Offshore Renewable Energy – Stakeholder Perceptions and Public Participation in the New Frontier
and businesses. These MMO regional projects aim to proactively identify which areas will be designated as marine conservation zones.
Recommendations for Moving Forward
Developers and policy makers interested in stakeholder involvement as a way to avoid or ameliorate conflicts between offshore renewable energy and other coastal and marine uses have a wealth of literature to draw from. They can use recommended practices for involving the public generally in integrated coastal zone management,14 MSP,15
in in marine protected areas16 European Marine Strategy Directive.17
and in specific initiatives, such as the They can also draw on
experience in public participation in renewable energy development, although the marine and coastal environment provides a special case. Members of the general public and some stakeholders providing input to offshore renewable energy projects may have more of a cursory knowledge of the marine environment than their counterparts would have of the terrestrial environment.
Firestone and Kempton’s 2007 study on Cape Cod found that many opinions had little connection to facts presented in the Cape Wind’s environmental impact statements, suggesting that opinions are preconceived.1
Objections to terrestrial renewable energy development vary greatly depending on the particulars of the physical environment where projects are being proposed (e.g. rural or urban) and the technology being used (e.g. solar panels or biogas). Similar variance will most likely occur in terms of marine renewable energy projects once technologies and alternatives are better understood.
In any case, project proponents should consider public participation as a major step in project development. Some ways of achieving effective public participation for coastal management include:
• •
early identification of all potentially interested parties;
informing these groups and/or individuals of upcoming decisions and how they may be affected; and
• making full information clear and available in advance of any public forums or gatherings at which comments and input are sought.
The decision-making body should issue its decision(s) in written form, perhaps as findings. An interested reader would learn from these findings what the body’s decision is, on what it is based and any assumptions that went into it. All final decisions should be publicly issued.14,18
For MSP, involvement of the public will depend on the political or legal context, which is something that varies greatly from country to country and is often culturally influenced. Involving stakeholders early on in decisions for MSP will engender and encourage compliance with rules and regulations later on. As with EIA for offshore renewable energy proposals in particular and for coastal zone management in general, at the very least involving stakeholders in a proactive planning process will help all those involved realise the complexity of the marine management area. It will highlight human influences and reveal the underlying (often sector-orientated conflicts). It will also reveal the perceptions and interests that stimulate and/or prohibit the implementation of policies. Stakeholder involvement may generate new options and solutions that otherwise might not be considered. Ultimately public participation and broad stakeholder involvement can expand and diversify the capacity of the planning team through the inclusion of information gleaned from local knowledge and traditions.10
Conclusions
There is no doubt that public opinion and public participation practices will play a role in efforts to solve the climate and energy crises. Many of the technologies being considered by policy-makers, scientists and environmental advocates are new and many of them are being addressed in public forums. Although public opinion has halted several test sites for carbon capture and sequestration in Europe19
and
terrestrial wind farm sites are frequently limited in scope or rejected all together following public debates,20
public opinion has also put
As a big part of decision-making for offshore renewable energy will depend on the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process especially in the US, best practices for public participation in the EIA are also of interest. Scoping is the first step of the EIA process during which the topics to be reviewed and assessed are determined. For such an initial stage, offshore project proponents should:18
1. 2.
Kempton W, Firestone J, Lilley J, et al., Coastal Management, 2005;33(2):119–49.
Santora C, Hade N, Odell J, Ocean & Coastal Management, 2004;47(3–4):141–64.
3. Firestone J, Kempton W, Energy Policy, 2007;35(3):1584–98. 4. 5.
Portman ME, Duff JA, Köppel J, et al., Energy Policy, 2009;37(9):3596–607.
6. Ladenburg J, Dubgaard A, Energy Policy, 2007;35(8):4059–71. 7. Dimitropoulos A, Kontoleon A, Energy Policy, 2009;37(5): 1842–54.
8. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, et al., J Environ Manage, Whitcomb R, Williams W, New York, Public Affairs, 2007:352. 2009;90(5):1933–49. 9.
Buck BH, Krause G, Rosenthal H, Ocean & Coastal Management, 2004;47(3-4):95–122.
10. Ehler C, Douvere F, Paris, UNESCO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme, 2009.
11. US Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington DC, US Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004.
12. Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (IOTC) (2009), Washington DC, A report prepared for The White House Council on Environmental Quality; The White House Office of the Press Secretary, (2010), ‘Executive Order – Stewardship of
MODERN ENERGY REVIEW – VOLUME 2 ISSUE 2
pressure on policy-makers to move forward with renewable energy. This has resulted in policies that support offshore renewables, particularly in Europe. In most developed countries, public participation is an accepted part of decision-making for large projects and certainly for projects in the public domain or those that are financed – even partially – by public funds. Improved decision-making is particularly critical in the coastal zone, especially in near-shore marine areas where there are multiple jurisdictions and myriad stakeholder groups who have traditionally had open access to resources. In democratic societies, development in the marine environment is likely to result in some loss of public access and public trust protections. As such, policy makers are not only wise to consider the public and involve them in decisions, but they have an obligation to do so. n
the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. Available at:
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order- stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes.
13. Eastern Research Group, Available at:
www.csc.noaa.gov/ publications/MSP_Stakeholder_Analysis.pdf.
14. Cicin-Sain B, Knecht R, Washington DC, Island Press, 1998. 15. Pomeray R, Douvere F, Marine Policy, 2008;32: 816–22. 16. Dalton TM, Conservation Biology, 2005;19(5):1392–1401. 17. Fletcher S, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2007;54:1881–6. 18. Portman M, Marine Policy, 2009;33:332–38. 19. Haszeldine RS, Science, 2009;325:1647–52. 20. Walker G, Land Use Policy, 1995;12(1):45–59.
117 •
• •
communicate clearly, fully and on a level that is understandable by the public and stakeholders;
seek broad-based participation that be as inclusive as possible; lead a process for prioritisation of topics proposed for assessment;
• support ‘three-way’ learning that is based on knowledge from local stakeholders and resource users, experts and previous/parallel experience(s); and
• consider various alternatives early in the EIA process.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124