Pathways, risks, and uncertainties 257
power required societal consensus in Switzerland. Such a consensus is easier to
achieve when alternatives technologies are available that fit well within the
country’s landscape and do not have significant negative impacts on people’s
livelihoods. In the Swiss case, social acceptance for expanding renewables was
relatively easy to achieve as alternative resources (such as hydropower) are
available which meet with little social resistance. Social acceptance is
particularly important for renewable energy technologies as these tend to be
more decentralised and are usually geographically scattered (e.g. wind power
farms and solar PV in Spain, Netherlands, and Chile). If a technology or action
requires individuals or households to respond, as seen in solar roof top
installations (Spain, Netherlands, Chile), stakeholders’ perspective becomes
critical for the success of implementing the pathway.
Large, centralised renewable energy technologies tend to be constructed on
green field sites. These require government and political support, and often also
the approval from impacted communities through the planning system. In the
Netherlands, larger ground- mounted solar power parks are being promoted by
policy incentives (as discussed earlier) but, unlike solar rooftops on existing
buildings, larger solar parks will need to carefully consider spatial planning
requirements. Project developers proposing to install solar parks near
communities need to consult with community stakeholders as early as possible
to avoid the risk of public opposition. Opposition can delay or halt project
implementation, as seen in some projects in the northern regions of the country.
Consulting with community stakeholders impacted by a proposed solar park
allows them to be part of the project process and provides opportunities for
stakeholders to suggest modifications to benefit from the project. The Dutch
narrative contains examples of how engaging stakeholders as early as possible in
the decision- making process can reduce risks and act as a key enabler.
Land use linked to energy projects can have both a negative environmental
impact and also adverse consequences for local communities. These
communities may protest against large energy projects, as seen with traditional
communities in Kenya. In Kenya, the livelihoods of traditional communities are
closely linked to the land. The county and national government are therefore
responsible for upholding these rights. Land rights are strongly respected and
traditional communities can continue to access privately held land. In Kenya,
environmental and social impact assessments are required of industry players,
including geothermal developers and operators in the charcoal supply chain.
They are responsible for minimising the risks to the impacted communities, for
example through adequate monetary compensation or by making jobs available
to affected communities.
Similarly, in Canada, Indigenous communities located near oil sands are
adversely impacted due to land- use changes. Aside from health impacts,
emissions and waste from these developments alters the landscape and changes
the community’s ability to exercise their traditional hunting and gathering
practices. Energy companies who developed close to traditional sites are facing
litigation due to the negative impacts of their development. Failing to consult
power required societal consensus in Switzerland. Such a consensus is easier to
achieve when alternatives technologies are available that fit well within the
country’s landscape and do not have significant negative impacts on people’s
livelihoods. In the Swiss case, social acceptance for expanding renewables was
relatively easy to achieve as alternative resources (such as hydropower) are
available which meet with little social resistance. Social acceptance is
particularly important for renewable energy technologies as these tend to be
more decentralised and are usually geographically scattered (e.g. wind power
farms and solar PV in Spain, Netherlands, and Chile). If a technology or action
requires individuals or households to respond, as seen in solar roof top
installations (Spain, Netherlands, Chile), stakeholders’ perspective becomes
critical for the success of implementing the pathway.
Large, centralised renewable energy technologies tend to be constructed on
green field sites. These require government and political support, and often also
the approval from impacted communities through the planning system. In the
Netherlands, larger ground- mounted solar power parks are being promoted by
policy incentives (as discussed earlier) but, unlike solar rooftops on existing
buildings, larger solar parks will need to carefully consider spatial planning
requirements. Project developers proposing to install solar parks near
communities need to consult with community stakeholders as early as possible
to avoid the risk of public opposition. Opposition can delay or halt project
implementation, as seen in some projects in the northern regions of the country.
Consulting with community stakeholders impacted by a proposed solar park
allows them to be part of the project process and provides opportunities for
stakeholders to suggest modifications to benefit from the project. The Dutch
narrative contains examples of how engaging stakeholders as early as possible in
the decision- making process can reduce risks and act as a key enabler.
Land use linked to energy projects can have both a negative environmental
impact and also adverse consequences for local communities. These
communities may protest against large energy projects, as seen with traditional
communities in Kenya. In Kenya, the livelihoods of traditional communities are
closely linked to the land. The county and national government are therefore
responsible for upholding these rights. Land rights are strongly respected and
traditional communities can continue to access privately held land. In Kenya,
environmental and social impact assessments are required of industry players,
including geothermal developers and operators in the charcoal supply chain.
They are responsible for minimising the risks to the impacted communities, for
example through adequate monetary compensation or by making jobs available
to affected communities.
Similarly, in Canada, Indigenous communities located near oil sands are
adversely impacted due to land- use changes. Aside from health impacts,
emissions and waste from these developments alters the landscape and changes
the community’s ability to exercise their traditional hunting and gathering
practices. Energy companies who developed close to traditional sites are facing
litigation due to the negative impacts of their development. Failing to consult