Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe article analyses drivers as well as coordination mechanisms and instruments for the energy transition in Italy from a multilevel governance perspective. It addresses the structural constraints that influenced the decision-making processes and organisation of the Italian energy sector and the socio-technical challenges opened up by enhancing renewables. The current energy system is making the move from a centralised, path-dependent institutional and organisational structure to a more fragmented and pluralistic one. Renewables and decentralised patterns of production and consumption are key elements of this paradigmatic shift, which is paralleled by a multiplication of decision-making arenas and actors. These actors follow different interests, problem understandings and green growth narratives, increasing the complexity of governing the energy transition. Against this background, community-based renewable energy policy is assuming a very important role and Italy is putting efforts to establish an enabling framework in line with the requirements of the European Union. The goal of this strategy is to foster a positive link between acceptance of the energy transition and decentralised local activities. In the conclusion we address problems and barriers to new modes of governance, and discuss possible approaches to improved cooperation.

The article analyses drivers as well as coordination mechanisms and instruments for the energy transition in Italy from a multilevel governance perspective. It addresses the structural constraints that influenced the decision-making processes and organisation of the Italian energy sector and the socio-technical challenges opened up by enhancing renewables. The current energy system is making the move from a centralised, path-dependent institutional and organisational structure to a more fragmented and pluralistic one. Renewables and decentralised patterns of production and consumption are key elements of this paradigmatic shift, which is paralleled by a multiplication of decision-making arenas and actors. These actors follow different interests, problem understandings and green growth narratives, increasing the complexity of governing the energy transition. Against this background, community-based renewable energy policy is assuming a very important role and Italy is putting efforts to establish an enabling framework in line with the requirements of the European Union. The goal of this strategy is to foster a positive link between acceptance of the energy transition and decentralised local activities. In the conclusion we address problems and barriers to new modes of governance, and discuss possible approaches to improved cooperation.

This article focuses on the "wicked problem" of siting nuclear waste repositories. It addresses the question of why local communities are not willing to host nuclear waste facilities, and what factors play a decisive role for acceptance and voluntarism. We discuss the extent to which compensations together with trust could be decisive in easing the decision making processes for a site search. Starting from the assumption that voluntary processes have been the preferred path in countries in an advanced stage of planning or constructing a repository, we question whether the factors that allowed for success in siting in Finland, Sweden and France or for failure (United Kingdom) can be of use in other contexts, e.g., in Germany. By analyzing the relationship between government, industry and the communities willing to host repositories, we discuss different forms of voluntarism in combination with various site typologies, i.e., Blowers′ "nuclear oases"; "communities with industry awareness"; "nuclear communities", and "Springfield communities."

Der Begriff der Energiewende wird bei seinem Lauf um die Welt nicht übersetzt. Er weist auf die Dringlichkeit der Umstellung der Energieversorgung bei Strom, Wärme und Mobilität durch erneuerbare Energien hin. Schneller als von vielen erwartet hat die Energiewende vor allem im Strombereich ein Ausbautempo erreicht, mit dem viele nicht gerechnet hatten. Sie ist allerdings keine freiwillige Maßnahme, sondern wird durch die Krisenhaftigkeit von nicht nachhaltigen Produktions- und Lebensweisen erzwungen. Sie ist auch kein Selbstläufer. Die vielfältigen neuen Initiativen, Maßnahmen und Programme befinden sich im Wettbewerb mit einem alten, fossilen und nuklearen Energiesystem. Von den Hürden, die in diesem Wettlauf bereits genommen wurden, vom Tempo des Ausbaus, von Innovationen sowie von den notwendigen Reformen und vielfältigen Herausforderungen der Energiewende handelt dieses Buch.

Since 2013 the site search for a repository for highly radioactive waste has been taking place in Germany within the framework of a new governance architecture and under new political guidelines. Based on experiences with nuclear politics in the past, Jungk (1977) coined the term hard nuclear state, characterized by decisions made in a top-down manner. The Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD) strategy, which branded the nuclear state at that time, led to conflicts, mistrust of authorities and blockages. In particular, massive resistance developed against the planned final repository site at Gorleben. Nowadays, after more than 60 years deploying nuclear energy, the (energy) political balance of power has fundamentally changed. Parts of the anti-nuclear movement have been integrated into the political party system and have contributed significantly to the nuclear phase-out. In the course of this, the unfinished task of final disposal has been readdressed: with the Repository Site Selection Act (StandAG, 2017), which was passed in 2013 and amended in 2017, an ongoing process of public participation is stated. The site selection process is required to be learning, self-questioning, science-based, reversible, and participatory. The StandAG § 5 not only provides a basis for a fundamental dialogue between the regulator, the operator, and the public, but also for "co-design" by common citizens. The StandAG considers various elements from different participation-friendly theories of democracy as well as specific governance concepts, which we refer to collectively as the soft nuclear repository state (cf. Brunnengräber, 2021). Its characteristics need to be worked out, as the StandAG only provides some indications, but no criteria, for what good and sufficient participation in the site selection process means and what its conditions for success should be. Based on preliminary considerations on democratic theory and governance aspects (part 1), we present what good participation could mean in the current procedure and what the framework conditions for good participation could be (part 2). Additionally, we present main findings from participatory observations from the ongoing site search process and identify conditions and indications of a successful future participation process based on the ongoing process (part 3). In the résumé, we turn to the question of which of the democracy-theoretical elements of the soft repository state are already recognizable in the present procedure, but also whether the current procedure provides additional indications towards the soft nuclear repository state (part 4).

