- Email: [email protected]
Managing the energy transition in a tourism-driven economy: The case of Malta
Accepted Manuscript Title: MANAGING THE ENERGY TRANSITION IN A TOURISM-DRIVEN ECONOMY THE CASE OF MALTA Author: Agatino Rizzo PII: DOI: Reference:
S2210-6707(16)30312-2 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.12.005 SCS 548
To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
26-8-2016 21-10-2016 5-12-2016
Please cite this article as: & Rizzo, Agatino., MANAGING THE ENERGY TRANSITION IN A TOURISM-DRIVEN ECONOMY THE CASE OF MALTA.Sustainable Cities and Society http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.12.005 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANAGING THE ENERGY TRANSITION IN A TOURISM-DRIVEN ECONOMY THE CASE OF MALTA Agatino Rizzo, Architecture Research Group, Luleå University of Technology, 97187, Sweden My contacts are: dr. Agatino Rizzo Luleå University of Technology, SBN 97187 Luleå, Sweden ph.: +46 (0)920 49 3438 email: [email protected] Highlights • This research discusses Malta’s government capacity to manage the implementation of its renewable policy. • The article highlights the main policy challenges for the transition to renewable energy production in a small, tourism-driven economy. • The article points to the importance of innovative participatory mechanisms to manage socio-economic conflicts. • A new approach to “energy aesthetics” is needed to facilitate the energy transition in heritage-rich nations.
Abstract The aim of this paper is to assess Malta’s government capacity to manage the possible environmental and social conflicts arising from the implementation of its renewable energy agenda to comply with EU’s 2020-20 strategy. The country has targeted photovoltaic technologies to achieve a 10% renewable energy share in the final consumption of energy by 2020. Malta is a popular tourist destination and hosts three UNESCO world heritage sites, and it is one of the smallest, although densely populated, countries in the European Union. From the encroachment of PV parks with the existing urban and rural landscape, we found a number of issues worth to be investigated such as the location of solar power plants, participatory planning mechanisms, and aesthetic-design considerations for integrating photovoltaic into the existing urban fabric. The study is based on semi-structured interviews with institutional stakeholders and document analysis. Keywords: Renewable Energy, Landscape Quality, Government Capacity, Tourism Industry, Malta.
1/18
1. Background Malta is a small archipelago nation of about 316 sqKm distributed mainly in two islands (Malta, the capital region and the most urbanized of the two, and nearby, more rural Gozo) for a total population of less than half million inhabitants (425,000 in 2013, National Statistics Office, 2014). The archipelago is a popular tourist destination and hosts three UNESCO world heritage sites while its tourism industry contributes to almost 20% of the national GDP (Malta Tourism Authority, 2015). In 2014, nearly 1.7 million tourists visited Malta with numbers rising year after year at an average of 5% p.a. (Malta Tourism Authority, 2015). Most of the archipelago is labeled as a sensitive landscape site (figure 1), therefore constraining sensitive activities (such as building construction) that could endanger one of the main sources of national income (i.e. tourism). At the same time, as one of the most recent EU member (2004), Malta has committed to increasing its renewable energy share of the current electricity production (2 TWh) by 2020 (Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs, 2009). In July 2010, Malta submitted its National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) to the European Commission, as required by Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of renewable energy. This action plan provides a roadmap on how the country intends to reach the 10% of renewable energy share in the final consumption of energy by 2020 (figure 2). “This energy savings target is consistent with Malta carrying a fair share of the EU’s 20% projected reduction in energy consumption by 2020” (NEEAP, 2014). In 2005, 100% of electricity was generated from oil (Malta Renewable Energy Fact Sheet, 2008) while in 2010 only 0.86 per cent of the national gross consumption was covered by the renewable energy share. Since then a mechanism of incentives and feed-in tariffs, together with a drastic reduction of installation costs, have facilitated the development of domestic photovoltaic (PV) energy production which is currently accounting for almost 4-5% (Dalli, 2014) of the total electricity production (figure 3). With the help of the European Regional Development Fund and National Funding, grants up to 50% of the eligible costs (to a maximum of €2500) have been distributed to applicants for rooftops PV (MRA, 2013). Some 16,000 solar systems are installed on domestic and industrial rooftops, generating some 40MWp (Dalli, 2014). On top of this, the government has for some time discussed the need to implement large-scale renewable energy plants in order to achieve the 10% target. Prior to March 2013, the conservative coalition in power had shown interest in wind energy and a number of unofficial consultations were undertaken to explore the possibility of its implementation (Duca, 2013). However, the current government (led by the centre-left, Labour Party) has reversed the approach to favor photovoltaic electricity generation (Dalli, 2014). This change of policy was meant to meet the worries of the local tourism industry which saw inshore and offshore wind turbines as a threat to their business. As a result of this, in December 2014, the government put forward a strategy to implement 2.7 sqkm of solar farms to produce 5% of the renewable energy target, with the rest being provided for through the use of biofuels, heat pumps, waste energy and
2/18
solar water heaters. At the end of 2014, there were three pending applications for large-scale farms with a footprint larger than 1,000m2 (Dalli, 2014). The aim of this study is to assess the government capacity to manage the possible conflicts between renewable energy implementation and landscape of Malta as well as to foster citizen participation in this process. Malta’s built environment and landscape are some of the most valuable assets for economic development in the country while people’s consensus is paramount to foster technology acceptance. Our hypothesis is that from the encroachment of future PV parks with the existing urban and rural landscape of the islands, a number of issues will need to be managed such as the location of the power plants, participatory planning mechanisms, and aesthetic design considerations of such complexes. Therefore, better knowledge is needed to assess the potential conflicts arising in the implementation of RE projects in a tourism-driven economy such as Malta. Since there is very little literature on Malta’s energy transition and its possible conflicts with other economic sectors and people’s ambitions, in our literature review in section two we will leverage on existing European literature on this topic. This European approach reflects the international team contributing to our research which was made possible by a European cooperation project (see in the acknowledgments). In section three we present our methodology while in section four we report its outcomes. The results will be discussed in section five together with the conclusions.
2. Literature Review: the European debate on RE and the opposition to the energy transition
Introduction to community opposition to RE The implementation of RE technology poses several challenges particularly regarding managing inhabitants’ opposition to the implementation of such plants. According to European literature on the renewable-energy conflicts topic, the main reason for people to oppose the construction of wind farms is the visual impact of the farm especially if it is closer to the inhabited area (Nordvind, 2011). Community opposition is not limited to renewable energy projects but does include hydro and combustion power plants too. However, these latter power plants were mainly constructed and established in a period, between 1960s and1980s, in which society was not prepared to voice its dissent. While in the early days of wind turbines studies, citizens’ resistance to the projects were explained in terms of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome (Wolsink, 2000 and 2007; Aitken, 2010), today more sophisticated models have been deployed to understand the social, cultural, institutional, and physiological drivers of people’s negative attitude to renewable energy plants. For example, Wustenhagen and others (2007: 2684) have modeled social acceptance as the function of three dimensions: socio-
3/18
political acceptance, i.e. acceptance of the policies and technologies to strengthen renewable energy; community acceptance, i.e. agreement on the siting decisions; and market acceptance, that is related to market adoption and innovation.
