specic, compensating forwind regimes and improvements in turbine technology.These measures address issues such as excessive pricesand undue prots, aiming to set tariffs at levels that arefair and efcient (Chabot, 2001). Examples include theGerman Renewables Energy Sources Act of 2000(Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz), emulated by the Frenchfeed-in law of 2001, and the 2002 Spanish reform.Finally, although one of the major claimed benets ofRPS has been its neutrality in terms of technologychoice, this has been questioned in the light ofexperience. Thus, Mitchell and Connor (2004) andFoxon et al. (2005) have argued that the Renewables

4 (2006) 30413048 3043Obligation fails to encourage the diversication of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

f acto

long

o mar

olicy 3Table 1

Comparison between feed-in tariffs and quota based systems

Feed-in tariffs

Advantages

Guaranteed prices bring investment security and encourages a range o

into market

Competition is encouraged between equipment manufacturers over the

term, which brings costs down and increases prots for operators

Favourable to innovation by targeting technologies

Favourable to a range of technologies from pre-market stages through t

competitiveness

Favourable to boosting output

Differentiation possible in relation to sites and wind regimes

Risks

Risk of setting xed price too high

Risk of loss of control over market growth

J. Szarka / Energy P3044technology: it reinforces the position of wind (a near-market technology), but does not give adequatesupport to emergent technologies such as wave andtidal power. In a similar vein, Meyer and Koefoed (2003,p. 601) argued that one of the problems of greencerticate markets concerns the fairness of competitionbetween renewable technologies at different stages ofdevelopment. To summarise, cross-national comparisonsof the implementation of feed-in tariffs versus quotasystems have improved our understanding of how topromote renewables. In relation to the primary aim ofboosting output, REFITs currently have a better trackrecord, especially for wind power, although the scope forpolicy transfer internationally requires close investigation.But a much broader range of measures than just pricesupport are required in relation to emergent renewables.Consequently, lessons need to be learnt regarding theinstitutional and societal dimensions of the various policyoptions.

Table 2

Wind power capacity in Europe in 2003

MW

EU-15 28,440

Germany 14,609

Spain 6202

Denmark 3110

UK 649

France 239

Source: EWEA, 2004.3.2. Increasing institutional capacity: Innovation and

learning

As noted by Mytelka and Smith (2002, p. 1467)innovation theory over the past 20 years has involved amajor reformulation, with innovation no longer seen asa process of discovery (y) but as a non-linear process of

Quota-based systems

Advantages

rs Drive down costs, as no minimum price is stipulated

Efcient market competition organised via tradable

certicates (nationally, and potentially internationally)

Claimed to be technology neutral, e.g. no need to pick

winners

ket

Favours predictable growth

Allows market growth to be scheduled by timely increases in

quotas

Risks

Fluctuating certicate values and bureaucratic complexities

create uncertainties and barriers

Incentives for exploiting cheapest sites rst (as no

differentiation in relation to sites and wind regime)

Favours large investors, who are few in number and demand

risk premium

4 (2006) 30413048learning. In practice, this involves cross-relating dimen-sions and variables which, at earlier points on thelearning curve, had remained isolated. This leads to theconstruction of systemic approaches, of which some ofthe more relevant examples will next be illustrated.In analysing the recent history of Dutch wind power,

Agterbosch et al. (2003) put forward a policy analysisbased on implementation capacity, conceived as theinterplay between four sets of systemic conditions:technical, economic, institutional and social. Thisapproach allowed them to distinguish different combi-nations of conditions which variously favoured orimpeded the four categories of wind entrepreneurpresent in the Netherlands, namely small privateinvestors, cooperatives, established energy distributorsand new commercial producers. The interest of thismodel is that it allows a dynamic and differentiatedanalysis of the evolution of the wind market. Inparticular, it allows disaggregation of productioncapacity increases by identifying the various categoriesof entrepreneur behind them, and so allows betterunderstanding of motivation, behaviour and outcomes(such as the kinds of installations they prefer). This inturn offers valuable indications on how to tailor policymore efciently in relation to target groups (rather than

adopt a one-size ts all approach).3 However, the

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Szarka / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 30413048 3045What is striking in the German case is thereforethe interconnectedness of different policy strands,which stretch before and beyond the expansion ofproduction capacity per se. This is unlike recent UKand French policies which are merely aimed at in-creasing wind power capacity (albeit to an as yetuncertain extent). However, there is little currentprospect of an industrial policy spin-off in thosecountries, both because of the nature of the policy andbecause of late mover disadvantage: in other words,the dominance of Danish, German and Spanish equip-ment manufacturers is unlikely to be challenged in themedium term.The multi-faceted policy making favoured by the

systemic approach requires considerable institutionalreach, in terms of maintaining a transversal andsustained approach in which different units of govern-ment collaborate over the long-term with market actors.A frequent problem, however, is that rapid, short-termpolicy change disrupts the required level of foresight and

