Wind power, capacity building and rural development – what if no
one turns up?
Introduction
Renewable energy resources are such as sun-‐, wind-‐, biomass-‐, wave-‐, and geothermal heat energy. The situation in Sweden today is believed to be politically unanimous in terms of using the potential of these resources. The expansion of wind power resource exploitation concerns the inland of Laholm municipality, mainly the areas around Knäred, Hishult, Oxhult, Putsered och Mästocka.1
The development of large scale wind power projects exemplify the planning dilemma of understanding political visions of global warming, project planning, implementation, social
acceptance and sustainable rural development. Human geography is a scientific discipline concerned with the relation between man, nature and society and therefore has a suitable toolbox for
understanding of problems in that particular field.
The development within wind power energy has developed from a small scale production to a large industry in Sweden. At the moment Laholms municipality is experiencing the focus for a large scale wind power project. Laholm municipality is situated in the southwest of Sweden in between Goteborg and Malmo/Copenhagen. The large wind power project target rural areas east of the coastal zone.
Map1. Laholm muncipality in Sweden.
1 See the Swedish governmental support for planning for wind power
(http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/9023/a/80457); the Swedish Parliament proposal for wind power (prop.
2005/06:143) (http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2448/a/47768); the ministry of Environment’s view on sustainable development and energy efficiency (http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/6508/a/60394) ; (Prop. 2005/06:143) (http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/60661) ; appointment of a renewal of the coordination of the double appealing problem and goal conflicts between planning- and Environment legislation code
(http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2448/a/67186); the expansion of wind mills in Sweden from 900 to 6000 (see
Photo 1. The west coast of Sweden in Laholm municipality.
The coast area with its long and beautiful beaches with sand dunes is regarded as one among the most attractive recreational areas in Sweden. Further east the landscape changes towards farming. Even further eastwards a highland wild forest area expands into the rural areas of Laholm, highly appreciated by European tourists searching for experiencing rather unexploited forest areas with small lakes and a water system suitable for canoeing. Rural areas east of the coast is characterized by a negative migration trend, not for the reason that there are few jobs offered by small scale industry, but for the fact that it is not regarded as attractive to live in these rural areas.
Map 2. Inland recreational areas in Laholm municipality.
http://www.laholm.se/upload/mil/SBK/%C3%96versiktsplan/Vind/Vind_plan_20071009.pdf
Map 3. Areas defined as suitable for wind power plants.
http://www.laholm.se/upload/mil/SBK/%C3%96versiktsplan/Vind/Vind_plan_20071009.pdf
The geographies of Knäred
The Laholm inland has experienced an earlier process with energy exploitation from Lagan. The project started in the beginning of this century and the aim was to produce electricity to Sweden’s third largest city Malmö. The construction of dams forced farmers from their land and relations between landowners was strained when companies bought up land in order to produce electricity. Memories of the brutal water exploitation are still vivid and people can see the threat from the wind power industry, who acts in similar ways when chasing round in the woods for contracts with
individual landowners. The relation between local communities and Laholm municipality is described with the help of a pun. People in Knäred say that it is twice the distance from Laholm to Knäred, compared to the distance between Knäred and Laholm.
Aim of the study
The focus in this study is directed towards processes of implementation of visions to practice, where environmental goals are to be fulfilled and lead to a sustainable development for a local community, and with that focus follows new questions of how this is done in practice.
The aim of this study was to follow the processes involved in the wind power projects in Laholm municipality, by investigating the wind power discourses in the view of landscape theories concerned with the relation between man, nature and society, and to put concepts and arguments into action by dropping them to actors and networks, through action research.
Concepts used where: Community benefits Collaborative projects
The study tried to answer the following questions:
2. What does the arguments concerning wind power consist of and how can they be explained related to the use of resources? 3. What social and economical consequences may the wind power projects have for the community?
4. What are of concerns for the researcher who is intervening through action research? 5. How did the collaborative and deliberative processes succeed in the planning
implementation process?
The study shows that when resources are at stake in a local community, it will activate and accentuate the boundaries between different groups.
ACTION RESEARCH
Researchers have an important role to play as intervener in the processes between local
communities, authorities and companies. Action research Kurt Lewin (1952). The researcher can help as collector analyzing opinions and values regarding natural resource projects. The researcher can also analyze and present experiences from other similar projects to local community as well as to authorities and companies involved in the process. The researcher can also contribute as leader of processes by staging learning processes in groups, handling conflicts and managing creative development processes.