Citizens’ Opposition to Renewable Energy Projects: learning from Sweden Despite a heavily centralized state, in Sweden municipality enjoys a strong power when it comes to land use. In practice, municipalities can veto any projects within their boundaries (Ek et al., 2013: 136) unless these projects are an expression of national interest such as for natural conservation areas, or to protect people’s health and security (Khan, 2003: 569).Therefore for a number of years, until 2004, the Swedish government has been ambiguous between promoting, on the one hand, wind power, but, on the other hand, avoiding to modify national regulation towards the inclusion of wind power in the national interest agenda (Khan, 2003: 569). Also, municipal land use monopoly has meant a great deal of different approaches when it comes to the implementation of wind power – from concentrated, large wind farms to scattered micro-plants (Khan, 2003: 577). This has had both a positive and negative outcome where the former has fostered a place-based approach while the latter has resulted in either extensive landscape impact or total opposition to wind farms (Khan, 2003: 578). Sweden has a long tradition of stakeholder engagement in state-funded projects in the form of participatory meetings and written feedbacks. However, other participatory techniques are less established (Henningsson et al., 2014). Furthermore, individual and informal agencies as well as small associations (in Swedish, förening) do not have the same visibility and influence in the planning process as other institutional stakeholders do. Adaptation to the impacts of energy projects has been shown to be an important factor to understand people’s perceptions. It seems that after energy projects have been implemented, the previous negative stand of the affected inhabitants fades for a more positive attitude (Warren et al., 2005) - this has been found not only for wind energy projects in Sweden, but also for different types of energy-related projects such as transmission lines in Finland: Soini et al. (2011: 303). However, this latter position, people belated acceptance of energy projects, has been contested by Aitken (2010) who argues that people silence on further energy projects may also be understood as the lack to engage in a cause where inhabitants have been previously defeated. Therefore, energy projects may actually contribute in eroding people confidence on the ability to influence government will and result in community distrust on city administrators and energy businesses and indifference to the green-energy cause. In 2005, as the result of an extensive survey carried out in Sweden, Ek did not found any evidence of the NIMBY hypothesis since the answers of the participants living closer to wind farms did not significantly differ from those living farther from such plants. The survey found that the Swedish sample was favorable
4/18
towards wind power, although this support decreased with the age and income (Ek, 2005: 1687). These results have been confirmed by later studies too. Through a series of surveys, Soderholm et al. (2007) have been able to model both the attitudes and willingness to pay for wind power in Sweden. The result of these models are that the positive attitudes are neither related to NIMBY nor to the education level of the respondents, but rather environmental awareness, age, and income bracket are more important variables to explain citizens’ opposition. Palm and Tengvard (2011) analysis of green-energy penetration in Swedish households and businesses, supports environmental awareness as one of the main drivers for the adoption of green energy, too. Soderholm et al. (2007: 397) suggest that since it is the wind power to generate most of the land use conflicts, it would, perhaps, be a better option for investors to move these farms off-shore. However, by analyzing two case studies in southern Sweden (Lillgrund wind farm in the Oresund strait and Utgrunden II in the Kalmar strait), Waldo (2012: 700) has shown that the public perception of near-shore wind farms is similar to the on-shore ones. Some Swedish scholars have argued that in low-income regions where unemployment is high there could be a more positive attitude to renewable energy projects; this would be due not to a better understanding by the locals of the climate mitigation effects of such technologies but rather to their potential to generate jobs (for the construction and maintenance of the plants) in a depressed region (Soderholm et al., 2007: 380; Waldo, 2012: 696; Ek et al., 2013: 138). Other scholars (e.g., Bergmann and others (2008) study of Scotland’s renewable energy developments), have argued that urban residents seem to value more landscape over economic opportunities while the opposite applies for rural residents. Also, Ek et al. (2013: 141) have suggested that municipalities with a previous experience in wind energy projects are more likely to expand their wind capacity than those without this experience. This point to the crucial role of institutional capacity building to successfully engage affected inhabitants and the hindrances created by top-down processes where people have fewer opportunities to participate (Wolsink, 2007). Therefore, off-shore locations are not a solution if public opposition to wind farms is to be positively addressed. Therefore, it becomes crucial to foster citizens’ participation in renewable energy project, if the government target for such a sector (10 TWh in 2015) is to be achieved.
Centralized Vs. Community Ownership: examples from Italy, France, and Germany According to a number of studies, it appears crucial the adoption of benefits to foster individual ownership of small renewable facilities (such as micro-wind and photovoltaic plants). For example, in Italy the combination of market and government incentives has contributed greatly to expand the wind energy capacity of the country and today the country comes third for green-energy capacity in Europe after Germany and Spain (Oles & Hammarlund, 2011: 474). Following the example of Germany (Li et al., 2013:
5/18
720), the introduction of Feed-In-Tariffs (FIT) to provide a stable and predictable source of income to individual green-energy users/providers has been crucial in countries such as Italy, Spain, and France. However, in Italy wind energy is a contested topic since large NGOs such as the Green League, that supports green energy, and Our Italy, that supports heritage protection, disagree on the expansion of the wind energy capacity. In the Scotland isles, the results of a survey of two renewable energy projects have shown positive interest and better attitude for community ownership while the support of wind power also for the current, business-operated wind farms is not low nor it is deemed to generate negative landscape impacts (Warren & McFadyen, 2010: 209). By studying two renewable energy projects in France and Germany, Jobert et al. (2007: 2759) have identified “local integration of the developer, the creation of a network of support, and access to ownership of the park” as the main factors to boost social acceptance. This is particularly true for countries with the weakest institutional framework on green energy such as France and Italy and the highest importance placed by their inhabitants on to the landscape to represent their national identities. A similar issue has been reported in Scotland, a country with one of the highest potential for wind power in Europe but extremely reliant on its landscape to generate income from tourism-related activities (Warren & McFadyen, 2010: 204). Finally, by studying the implementation of an integrated, community-based greenenergy project in a small community of Germany’s Black Forest (Freiamt), Li and others (2013) have found that the residents/promoters of the project were not motivated by the sky-high discussion on the climate change emergency but by both financial, generation of income by selling electricity to the grid operators and by attracting green-tech tourists in a declining rural community, and identity, inhabitants’ proudness to be a 100% green-energy supplied community, reasons.
Place-based approach Oles and Hammarlund (2011: 479) have suggested that a place-based approach to locating RE plants is needed, if public concerns over the impacts of the new energy systems must be addressed. Therefore, the question posed by the authors is: “can historic patterns linked to regional landscape identity coexist with new energy infrastructure?” (Oles & Hammarlund, 2011: 480). The results of their collaborative (university, county, municipalities) study in central Sweden show that it is not the technology to be perceived as a threat but rather the number, location, and identity of the owners to carry most of the importance for the local stakeholders (Oles & Hammarlund, 2011: 480). Moreover, the interviewed participants are more likely to pay for wind power if wind farms are located off-shore or they are smaller in scale while noise levels and height of the mill do not play any role in this choice (Soderholm et al., 2007).
3. Methodology
6/18
From the literature review, it emerged that three aspects are crucial in the implementation of RE projects, namely: understanding and managing citizens’ opposition; fostering community ownership; and deploying a place-based approach that is sensitive to the local context. In the remainder of the paper, we will explore these three issues for the case of Malta and discuss the lesson learned and suggest possible improvements. In March 2016, we traveled to Malta with the intention to carry out field work research. This month was chosen since at the same time a major academic and policy event was hosted in the country i.e. the annual Sustainable Built Environment Conference, organized by Malta’s major research institution (the University of Malta) and several other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Two main research methods were deployed to gather the needed data: a) interviews with government stakeholders were deployed to explore the scale and quality of planned RE plants, the type of public-private-partnership model deployed to fulfill the vision, the participatory tools (if any) that officials plan to deploy in the location of RE plants, and the intersection between RE and land use planning (at the national and municipal scales). During the interviews, notes were collected for later examination in order to identify the recurrent themes. The issues discussed in the interviews were about: the size and quality of RE energy plants, Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) mechanisms and incentives, participatory tools, ambitions for aesthetic values of RE plants; and synergies with other stakeholders. b) A document analysis of official policy documents and other web material was carried out to complement the information gathered from the interviews. From a first search, three main documents were selected for an in-depth analysis (see table 1). Some of them were discussed during the interviews. The main themes related to RE and its impact on the landscape and tourism industry were identified. In particular, we focused on keywords such as “renewable energy”, “landscape”, and “participation”. Themes identified in a) and b) were successively discussed (section 5) in order to identify gaps and inconsistencies. A local researcher at the local Malta College of Art, Science and Technology (dr. Brian Azzopardi), was contacted to help identify and select the participants for this study. Insofar, one public official from the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA, mr. Victor Sladden) and two officers from the Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Unit (SEWCU, Ms. Therese Galea and Mr. Alan Bezzina), a government agency, whose main functions include the formulation, evaluation, monitoring and implementation of national policies concerning the use of energy and water and the preparation of plans to meet national and EU energy targets were selected. In addition to this, a contact was established with a lecturer in the Faculty of the Built Environment at the University of Malta who has worked as a consultant for the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards for Malta (dr. Antonine Zammit).
