DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF A MULTI-CRITERIA SOFTWARE DECISION ANALYSIS TOOL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
(Project No: NNE5-1999-NNE5/273/2001)
Workshop on the 31th of January 2004
Evaluation of RES projects in the Netherlands
Participants
University of the Aegean
Prof. Dias Harambopoulos
Dr Heracles Polatidis
Ms. Eleni Eleftheriadou
Free university Amsterdam
Dr Frank Bruinsma
Mr. Ron Vreeker
Ms. Eveline van Leeuwen
Autonomous University of Barcelona
Prof. Giuseppe Munda
Ms. Daniela Russi
Mr. Gonzalo Jimenez
EXERGIA S.A.
Dr. George Vlondakis
Province of Utrecht
Ms. Dorien van Cooten
Province of Flevoland
Mr. Jan van den berg
Netherlands Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment
Mr. Geert Draaijers
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management North Sea
Directorate
Mr. Ronald van den Heuvel
Vogelbescherming Nederland; Dutch Partner in Birdlife International
Mr. Bert Denneman
Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research
Mr. Hugo Gordijn
Agenda
10.00 Start of Workshop
Introduction of Participants
Introduction to the MCDA-RES project by Frank Bruinsma
10.15-12.30 Presentations of Stakeholders in Dutch Windmill projects
G.P.J. Draaijers, Public Consultation in EIA procedures
R. van den Heuvel, Wind energy in the Netherlands; Public Consultation
J. van den Berg, Windenergy in the Province of Flevoland; a bottom-up approach
D. van Cooten, Windenergy in the Province of Utrecht; a top-down approach
B. Denneman, The view of Birdlife International on Participation
H. Gordijn, Windmill Project Appraisal; a French Perspective
12.30-13.00 Lunch
13.00-14.30 Presentation of multicriteria methods included in the MCDA-RES toolkit
R. Vreeker, Regime Analysis and the Flag Model
G. Munda and D. Russi, The Role of MCA in Participatory Processes
H. Polatides, Windmill Project Appraisal; a participatory case study (Right click here and select "Save target as" to download Powerpoint presentation)
14.30-16.00 Plenary discussion; the suitability of methods in RES investment appraisal
16.00 Close of workshop
This workshop was organised to bring together the various stakeholders involved regarding windmill projects in the Netherlands. The workshop formed a platform for the stakeholders to reflect on the usefulness of the MCDA-RES toolkit, with a focus on the included multicriteria evaluation methods. Main outcome of the meeting is the gathering of information regarding the end-user requirements. In the morning session the various stakeholders gave a short presentation about the way public participation in their view should be incorporated in a decision-making process regarding RES- investment
The MCDA-RES project is about the multicriteria evaluation of Renewable Energy Source investment. The project has a particular focus on the role of stakeholders in such processes. The main outcome will be a toolkit that will be made available to non-experts in the field of multicriteria analysis but interested in RES-planning. This toolkit will have the form of a website which will be kept up-to-date on a regular basis. Furthermore, at the end of the project the results will be presented on a CD-rom.
In short the 8 steps of a Multicriteria Decision Analysis process was explained by Mr. Bruinsma. These 8 steps include:
Problem description
Identification of the stakeholders
Creation and definition of alternatives
Establishment of criteria
Data collection
Selection of the MCDA-technique
Model application
Stakeholder analysis of results
In this workshop the focus was on the selection of an appropriate method for RES investment appraisal and the end-user requirements for such a method. At the moment the MCDA-RES toolkit includes: Regime analysis, NAIADE, PROMETHEE and the Flag Model.
Comments by the participants:
Are the methods straightforward in their application. Are the methods very rigid or are they able to consider the emotions of various stakeholders involved?
In general many stakeholders can be distinguished in an RES-investment process. Does the toolkit include methods for selecting the appropriate stakeholders and guidelines to communicate with them?
Presentation by Geert Draaijers; Public Consultation in EIA Procedures
See for an overview of the presentation the file Draaijers.ppt. The presentation started with a description of the Dutch EIA procedures and the role of the Commission in the procedure. The main goal of the EIA procedure is to provide information neeede to allows full consideration of interests in decision on plans and projects which have a significant environmental impact.
The Commission is supervises EIA procedures and advises applicants and competent authorities during the process. The advice is focussed on:
Scoping guidelines: which topics should be dealed with in an EIA report?
Review: has the essential environmental information for decision-making been presented?
If requested, the Commission issues advice at other moments in the process and on projects for which an EIA is not compulsory
The Commission regards principles of good governance as the main foundation for an EIA. This means that the process and reports are transparent, stakeholder participation is accounted for and the quality of the information is protected.
What kind of tools does the Commission use to identify relevant stakeholders?
The Commission is not responsible for the selection of relevant stakeholders. However, if they notice that a certain stakeholder is not involved they advise the executing authority or applicant to include the stakeholder in the EIA process.
Presentation by Ronald van de Heuvel; Wind Energy in the Netherlands; Public Consultation
See for an overview of the presentation the file Heuvel.ppt. Currently no wind farms are established on the Dutch Continental Shelf. However, a permits are issued for two projects. Q7-Wp a wind farm producing 120 MW will be realised 23 km offshore in 2004 or 2005. The application for the NSW demonstration project (100 MW) is still in progress. This wind farm will be placed 8 km offshore and will be realised in 2005. The Dutch government has commited itself to generate 6000 MW in offshore conditions. However, offshore wind location policy is still in development. Until new legislation is effective no applications for wind farms will be accepted. Experiences with public participation:
Public participation results in a better permit
Public participation may lead to:
Increased social acceptance
Increased social resistance
Increased length of decision-making process (at least 9 months)
Decision-making process takes many years; during the process the situation often changes, change of techniques, change of policy and plans.
