Making sure the coast is clear for offshore renewable energy

Governments and policymakers across the globe aim to balance three competing objectives when designing and implementing energy policy: energy security (ability to satisfy current and future energy demand), energy equity (affordable and accessible to the population), and environmental sustainability (avoiding environmental harm). Getting the balance right matters. Energy influences many other vital systems such as industry, agriculture, transportation and urban infrastructure.

The transition to clean energy presents an opportunity to tackle one of the main causes of climate change as well as the inequalities entrenched in the current energy system. One existing inequality is the distribution of energy ‘goods’ and ‘bads’, or the advantages and disadvantages of energy production and transmission. Some communities – often low-income, minority or marginalised ones – have received more ‘bads’ or disadvantages than others, ‘hosting’ energy infrastructure such as power plants or having to put up with pollution from such facilities.

With offshore renewable energy (ORE) expected to play a key role in decarbonising the UK power system, this could see communities on the coastal periphery hosting energy generation and transmission infrastructure which will leave a lasting impact, either positive or negative. In spite of their green credentials, ORE projects also have disadvantages; concerns have previously been raised about the siting of ORE infrastructure in valued seascapes or the impact of such infrastructure on local industries such as fishing, leisure and tourism and on the health of bird populations and marine life.

These disadvantages would add to the challenges already facing many of Britain’s coastal communities: a lack of (or aging) infrastructure and connectivity, outmigration to more prosperous areas and economic deprivation as a result of low paid, seasonal employment, low educational attainment and skills gaps.
ORE developments would have advantages too, helping to diversify coastal economies through the growth of high-paid jobs, increased services, improved infrastructure and investment in training and skills development. This could support economic rejuvenation, but it depends on the advantages and disadvantages of ORE developments being more evenly distributed and access to clean energy technologies more equitable.

One priority when rolling out the necessary infrastructure for a cleaner, greener energy system is gaining the acceptance of impacted population groups. The negative externalities associated with ORE developments will need to be minimised, managed and mitigated. This can be tackled through the planning process. To build trust, developers and stakeholders, such as local politicians, will have to recognise the diversity of viewpoints, values, and vulnerabilities within affected communities and, in particular, explore the impact on groups who have historically been excluded and marginalised in energy policy, such as low income, racial or ethnic groups.

Another priority is the recognition and inclusion of local knowledge in decision making, data gathering and institutional representation to give coastal communities the opportunity to participate meaningfully in ORE developments through consultation and engagement processes. These would have to be supported by the appropriate governance mechanisms to enable official decisions to be challenged or for the community to have a ‘stake’ in the a development in the form of ownership or a shareholding.

The dilemma for developers and policymakers is that whilst community engagement and participation can foster deeper, more sustainable social acceptance of new energy technologies and projects, it can slow down project delivery and increase project costs. Building trust and meaningful engagement takes time. Ensuring that different segments of the community are included and have a voice creates an environment whereby dissent or challenge can emerge and create unexpected and unplanned disagreements and confrontations.

Governments and the energy sector have often sought the path of least resistance in the development of energy projects across the globe, siting infrastructure near vulnerable communities who have limited access to a political, educational and socioeconomic knowledge base and fewer connections to powerful elites. Continuing along this path means there is a possibility that coastal populations will be ‘taken advantage of’, to ensure ‘the coast is clear’ for development. Doing this would reproduce and reinforce existing inequalities in the energy system as well as in health, employment, skills and education.

The emergence of dissent or disagreement is usually seen as something to avoid. Looking at it through a positive lens however opens up opportunities for innovation and knowledge creation. The importance of local knowledge, attachments and experience in energy project developments has often been ignored or overlooked. Greater attention to place-based strategies in ORE developments could overcome some of the challenges associated with the top-down approaches and centralized technocratic decision-making that has previously been forced upon people on the periphery. Place-based approaches to the development of energy infrastructure would need to pay attention to the specifics of the geographical, political, social, cultural and economic contexts. Fishermen and other marine users have decades’ worth of knowledge about their local coastline. Tapping into such knowledge through better engagement, consultation and inclusion leads to more acceptable, relevant and appropriate developments.

Including local community members ensures there is potential for them to make innovative and meaningful contributions to research in relation to ORE developments. Being experts in their ‘place’, they can identify previously unforeseen or overlooked ethical and moral concerns. They are also suitable candidates to take part in citizen science projects in monitoring or research on the environmental and health effects of renewable energy technologies on neighbouring communities. Such opportunities should become a non-negotiable part of the energy transition.

The views and experiences of people in Britain’s coastal communities have been overlooked, forgotten or taken advantage of for too long in policy making. The energy transition in general, and ORE developments in particular, present an opportunity to do things differently by encouraging community participation pre-, during and post-construction. Incorporating more local knowledge and experience will result in better, more sustainable and equitable offshore renewable energy developments.