7/18
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Interviews
SEWCU The first issue we discussed with SWECU was the context for a change from wind to PV electricity production. Previously the conservative coalition that was governing the country had shown interest in large scale, off-shore wind farms. A number of proposals were discussed such as floating wind turbine. However, SWECU’s officers argued that with the plunging of PV panels price, it now makes more sense to consider the PV option as the wind hypothesis was costly in terms of environmental impacts (anchoring the turbines to the bottom of a rather deep sea), installation, and maintenance costs. Interestingly enough, on side conversations with researchers at MCAST, the country is exploring the option to have this time floating PV units. However, for this latter the issue is the loss in performance due to possible salt accumulations on the glass of PV units. We believe that both examples show the struggle to meet ambitious RE targets in a small size nation. Therefore, in a way or the other, the country is forced to expand its RE surface into the sea to increase the possibilities for RE harnessing. This latter can be a source of conflict with the tourism industry as the marine landscape plays a big role in attracting tourists to the archipelago. It seems that other options are at the moment under study such as the leasing or purchase of land in neighboring foreign countries to harness RE and bring back to the archipelago. Nonetheless, at the moment there is not a concrete project that is exploring such an option. The government sees the privates as the main stakeholders for the implementation of PV in Malta. Incentives have been put in place to favor private people interested in investing in solar energy such as FIT, grants, etc. One of the issues that prevent the accessibility of privates to PV grants is that most of the population live in apartment units, therefore, only a small proportion has access to an own roof top. To circumvent this issue, the government is studying the possibility to create a “roof top bank”, by leasing public buildings’ rooftops to a public trust whereby any citizen can invest and get an energy profit. At the moment, the government is focusing on information projects to create awareness on energy conservation. This information campaign involves the participation of specialists who come to visit privates’ properties and inform on the possibility to get grants for acquiring PV. On the issue of aesthetic values, the SEWCU officers thought that the country hadn't thought much about it yet since it is at such early stage of RE technology. “Agrivoltaic Microsolutions” is an ongoing research and innovative project in collaboration with MCAST. SEWCU has started the project two find a way around two pressing issues faced by the Maltese: the lack
8/18
of sufficient rooftop spaces available for the installation of PVs; and the need to integrate falling farmers’ income. A more symbolic, testbed project was the installation of roof mounted PV in the Prime Minister’s residence at Villa Francia in Hal Lija. 9 KW of PVs ﴾approximately 36 PV panels﴿ were installed at the premises which are estimated to provide approximately 13 MWh/year. The aim was to blend RE technology and architecture in an intelligent and aesthetic way given that it is a historic building. This was achieved by installing PVs with a low installation angle ﴾15 Degrees instead of the optimal 30 degrees inclination﴿. The low angle also allowed more panels to fit in the roof space, which was important given that the available area of PVs was restricted. The shading generated by the PVs will also passively aid to reduce the air conditioning cooling loads during the summer period.
MEPA Similarly to the previous interview, our discussion with MEPA started from the reasons for policy change from the wind to PV electricity generation. As with SEWCU, the reasons proposed were costs and environmental (including visual) impacts. It was not clear if a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out. Rather, from our discussion with policy makers, it looked more of a policy shift due to a different coalition coming to power. MEPA argues that the PV approach was compatible with a more gradual implementation of RE in Malta, starting from individual roofs to large scale buildings, and PV farms. MEPA official lamented, for now, a lack of a clear policy to manage PV implementation although we successively found out that a solar farm policy is under discussion. We then delved into the possible conflicts with the existing land use framework. However, the MEPA officer did not feel that there was a need for a new master plan. A new “Development Control Design Policy” has recently (2015) been adopted and it takes care of the possible integration between PV and the built environment. Landscape planning in malta is at the very early stage, although we are aware that landscape sensitivity areas have been identified on an official map. When talking about participation, the MEPA official felt that there was no need for a new tool. He thought that the current system of written feedbacks after the presentation of the draft was enough to guarantee democracy in the planning process. This system, indeed adopted in many Western countries (e.g., Italy, Sweden, etc.), is deployed for the normal drafting policies and structural plans in Malta. MEPA has positively encouraged the provision of PV modules (solar modules). These can be integrated into the building envelope or mounted on separate dedicated supports. The areas required for solar electricity generation are larger than for solar water heater, although the former are likely to have a less visual impacts because of the absence of a water tank and their smaller bulk. Solar Modules integrated into the building fabric or envelope are likely to be generally acceptable where they would not adversely
9/18
affect the character or appearance of a historic building or or elsewhere have an adverse impact on the townscape.
4.2. Document Analysis
Solar Farm Policy The document introduces a definition of ‘Solar Farm’ as “a sizeable commercial installation with a footprint larger than 1000 sqm, not usually related to residential development, for the purpose of renewable energy generation by means of photovoltaic technology” (MEPA, 2014). The document acknowledges that the current implementation of PV on rooftops will unlikely provide for the 10% target. Furthermore, it highlights as “the integration of PV systems within the built environment, still has a negative visual impact, especially when deployed on a large scale, or in sensitive areas” (MEPA, 2014). As the result of this, solar farms should be focused on existing car parks and quarries also to mitigate their visual impact as well as to provide an opportunity to generate green electricity. According to the study, quarries and rooftops totaled circa 1 sqkm, with the majority being quarries (86%). Location wise, solar farms should be sited in the vicinity of urban areas to limit sprawl towards the countryside. The policy aims to preserve pristine land that is deemed valuable for landscape and food production. Finally, it is suggested that the design of the farm “should seek to provide visual interest” to “significantly mitigate visual [sic] impact of the solar farm” (MEPA, 2014). The policy identifies 12 criteria to guide the implementation of future solar farms. Amongst these, the ones that have an explicit focus on landscape are: “Ensure that the solar farm fits appropriately in the site topography”; “Limit the height of the panels above the surrounding terrain”; “Introduce appropriate context-adapted boundary treatment and peripheral landscaping”; “Limit trenching work to existing routes”; “Limit the scale of infrastructure according to the scale of the solar farm”; and “Ensure that interventions on site are reasonably reversible” (MEPA, 2014). Interestingly enough, no measures for public participation are mentioned in the document.
Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards The document concerns with guidelines for building design. A special guidance policy (G26) has been designed for the integration of PVs into buildings. The basic question that the policy address is: “Have the visual implications of PV modules and SWH collectors been addressed and have both quantitative and qualitative considerations been taken into account in their design?” (MEPA, 2015). To assess the impacts of PV the policy suggests the assessment of the overall visual impact of the installation on the building; the extent to which it has been satisfactorily integrated into that design; the overall visual impact of the installation on the site and its surroundings; the orientation of the building and associated requirements on PV systems; and the proposed materials. At the same time, in urban
10/18
conservation areas it will only be possible to design such measures on the back elevation, provided that this will not result in any negative visual impact. The policy does not specify specific actions for open areas; participatory tools are not an objective of such a document.