3Enzensberger et al. (2002) likewise advocated detailed analysis of4.staequipment industry.The policy built on and encouraged the sociallegitimacy of wind energy.3.development, by bringing many investors to themarket.An industrial policy component fostered a domestic2.

technological variety in wind turbine construction.In the later phase, it encouraged market creation and1.model tacitly accepts the near-market characteristics ofthe technology as a given, and in concentrating on windentrepreneurs is less informative about the other societalgroups with whom they interact.Policy analysts of the innovation systems school

such as Foxon et al. (2005) have developed a multi-dimensional approach to policy making, which respondsto different types of requirement at the pre-commercial(e.g. both basic R&D and demonstration facilities),supported commercial (near-market) and commercial(market maturity) stages. The value of this approach isto identify systems failures in moving technologiesalong the innovation chain (Foxon et al., 2005) and, inprinciple, correct them. This attention to the innovationchain broadens policy analysis and highlights thelimitations of measures merely favouring near-markettechnologies. Also in the innovation system school,Bergek and Jacobsson (2003) identied a four-strandapproach to German policy towards the wind sectorwhose combination they consider to be the explanationfor its success:

In the early R & D phase, policy encouragedkeholder interests.coordination. Thus the level of institutional capacitybecomes an upstream determinant of policyambition and success. Finally, it is important tonote the stress on legitimacy, as developed byJacobsson and Lauber (2005, p. 17): legitimacy andvisions are shaped in a process of cumulative causationwhere institutional change, market formation andstrengthening of advocacy coalitions are the constituentparts. The conjoint investigation into technologydevelopment and its institutional frames raises theinteresting question of whether the systemic approachcould be extended by incorporation of the societaldimension.

3.3. Increasing social capacity: Bringing society back in

Now that the technical feasibility of wind power hasbeen demonstrated and steadily improved, the questionof its social acceptability has emerged as a key issue.Anti-wind protest groups have achieved prominence inBritain and France (for example, the umbrella organi-sations Country Guardian and Vent de cole`re), but arealso emerging in other countries where wind projects arebeing newly promoted. Space does not allow treatmentof their arguments here,4 but the core contention ofcritics is that wind power entails economic, social andenvironmental costs.Whilst policy-makers have been attentive to the

economic costs of wind power, both as regards theinternalisation of externalities and by attempting todraw up more fair and efcient remuneration systems,less attention has been paid to other costs. Environ-mental costs have re-emerged during the planningprocess in the guise of concerns over landscape, amenityand the preservation of biodiversity. Although socialcosts have been noted by many analysts (and somepoliticians), research is still required to understand thesocietal issues related to wind power, energy from wasteand biomass installations. Moreover, society needs to beinvolved in decision-making processes and to be broughtinto active engagement in renewables projects.Ekins (2004, p. 1092) argued that complexities

surrounding attitudes and values related to both land-based renewables and nuclear need to be understood fora new social contract (y) to be struck. Changes inpublic awareness involve complex processes that go wellbeyond the consumption of well-intentioned but super-cial information campaigns. Cognitive issues, notablythe compatibility of renewables with dominant expecta-tions regarding energy sourcing and use, are nowunderstood to require deepened analysis. Thus Bellet al. (2005) have explored the social gaps lyingbetween apparently high levels of public support forwind power emerging from opinion polls and a low4For discussion, see Szarka (2004).

success rate in UK planning applications.5 Devine-Wright (2005) has noted that research is fragmentedande(20moofrenDr

rm

totally absent from quota schemes, such as the UK

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Szarka / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 304130483046mental policy, namely an approach which is embeddedin a wider balancing up process in which social andeconomic interests are also taken into consideration,and parties other than government parties are allowedto participate in the realisation and implementation ofpolicy, such as businesses, non-governmental organisa-tions and citizens.However, to date much of what is known about the

