GP Wind

1. GPWind Good practice in reconciling onshore and offshore wind with environmental objectives IEE 09/941/SI2.558383 August 1st 2010 / July 31st 2012 Steering group and WPCG Meeting Rome, 3 March 2011 The sole responsibility for the content of this presentation lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

2. GP WIND Summary OBJECTIVE: sharing and recording best practice in reconciling objectives on wind energy with wider environmental objectives, actively involving communities in planning and implementation GP WIND addresses barriersto deployment of onshore and offshore wind generation GP WIND includes developers, regional and local government, environmental agencies and NGOs from differing countries to share experiences GP WIND will develop a guide to good practiceand a 'how to' toolkit, which will be used to facilitate deployment of renewable energy in support of the 2020 targets. GP WIND will secure commitment from partner countriesto adopt and to deploy the GP WIND recommendations.

3. GP WIND Countries • 8 countries: • Belgium • Greece • Ireland • Italy • Malta • Norway • Spain • UK

4. GP WIND Partners Scottish Government Project Coordinator Stuart McKay stuart.mckay@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Giulia Camozzini giulia.camozzini@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Project Partners • Sustainable Energy Authority Ireland (IE) • Leitat Technological Centre (ES) • Speed Development Consultants (EL) • SSE Renewables (UK) • Agenzia ASEA Spa (IT) • University of Thessaloniki (EL) • A.D.E.P.S.A (EL) • Projects in Motion (MT) • The Western Isles Council (UK) • SQW Energy (UK) • Scottish Power Renewables (UK) • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Scotland (UK) • Administration of the Province of Savona (IT) • Apere (BE) • The Region of Western Greece (EL) • The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO)

5. GP WIND Outputs/1 Dealing with environmental impacts, in terms of identifying and understanding potential impacts, design and implementation of projects, mitigation measure, and ongoing environmental management. Examples of Good Practice in Good Practice Guide Process, including interaction with stakeholders, consultation, conflict resolution, partnership working. Development and implementation of environmental and planning policy and guidance Improving understanding of environmental issues and impacts. Reconciling environmental concerns with the benefits of wind farm development, in terms of energy needs, CO2 reduction, and local social and economic benefits. Engagement with local communities in the identification, planning and ongoing management of wind farms, including the role of community investment. Integrated and speedy authorisation procedures

6. GP WIND Outputs/2 ‘How to’ toolkit designed to be user friendly capable of dissemination in written and audio visual form available on-line and for translation into different EU languages will include template conventions and specific recommendations for sound implementation, in order to facilitate the dissemination of best practices at local level will provide valuable tools for policy makers, developers and administrative authorities, communities and environmental bodies in reaching the 2020 objectives within the context of wider EU policy objectives.

7. GP WIND Outputs/3 Statements of commitment ensure the involvement of all stakeholders secure real tangible results while project is ongoing grant the possibility to adjust to actual needs of communities ensure adoption of material produced

8. Project Presentation Newsletters Leaflet Articles GP WIND Activities/1 WP Activities Outputs Management Update bulletins and meetings minutes WP1 Monitoring Technical Progress Report, Interim and Final Technical and Financial Reports Reporting Project Website Create project website CDAP Plan the communication Strategy WP5 Implement the CDAP Participation / contribution, upon EACI request, to events/ information material WP6

9. Activities List of Key Issues Publication of Case Study GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE Regional Stakeholders Workshops HOW TO TOOLKIT Case Study Methodology Publication of Recommendations Desk research and surveys to indentify potential case studies Case Study Research Regional Workshop to discuss research results Transnational Workshop to discuss research results and agree on recommendation Preparation of the Good Practice Guide Preparation of the ‘how to’ Toolkit GP WIND Activities/2 WP Outputs WP2 WP3 Publication of Statements of Commitment from authorities WP4