This book is the last part of a trilogy and concludes a long-term project that focussed on nuclear waste governance in 24 countries. It deals with core themes of the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW), e.g. the wicked problems of housing nuclear waste disposal facilities, public participation and public discourse, voluntarism and compensation in siting as well as the role of advisory bodies and commissions. The volume reflects on the diverse factors that shape the debate on what can be considered an "acceptable solution" and on various strategies adopted in order to minimise conflicts and possibly increase acceptability. The various theoretical and empirical contributions shed light on several mechanisms and issues touched upon in these strategies, such as the role of trust, voluntarism, economic interests at stake, compensation, ethics, governance, and participation

Empirical evidence has shown that local community opposition is one of the key obstacles for new wind energy development. Consequently, the community acceptance of renewables, such as wind energy, has become a crux for Europe in both achieving and going beyond its renewable energy targets. Significant academic literature has already been devoted to conceptualising the community acceptance of wind energy. This article builds on the existing research by showcasing how regions and municipalities across Europe have successfully and effectively been able to overcome barriers to community acceptance. In doing so, 10 best practice case studies across six European countries have been carefully identified and investigated. The results of individual assessment of these different cases, each of which employ different types of measures/approaches, are comparatively analysed in order to identify the key success factors (drivers) for achieving community acceptance of wind energy in Europe. The identification of the success factors serves to start paving the way for the transfer of these measures/approaches to other municipalities and regions across Europe, particularly those who may encounter similar barriers of community acceptance of wind energy. Thus, our findings deliver to policy makers and developers a number of lessons learnt on how to organise future actions by proposing ways their activities can enhance community acceptance.

The present article deals with two key drivers of social acceptance of wind energy: procedural justice and distributional justice. It is based on a comparative expert assessment carried out in the frame of the Horizon 2020 project WinWind covering six European countries. The focus of the paper is on procedural and financial participation of citizens and local stakeholders in wind energy projects. The first part covers institutional arrangements for public engagement in two areas of the decision-making process—wind turbine zoning/siting in spatial plans and authorization procedures. Here, three levels of public involvement—information, consultation and participation—were analyzed. The second part examines active and financial participation of citizens and local stakeholders. Here, we distinguish between two different modes of governance: institutionalized forms of public governance and voluntary forms of corporate governance. The outcomes suggest that concrete paths to the social acceptance of wind energy are fostered via appropriate institutional spaces for public engagement. Furthermore, missing opportunities for active and passive financial participation can have strong negative consequences for community acceptance.

Renewable energy plays an important role in the transition to a low emission society, yet in many regions energy projects have resulted in increasing societal polarization. Based on a comprehensive literature review and a survey among stakeholders from specific regions in Germany, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland and Spain with little prior experience with wind energy, we highlight six categories of factors that shape community acceptance of onshore wind energy development: technical characteristics of wind energy projects, environmental impacts, economic impacts, societal impacts, contextual factors and individual characteristics. We identify key similarities in acceptance-related patterns of wind energy development across the selected regions, but also important differences, highlighting the very context-specific nature of community acceptance. The findings contribute to improving the understanding of the forces, factors and relationships at play between policy frameworks and perceptions of wind energy under different conditions. We conclude by proposing policy recommendations regarding measures to increase the positive impacts and reduce the negative impacts of wind energy projects, and to strengthen existing drivers and reduce barriers to community acceptance of wind energy development.

This volume examines the national plans that ten Euratom countries plus Switzerland and the United States are developing to address high-level radioactive waste storage and disposal. The chapters, which were written by 23 international experts, outline European and national regulations, technology choices, safety criteria, monitoring systems, compensation schemes, institutional structures, and approaches to public involvement. Key stakeholders, their values and interests are introduced, the responsibilities and authority of different actors considered, decision-making processes are analyzed as well as the factors influencing different national policy choices. The views and expectations of different communities regarding participatory decision making and compensation and the steps that have been or are being taken to promote dialogue and constructive problem-solving are also considered. Contents The International Dimension Countries with Geological Disposal after Reprocessing Nuclear Fuel Countries with Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel Countries with Long-Term Surface Storage for High Level Radioactive Waste Target Groups Energy (policy) experts; nuclear energy experts and practitioners, political and social scientists, economists, engineers; decision makers and consultants, civil society organizations The Editors Achim Brunnengräber, Maria Rosaria Di Nucci, Ana María Isidoro Losada, Lutz Mez and Miranda Schreurs; Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universität Berlin and members of the project "Multi-level Governance Perspective on Nuclear Waste Disposal" within the research platform ENTRIA