societal dimension of renewables policy has emerged asa by-product of measures to increase productioncapacity. Specically, the value of feed-in tariffs forthe reduction of social costs has been stressed byadvocates. REFITs have favoured social acceptance byallowing large numbers of small investors to enter thewind market. In Denmark, by 2001 about 150,000households owned or held shares in wind turbines(Lauber, 2002, p. 302). In Germany, some 90% ofturbines are privately owned and approximately 200,000individuals own shares in cooperatives (Rickerson,2002). Sawin (2004, p. 25) offered even higher estimates,claiming that 85% of wind capacity in Denmark arosefrom local initiatives, and that 340,000 Germans haveinvested in wind. But if this ownership trend undoubt-edly connects with higher levels of social acceptance inGermany and Denmark than in Britain or France, thedirection of causality is still unclear. Has socialacceptance, driven by green values, led to stakeholdingin the form of individual or shared ownership? Or hasrent-seeking behaviour, expressed through ownership,promoted acceptance? Of course, the two categories ofmotivation can be mutually reinforcing at the societallevel, making it difcult to disentangle them. Further, aspointed out by Hvelplund (2001, p. 21), REFIT regimes,which are favourable to a large range of new investors,offer an element of social justice based on a localredistribution of prot:

People like wind turbines when they own them andare not annoyed by the noise and visual incon-veniences, especially when getting fair compensation.However, with a system of distant utility or share-holder owners, the local inhabitants get only thedisadvantages and no compensation. This is seen as

5For an analysis of the complexities of the UK planning process, seeTod has failed to adequately explain, rather than merelyscribe, perceptual processes, whilst Strachan and Lal04, p. 568) refers to a mandatory requirement forre research on the social and environmental impactswind. In short, a new paradigm is required withinewables policy, comparable to that identied byiessen and Glasbergen (2002, p. 260) within environ-ke (2005).Renewables Obligation. Such schemes have encourageddevelopers to seek out the windiest and most protablesites, a number of which are in highly valued landscapesand ecologically sensitive locations, meaning that thepotential environmental costs are high. Also, in ruralareas characterised by scattered housingsuch asBrittany and Walessome residents fear the effects ofnoise and falling house prices.Yet the success of feed-in tariffs in bringing small

investors into the market cannot be claimed as auniversal consequence, nor is it likely to continueindenitely. The French REFIT, which was introducedin 2001, prompted a large number of proposals for windturbine installation. But very few involved smallinvestors. In part, this is because the French nancialregulatory system makes cooperative nancing of windinstallation near impossible. But it is also because thenancial requirements are now signicantly greater thanthey were in the 1980s and 1990s, when relatively smallturbines, arranged singly or in clusters, could bepurchased by farmers and cooperatives. The recenttrend has been to rapid upscaling along two dimensions:bigger turbines (in the one or two MW class) arranged inbigger arrays. A small wind farm of 10MW costsaround 10 million euros, with mega-projects of 100MWplus at the planning stage. This scale of investment canonly be undertaken by large companies and consortia.The era of small-scale nancing and ownership of grid-connected wind turbines seems to be ending, so closing aparticular route to building social acceptance.This reinforces the need to nd new ways of

enhancing community participation and stakeholderinvolvement. A number of modes can be identied,but it must be acknowledged that their use has mostlybeen experimental to date. They include:

1. Empowerment through decision-making: where thecommunity votes on whether or not to proceed witha wind farm project e.g. Awel Aman Tawe in Wales.6

2. Local community benefits: where a share of protsfrom wind farms are recycled in local projects via acommunity trust.

3. Local taxation: in France, wind farms, like otherrms, pay a local business tax, known as the taxebuMo6ection is the feeling of injustice engendered by outsides who exploit a local resource and impose burdens,

t offer no community benet or compensation.reover, incentives to social acceptance have beenprorejIt is clear from eldwork contacts with anti-windtesters in Britain and France that one cause ofunjust and increases local political resistance to windpower.See Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001).

5. Economic regeneration: where prots from wind

op

4.

enleacoen

article has been to clarify and argue for an enlargedpolicy frame for the promotion of renewables. The main

gard states can learn from leadersand perhaps viceversa too. The institutional dynamics of innovation

ARTICLE IN PRESSolicy 3Learning over the long-term has allowed a broad-ing of the renewables policy frame. However, therning process has also identied problematic andntroversial trade-offs as regards recourse to differentConclusionsdemocratisation becomes a core question, whichens a particular research agenda.pretofarms are used to stimulate local job creation insectors other than electricity generation.

6. Environmental regeneration: where prots from windfarms are used to improve the ecological quality ofsurrounding land (e.g. in cases where it is degradedand low in biodiversity and/or amenity).