The most evident problem in this study was the difficulties in reaching out to the local actors. Efforts were instead made to visit them in other forums where they met of other reasons. An action
research strategy was therefore to be where things is happening and to make room for issues of development in these contexts, for instance on Internet, in school, on local meetings, and in interviews (Jackson, 1993:211; Smith, 1993:305; Elwood, 2007:330. See also Cloke 2002, Massey 2004, Valentine 2005, Lawson 2007; Cahill, Sultana and Pain’s, 2007; Elwood, 2007).
Although the interest for wind power in Laholm seems to have reached a stage where the loudest land owner voices claim to want more of the benefits from wind power energy, it is important to produce plans for action, knowledge and to lead the processes of local development in Sweden. I worked together with a rural developer from Laholm in this project. She contacted me and asked if I wanted to do the study, and, at the same time, warned me of the political fight that would be caused by this project. There was early an expectation that I should go beyond a mere understanding of the phenomena of wind power, in terms of whether local members of Knäred and its vicinities were for or against the project. We agreed on a research project that would move away from blocking issue of for or against, and try to move issues on local development within the wind power project on the agenda. She was to open doors in the local community and my task was to manage discussions towards what possibilities the wind power project could mean for the community.
Since I was interested in the travel of concepts within and between networks and agents, I took the opportunity to plant a particular concept when interviewing actors, and tried to follow them and see how they circulated. The concept in question was a specific legal community benefit rule applied in water electricity production, not yet applicable to wind power, but similar enough to be converted into wind power. The interview was thus used as a way of contributing to a changing the idea of a rewarding system, from benefits to individual landowners to benefits to the community.
From the beginning I may have had my thoughts in the direction of pseudo participatory research (see Selener, 1997), but I became more and more involved since I realized that empowerment goes through leaning and PAR is a tool to make participants learn (Balcazar, 2004:20).
METODS
• Interviews
– Planting win-‐win concepts (a particular community benefit ”Bygdemedel”) and arguments
As part of the intervention work I actively planted the idea with community funds (bygdemedel). I asked what actors thought of it and tried to keep track of their opinions and how they started to use these concepts in other contexts. One of the representatives of the energy companies involved in the wind power project in Laholm was very negative in the beginning, but actively used the term after a couple of months when negotiating with a group of local people over land contracts.
The active planting of concepts that aims at effecting through information and reflection takes time. Ideas must be internalized and given opportunity to be situatedly used. The difference between informing and actively planting concepts is that the basic idea with information is that actors are to decide if and how they want to use arguments and facts. By actively planting concepts the aim is pushed further ahead towards action and intervention.
Seminars and discussions • Web based blog tool • Participant observations
In order to increase engagement, most of all from younger citizens in Laholm inland, we created a web based blog site where local members could say their meaning. The hope was also to analyze the ways that they argued about the wind power project, in order to understand human relations to their landscapes. Another thought with the blog site was that people would use it just as much as to say their meaning, as they could increase their knowledge on how other people understand the same issue, and that we maybe could achieve an auto-‐qualifying knowledge effect. Finally, we thought that the blog would show a more nuanced balance between the ones that where negative towards the project and those who saw it as a positive one for the community. Often, the negative voices are strong and loud and people easily get the impression that everyone has a negative view. The blog site illustrates this multiple and nuanced view on the wind power project, there are not fewer people for than against.
THE NIMBY-‐ONTOLOGY
Wind power planning is complex since it involves planning-‐ and decision processes on European, national and local level (Breukers, 2006:21). Although trends in planning focus on acceptance and
local participation, planners are surprised of resistance against wind power plants. Pasqualetti (2000) says that projectors assumed that human would accept wind power plants because they where environmentally sound, but instead resistance became severe in many places.
Studies of wind power have produced knowledge of the gap between positive public attitudes in general and negative behavior related to specific projects. This paradoxical gap is described as the ”Not-‐In-‐My-‐Backyard”, or ”nimby” explanation (Thayer and Freeman, 1987; Walker, 1995; Wolsink, 1988; 1990; Hammarlund, 2002; Breukers, 2006). This explanation is based on the idea that humans maximize their own self-‐interest by not contributing to wind power development. Wolsink (1990; 1994, in Breukers 2006:41-‐42) explains this paradox as a question of perspective; it depends on who defines common good interests. Often, common good interests are seen as standing above local interests. The NIMBY explanation is found less valid in other ways as well, see Wolsink, 1994. Western Europe local government entails the idea of representative or indirect democracy. Citizens thus have the possibility to react on planning proposals, which local authorities decides whether to consider or not. Since many reactions are negative, Breukers (2006) concludes that it may be tempting not to involve local people, because it might delay the process.
