SOLAR PARK'S MANY DILEMMAS

How uniting we national goals, local needs and citizen resistance?

Can a solar farm be more than a symbol of the commitment of rural areas to contribute to a sustainable energy transition? Can a solar farm actually add value to a local area? This question we asked ourselves and the municipal politicians after we experienced a real boom in the number of requests to build solar parks in Guldborgsund Municipality. We have chosen to highlight three projects that we had in progress at the same time and where circumstances meant that all three projects were handled differently. It has been evident that there is a need for municipal leadership to assist in managing a process involving many interests. In particular, the municipality's role in shaping the project and facilitating dialogue with the landowner and the local area has proved resource-intensive, but significant and supportive of new local collaborations.

One point of attention is to balance the open co-creation processes with some concrete images and concretizations of what a solar park might look like. So that the attitude towards a solar park does not become based solely on conjecture, feelings and notions.

RURAL NATURE AND LANDSCAPES CHALLENGED BY PHOTOVOLTAIC PARKS

We know that many of the people who settle in the rural areas of Guldborgsund Municipality are attracted to nature, silence — and to be able to see where the landscape merges with the sky. All three photovoltaic projects are located around or near a village or station town; 1) Vålse, 2) Nr. Alslev and 3) Grænge. They simultaneously represent three different approaches to how we have worked with planning, process and dialogue.

1. OPEN PROCESS AND EARLY DIALOGUE ARE A STRENGTH

The process around both Nr. Alslev and Vålse has been a different open process with early, investigative and dilemma-filled dialogue, which differs from the normal planning processes. In neither Nørre Alslev nor Vålse, the process has yet reached the late consultation phase, but the focus has been on maturing and understanding the area together with the local population. Vålse has also been special when 5 residents' associations wrote a joint letter to Guldborgsund Municipality wishing to enter into dialogue after the project idea was published. The Grange project met opposition from the beginning, as neighbors voiced great dissatisfaction through emails, phone calls, and signature fundraisers to both the administration and the City Council. It was also a special project, in that it was located on the then mayor's land. The residents' association could not bring the local area together as one common voice, so it was the individual commitment and resistance of individual citizens that came to characterize the process. The number of access requests has been high, which we interpret as an experience of mistrust in the process. An important point of attention is that transparent, open and early dialogue processes are a force for discussing both the advantages and disadvantages of a possible solar farm. When a process starts with resistance and distrust, it can be difficult to turn the dialogue into a constructive and consensus-oriented one. Therefore, it is essential from the outset to create the framework for openly discussing disadvantages and advantages, such as the possible economic gains for landowners and the benefits that a solar park can bring to biodiversity, animals and drinking water. Finally, citizens' concerns about having a solar farm in their 'backyard' often outweigh the national goals of green transformation.

We have become more aware that we need to be more concrete when we need to involve local areas and businesses. But at the same time, we must be aware that we do not become too controlling if we are to be concrete. If we are too governing, we may get to lock in citizens' ideas in advance, and that's a danger. --municipal urban planner

2. THE BALANCE BETWEEN BEING CONCRETE AND AT THE SAME TIME NOT TOO GOVERNING IS DIFFICULT

We have worked with a difficult balance between being concrete and at the same time not too governing in the process when we have involved citizens, companies and associations in the local areas. It's a difficult balance in an open process not to get locked into the citizens' ideas. At the same time, there is a landowner and advisor who has a concrete idea of where the solar park will be located and how big it should be. They often have a very definite attitude or are locked into what areas of land are in play. That is why it requires municipal ownership of the planning and the process, because it is by listening to the citizens that we as a municipality can get other aspects into the planning, in addition to the economic interest that the landowner has. One point of attention is thus to balance the open co-creation processes with some concrete images and concretions of what a solar park might look like. So that the attitude towards a solar park does not become based solely on conjecture, feelings and notions. At the same time, it is important to note that the landowner as a starting point sets the framework for how much influence citizens have on private land and business operations.

There can be very different traditions of commitment and action in different communities, which should be taken into account in the process. At the same time, co-creation between citizens, associations and municipal actors around photovoltaic dialogues can strengthen the overall cohesion and branding of a local community's profile.

3. THE GREEN TRANSITION IN EVERYDAY LIFE HAS CREATED NEW COOPERATION BETWEEN LOCAL ACTORS

Part of the purpose of the early and inclusive dialogue has been to mobilise citizens' energy and interest in green politics. In Nr. Alslev, the focus has been on engaging citizens in local green transformation processes in order to make the green transition more concrete and present. Green everyday thinking can thus be part of the maturation towards a solar farm. In Nr. Alslev there has not been much opposition or popular interest in getting involved in the green everyday processes, but the commitment has been driven by some of the central associations in the city. In Vålse, representatives of the five residents' associations have come up with ideas for hiking and riding trails through the solar park, areas for shelter sites and proposals for flower meadows. But at the same time, they have looked much further than the concrete solar park, as they are concerned with how they can work for greater change and branding of the qualities in their area. This means that they also cooperate with other local areas and administrations in the municipality, in addition to the department in the municipality that is involved in the process of the solar park. In Grænge, there has been no cooperation on the green transition, but instead there have been several citizens who have been dissatisfied with the process. The landowner's adviser has been in charge of much of the dialogue with the neighbours. The fact that the counsellor has had a dialogue with neighbours outside the municipality in the early stages has meant that citizens have asked us many questions that we could not really answer in a qualified manner, as questions came from a dialogue we were not part of. The Grange project would have benefited from the fact that the municipality played a much more active role at the beginning in facilitating the dialogue. One point of attention is that there can be very different traditions of commitment and action in the different communities, which should be taken into account in the process. At the same time, co-creation between citizens, associations and municipal actors around photovoltaic dialogues can strengthen the overall cohesion and branding of a local community's profile.

It was clear that when we had an association like LUNA in Nr. Alslev, which itself was interested in some of the same things, there was a tailwind and they played more actively. One result of the interest of the active associations in Nr. Alslev was the establishment of two working groups on clover trails and local history paths and a group on green meeting places. — Municipal urban planner

OVERALL, IN THE THREE PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECTS, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THE FOLLOWING DILEMMAS:

• The dilemma that the photovoltaic dialogue can contain both concerns and potentials from the start, so that citizens and the outside world do not prematurely lock in to one approach, but there can be room for many points of view.
• The dilemma of keeping the process open so that citizens can co-develop, for example, the recreational offer of the solar park with their concrete ideas, and at the same time not too quickly latch onto a concept that also has to wait for political approval.
• The dilemma that co-creation and strong civic engagement often have to mature over time, which is why different communities can have very different participatory power. Some citizens gather initially about the opposition to solar parks, while others gather to play actively into what a solar park can offer for recreational purposes such as shelters, hiking trails, wildlife, biodiversity, etc.