Changing institutional landscapes for wind power implementation. an international comparison

Aberdeen, February 21st 2008Seminar: “Explaining National Variations

in Wind Power Deployment”Sylvia Breukers

Utrecht Universitys.breukers@geo.uu.nl

Table of Contents:

• Seminar topic• International comparison: findings • International comparison:

concluding remarks• Seminar topic: international

comparisons & conceptual frameworks

Seminar topic: International comparative research

on deployment of wind power

• How to account for variations across countries and regions?

• Conceptual frameworks used to study wind energy developments?

Historical new-institutionalismDefinition institutions: Formal and informal rules, norms, patterns

that structure behaviour and interaction.

• Relate broad institutional conditions to local level contexts

• Address both purposive actors and/in relation to changing institutional contexts

Institutions & actors: mutually constitutive

International comparison without losing sight of what happens at the (local) level of implementation

Research focus: • Wider structural conditions affecting

local level approach of planning and project development

• Configuration of stakeholders at various levels and in policy formation

Multiple embedded case study

1992 1995 1998 2000 2004 2006

Netherlands 57 257 364 442 1080 1557*

England ±15 72 90 123 184 570*

North Rhine

Westphalia

±18 110 325 644 2053 2420

* Including near-and offshore

Wind power implementation: large differences (MW):

1. Stakeholders’ arguments about whether and how wind power is to be implemented - refer to structural conditions, relations and

conflicts 2. Institutional context & changes: policy

domains:a) Energy domain b) Spatial Planningc) Environmental Policy

3. Policy community: early formation network; consolidation; grass-roots; government commitment; mobilisation support

Single case level:

Combined, per case: chronological account of how wind power implementation occurred through the interactions between actors, and how support has been mobilised at various levels (local to national) within the context of changing institutional arrangements

In addition: Q-sort analysis across the cases

Cross-comparison:

1. Differences or similarities between the cases in institutional capacity building?

2. How to account for variation?3. How does this variation relate to

variation in implementation? 4. What other influences?

Some findings:

Similarities England and Netherlands:

• Early focus national policy on large-scale• National policy favored large developers

(e-sector) • Little recognition for local social,

economic, environmental and planning aspects

• Developers’ strategy: few incentives to involve local stakeholders

No positive conditions for local project planning created; little support mobilised at local level.

Effects of early choice:• Many project proposals never built• Resistance from early onwards

Netherlands, half/end nineties: Unintended consequence liberalisation:

increase in locally owned projects and implementation

England, since 2002: New policies, new expectations, problems

at the level of implementation remain

Success North Rhine Westphalia (NRW),

in terms of: • Installed capacity (MW) • Social acceptance of wind projects

Important factors:

• State and federal government supported local initiatives instead of channelling resources to the energy sector 

• Feed-in tariff system: diversity, mobilisation private capital and of commitment (many projects in local ownership)

• Broad local commitment → no early rise opposition

• Early institutionalisation of environmental concern in society and politics

• Succes turbine industry & related → broadening of support

 Effects of early policy focus:• Many project proposals realised• Early opposition precluded

Successful mobilisation of support: • Not only environmental, but also economic

and industrial interest • At different levels (from local to the national)

Wind energy as: • An environmentally acceptable energy source • A new economic sector • A socially acceptable alternative for

conventional energy generation

NRW later: • Fewer locally based projects• Local support waning, resistance

increasing,• Decrease in implementation

→ but at a moment when an impressive level of installed capacity had already been reached.

Compared to England and the Netherlands: in NRW more has been achieved in a situation of less conflict

Social and political embedding are crucial conditions for successful

market development.

Similarities 3 cases: high level of general public support but

resistance against specific projects ( ‘Gap’ public attitudes - local behaviour).

• Participative planning – beyond formal consultation – exception rather than rule

• Limited inquiry into the motivations behind opposition

• Trend to prioritize ‘the common good’ over local level concerns

Similarities --> underestimation importance local level-dynamics.

Formal consultation on ready-made plans - insufficient to provide room for considering:

• Location and size • Landscape values (subjective)• Local social-economic interests

(sharing costs and benefits)

Q-sort analysis: 4 perspectives across the three cases

Similar issues across cases:• Landscape values• Participation in project planning, • Role of local authorities• Taking seriously the motivations behind opposition

Q-sort analysis also differences:

England: most support for hierarchic perspective & most support for critical perspectives - polarisation

NRW: most support for perspective that does acknowledge the relevance of local context

Ignoring or discarding diverging interests at the local level is not helping the social acceptance of and commitment to wind projects

Participation:

• Relevant knowledge stakeholders

• Democratic legitimacy (process and outcome)

• Legitimacy through sharing costs and benefits (financial participation)

Seminar Topic: international comparative research on deployment of wind power

• Connecting broader institutional context to local-level achievements is useful to understand variations across countries/regions.

• Social acceptance at level of implementation is a necessary condition for a transition towards a more sustainable energy supply.

…because renewables are contested

International comparative research on deployment of wind power:

•Similarities in issues across & within cases

•Similarities in mechanisms across cases

Conceptual frameworks used to study wind energy developments?

• Opportunities & limitations to combine research?• Wind energy developments as part of broader systemic changes - understanding transitions towards a more sustainable energy supply

…………Thank you