1. Socio-political acceptance: facilitating market and community acceptance instead of grand designs for wind power. Seminar Wind Power 6 May 2009 University St Andrews Maarten Wolsink Geography, Planning & International Development Studies University of Amsterdam

3. 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

4. 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

5. Focus on local acceptance outdated; Impediments in two other dimension of Social Acceptance Wüstenhagen e.a., 2007. Energ Pol 35, 2386

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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?)

11. Two examples of Grand Designs General: State policy Energy 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

12. ‘Cape Wind’ project at Nantucket sound Cape Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 2008

13. However …… project failed Again: 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.

14. Nearshore US: Nantucket Sound and Delaware Bay.

15. ‘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

16. ‘most environmentally sound’ alternative

17. ‘Image-quality’ alternative 2

18. Chosen ‘alternative’ (by Governmental architect)

19. Acceptability locations: as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’ Wolsink Land Use Policy, forthcoming

20. Acceptability locations: as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’

21. 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