The Importance of Effective Stakeholder Engagement in Wind Energy Project Development

Despite the environmental and economic advantages of wind energy, local conflicts over wind
energy projects are becoming increasingly common. Perceived concerns over noise, visual
aesthetics, property values, bird and bat fatalities, and public health and safety are among the
reasons many wind projects are locally opposed in the United States and abroad.

In some cases, the opposition has been successful, and wind energy project proposals have been
denied regulatory approval or developers have backed down in the face of NGO or local
pressure. In other cases, projects have suffered delays due to opposition, resulting in increased
project development costs. To avoid these delays, it is critical to understand the basis for
stakeholder opposition. This paper draws on past experience in coming to understanding this
basis, and leveraging that understanding to design stakeholder engagement initiatives that
support successful wind energy project development.

This paper analyzes the various aspects that developers need to consider during the early
planning stages of a wind energy project. The paper focuses on the importance and benefits of
working in community-developer partnerships. It also highlights how effective stakeholder
engagement is crucial to meeting project development schedules.

1. Introduction

Wind energy is widely promoted as a sustainable energy alternative; a win-win opportunity

that benefits both the environment and the communities. Yet many proposed wind projects

1
encounter local opposition so strong and powerful as to significantly delay or in some cases
altogether deny them.

To successfully develop a win project is crucial not only the understanding of the project’s site
physical environment but also understanding the social and cultural landscape that will be
encountered as the project is proposed.

Through two case studies, this paper shows that the threat to birds and quality of life issues
(including aesthetics, sense of place and social identity, land ownership and community safety)
were causes for opposing wind projects. However, these were encompassed by more
fundamental reasons related to the siting process itself, namely: lack of public participation in
the decision-making process and mistrust in the developers.

2. Research Methods

The empirical material used for this paper consists of semi structured interviews and field work
observations gathered over a period of two years.

3. Case Study 1: The Stolen Win

Community acceptance issues have emerged “They are here to still the wind. They
strongly as a barrier to wind projects, especially in came and built the towers and now
they are cutting down the trees for
regions where the development of these projects is
the roads. They want our fresh air.
recent. In some rural areas of Central America How are we going to breathe?”
wind energy is an unfamiliar concept that needs to Community Resident in Rural
Central America.
be thoroughly explained.

This case study focuses in an isolated rural area where the developer did not whom to engage,
when or how to do it. After getting their permits from the local government, and while in
search for international financing, Project A started a public consultation process. The latter
consisted in two public meetings with the communities in closest proximity to the project site,
with the main goal of informing them about the development plans for a 50 Mega Watts wind

2
farm. Two engineers explained the project to the community. The activity was a one way
conversation, where the community listened to a technically description from two strangers,
who did not thought about the appropriateness of their
They came here in big cars, wearing message or their audience.
sunglasses… We didn’t know who
they were and you know, around
here, everybody knows each other, At the end of the public meeting, what transpired from
we are all family. Now they are the communities was a deeply sense of mistrust and fear
coming back saying they want to
lease our land …and that they will and distress about what wind energy meant for them.
help our country’s progress… Why Obviously, the community did learn little about the
don’t they help us to progress too?
Why they don’t give us some project and the project developer did know little about
electricity t if they are going to use the community they approached. First it all, they
our lands?
organized a meeting without considering the message
Land Owner in Rural Central
America. or the audience. They did not know who their
stakeholders were and how to address them. Secondly,
the information about the project was neither timely nor comprehensive. Finally when they
addressed the community they just focused on “their project”, and they did not discuss
environmental, social or health issues at the local level. Thus they did not account for the
community needs and their priorities for project like this one.

Based on previous experiences, a public meeting where stakeholders learn little about the
project, its design process and how they can participate on it often leads to misinformation and
misinterpretations. In order to get a community informed you need to engage them.
True engagement exists when the community takes an active role prior to, during and after
those public meeting. Engagement occurs when communities can respond or comment on the
information released, and when they know their opinions will be considered. .

As the case of Project A depicts, involving the community early in the planning process, asking
for their opinion and then making use of their input, could have helped to appropriately and
proactively address concerns and avoid misconceptions. Hence, the design and implementation
of stakeholder engagement can strongly influenced the community perceptions on project’s cost
and benefits.