Enerscapes project: goals and actions The goal of Enerscapes was the development of the Renewable Energy Sources (RES) market, implementing a set of rules and actions in the matter of territorial and landscape protection. The project was led by the government agency MIEMA (Malta Intelligent Energy Management Agency) in collaboration with several other agencies from Mediterranean Europe. The specific objectives were to define and test an energy planning method able to assess and minimize territorial impacts deriving from the use of RES, and to take into account the landscape and the environment in the development of the (RES) market. The project structure consisted of 3 macro-phases. The macro-phases are (figure 4): Analysis of context and definition of the method; Pilot experiences (in a number of case studies in the Mediterranean region); and the Comparison of experiences and refinement of method. In Malta, a pilot area was chosen and compared to others being part of the study. Methodology-wise, three stages were carried out (MIEMA, 2013): “Setting the context and establishing the baseline”; “Scenario Analysis”; and “Assessing the effects of the plan”. Apart from the “Scenario 0”, reporting the current trends, the remaining scenarios shift from the most strict in landscape protection to the most powerful in RES production. MIEMA aims to capitalize the results of the Enerscapes project in Malta through different actions and future projects. As a first step for capitalization, the completed action plan has been presented to various local authorities, including the Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs. MIEMA has presented the action plan to the local councils around Malta and Gozo in order to disseminate the project’s results and assist them in the implementation of renewable energy installations in their localities.
5. Discussion and conclusions Previous work on RE implementation and landscape conflicts points to the importance of understanding citizens’ opposition to RE projects, enabling community ownership, and facilitating a place-based approach that is sensitive to the context. Indeed, Malta’s context (its landscape, built up area, and marine nature) is of extreme importance for the country’s identity and value generation. It contributes to up to 15% of the national GDP, and tourist sector is still expanding. Our starting hypothesis was confirmed in that we
11/18
identified a number of factors that the government is attempting to manage to foster a smoother energy transition in the small, island nation of Malta. Looking at our results, we have found that the government has prioritized context (location and integration of technology and built environment) rather than innovative forms of participation. Indeed, our interviewees did not see a specific reason to implement a participatory process different from the current used in any planning process and that involves: the presentation of the draft project to the public; the collection of feedback from privates and association; and the final deliberation. On the other hand, the government, through its agencies, has made a big effort to prevent any conflict between landscape/built heritage and RE implementation by targeting brownfields (such as quarries), parking lots and existing roofs as the main sites for the implementation of PV. An interesting project is to integrate PV with agritourism but its impacts in terms of energy production will be marginal for the overall target. The government, through SEWCU, has implemented some pilot project to demonstrate the integration of PV with heritage buildings such as in the case of the prime minister’s official home. However, the government sees RE technologies more as a tool instead of re-thinking RE projects as a new landscape type. Rather, the country aims at minimizing its visible impacts on the existing landscape. This approach is consistent with that of France and Italy, both relying on their landscapes as an important source of revenues. In terms of knowledge generation, some studies have been carried out to develop new methodologies for the integration of the energy targets in the built environment. We have analyzed Enerscapes that is an EU co-funded project, aimed at developing a scenario-based methodology for the implementation of RE projects in Malta. We think that this study is a promising step forward to introduce modern planning tools and participatory processes that can enable a better understanding of the stakeholders’ (agencies and individuals) aspirations for achieving a low carbon society. Lastly, we found interesting the idea, currently explored by the government, to implement a “roof bank” to enable any citizen to invest on RE. As the majority of citizens do not have access to an own roof, this “bank” could be crucial to mobilize private capitals for expanding the current provision of PV. In this sense, the government relies chiefly on private capitals, rather than public interventions, to achieve its RE targets. This is line with the current economic paradigm adopted in Europe, i.e. neoliberalism, that sees the government as an enabler and regulator of the private market rather than the main actor for investments. On the basis of our discussion, we recommend a stronger government effort to implement participatory processes that can drive a more successful energy transition in Malta by empowering individual agencies. To this end, we suggest a more comprehensive investigation of the interactions between the implementation of the energy transition in Malta and landscape impacts, emphasizing the social
12/18
sustainability of government’s energy policies. Finally, it should not be dismissed the important role played by aesthetics in integrating new forms of energy production (i.e. RE) with the existing urban and natural environment. In this sense, local architecture degree programmes can play a crucial role by experimenting new design languages that can bridge cultural heritage and energy transition instances.
Acknowledgements …
Reference List Aitken, M. (2010). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy,38(4), 1834-1841. Bergmann, A., Colombo, S., & Hanley, N. (2008). Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecological economics, 65(3), 616-625. Dalli, M. (2014). Solar farms set to cater for half of Malta’s 2020 renewable energy targets. MaltaToday, December. Accessed at: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/47712/solar_farms_set_to_cater_for_half_of_maltas_2020_r enewable_energy_targets#.VwNkjfl95aQ. Duca, E. (2013). A greener Malta. THINK magazine, University of Malta. Energimyndigheten (2009). Sveriges Elproduktion mellan 1900 och 2008. Stockholm. Ek, K. (2005). Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power.Energy Policy, 33(13), 1677-1689. Ek, K., Persson, L., Johansson, M., & Waldo, Å. (2013). Location of Swedish wind power—Random or not? A quantitative analysis of differences in installed wind power capacity across Swedish municipalities. Energy Policy, 58, 135-141. EU (2008). Malta Renewable Energy Fact Sheet. Accessed at https://www.energy.eu/renewables/factsheets/2008_res_sheet_malta_en.pdf
13/18
Henningsson, M., Blicharska, M., Antonson, H., Mikusiński, G., Goransson, G., Angelstam, P., Folkeson, L. & Jonsson, S. (2014). Perceived landscape values and public participation in a road-planning process– a case study in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58 (4), 631–653. Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., & Mimler, S. (2007). Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies.Energy policy, 35(5), 2751-2760. Li, L. W., Birmele, J., Schaich, H., & Konold, W. (2013). Transitioning to community-owned renewable energy: Lessons from Germany. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, 719-728. Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) (2011). Renewable Energy – Are We Doing Enough? Outlook 13, April. Access at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/outlook13-article7. Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) (2014). Solar Farm Policy. Valletta, Malta. Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) (2015). Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards. Valletta, Malta. Malta Intelligent Energy Management Agency (MIEMA) (2013). Enerscapes: Territory, Landscape and Renewable Energies. Malta. Valletta. Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs (2009). National Renewable Energy Action Plan. Bruxelles. Malta Resource Authority (MRA) (2013). Grant Scheme for PV systems 2013 Call. Accessed at: http://mra.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/3673/Presentation-Grant-Scheme-for-PV-Systems2013.pdf. Malta Resource Authority (MRA) (2015). The uptake of solar systems in the Maltese Residential Sector. (Status as of end of 2014). Accesed at: http://mra.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/216/Solar-RESgrowth-in-residential-sector-Feb2015.pdf. Khan, J. (2003). Wind power planning in three Swedish municipalities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(4), 563-581. Nordvind, (2011) Wind Power in the Nordic Region: Conditions for the expansion of wind power in the Nordic countries.
14/18
Oles, T., & Hammarlund, K. (2011). The European landscape convention, wind power, and the limits of the local: notes from Italy and Sweden. Landscape Research, 36(4), 471-485. Palm, J. & Tengvard, M. (2011). Motives for and barriers to household adoption of small-scale production of electricity: examples from Sweden. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 7(1), 6-15. Sauter, R., & Watson, J. (2007). Strategies for the deployment of micro-generation: Implications for social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2770-2779. Soderholm, P., Ek, K., & Pettersson, M. (2007). Wind power development in Sweden: Global policies and local obstacles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(3), 365-400. Soini, K., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., Uusitalo, M., & Kivinen, T. (2011). Local residents’ perceptions of energy landscape: the case of transmission lines.Land Use Policy, 28(1), 294-305. Waldo, A. (2012). Offshore wind power in Sweden—A qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents. Energy Policy, 41, 692-702. Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S., Birnie, R.V., (2005). ‘Green On Green’: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 48, 853–875. Warren, C. R., & McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland.Land Use Policy, 27(2), 204-213. Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable energy,21(1), 49-64. Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 11(6), 1188-1207. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy policy, 35(5), 2683-2691.
15/18
Figure 1. Landscape Sensitivity Areas in Malta (source: MEPA, 2005).
16/18
Figure 2. NREAP Projections (source: NREAP, 2010)
Figure 3. Trend in Residential capacity vs. Non-Residential capacity (source: MRA, 2015).
17/18
Figure 4. Enerscapes, Methodology (source: MIMA, 2013).