10. The Steering Group and the WPCG Steering Group Work Programme Coordination Group (WPCG) WP2 Coordinator WP3 Coordinator WP4 Coordinator WP5 Coordinator Steering Group:responsible for approval of detailed work programmes and any significant changes to the project, monitoring of activity and overall direction. WPCG:responsible for ensuring that detailed work plans and timing of activities for Work Packages 2, 3, 4 and 5 are coordinated and complementary, for coordinating input to reports and reviewing performance against targets, and for agreeing any proposals for revision to the project. External Advisors:chosen to enhance the industry representation, build on experience in more advanced countries, and provide an independent perspective on environmental issues and tie in to EU environmental policy. They will support and advise the Steering Group on GP WIND overall implementation. GP WIND External Advisors: Jacopo Moccia (EWEA), Paul McAleavey (EEA) Contacts ongoing with: Micheal O’Briain (DG ENV), Ron Van Erck (DG ENERGY), Loic Blanchard (DG MARE), Danish Energy Agency, Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency of Germany

11. Looking back Two mains deliverables have been completed so far: 1) Common Methodology For Case Study 2) 8 Reports from Regional Workshops + Common Conclusions

12. Common Methodology for Case Studies Thematic Approach to case studies – 16 themes identified • Environment • Marine • Species Impact • Impact on habitats • Monitoring/Mitigation • Landscape • Cumulative impact • Offshore - fisheries, seabirds (including migratory routes), seabed issues, landfall sites • Biodiversity • Community • Community benefit • Community concerns and acceptance – buy in • Communication, awareness, information • Public perception • Conflicts with other economic interests including tourism • Noise – including underwater • Guidance on Socio-Economic Analysis for developers • Visual impact

13. Methodology tasks • 16 Themes identified • Focus on Environment and community • More/New themes could be added if necessary 1) Identify research themes • To identify more stand alone case studies • To develop understanding of the issue • To cover experiences in more EU countries 2) Literature and data review • To properly address each issue • To properly analyse stand alone case studies • To ensure same format of each case studies 3) Developing research questions • List of consultees for each issue • Generic, thematic and specific questions 4) Interview guidance • Agree on a format to record data • Evidence will be used for case studies research 5) Reporting Evidence • To record all information in a consistent way • Clear and short recommendations • Use of graphics, images and examples 6) Case study template

14. Statement of commitment Methodology includes a draft Statement of Commitment to be signed by relevant stakeholders The template will be refined once partners have agreed on recommendations Partners have to come up with a list of possible signatories

15. 8 Reports from Regional Workshops + Common Conclusions Main outcomes of the Report: Importance of planning phase (particularly site selection) and community engagement from an early stage Need of clear regulations and certainty of the timing for processing applications Need of guidance on how to assess socio economic impact of wind energy developments Grid connection and availability is a major issue Need of more guidance on EIA requirements and scope • Toolkit should: • give clear and precise recommendations • focus on lesson learnt and actual good and bad examples • have a clear, concise, easy to read and schematic format Website is the preferred communication method

16. WPCG presents: GP WIND Work Packages WP1: Monitoring (M1-M24) WP2: Common methodology for case study (M3-M8) WP3: Case Studies (M6-M14) WP4: Good Practice Guide and Toolkit (M15-M20) WP5: Communication/Adoption of Best practice (M1-M24) WP6: IEE Dissemination Activities (upon EACI Request)

17. WP1 – Management • WP ACTIVITIES: • Management of the consortium • Communication between partners • Monitoring and reporting • Preparation of reports • Management of budget • Coordination with other projects In the first round of monitoring questionnaires, WP1 was graded on average 3.2 out of 4 • Achieved so far: • Kick off meeting • 1st update bulletin • Steering group set up (80%) • Monitoring methodology • General management and communication (ongoing) • General guidance on finance • Next Steps: • Reporting (TPR due by end of March) • General Management and Communication • Update bulletin in March • Organise next Steering Group and WPCG Meeting • Revise monitoring strategy Challenges: Steering group; monitoring methodology; general management (timings and deadlines)

