.png){kind=small}
Hydro Resource Evaluation Tool
public acceptability and engagement
Do I need to engage the public?
Is your project very small-scale, which reduces the number of acceptability issues and the engagement processes?
Although there have been some changes to the Planning Laws regarding microgeneration renewable installations “to make it easier for individuals to help combat the threat of climate change by producing their own energy from renewable sources” [click here to download the document] (e.g. the changes to ‘permitted development’), these mostly apply to solar and wind technologies, and do not apply to even the smallest hydro-power scheme. Therefore any project will involve some degree of public engagement, even though it maybe the bare minimum of notices and invitations to respond that apply to all planning permission applications.
Why engage the public?
What are the reasons for engaging with the public? The simplest answers are to pre-empt opposition, to build support, and to establish a group that can actively develop the scheme. The other reason is that even if renewable energy is increasingly seen as an ‘obviously’ good thing, our political system insists that people who may be affected by a development have the democratic right to be engaged about it. The following points give further examples of why public engagement should always be considered in developing any project.
How developers of small hydro projects communicate with, listen to and engage with the wider public can be crucial to project success.
There are many examples of renewable energy projects that have become highly controversial, generated public resistance and led, in some cases, to permission being refused because of the extent of opposition.
Some of these might have been badly conceived projects that were bound to generate public concern – others might have generated much less opposition and achieved a more constructive dialogue with local people if better communication and engagement practices had been followed.
Achieving mutual understanding and enabling a constructive dialogue are perhaps the most important objectives for engagement with the public.
While small hydro projects in the UK have not, in general, generated substantial public opposition, it is important that good practice in public engagement is still followed.
Opinions and reactions can change over time and experience overseas (for example in Canada) has shown that substantial conflict and opposition to small hydro projects can appear. A few highly publicised cases of public opposition can easily begin to produce a wider feeling that small hydro ‘might not be so good after all’.
In addition,
Engagement can get practical help from locals:
This webpage [http://www.hedon.info/goto.php/CommunityPicoHydroKenya] looks at very small-scale (under 5kW) projects in Africa, and although the situation there is obviously different from here in the North West of the UK, the message is the same, that garnering public support can even lead to public participation in the project, and may help to secure practical help.
Engagement can save time and costs:
This report from a European Small Hydropower Association conference [http://www.esha.be/index.php?id=96] stresses that it is better to approach ‘stakeholder involvement’ (where stakeholders are any individuals or groups in the local area or with an interest in the development) not just as a ritual (e.g. of doing as little as possible, because you are obliged to). Describing rural hydropower projects it was stressed that there should be a “sensitive approach to communications during the planning process”, and that the possibility of employment prospects for local people (perhaps for any civil engineering involved, or in carrying out a feasibility study) could go beyond gaining acceptance to enthusiasm. It also says that “Responsible planning avoids conflict, enhances acceptability, and thus also saves time and costs.”
Engagement overcomes misunderstandings:
The same organisation [http://www.esha.be/fileadmin/esha_files/documents/publications/articles/Paper_Hydro_2003.pdf] also saw one of the main barriers to public acceptance of small-scale hydropower as being a lack of understanding of the technology in the wider public. The educational aspects of public engagement in developing a project can therefore help the understanding and acceptance of the technology and the industry as a whole: “One of the main constraints Small Hydropower has to face is the social barrier due to little information the public opinion has about this technology... ESHA believes that these ideas are due to a misinformed general public who makes no difference between the small and large hydropower schemes…As a consequence, we are unfairly accused of some environmental impacts out of our responsibility.” (p.4)
Similarly, the IEA (International Energy Agency) [http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/Phase3-StrategyReport.pdf] “believes that the successful future of hydropower is, to a degree, dependent on articulating a clear and objective message about the advantages and disadvantages of hydropower technology. The underlying belief is that well planned, constructed and operated hydropower represents a viable competitive renewable energy technology. While there are consequences of this technology, resulting in either social or environmental impacts, there are also benefits associated with development and operations that result in a relatively clean energy technology, when compared to currently available alternatives.” (p.3)
The Microgeneration Strategy of 2006 [http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file27575.pdf] stated that at that time there were 90 micro-hydro installations in the UK, and argued that the technology can be particularly well suited to public engagement and through it, environmental education: “Small-scale hydro-power schemes have good potential to raise public awareness and support for renewables. The impact will be greater with group or community schemes as individual schemes are rarer and tend to be out of public view. Micro-hydro is largely non-controversial, although it can cause problems with fishing and water abstraction in low flow rivers. The largest resource exists in Scotland and Wales.” (p.49)
Engagement can reduce project risks:
This Governmental web-page from the Philippines [http://www.doe.gov.ph/ER/Hydropower.htm] also stresses that consulting with stakeholders also helps to reduces project risks through identifying them early: “The DOE shall involve all stakeholders in the decision-making processes prior to the implementation of hydropower projects. This would ensure protection of the rights of communities which may be affected by specific projects. At the same time, project risks will be easier to ascertain through consultations and social assessment activities conducted jointly with all affected stakeholders.” In the context of small-scale schemes these risks will primarily be the emergence of objections or the failure to deal with or mitigate concerns and impacts at an early stage, leading to failure to obtain either an extraction licence or planning permission.