18/18
Table 1. List of Analyzed Documents ID
Acronym
Document Title
1
SFP
Solar Farm Policy
2
DCDP
Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards
3
ENER
Enerscapes: Territory, Landscape and Renewable Energies
Author Malta Environment and Planning Authority Malta Environment and Planning Authority Malta Intelligent Energy Management Agency
Year 2014 2015
2013
19/18
S2210-6707(16)30312-2 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.12.005 SCS 548
To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
26-8-2016 21-10-2016 5-12-2016
Please cite this article as: & Rizzo, Agatino., MANAGING THE ENERGY TRANSITION IN A TOURISM-DRIVEN ECONOMY THE CASE OF MALTA.Sustainable Cities and Society http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.12.005 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANAGING THE ENERGY TRANSITION IN A TOURISM-DRIVEN ECONOMY THE CASE OF MALTA Agatino Rizzo, Architecture Research Group, Luleå University of Technology, 97187, Sweden My contacts are: dr. Agatino Rizzo Luleå University of Technology, SBN 97187 Luleå, Sweden ph.: +46 (0)920 49 3438 email: [email protected]
Abstract The aim of this paper is to assess Malta’s government capacity to manage the possible environmental and social conflicts arising from the implementation of its renewable energy agenda to comply with EU’s 2020-20 strategy. The country has targeted photovoltaic technologies to achieve a 10% renewable energy share in the final consumption of energy by 2020. Malta is a popular tourist destination and hosts three UNESCO world heritage sites, and it is one of the smallest, although densely populated, countries in the European Union. From the encroachment of PV parks with the existing urban and rural landscape, we found a number of issues worth to be investigated such as the location of solar power plants, participatory planning mechanisms, and aesthetic-design considerations for integrating photovoltaic into the existing urban fabric. The study is based on semi-structured interviews with institutional stakeholders and document analysis. Keywords: Renewable Energy, Landscape Quality, Government Capacity, Tourism Industry, Malta.
1/18
1. Background Malta is a small archipelago nation of about 316 sqKm distributed mainly in two islands (Malta, the capital region and the most urbanized of the two, and nearby, more rural Gozo) for a total population of less than half million inhabitants (425,000 in 2013, National Statistics Office, 2014). The archipelago is a popular tourist destination and hosts three UNESCO world heritage sites while its tourism industry contributes to almost 20% of the national GDP (Malta Tourism Authority, 2015). In 2014, nearly 1.7 million tourists visited Malta with numbers rising year after year at an average of 5% p.a. (Malta Tourism Authority, 2015). Most of the archipelago is labeled as a sensitive landscape site (figure 1), therefore constraining sensitive activities (such as building construction) that could endanger one of the main sources of national income (i.e. tourism). At the same time, as one of the most recent EU member (2004), Malta has committed to increasing its renewable energy share of the current electricity production (2 TWh) by 2020 (Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs, 2009). In July 2010, Malta submitted its National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) to the European Commission, as required by Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of renewable energy. This action plan provides a roadmap on how the country intends to reach the 10% of renewable energy share in the final consumption of energy by 2020 (figure 2). “This energy savings target is consistent with Malta carrying a fair share of the EU’s 20% projected reduction in energy consumption by 2020” (NEEAP, 2014). In 2005, 100% of electricity was generated from oil (Malta Renewable Energy Fact Sheet, 2008) while in 2010 only 0.86 per cent of the national gross consumption was covered by the renewable energy share. Since then a mechanism of incentives and feed-in tariffs, together with a drastic reduction of installation costs, have facilitated the development of domestic photovoltaic (PV) energy production which is currently accounting for almost 4-5% (Dalli, 2014) of the total electricity production (figure 3). With the help of the European Regional Development Fund and National Funding, grants up to 50% of the eligible costs (to a maximum of €2500) have been distributed to applicants for rooftops PV (MRA, 2013). Some 16,000 solar systems are installed on domestic and industrial rooftops, generating some 40MWp (Dalli, 2014). On top of this, the government has for some time discussed the need to implement large-scale renewable energy plants in order to achieve the 10% target. Prior to March 2013, the conservative coalition in power had shown interest in wind energy and a number of unofficial consultations were undertaken to explore the possibility of its implementation (Duca, 2013). However, the current government (led by the centre-left, Labour Party) has reversed the approach to favor photovoltaic electricity generation (Dalli, 2014). This change of policy was meant to meet the worries of the local tourism industry which saw inshore and offshore wind turbines as a threat to their business. As a result of this, in December 2014, the government put forward a strategy to implement 2.7 sqkm of solar farms to produce 5% of the renewable energy target, with the rest being provided for through the use of biofuels, heat pumps, waste energy and
2/18
solar water heaters. At the end of 2014, there were three pending applications for large-scale farms with a footprint larger than 1,000m2 (Dalli, 2014). The aim of this study is to assess the government capacity to manage the possible conflicts between renewable energy implementation and landscape of Malta as well as to foster citizen participation in this process. Malta’s built environment and landscape are some of the most valuable assets for economic development in the country while people’s consensus is paramount to foster technology acceptance. Our hypothesis is that from the encroachment of future PV parks with the existing urban and rural landscape of the islands, a number of issues will need to be managed such as the location of the power plants, participatory planning mechanisms, and aesthetic design considerations of such complexes. Therefore, better knowledge is needed to assess the potential conflicts arising in the implementation of RE projects in a tourism-driven economy such as Malta. Since there is very little literature on Malta’s energy transition and its possible conflicts with other economic sectors and people’s ambitions, in our literature review in section two we will leverage on existing European literature on this topic. This European approach reflects the international team contributing to our research which was made possible by a European cooperation project (see in the acknowledgments). In section three we present our methodology while in section four we report its outcomes. The results will be discussed in section five together with the conclusions.
2. Literature Review: the European debate on RE and the opposition to the energy transition
Introduction to community opposition to RE The implementation of RE technology poses several challenges particularly regarding managing inhabitants’ opposition to the implementation of such plants. According to European literature on the renewable-energy conflicts topic, the main reason for people to oppose the construction of wind farms is the visual impact of the farm especially if it is closer to the inhabited area (Nordvind, 2011). Community opposition is not limited to renewable energy projects but does include hydro and combustion power plants too. However, these latter power plants were mainly constructed and established in a period, between 1960s and1980s, in which society was not prepared to voice its dissent. While in the early days of wind turbines studies, citizens’ resistance to the projects were explained in terms of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome (Wolsink, 2000 and 2007; Aitken, 2010), today more sophisticated models have been deployed to understand the social, cultural, institutional, and physiological drivers of people’s negative attitude to renewable energy plants. For example, Wustenhagen and others (2007: 2684) have modeled social acceptance as the function of three dimensions: socio-
3/18
political acceptance, i.e. acceptance of the policies and technologies to strengthen renewable energy; community acceptance, i.e. agreement on the siting decisions; and market acceptance, that is related to market adoption and innovation.