18. WP2 – Common Methodology • WP ACTIVITIES: • Identification of key issues • Regional stakeholders workshops • Draft and final methodology In the first round of monitoring questionnaires, WP2 was graded on average 2.7 out of 4 • Achieved so far: • Final list of key issues • Stakeholder questionnaire • 8 regional stakeholders workshops reports + common conclusions • Methodology including draft research template • Draft statement of commitment • Next Steps: • Revision of the methodology if needed • Finalisation of the Workshop Report (partners comments to be gathered) Challenges: drafting the methodology; involve stakeholders in workshops; summarize data

19. WP3 – Case Studies (NINA) • WP ACTIVITIES: • Identify potential case studies through surveys and desk research • Compile a list of potential case studies • Select and allocate case studies • Case Study research according to WP2 methodology • Peer review of case studies • Preparation of case study report • Regional stakeholders workshops (discuss results of case study research) • Transnational Workshop with key stakeholders (discuss research results + elements to be developed in the Good Practice Guide) • Publication of case studies and recommendation, including statement of commitment by stakeholders • Next Steps: • Final Selection of case studies • Allocation of case studies • Refining methodology according to our needs • Case studies research • Regional Workshops presenting case study research • Transnational Workshop presenting case study research + signed statements of commitment • Publication of report • Achieved so far: • A survey has been circulated among stakeholders to identify case studies • A first selection of case studies has been carried out

20. WP4 – Good Practice guide and Toolkit (APERe) WP4 includes activities to deliver two mains products: 1 – Good Practice Guide 2 – ‘How to’ Toolkit

21. Good Practice Guide Objectives : Identify experience from partners and share knowledge of how to overcome social & environmental barriers Identify good and bad practices in solving community and environmental issues Produce recommendations to all stakeholders Reduce consenting period

22. Good Practice Guide /1 Methodology : Drawupon case studiesfrom WP3 Collection Analysis of the info in the case studies comparison !compliancewithagreed format • Synthesis of case studies writing & editing the GP Guide

23. Good Practice Guide/2 • Good practices • Examples of problem overcome successfully • Factors having led to the successful outcome • Transferability to other regions • Other underlying / supporting factors that helped to solve the problem

24. Good Practice Guide/3 • Bad practices • Examples of unsuccessful approaches • Consequences • Reasons • Positive conclusions, i.e. avoid repetition : what should have been done ?

25. Good Practice Guide/4 • Recommandations • Define better processes for site design and assessment better quality projects reduce consenting period • Avoid bad practices

26. Toolkit/1 Complete database comprising all documents related to case studies Valuable resource for all stakeholders Various possibilities of accessing to the required documents Enabling stakeholders to easily find specific information Including practical tools (templates, processes applicable in other regions)

27. Toolkit/2 Region Thematic issue Type of document Practicaltools Organisations Bibliography & links

28. Toolkit/3 • Survey data • articles of association (citizen association) • Maps • Pictures • Movies • Practicaltools: • Templates • Methodologies • Processes (checklists…) • Budget & financialtemplates • Technical softwares • Etc. Types of documents : • Local regulations / laws • Contracts • Consultative advices • Public-private partnerships • Conventions • Decisions (license requests) • Decisions of juridical appeals • Environmental studies • Mitigation measures • Monitoring reports (birds, noise, bats, biodiversity, etc.) - Scientific reports

29. WP5 – Communication / Adoption of Best Practices LEITAT’s presentation

30. Table of Contents Progress - Website (T5.1 & D5.2) - Communication Startegy (T5.2) √ CDAP (T 5.2.1 & D5.1) √ Leaflets (T5.2.2 & D5.3) Future Steps - Leaflets - Booklets - Project Newsletter

