New energy projects often come up against unexpected resistance
Carrying out energy projects involving risks is difficult in our society. The situations in Barendrecht (CO2 storage) and Urk (wind turbine farm) make this clear. The European Commission has investigated how to make new energy projects successful. “The ESTEEM tool, the result of this investigation that was coordinated by ECN, has been available to project managers since 2008,” Ynke Feenstra of ECN Policy Studies observes. ESTEEM’s key message is: “Strive for consensus.”
It seems very clear that there is little support in Barendrecht for the underground storage of CO2 from the Shell refinery in Pernis. “But you should not conclude from this that their objections are shared by all the Dutch,” Feenstra points out. “Surveys covering all sections of society have shown that most of the Dutch know very little as yet about the possibility of storing CO2 underground. When people are given satisfactory information about CO2 storage, only a small proportion of them turn out to have serious objections to it. A few years ago, the underground storage of CO2 came up for discussion during a project in Drachten, which also acted as a test for our ESTEEM tool, as it is called. The people of Drachten and other interested parties taking part had no problems with this storage.”
ESTEEM is a necessity for policy makers and project managers all over Europe who are promoting new energy technologies, Feenstra explains. In general, society is in favour of renewable energy. But when specific plans are launched, there are often conflicts that hinder the project. “So the will is there, but problems arise in the execution. We have examined why this happens and what can be done about it.”
They have had enough in Barendrecht
As an example, she guesses at one of the possible reasons why the project in Barendrecht foundered. In recent years this municipality has been intensively affected by the new high-speed railway line (HSL). “The project manager for CO2 storage had nothing at all to do with this,” Feenstra observed. “But the people of Barendrecht may well oppose his plan because they have been ‘lumbered’ for the second time with a major national project; they have had enough for the moment and embrace every argument that could cast doubt on the project. Whatever it is that concerns them, it is a good thing to bring this out into the open early. After all, every location is unique; Barendrecht and Drachten each have their own particular issues.”
The ECN researcher explains that the essence of ESTEEM is to harmonize the visions of the future of all those involved. “It is very important to bring these expectations together. You can then try to create a joint vision of the future. This seems to be a major key to achieving a successful project.”
Feenstra explains that everyone involved has their own vision of the project. They judge the details of the plan on the basis of this vision of the future. In connection with architecture, the project manager, for example, thinks primarily in terms of complying with the building regulations, while the investors think about the return on their money. Local residents think about what the buildings will look like, since they are the ones who will have to look at them. “The project manager needs to know the views of those involved and ensure that they are also all aware of each other’s views. In our approach, there are meetings between the investors, the project manager, the residents, the local authorities, etc. The fact that they have seen each other’s faces, heard their views and given the project manager advice on developing a joint vision of the future contributes to the consensus,” Feenstra observes.
Visions of stakeholders must be understood
Although opportunities for participation are often organized, what ESTEEM recommends is very different. “At these participation evenings, as they are called, the plan presented is already more or less definite,” Feenstra points out. “This is really a sort of one-way traffic. In our case, we involve all stakeholders at a very early stage, when the plans are not yet definite. They can talk to each other during workshops; the traffic goes in several directions. The Drachten local council, for example, explained that in its vision of the future, they might want to use the waste heat from the plant to heat a swimming pool. And the local residents wanted to construct a climbing wall on the outside of the planned cooling tower. It is a great help if such wishes are known at an early stage, as it is then much easier to include them in the plans.”
Feenstra now knows the project manager in Drachten extremely well. He was a mining engineer, who said himself that communication was not his strong point. The ECN researchers, as external consultants, held all the interviews and recorded the visions of the future on paper. He only needed to make enough time free to talk to the ECN researchers and all the stakeholders. In retrospect, he definitely considered this was worth the trouble. In the end, the project did not go ahead for financial reasons. “This was something that had already come out as a critical point in our interviews. Some of the investors’ expectations differed from those of the project manager and they dropped out.”
Independent person responsible for communication
It sounds like a typically Dutch way of running things, in line with their ‘polder’ or consensus philosophy. But Feenstra points out that the ESTEEM tool has also been tried in Hungary, Italy, Iceland and Germany. And it was successful, even in these countries with their own culture of power relationships. “There were problems, of course. The project manager in Iceland was very experienced and had developed his own methods. It was difficult to get him to follow the ESTEEM processes. The Italian manager was well protected and therefore difficult to reach. In the Netherlands, we were fortunate that the manager had no previous experience with this type of project. This meant he was more open to new ideas. This is nothing to do with the polder philosophy.”
Finally, Feenstra refers to the importance of communication in projects of this type. In particular, who is responsible for the communication. “In ESTEEM, we stress that an independent person should be responsible for the communication between the parties. A consultant who has nothing to gain from the project himself, so that his image is spotless. I remember a project in London where a hydrogen plant was planned in a neighbourhood. There were risks involved, but all the safety requirements had been complied with. Nevertheless, the local residents dug their heels in. What was the reason? It was a project for BP and at that time, the oil concern was very unpopular in the neighbourhood. So the criticism was not aimed at the hydrogen, because of the risks, but at the operator. If the project has been carried out along the ESTEEM guidelines, then this dissatisfaction would have come to the surface at an early stage and the project manager could, for example, have asked independent experts to deal with the communication.”
Contact
Ynke Feenstra
ECN Policy Studies
Tel.: +31 (0)224-568262
E-mail: Ynke Feenstra
Info
www.esteem-tool.eu
This ECN-Newsletter is free for publication, under the strict condition that the source is mentioned: www.ecn.nl/en/news