Citizens’ Opposition to Renewable Energy Projects: learning from Sweden Despite a heavily centralized state, in Sweden municipality enjoys a strong power when it comes to land use. In practice, municipalities can veto any projects within their boundaries (Ek et al., 2013: 136) unless these projects are an expression of national interest such as for natural conservation areas, or to protect people’s health and security (Khan, 2003: 569).Therefore for a number of years, until 2004, the Swedish government has been ambiguous between promoting, on the one hand, wind power, but, on the other hand, avoiding to modify national regulation towards the inclusion of wind power in the national interest agenda (Khan, 2003: 569). Also, municipal land use monopoly has meant a great deal of different approaches when it comes to the implementation of wind power – from concentrated, large wind farms to scattered micro-plants (Khan, 2003: 577). This has had both a positive and negative outcome where the former has fostered a place-based approach while the latter has resulted in either extensive landscape impact or total opposition to wind farms (Khan, 2003: 578). Sweden has a long tradition of stakeholder engagement in state-funded projects in the form of participatory meetings and written feedbacks. However, other participatory techniques are less established (Henningsson et al., 2014). Furthermore, individual and informal agencies as well as small associations (in Swedish, förening) do not have the same visibility and influence in the planning process as other institutional stakeholders do. Adaptation to the impacts of energy projects has been shown to be an important factor to understand people’s perceptions. It seems that after energy projects have been implemented, the previous negative stand of the affected inhabitants fades for a more positive attitude (Warren et al., 2005) - this has been found not only for wind energy projects in Sweden, but also for different types of energy-related projects such as transmission lines in Finland: Soini et al. (2011: 303). However, this latter position, people belated acceptance of energy projects, has been contested by Aitken (2010) who argues that people silence on further energy projects may also be understood as the lack to engage in a cause where inhabitants have been previously defeated. Therefore, energy projects may actually contribute in eroding people confidence on the ability to influence government will and result in community distrust on city administrators and energy businesses and indifference to the green-energy cause. In 2005, as the result of an extensive survey carried out in Sweden, Ek did not found any evidence of the NIMBY hypothesis since the answers of the participants living closer to wind farms did not significantly differ from those living farther from such plants. The survey found that the Swedish sample was favorable
4/18
towards wind power, although this support decreased with the age and income (Ek, 2005: 1687). These results have been confirmed by later studies too. Through a series of surveys, Soderholm et al. (2007) have been able to model both the attitudes and willingness to pay for wind power in Sweden. The result of these models are that the positive attitudes are neither related to NIMBY nor to the education level of the respondents, but rather environmental awareness, age, and income bracket are more important variables to explain citizens’ opposition. Palm and Tengvard (2011) analysis of green-energy penetration in Swedish households and businesses, supports environmental awareness as one of the main drivers for the adoption of green energy, too. Soderholm et al. (2007: 397) suggest that since it is the wind power to generate most of the land use conflicts, it would, perhaps, be a better option for investors to move these farms off-shore. However, by analyzing two case studies in southern Sweden (Lillgrund wind farm in the Oresund strait and Utgrunden II in the Kalmar strait), Waldo (2012: 700) has shown that the public perception of near-shore wind farms is similar to the on-shore ones. Some Swedish scholars have argued that in low-income regions where unemployment is high there could be a more positive attitude to renewable energy projects; this would be due not to a better understanding by the locals of the climate mitigation effects of such technologies but rather to their potential to generate jobs (for the construction and maintenance of the plants) in a depressed region (Soderholm et al., 2007: 380; Waldo, 2012: 696; Ek et al., 2013: 138). Other scholars (e.g., Bergmann and others (2008) study of Scotland’s renewable energy developments), have argued that urban residents seem to value more landscape over economic opportunities while the opposite applies for rural residents. Also, Ek et al. (2013: 141) have suggested that municipalities with a previous experience in wind energy projects are more likely to expand their wind capacity than those without this experience. This point to the crucial role of institutional capacity building to successfully engage affected inhabitants and the hindrances created by top-down processes where people have fewer opportunities to participate (Wolsink, 2007). Therefore, off-shore locations are not a solution if public opposition to wind farms is to be positively addressed. Therefore, it becomes crucial to foster citizens’ participation in renewable energy project, if the government target for such a sector (10 TWh in 2015) is to be achieved.
Centralized Vs. Community Ownership: examples from Italy, France, and Germany According to a number of studies, it appears crucial the adoption of benefits to foster individual ownership of small renewable facilities (such as micro-wind and photovoltaic plants). For example, in Italy the combination of market and government incentives has contributed greatly to expand the wind energy capacity of the country and today the country comes third for green-energy capacity in Europe after Germany and Spain (Oles & Hammarlund, 2011: 474). Following the example of Germany (Li et al., 2013:
5/18
720), the introduction of Feed-In-Tariffs (FIT) to provide a stable and predictable source of income to individual green-energy users/providers has been crucial in countries such as Italy, Spain, and France. However, in Italy wind energy is a contested topic since large NGOs such as the Green League, that supports green energy, and Our Italy, that supports heritage protection, disagree on the expansion of the wind energy capacity. In the Scotland isles, the results of a survey of two renewable energy projects have shown positive interest and better attitude for community ownership while the support of wind power also for the current, business-operated wind farms is not low nor it is deemed to generate negative landscape impacts (Warren & McFadyen, 2010: 209). By studying two renewable energy projects in France and Germany, Jobert et al. (2007: 2759) have identified “local integration of the developer, the creation of a network of support, and access to ownership of the park” as the main factors to boost social acceptance. This is particularly true for countries with the weakest institutional framework on green energy such as France and Italy and the highest importance placed by their inhabitants on to the landscape to represent their national identities. A similar issue has been reported in Scotland, a country with one of the highest potential for wind power in Europe but extremely reliant on its landscape to generate income from tourism-related activities (Warren & McFadyen, 2010: 204). Finally, by studying the implementation of an integrated, community-based greenenergy project in a small community of Germany’s Black Forest (Freiamt), Li and others (2013) have found that the residents/promoters of the project were not motivated by the sky-high discussion on the climate change emergency but by both financial, generation of income by selling electricity to the grid operators and by attracting green-tech tourists in a declining rural community, and identity, inhabitants’ proudness to be a 100% green-energy supplied community, reasons.
Place-based approach Oles and Hammarlund (2011: 479) have suggested that a place-based approach to locating RE plants is needed, if public concerns over the impacts of the new energy systems must be addressed. Therefore, the question posed by the authors is: “can historic patterns linked to regional landscape identity coexist with new energy infrastructure?” (Oles & Hammarlund, 2011: 480). The results of their collaborative (university, county, municipalities) study in central Sweden show that it is not the technology to be perceived as a threat but rather the number, location, and identity of the owners to carry most of the importance for the local stakeholders (Oles & Hammarlund, 2011: 480). Moreover, the interviewed participants are more likely to pay for wind power if wind farms are located off-shore or they are smaller in scale while noise levels and height of the mill do not play any role in this choice (Soderholm et al., 2007).
3. Methodology
6/18
From the literature review, it emerged that three aspects are crucial in the implementation of RE projects, namely: understanding and managing citizens’ opposition; fostering community ownership; and deploying a place-based approach that is sensitive to the local context. In the remainder of the paper, we will explore these three issues for the case of Malta and discuss the lesson learned and suggest possible improvements. In March 2016, we traveled to Malta with the intention to carry out field work research. This month was chosen since at the same time a major academic and policy event was hosted in the country i.e. the annual Sustainable Built Environment Conference, organized by Malta’s major research institution (the University of Malta) and several other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Two main research methods were deployed to gather the needed data: a) interviews with government stakeholders were deployed to explore the scale and quality of planned RE plants, the type of public-private-partnership model deployed to fulfill the vision, the participatory tools (if any) that officials plan to deploy in the location of RE plants, and the intersection between RE and land use planning (at the national and municipal scales). During the interviews, notes were collected for later examination in order to identify the recurrent themes. The issues discussed in the interviews were about: the size and quality of RE energy plants, Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) mechanisms and incentives, participatory tools, ambitions for aesthetic values of RE plants; and synergies with other stakeholders. b) A document analysis of official policy documents and other web material was carried out to complement the information gathered from the interviews. From a first search, three main documents were selected for an in-depth analysis (see table 1). Some of them were discussed during the interviews. The main themes related to RE and its impact on the landscape and tourism industry were identified. In particular, we focused on keywords such as “renewable energy”, “landscape”, and “participation”. Themes identified in a) and b) were successively discussed (section 5) in order to identify gaps and inconsistencies. A local researcher at the local Malta College of Art, Science and Technology (dr. Brian Azzopardi), was contacted to help identify and select the participants for this study. Insofar, one public official from the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA, mr. Victor Sladden) and two officers from the Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Unit (SEWCU, Ms. Therese Galea and Mr. Alan Bezzina), a government agency, whose main functions include the formulation, evaluation, monitoring and implementation of national policies concerning the use of energy and water and the preparation of plans to meet national and EU energy targets were selected. In addition to this, a contact was established with a lecturer in the Faculty of the Built Environment at the University of Malta who has worked as a consultant for the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards for Malta (dr. Antonine Zammit).