31. Website

32. Communication Strategy (1) D5.1 Communication, Dissemination and Adoption Plan (CDAP)

33. Communication Strategy (2) D5.3 Leaflets Waiting for definitive version before printing.

34. Future Steps Leaflets - First version will be delivered next week. - Translations needed - Following version in October 2011 Booklets - Discussion on delivery date Project newsletter - First draft will be circulated on Month 8 (April 2011)

35. Monitoring report M1 – M6 Monitoring Strategy: 1) Partners fill in a monitoring questionnaire including evaluation of work done in each WP; 2) WP leaders put together a WP report including the results of the questionnaires and assessment of results/deliverables achieved, as well as work plan for the following period; 3) Project coordinator consolidates WP reports in a comprehensive monitoring report; 4) The Steering group Approves the report (or asks for changes). • Results: • First Monitoring Report drafted - presentation • Activities and deliverables have been positively evaluated by partners • Some room for improvement (deadlines, use of the website ) Improving the monitoring strategy: partners suggestions?

36. Achievements so far OPEN DISCUSSION

37. Moving forward: Tomorrow’s meeting • List of potential case studies: • A list of potential case studies has been put together including results of our survey and desk research in countries • Each of the theme identified will be complemented by examples of actual case studies • Partners could decide to include in the research stand-alone case studies that do not relate to 16 themes identified • Case studies allocation: how to make the best possible use of partners’ skills? • Partners identify a theme that they would like to “sponsor” • Partners particularly interested in specific topics will “peer review” other partners work • Partners will research on stand alone case studies in their region • In some cases specific expertise can be subcontracted • Advisors can help on specific aspects • Criteria for case study selection: • Relevance • Impact • Novelty of approach • Transferability • Others

38. Planning Work Ahead PROPOSED TIMELINE July 2011 Sept. 2011 Oct. 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 August 2011 • TPR • Bulletin Bulletin Monitoring report Steering Group + WPCG IR Case studies allocation WP3 Regional Stakeholders Workshop WP3 Transnational Stakeholders Workshop Case studies research Peer Review • Leaflet • Newsletter Newsletter Leaflet NOTE WP3 DELIVERABLES: 16 Case Study reports by September; 1 Composite Report by October; 1 publication after October's meeting

39. WP1 – next implementation period KEY TASKS: Managing Consortium Reporting (TPR and IR) Coordinating activities Update bulletin Organise next steering group Monitor activities CHALLENGES: Get technical and financial reports approved Finalise steering group composition Deliverables: D1.1 Minutes of project meetings Other milestones: Update Bulletin M8 (March 2011) Technical Progress Report (TPR) M8 (March 2011) Second Monitoring Report M13 (August 2011) Interim technical and Financial Report M14 (September 2011)

40. WP2 – next implementation period KEY TASKS: Although WP2 is formally over, some changes to the methodology and refinement of the Workshop Report may be needed

41. WP3 – next implementation period CHALLENGES Statements of commitment Involving stakeholders (regional & transnational) Short reporting time after activities Transnational workshop (M15 - October) KEY TASKS Case Study Research (M8/M13- March/August) Regional Workshops (M14 - September) Transnational workshop (M15 - October) Deliverables: D3.1 – 8 regional workshops reports (discussion of case studies, recommendations) M10M14 (Sept) D3.2 – 1 transnational meeting report (discussion of survey results, case study selection) M11M8 (Mar) D3.3 – 1 transnational Workshop report (discussion of case study results, recommendations) M12M15 (Oct) D3.4 – 16 individual case study reports M13 (Aug) D3.5 – 1 composite case study report (summary of case studies, key lessons, conclusions and recommendations) M14 (Sept) D3.6 – Compilation of official commitments made by stakeholders to adopt best practice M14M15 (Oct)

42. WP4 – next implementation period See APERe’s presentation

43. WP5 – next implementation period See LEITAT’s presentation

44. Statement of commitment Revise “statement of commitment” according to research results Select and contact potential signatories in ALL countries STATEMENTS OF COMMITMENT HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY OCTOBER!

45. Conclusions Thank you for your attention!