Clearly, there is a need for development andexperience-gathering across these modes, with carefulevaluation of their feasibility and outcomes. Forexample, developers can be reluctant to distributerevenues: partly on the basis that they take the risksand so merit the prots (although procedures forsharing risks with local communities can also bedeveloped) and partly because trust schemes based ona percentage return may be badly received and counter-productive (e.g. interpreted by locals as a cheap buy-off, or by the local council as bribes in exchange forplanning permission). However, these problems maythemselves be part of a wider climate of distrust, whichitself needs to be acknowledged and addressed.This would suggest a need for enhanced consultationand participation procedures, upstream of bringingactual projects forward. An interesting attempt todevelop such a user guide is the Outil dinsertionsociale et territoriale des eoliennes (Instrument for thesocial and territorial integration of wind turbines),prepared by the French Energy Efciency Agency(ADEME, 2002).In summary, a number of societal measures aimed at

enhancing acceptability can be envisaged, though withthe caveat that outcomes depend on the freely consentedcommitment of social actors. Thus analysts such asElliott (2003, p. 235) have called for more social control,arguing that one of the alleged benets of some type ofrenewable energy technology was that it was likely to bemore amenable to local democratic control than the

ceding large-scale, centralised technologies. Routesprofessionnelle, revenue from which can be consider-able for a cash-strapped small commune and can berecycled to nance community schemes.

4. Incentives to local energy consumption: making greenenergy available more readily and/or more cheaply tolocals.

J. Szarka / Energy Pergy sources for electricity production, and torequire much elaboration. And in the societal areapolicy makers are still at the lower end of the learningcurve. A task for the social science research communityis to convince the political and economic actors of theneed to foster societal engagement in a cross-section ofrenewable energy sourcesin a phrase to bring societyback in. Otherwise the idealistic aspirations of thesustainability transition may ounder due to incom-prehension and inertia, or be undermined by top-downcoercion and excessive reliance on market mechanisms.

Acknowledgements

The nancial support of the British Academy for eldwork interviews in Britain, Denmark and France in20032004 is gratefully acknowledged, and respondentsfrom a range of public and private organisations arewarmly thanked for their help. The anonymous revieweris thanked for offering constructive criticism.

References

Ackermann, T., Andersson, G., Soder, L., 2002. Overview of

government and market driven programs for the promotion of

renewable power generation. Renewable Energy 22, 197204.

ADEME, 2002. Outil dinsertion sociale et territoriale des eoliennes,

http://www.ademe.fr (Consulted 12.1.2004).

Agterbosch, S., Vermeulen, W., Glasbergen, P., 2003. Implementation

of wind energy in the Netherlands: the importance of the social-

institutional setting. Energy Policy 32, 20492066.

Aguilar Fernandez, S., 2003. El principio de integracion medioam-

biental dentro de la Union Europea: la imbricacion entrecontention has been that a new policy paradigm isemerging, based on a systemic approach that reachesbeyond economic concerns related to increases inproduction capacity to embrace the institutional dy-namics of innovation processes and the fostering ofsocietal engagement in implementation processes.In these respects, analysis has revealed differential

progress across European nations, meaning that lag-conicting desiderata related to wind power in parti-cular. Now that the technical and economic parametersfor success in achieving production capacity increasesare relatively well-understood, attention is shifting towider issues of institutional capacity and societalcapacity. We are moving closer to policy models thatinter-relate more fully these various dimensions in amanner congruent to the sustainable developmentaspirations espoused by the European Union and itsconstituent states. Consequently, the key aim of this

4 (2006) 30413048 3047integracion y desarrollo sostenible. Revista de sociologia 71, 7797.

Bell, D., Gray, T., Haggett, C., 2005. Policy, participation and the

social gap in windfarm siting decisions. Environmental Politics,

in press.

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., 2003. The emergence of a growth industry: a

comparative analysis of the German, Dutch and Swedish wind

turbine industries. In: Metcalfe, J.S., Cantner, U. (Eds.), Change,

Transformation and Development. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg,

pp. 197227.

Chabot, B., 2000. La nouvelle tarication de lenergie eolienne: gene`se,

description et premie`re analyse. Revue de lenergie 528 (juilleta-

out), 390396.

renewable energy technology. Energy Policy, in press,

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.029.

Lauber, V., 2002. The different concepts of promoting RES-electricity

and their political careers. In: Biermann, F., Brohm, R.,

Dingwerth, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conference

on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change:

Global Environmental Change and the Nation State. Potsdam

Institute fro Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, pp. 296304.

Lauber, V., 2004. REFIT and RPS: options for a harmonised

community framework. Energy Policy 32, 14051414.

Lenschow, A. (Ed.), 2002. Environmental Policy Integration. Greening

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Szarka / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 304130483048method, proposal, data and potential consequences in France. In:

EWEA (Eds.), Wind Energy for the New Millenium. Proceedings

of the European Wind Energy Conference,Copenhagen, Denmark,

pp. 336339.