3
4. Case Study 2: The Sea Inside

Contrary to what we have seen in the previous example, in this case no matter how
assiduously Project B would engage its stakeholders – the quality of the information conveyed,
its receptive empathy and adaptability– there were always those who will oppose the project. A
vocal opposition does not necessarily mean a majority opposition but a few angry, upset
community members can dominate the media coverage (e.g., news reports, blogs, and Facebook
pages) and misrepresent the project reality while drowning out a large majority of the silent
community members.

This is exactly the case of Project B, where certain groups of interest were able to halt the project
for more than 1 year. Although Project B conducted extensive research prior approaching its
stakeholders, they did not account for traditional power struggles or for local politics in the area.
Project B is located along the coast and nearby remote fishermen communities. These
communities have traditional fought over land ownership and the access to natural resources
(e.g., fishing banks). The arrival of the project implied a new element of fight.

Project B was accused of increasing social differences among communities, turning

communities against each other because of land leases prices and generating unequal
advantages between individuals. It was accused of just focusing on a few communities, thus
accused of taking sides in their conflicts. Although the project was very proactive in
communicating with the stakeholders, Project B did
They are going to give them more
not have an all-inclusive and far-reaching money for their leases because they
environmental and social development plan. Hence will put the turbines there. We
receive less because they will only
it was perceived just to benefit some build the access roads… but that
communities/individuals while ignoring others. The will prevent us to access the beach
at least during construction which is
opposition grew so high that all the communities
almost 2 years! How are we going
turned against it creating violent episodes and some to fish? The turbines are noisy; I’ve
injuries when national security forces intervened. seen that thing before. They are
noisy like a sea storm; it is like
having the sea inside you. That will
scare our fish and we will not be 4
able to sleep.
Fishermen
5. Six Principles for Effective Engagement

Despite variable perspectives among stakeholder groups, the field experience suggests that
there are a common of community level barriers linked to communication. Below there are six
principles stakeholders that can help developers to effectively and successfully engage with its
stakeholders.

1. Develop a complete understanding of community dynamics and its constituents. Prior

approaching them, make sure you have defined stakeholder roles and understand their
dynamics. Then produce a community and context-specific engagement plan tailored to
local stakeholders.
2. Initiate stakeholder involvement process as early as possible and set realistic but firm
timetables. Be aware that not all stakeholders have the same interest or willingness to
participate in a consistent manner. Avoid stakeholder fatigue but carefully planning
your meetings.
3. Include broad representation of legitimate stakeholder groups (including government
agencies, and for site-specific projects--citizen groups). Do find a way to involve all the
relevant stakeholders in discussions about when, where, and how to build and operate
wind plants. Begin community engagement early in the planning phase and continue
through the project life cycle.
4. Acknowledge impacts and involve the community in designing mitigation measures.
Avoiding discussion of negative impacts, or what other people perceive to be negative
impacts, or denying there are any negatives, can potentially engender mistrust and
suspicion of the developers. Where differences persist, giving voice and recognition to
these has the potential to mitigate entrenched opposition1. Therefore, do not exclude
contentious issues.
5. Compensate for the impacts. Find out what compensation mean for the community and
design if needed, social investment programs for them.
6. Seek consensus, and consider using a third party, professional neutrals to facilitate
collaborative decision-making. Be open to criticize and to dialog.

1
Wizelius, Tore (2007). Developing Wind Power Projects: Theory and Practice. Earthscan, Mar 31, 2007.

5
6. Conclusion

Wind energy development has focused mostly on rural areas with good wind resources. This
has been in many cases beneficial for landowners who get a new source of annual income when
they lease portions of their land for the turbines or for the access roads to the Project site. Yet
not all local communities regard wind projects as the win-win situations they are often
promoted to be.

Opposition from local communities’ residents has significantly stalled or altogether prevented
many wind projects from being built. Many local residents objected to the wind project due to
concerns about its impact on their quality of life. Opponents are mostly concerned about their
land access and values, the project’s potential threat to their health and safety and noise
disturbance. Mistrust in the developer’s intentions is also a concern for the communities and
the basis for the strongest opposition. Such opposition stands as a major barrier to the
development of a project and early stakeholder engagement is a key to unlock that opposition.
Giving a voice to community interests can help to move a project faster, smoothly and to build
consensus with its stakeholders. The latter requires that developers no longer think of
communities as spectators but rather participants that want to be actively engaged in
developments that affect their lives2.

2
Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. 2006. Renewable energy and discourses of objection: Toward deliberative
policy-making: Summary of main findings. Northern Ireland: Queen’s University Belfast. Walker, G, et al. 2010.
“Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy.”Energy
Policy, 38(6): 2655–2663.