7/18
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Interviews
SEWCU The first issue we discussed with SWECU was the context for a change from wind to PV electricity production. Previously the conservative coalition that was governing the country had shown interest in large scale, off-shore wind farms. A number of proposals were discussed such as floating wind turbine. However, SWECU’s officers argued that with the plunging of PV panels price, it now makes more sense to consider the PV option as the wind hypothesis was costly in terms of environmental impacts (anchoring the turbines to the bottom of a rather deep sea), installation, and maintenance costs. Interestingly enough, on side conversations with researchers at MCAST, the country is exploring the option to have this time floating PV units. However, for this latter the issue is the loss in performance due to possible salt accumulations on the glass of PV units. We believe that both examples show the struggle to meet ambitious RE targets in a small size nation. Therefore, in a way or the other, the country is forced to expand its RE surface into the sea to increase the possibilities for RE harnessing. This latter can be a source of conflict with the tourism industry as the marine landscape plays a big role in attracting tourists to the archipelago. It seems that other options are at the moment under study such as the leasing or purchase of land in neighboring foreign countries to harness RE and bring back to the archipelago. Nonetheless, at the moment there is not a concrete project that is exploring such an option. The government sees the privates as the main stakeholders for the implementation of PV in Malta. Incentives have been put in place to favor private people interested in investing in solar energy such as FIT, grants, etc. One of the issues that prevent the accessibility of privates to PV grants is that most of the population live in apartment units, therefore, only a small proportion has access to an own roof top. To circumvent this issue, the government is studying the possibility to create a “roof top bank”, by leasing public buildings’ rooftops to a public trust whereby any citizen can invest and get an energy profit. At the moment, the government is focusing on information projects to create awareness on energy conservation. This information campaign involves the participation of specialists who come to visit privates’ properties and inform on the possibility to get grants for acquiring PV. On the issue of aesthetic values, the SEWCU officers thought that the country hadn't thought much about it yet since it is at such early stage of RE technology. “Agrivoltaic Microsolutions” is an ongoing research and innovative project in collaboration with MCAST. SEWCU has started the project two find a way around two pressing issues faced by the Maltese: the lack
8/18
of sufficient rooftop spaces available for the installation of PVs; and the need to integrate falling farmers’ income. A more symbolic, testbed project was the installation of roof mounted PV in the Prime Minister’s residence at Villa Francia in Hal Lija. 9 KW of PVs ﴾approximately 36 PV panels﴿ were installed at the premises which are estimated to provide approximately 13 MWh/year. The aim was to blend RE technology and architecture in an intelligent and aesthetic way given that it is a historic building. This was achieved by installing PVs with a low installation angle ﴾15 Degrees instead of the optimal 30 degrees inclination﴿. The low angle also allowed more panels to fit in the roof space, which was important given that the available area of PVs was restricted. The shading generated by the PVs will also passively aid to reduce the air conditioning cooling loads during the summer period.
MEPA Similarly to the previous interview, our discussion with MEPA started from the reasons for policy change from the wind to PV electricity generation. As with SEWCU, the reasons proposed were costs and environmental (including visual) impacts. It was not clear if a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out. Rather, from our discussion with policy makers, it looked more of a policy shift due to a different coalition coming to power. MEPA argues that the PV approach was compatible with a more gradual implementation of RE in Malta, starting from individual roofs to large scale buildings, and PV farms. MEPA official lamented, for now, a lack of a clear policy to manage PV implementation although we successively found out that a solar farm policy is under discussion. We then delved into the possible conflicts with the existing land use framework. However, the MEPA officer did not feel that there was a need for a new master plan. A new “Development Control Design Policy” has recently (2015) been adopted and it takes care of the possible integration between PV and the built environment. Landscape planning in malta is at the very early stage, although we are aware that landscape sensitivity areas have been identified on an official map. When talking about participation, the MEPA official felt that there was no need for a new tool. He thought that the current system of written feedbacks after the presentation of the draft was enough to guarantee democracy in the planning process. This system, indeed adopted in many Western countries (e.g., Italy, Sweden, etc.), is deployed for the normal drafting policies and structural plans in Malta. MEPA has positively encouraged the provision of PV modules (solar modules). These can be integrated into the building envelope or mounted on separate dedicated supports. The areas required for solar electricity generation are larger than for solar water heater, although the former are likely to have a less visual impacts because of the absence of a water tank and their smaller bulk. Solar Modules integrated into the building fabric or envelope are likely to be generally acceptable where they would not adversely
9/18
affect the character or appearance of a historic building or or elsewhere have an adverse impact on the townscape.
4.2. Document Analysis
Solar Farm Policy The document introduces a definition of ‘Solar Farm’ as “a sizeable commercial installation with a footprint larger than 1000 sqm, not usually related to residential development, for the purpose of renewable energy generation by means of photovoltaic technology” (MEPA, 2014). The document acknowledges that the current implementation of PV on rooftops will unlikely provide for the 10% target. Furthermore, it highlights as “the integration of PV systems within the built environment, still has a negative visual impact, especially when deployed on a large scale, or in sensitive areas” (MEPA, 2014). As the result of this, solar farms should be focused on existing car parks and quarries also to mitigate their visual impact as well as to provide an opportunity to generate green electricity. According to the study, quarries and rooftops totaled circa 1 sqkm, with the majority being quarries (86%). Location wise, solar farms should be sited in the vicinity of urban areas to limit sprawl towards the countryside. The policy aims to preserve pristine land that is deemed valuable for landscape and food production. Finally, it is suggested that the design of the farm “should seek to provide visual interest” to “significantly mitigate visual [sic] impact of the solar farm” (MEPA, 2014). The policy identifies 12 criteria to guide the implementation of future solar farms. Amongst these, the ones that have an explicit focus on landscape are: “Ensure that the solar farm fits appropriately in the site topography”; “Limit the height of the panels above the surrounding terrain”; “Introduce appropriate context-adapted boundary treatment and peripheral landscaping”; “Limit trenching work to existing routes”; “Limit the scale of infrastructure according to the scale of the solar farm”; and “Ensure that interventions on site are reasonably reversible” (MEPA, 2014). Interestingly enough, no measures for public participation are mentioned in the document.
Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards The document concerns with guidelines for building design. A special guidance policy (G26) has been designed for the integration of PVs into buildings. The basic question that the policy address is: “Have the visual implications of PV modules and SWH collectors been addressed and have both quantitative and qualitative considerations been taken into account in their design?” (MEPA, 2015). To assess the impacts of PV the policy suggests the assessment of the overall visual impact of the installation on the building; the extent to which it has been satisfactorily integrated into that design; the overall visual impact of the installation on the site and its surroundings; the orientation of the building and associated requirements on PV systems; and the proposed materials. At the same time, in urban
10/18
conservation areas it will only be possible to design such measures on the back elevation, provided that this will not result in any negative visual impact. The policy does not specify specific actions for open areas; participatory tools are not an objective of such a document.
Enerscapes project: goals and actions The goal of Enerscapes was the development of the Renewable Energy Sources (RES) market, implementing a set of rules and actions in the matter of territorial and landscape protection. The project was led by the government agency MIEMA (Malta Intelligent Energy Management Agency) in collaboration with several other agencies from Mediterranean Europe. The specific objectives were to define and test an energy planning method able to assess and minimize territorial impacts deriving from the use of RES, and to take into account the landscape and the environment in the development of the (RES) market. The project structure consisted of 3 macro-phases. The macro-phases are (figure 4): Analysis of context and definition of the method; Pilot experiences (in a number of case studies in the Mediterranean region); and the Comparison of experiences and refinement of method. In Malta, a pilot area was chosen and compared to others being part of the study. Methodology-wise, three stages were carried out (MIEMA, 2013): “Setting the context and establishing the baseline”; “Scenario Analysis”; and “Assessing the effects of the plan”. Apart from the “Scenario 0”, reporting the current trends, the remaining scenarios shift from the most strict in landscape protection to the most powerful in RES production. MIEMA aims to capitalize the results of the Enerscapes project in Malta through different actions and future projects. As a first step for capitalization, the completed action plan has been presented to various local authorities, including the Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs. MIEMA has presented the action plan to the local councils around Malta and Gozo in order to disseminate the project’s results and assist them in the implementation of renewable energy installations in their localities.