The result of the non-‐involvment of local actors are mutual blockings in what is called DAD-‐
approaches (Decide-‐Announce-‐Defend) which consumes a lot of energy on conflicts. The base for a DAD-‐approach is that local knowledge and interests are not seen as useable or legitimate, and they originate from a source that lack true knowledge of the character of a problem. Planner’s response on the resistance of wind energy projects are thus often explained as “nimbyism”, humans self interest and patriotism (Wolsink, 1994). The situation is also blocked because it is difficult to accept that there are strong emotional bonds between humans and their landscapes, which in turn requires advanced handling of the development processes when resources are targeted.
In the project that I have followed there are several institutional and traditional procedures that still makes it difficult to see that rural development strategies must focus on the local participation, collaborative planning and decision making, instead of competitive bargain (see Moseley 2003; Ronnby, 1995; Breukers, 2006).
Arguments used by different actors describe these boundaries related to land owners and others, between those who primarily see the landscape as a landscape for production and those who see it as a landscape for recreation. The activated boundaries make it difficult for some actors to openly state their position in the wind power issue. Processes of change take time, and it is also concluded that early local involvement and slow processes may facilitate acceptance of these landscape changes. The study shows the importance of considering the relations between humans and their landscapes and that the key to managing change goes through this understanding. Management of
implementation processes are ideally strategically planned for as involving the complex relations between man and nature, rather than presupposing NIMBY explanations. Processes of change takes time and therefore the aim of leading processes should work cautiously with establishing local participation and encouragement.
It is likely that the wind power projects will produce possibilities for local companies if the plants are put into place, and if they produce the estimated power planned for. However, these changes are also dependent on the local community, the municipality, the region and the state, through willingness to support with knowledge, information, strategic plans, economic support for
entrepreneurs, and general capacity building processes. It is also likely that some people will chose other places to live in, but that new people will chose to move to the community. It is therefore important to map and make use of these new builders in the process of capacity building for a sustainable community.
RESULTS – A FAILURE BUT LESSONS LEARNT
The main result from this study is, partially the report of a failure. This failure was difficult to foresee, maybe because I do not have any earlier experience from PAR or interactive research? But I also think that implicit in the idea of collaborative/actions/interactive research is the entailing of a desire to achieve a best practice or to prove that a project did mean a difference to a community. Best practice can be research designs, methodologies and strategies that facilitated the participatory research.
Although a failure in the sense of achieving collaborative processes is not the same as a failure to interact, to produce networks, and to be present. Failure in this project is something that is measured against the expectations from Laholm municipality, who was behind the initiative to call for me as a researcher in the project. Their expectations were that I would facilitate the exploitation of wind power in a place where an earlier exploitation of water power had set deep scars in the memories of people.
With that expectation in mind the main goal was to try to avoid the issue of “for or against” the wind power project, and instead call to seminars and dialogues with focus on how the wind project could be of benefit for the community in terms of enterprising and local development. So, I myself and a person responsible for rural development in Laholm set off and made attempts to produce
collaborative and participation with individuals and groups in the community with the help of these meetings, a web based blog site (www.inlandsvinden.se), and with mail boxes in the village centre, it was very difficult to make the local community participate. The result was that people just did not react. Very few came to the meetings. Very few revealed their opinions on the blog, even though they were anonymous. Not even the community society encouraged their members to participate in meetings for discussions. Although I did consider participants as social actors, with a voice, and an ability to decide, reflect, and capacity to participate fully in the research process (Balcazar, 2004:22), I never really got the chance to prove it in the way that I wanted.
Collaborations between community members and researchers are supposed to affect both communities and research quality (Taylor, 2004). We surely faced challenges and the community
members also did so in this collaborative attempt. It is very difficult to create a collaborative approached work with local resource mobilization, consensus building and involvement when the local community does not show any willingness to take part.
We called for several meetings with local entrepreneurs, but only a few of them showed up to meetings. One conclusion was that it was extremely difficult to get reactions on intended meaning, it was easier to ignore. One reason for this was probably that since some of the land owners were in the process of getting good offers from wind power companies, and when resources are at stake, differences between groups in the community become sharper. Some neighbors will have the means to buy a new car every year while others have to accept a view of more than 100 meter high wind power generators produce a reluctance to reveal opinions about the project. The result is a very suspicious and careful atmosphere where those who are against keep their view for themselves and they are probably afraid for revealing their view on public meetings.
The place specific traditions and history with exploitation of water resources for electricity production. There is a problem with finding spaces to work with participants – production of one-‐ way-‐directed information is always tempting.
It was not surprising when I heard about discussions and protests started after the ending of the project and legal decisions were made, although I had hoped that there were no more questions to be sorted out.
HISTORY
My collaborative role was probably connected with authorities, confirmed at least by one informant who believed that I was sent out to persuade people to accept the project. A deeply rooted distrust made it difficult to engage citizens to participate as active partners in the creation, delivery, and refinement of services, program evaluation, education, data collection, interpretation of findings, and dissemination of products and research findings (see Taylor, 2004).
One of the principles of PAR is that problems originates in the community/organization itself and is defined, analyzed, and solved by the participants (Balcazar, 2004:23). But I realized that the problems in Laholms municipality involved a deeper understanding of history, culture and the power relations between the rural communities and Laholm city and that these relations were embedded in the development of the rural community.
Not only did the history of water power exploitation make it difficult to produce trust and
engagement. Although I made efforts, there never where any egalitarian partnership because many of the citizens in the forests of Laholm inland have chosen this remote place of living for the very reason that they do not want to take part. Many of the members of Laholm community do not want to be engaged in development of the community, they have chosen this place to live in because it makes them independent. Many of them survive on small means, produce their own energy for heating, hunt, have part time jobs, they live on forestry, tourism and many commute to larger cities to work, but have chosen the private rural life.
In contrast to the traditional models of research in which professionals generate their own ideas of what research questions to ask or what services clients need, participatory approaches charge the
participants themselves with the task of sharing the research questions and developing the services Taylor et al 2004:4).
NON-‐PARTICIPANT AND IGNORANCE
Pragmatic ignorance of intended meaning (dialogue is avoided) – pragmatic extended meaning (dialogue is necessary)
INTERVIEWS – “Do not go anywhere in these woods without telling someone where you are”. My strategy was to get involved by learning to know people who could present me to others and so on, when doing interviews. An elderly man called me and asked if I had the opportunity to come to his place for a talk about the wind power project. After having difficulties in finding his place on narrow roads I finally arrived at his farm. The atmosphere was quite tense and a bit uncomfortable when he showed me around his farm. It was first after he understood that I was not sent out from the municipality in order to “correct” his view on wind power that we got into a conversation about what he thought about the project. I learnt a lot about the reaction when the world “out there” is reaching into the world “in here”, with all threats on the environment and economy. The response to many from the outer world coming proposals for action in order to save the community or the world are easily converted to an exclusion of that outer world.
So, the paradox with the interview was that, instead of empowering the individual and facilitating political change (see Balcaza; Fabricio et al, 2004; from Reason & Bradbury, 2001), his reaction to my suggestion that he should engage in the matter was a more determined withdraw even further and not revealing to others what he thought about the wind project.
When I returned back and reported to my rural development colleague she told me never to visit anyone in these forests without telling someone where I was. The area is not always safe, especially not if visitors represents authorities. In such a setting it may be difficult to simply think that this is a matter of combining social invitation, education and social action in order to define and address social problems.
LESSON LEARNT
Conclusions are that the project should have taken longer time Information on more community benefits
A more prepared planning – companies had where way ahead
Participant involvement kan klassificeras efter hur mycket kontroll samarbete och kommitment partners har – från ingen PAR till hög konttroll och andel samarbete och commitment. ( Balcazar et al, 2004:19).
The intention of the project should be ENABLING more than REWARDING – DIALOGUE rather than INFORMATION
Phases of implementation – from master-‐apprentice to interactivity to control
Collaboration as situated enactment of democratic participation and entrepreneurship – what we do in seminars in Knäred is not directly possible to apply to real life situations, but the practice of enabling is useful in real life situations – an imaginative state of combining different elements! Joint learning is a time consuming process. More time was needed.
Development of strategies on how to stimulate and use creative humans in rural areas Web based planning instruments – as in planning your kitchen
A better preparedness with a group of collaborative and supportive assistants (researchers, planners, experts) and preparation of constructive community benefits and effective capacity building from wind power projects (courses in project leadning, process leadning, tourist management, social entrepreneurship etc)
Local and regional authorities where present during the process, but it is always possible to develop a better public support for initiating, inspiring, stimulating and coordinating projects.
Litterature
Reason & Bradbury, 2001 Handbook of action research, Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.
Jason, Leonard. A.; Christopher B. Keys; Yolanda, Suraez-‐Balcazar; Reneé. R. Taylor; Margrete, I. Davis.Washington. Participatory community research. Theories and Methods in Action. 2004. American Psychological Association.
Selener, 1997, Participatory action research and social change , 2nd edition Itchaca, NY Cornell participatory Action Research Network, Conernell Univerisyt)
Action Resarch and Interactive Research Beyond practice and theory. Kurt Aagard Nielsen, Lennart Svensson (eds), 2006. Shaker publishing BV, Maastricht.
Lise Drewes Nielson, 2006”The methods and implications of action research”, in Action Resarch and Interactive Research Beyond practice and theory. Kurt Aagard Nielsen, Lennart Svensson (eds), 2006. Shaker publishing BV, Maastricht.