Off-shore wind energy projects are new projects and therefore not much experience does exist with EIA’s and public participation in such projects.
Effects on nature and birds are not fully clear now, they will become more clear after a first farm has been exploited
Presenation of Jan van den Berg; Flevoland Wide and Pure That Fits Windenergy
See for an
overview of the presentation the file
Berg.ppt.
The Dutch agreement “
BLOW” states that the province of Flevoland is obliged to generate 220
MW of renewable energy in 2010. This has some implications for the
spatial planning process.
The Province of Flevoland has met her obligations concerning 220 MW, but is still its expanding energy generating capacity.
This is due to the fact that Flevoland has very good conditions for wind energy production. Furthermore, a lot of farmers are willing built new windmills and old windmills are replaced by larger and more efficient ones. The province of Flevoland just facilitates these initiatives by adjusting spatial plans and management guidelines.
On average the planning process for windmill projects takes 8- 10 years. Most time is consumed by activities prior to the conduction of an formal EIA. However, delays in the process are often caused by conflicts between participants and uncertainty regarding new government policies. Expectations for the future:
Current windmill farms will ask for substantial more space and opportunities to develop additional farms.
Windenergy will grown to an innovative with spin-offs for other industrial sectors.
Repowering and replacement of old equipment is necessary. This offers opportunities to reconsider the interests of stakeholders. Furthermore, the new windmills will, due technological developments, be more energy efficient and will produce more electricity.
Additional measures are need to correct the spatial impacts of windmills.
Public consultation and cooperation is necessary for a successful development of wind energy generating activities. Communication is essential.
Methods and models to cope with the (conflicting) interests of stakeholders is essential. This applies especially to the conflicts between private developers and spatial planning authorities.
Presentation Dorien van Cooten; Windenergy in the Province of Utrecht
See for an
overview of the presentation the file
Cooten.ppt.
The Dutch agreement “
BLOW” states that the province of Utrecht is obliged to generate 50 MW
of renewable energy in 2010. However, due to the spatial situation in
the province it is difficult to find suitable locations. Furthermore,
much public resistance does exist (NIMBY behaviour). This resistance
results from the lack of open spaces in the province. People are afraid
that windmills will disturb location which are essential for birds to
breed and which serve as landmarks. In order, overcome these problems,
Utrecht uses a top-down approach, which includes public hearings and
consultation rounds.
An interesting idea is to make the local people shareholders instead of stakeholders. In Denmark and Belgium this approach has been applied several time and resulted in less public resistance and NIMBY behaviour.
Comments from the participants
Why did you sign the “BLOW” agreement whithout consulting the stakeholders?
The stakeholders agreed about the amount of energy to be produced by the province. However, due to NIMBY behaviour, they did not want to have a large-scale site in their neighbourhood. The province was more or less obliged to sign the agreement. Otherwise, the national government would have decided where the mills would be located.
Presentation Bert Denneman; Birdlife International
See for an overview the file Denneman.ppt. The main priority of Birdlife International is the legal protection of species and habitats, especially when areas are internationally recognised as Important Bird Areas (IBA). However, politicians are stubborn therefore sometimes Birdlife International has to go to court, especially when authorities do not seem to be aware of some legislation.
In case of wind energy projects, Birdlife International is involved in the protection of IBAs, informing the public, development of policies.
Conclusions with regard to participation and decision making processes
The application of art. 6 HD in SPA’s guarantees sufficient posibilities to ensure carefulness and the application of the precautionary principle.
Elsewhere, the regular use of Enviromental Impact Assessments do need more juridical quarantees for the position of the enviromental aspects - including the precautionary principle - in the final decision making.
Is there a irreversible loss of birds because of windmills? Probably not but Birdlife International thinks that wind farms should not be located in nature areas at all, but rather along industrial sites.
Presentation by Hugo Gordijn; Windmill Project Appraisal; a French Perspective
See for an overview the file Gordijn.ppt
Presentation by Ron Vreeker; Regime Analysis and Flag model
See for an overview the file Vreeker.ppt
Have the methods been applied in real case studies. What where the results.
Is it possible to take into accounts aspects as laws and legislations?
How sensible are the outcomes for the selected techniques?
Is it possible to take into account uncertainty regarding effects?
Is it possible to include various spatial levels in the analysis?
Presentation Giuseppe
See for an overview the file Munda.ppt
Presentation Heracles
See for an overview the Interactive session overview doc. The audience was asked to participate in a decision-making process regarding RES investment plans. The virtual exersice is presented in the Interactive Session xls.
In Holland we have the poldermodel, some sort of social MCA. Win-win situation but it appears to be a loose-loose situation because it consists of too many compromises. Now we learn to make more clear choices.
Looking for a compromise can take too much time and than nobody is listening anymore. Sometimes new projects are developed quicker and therefore the former becomes useless.
The Betuwelijn seemed to be a good plan in the nineties, now it becomes much more expensive but decisions already have been made. A problem is that the cost benefit procedure has been executed in the beginning of the project, now much more mitigating activities have to be paid.
The alternative of doing nothing was not included in Heracles model. Maybe doing nothing and just pay ´de boete´ can turn out to be not the most expensive alternative
Maybe the model makes decisions to clear, everyone can see how politicians value an option or a criteria. This may be a problem.
Participants indicate that there is a clear need for transparent and flexible methods in decision-making processes.