5. Discussion and conclusions Previous work on RE implementation and landscape conflicts points to the importance of understanding citizens’ opposition to RE projects, enabling community ownership, and facilitating a place-based approach that is sensitive to the context. Indeed, Malta’s context (its landscape, built up area, and marine nature) is of extreme importance for the country’s identity and value generation. It contributes to up to 15% of the national GDP, and tourist sector is still expanding. Our starting hypothesis was confirmed in that we
11/18
identified a number of factors that the government is attempting to manage to foster a smoother energy transition in the small, island nation of Malta. Looking at our results, we have found that the government has prioritized context (location and integration of technology and built environment) rather than innovative forms of participation. Indeed, our interviewees did not see a specific reason to implement a participatory process different from the current used in any planning process and that involves: the presentation of the draft project to the public; the collection of feedback from privates and association; and the final deliberation. On the other hand, the government, through its agencies, has made a big effort to prevent any conflict between landscape/built heritage and RE implementation by targeting brownfields (such as quarries), parking lots and existing roofs as the main sites for the implementation of PV. An interesting project is to integrate PV with agritourism but its impacts in terms of energy production will be marginal for the overall target. The government, through SEWCU, has implemented some pilot project to demonstrate the integration of PV with heritage buildings such as in the case of the prime minister’s official home. However, the government sees RE technologies more as a tool instead of re-thinking RE projects as a new landscape type. Rather, the country aims at minimizing its visible impacts on the existing landscape. This approach is consistent with that of France and Italy, both relying on their landscapes as an important source of revenues. In terms of knowledge generation, some studies have been carried out to develop new methodologies for the integration of the energy targets in the built environment. We have analyzed Enerscapes that is an EU co-funded project, aimed at developing a scenario-based methodology for the implementation of RE projects in Malta. We think that this study is a promising step forward to introduce modern planning tools and participatory processes that can enable a better understanding of the stakeholders’ (agencies and individuals) aspirations for achieving a low carbon society. Lastly, we found interesting the idea, currently explored by the government, to implement a “roof bank” to enable any citizen to invest on RE. As the majority of citizens do not have access to an own roof, this “bank” could be crucial to mobilize private capitals for expanding the current provision of PV. In this sense, the government relies chiefly on private capitals, rather than public interventions, to achieve its RE targets. This is line with the current economic paradigm adopted in Europe, i.e. neoliberalism, that sees the government as an enabler and regulator of the private market rather than the main actor for investments. On the basis of our discussion, we recommend a stronger government effort to implement participatory processes that can drive a more successful energy transition in Malta by empowering individual agencies. To this end, we suggest a more comprehensive investigation of the interactions between the implementation of the energy transition in Malta and landscape impacts, emphasizing the social
12/18
sustainability of government’s energy policies. Finally, it should not be dismissed the important role played by aesthetics in integrating new forms of energy production (i.e. RE) with the existing urban and natural environment. In this sense, local architecture degree programmes can play a crucial role by experimenting new design languages that can bridge cultural heritage and energy transition instances.
Acknowledgements …
Reference List Aitken, M. (2010). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy,38(4), 1834-1841. Bergmann, A., Colombo, S., & Hanley, N. (2008). Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecological economics, 65(3), 616-625. Dalli, M. (2014). Solar farms set to cater for half of Malta’s 2020 renewable energy targets. MaltaToday, December. Accessed at: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/47712/solar_farms_set_to_cater_for_half_of_maltas_2020_r enewable_energy_targets#.VwNkjfl95aQ. Duca, E. (2013). A greener Malta. THINK magazine, University of Malta. Energimyndigheten (2009). Sveriges Elproduktion mellan 1900 och 2008. Stockholm. Ek, K. (2005). Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power.Energy Policy, 33(13), 1677-1689. Ek, K., Persson, L., Johansson, M., & Waldo, Å. (2013). Location of Swedish wind power—Random or not? A quantitative analysis of differences in installed wind power capacity across Swedish municipalities. Energy Policy, 58, 135-141. EU (2008). Malta Renewable Energy Fact Sheet. Accessed at https://www.energy.eu/renewables/factsheets/2008_res_sheet_malta_en.pdf
13/18
Henningsson, M., Blicharska, M., Antonson, H., Mikusiński, G., Goransson, G., Angelstam, P., Folkeson, L. & Jonsson, S. (2014). Perceived landscape values and public participation in a road-planning process– a case study in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58 (4), 631–653. Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., & Mimler, S. (2007). Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies.Energy policy, 35(5), 2751-2760. Li, L. W., Birmele, J., Schaich, H., & Konold, W. (2013). Transitioning to community-owned renewable energy: Lessons from Germany. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, 719-728. Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) (2011). Renewable Energy – Are We Doing Enough? Outlook 13, April. Access at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/outlook13-article7. Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) (2014). Solar Farm Policy. Valletta, Malta. Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) (2015). Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards. Valletta, Malta. Malta Intelligent Energy Management Agency (MIEMA) (2013). Enerscapes: Territory, Landscape and Renewable Energies. Malta. Valletta. Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs (2009). National Renewable Energy Action Plan. Bruxelles. Malta Resource Authority (MRA) (2013). Grant Scheme for PV systems 2013 Call. Accessed at: http://mra.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/3673/Presentation-Grant-Scheme-for-PV-Systems2013.pdf. Malta Resource Authority (MRA) (2015). The uptake of solar systems in the Maltese Residential Sector. (Status as of end of 2014). Accesed at: http://mra.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/216/Solar-RESgrowth-in-residential-sector-Feb2015.pdf. Khan, J. (2003). Wind power planning in three Swedish municipalities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(4), 563-581. Nordvind, (2011) Wind Power in the Nordic Region: Conditions for the expansion of wind power in the Nordic countries.
14/18
Oles, T., & Hammarlund, K. (2011). The European landscape convention, wind power, and the limits of the local: notes from Italy and Sweden. Landscape Research, 36(4), 471-485. Palm, J. & Tengvard, M. (2011). Motives for and barriers to household adoption of small-scale production of electricity: examples from Sweden. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 7(1), 6-15. Sauter, R., & Watson, J. (2007). Strategies for the deployment of micro-generation: Implications for social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2770-2779. Soderholm, P., Ek, K., & Pettersson, M. (2007). Wind power development in Sweden: Global policies and local obstacles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(3), 365-400. Soini, K., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., Uusitalo, M., & Kivinen, T. (2011). Local residents’ perceptions of energy landscape: the case of transmission lines.Land Use Policy, 28(1), 294-305. Waldo, A. (2012). Offshore wind power in Sweden—A qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents. Energy Policy, 41, 692-702. Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S., Birnie, R.V., (2005). ‘Green On Green’: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 48, 853–875. Warren, C. R., & McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland.Land Use Policy, 27(2), 204-213. Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable energy,21(1), 49-64. Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 11(6), 1188-1207. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy policy, 35(5), 2683-2691.
15/18
Figure 1. Landscape Sensitivity Areas in Malta (source: MEPA, 2005).
16/18
Figure 2. NREAP Projections (source: NREAP, 2010)
Figure 3. Trend in Residential capacity vs. Non-Residential capacity (source: MRA, 2015).
17/18
Figure 4. Enerscapes, Methodology (source: MIMA, 2013).
18/18
Table 1. List of Analyzed Documents ID
Acronym
Document Title
1
SFP
Solar Farm Policy
2
DCDP
Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards
3
ENER
Enerscapes: Territory, Landscape and Renewable Energies
Author Malta Environment and Planning Authority Malta Environment and Planning Authority Malta Intelligent Energy Management Agency
Year 2014 2015
2013
19/18