Collier, U., 2002. European Union energy policy in a changing

climate. In: Lenschow, A. (Ed.), Environmental Policy Integration.

Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. Earthscan, London,

pp. 175192.

Commission of the EC, 1993. Towards sustainability: a European

community programme of policy and action in relation to the

environment and sustainable development. Ofce for ofcial

publications of the EC, Luxembourg.

Devine-Wright, P., 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated

framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy.

Wind Engineering 8 (2), 125139.

Driessen, P.P.J., Glasbergen, P., 2002. New directions in environ-

mental politics. In: Driessen, P.P.J., Glasbergen, P. (Eds.), Green-

ing Society. The Paradigm Shift in Dutch Environmental Politics.

Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 245262.

Ekins, P., 2004. Step changes for decarbonising the energy system:

research needs for renewables, energy efciency and nuclear power.

Energy Policy 32, 18911904.

Elliott, D.A., 2003. Energy, Society and Environment. Routledge,

London.

Enzensberger, N., Wietschel, M., Rentz, O., 2002. Policy instruments

fostering wind energy projectsa multi-perspective evaluation

approach. Energy Policy 30 (9 (July)), 793801.

EWEA, 2004. The current status of the wind industry, http://

www.ewea.org/documents/factsheet_industry2.pdf.

Foxon, T.J., et al., 2005. UK innovation systems for new and

renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems

failures. Energy Policy 33 (16), 21232137.

Haas, R., et al., 2004. How to promote renewable energy systems

successfully and effectively. Energy Policy 32, 833839.

Hinshelwood, E., McCallum, D., 2001. Consulting communities: a

renewable energy toolkit. DTI/Pub URN 01/1067, London.

Hvelplund, F., 2001. Political prices or political quantities? A

comparison of renewable energy support systems. New Energy 5,

1823.

Jacobsson, S., Lauber, V., 2005. The politics and policy of energy

system transformationexplaining the German diffusion ofMeyer, N.I., 2003. European schemes for promoting renewables in

liberalised markets. Energy Policy 31 (7), 665676.

Meyer, N.L., Koefoed, A.L., 2003. Danish energy reform: policy

implications for renewables. Energy Policy 31 (7 (June)), 597607.

Mitchell, C., Connor, P., 2004. Renewable energy policy in the UK

19902003. Energy Policy 32, 19351947.

Mytelka, L.K., Smith, K., 2002. Policy learning and innovation theory:

an interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy 31

(8 (December)), 14671479.

Nollkaemper, A., 2002. Three conceptions of the integration principle

in international environmental law. In: Lenschow, A. (Ed.),

Environmental Policy Integration. Greening Sectoral Policies in

Europe. Earthscan, London, pp. 2232.

Reiche, D., Bechberger, M., 2004. Policy differences in the promotion

of renewable energies in the EU. Energy Policy 32, 843849.

Rickerson, W., 2002. German renewable energy feed-in tariffs policy

overview, http://www.ontario-sea.org/ARTs/Germany/

GermanyRickerson.html (Consulted 10.11.2004).

Sabatier, P.A., 1993. Policy change over a decade or more. In:

Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (Eds.), Policy Change and

Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press,

Boulder, pp. 1339.

Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., 1999. The advocacy coalition

framework: an assessment. In: Sabatier, P. (Ed.), Theories of the

Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 117166.

Sawin, J., 2004. National policy instruments. Policy lessons for the

advancement and diffusion of renewable energy technologies

around the world. International Conference for Renewable

Energies, Bonn, http://www.renewables2004.de, Consulted.

10.11.04.

Strachan, P.A., Lal, D., 2004. Wind energy policy, planning and

management practice in the UK: hot air or gathering storm?

Regional Studies 38 (5 (July)), 551571.

Szarka, J., 2004. Wind power, discourse coalitions and climate change:

breaking the stalemate? European Environment 14 (6 (Novem-

berDecember)), 317330.

Toke, D., 2005. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some

ndings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 33 (12),

15271539.

World Conference on Environment and Development/Brundtland, G.,

1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Chabot, B., 2001. Fair and efcient tariffs for wind energy: principles, Sectoral Policies in Europe. Earthscan, London.

Wind power, policy learning and paradigm changeIntroductionBringing environmental and societal dimensions into energy policyPolicy learning, electricity generation and wind powerIncreasing production capacity: Boosting outputIncreasing institutional capacity: Innovation and learningIncreasing social capacity: Bringing society back in

ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences