Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Conflict management, Storage in Birkelse
Citation preview
Front page
Geological CO2 Storage in Birkelse, Northern JutlandConflict Management, KU-LIFE 2009Group 13: Ronja M. R. Egsmose, Mikkel Z. Jessen, Marlene H. Nielsen, Anne-Mette S. Pedersen, Charly Peslier and Frida Rodhe
Geological CO2 Storage in Birkelse, Northern JutlandMost countries recognize the need to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) could constitute a solution. At the power plant CO2 emissions produced are captured, compressed and then injected into sub-soil geological structures.Conflicts arise when parties hold perceptions of diverging interests or views of reality. CCS particularly interests Vattenfall. But some others parties are not in the same mind. Local landowners started opposing and now form alliance with environmental organizations. Our objective is to help NOAH defend its position against Vattenfall project. This conflict constitutes a case especially complex. In-deed, questions about uncertainties, risks and ethics are related to CCS technique. Furthermore, there are conflicting views of what the conflict is about, which com-plicate potential for progress.Tools have been developed to allow progress and collaboration. As a first step to handle the conflict, progress triangle constitutes a key tool. Its analyse in particu-lar will underline a lack of trust and communication between weaker stakehold-ers and Vattenfall. Then a large stakeholders analysis completes it and enable us to understand the basis of this conflict. It emphasizes a power imbalance related to status and importance of the stakeholders. Also it foregrounds key stakehold-ers whose positions are not radically supporter or opponent and then must be considered .In a second step, a dynamic situation map of the conflict shows numerous in-terlink between stakeholders, and thus help NOAH to decide where take action to have more influence as possible. Then a power and interest grid can be used to validate these choices by distinguishing potential alliance and hostile parties. Finally, in order to NOAH be more efficient in future actions, strategic choices of key stakeholders in the conflict are analyzed via dual concern model. A classifica-tion according to their concern for own outcome and for other parties outcome shows the different conflict strategies that are used by the stakeholders.The conflict could be managed by different ways. An improvement in the com-munication between the stakeholders is crucial to improve dialogue and rebuild trust. In order to promote empowerment, NOAH should form strategic alliances and cooperation with others stakeholders. With one common voice, it is easier to convince many politicians. And also NOAH should use media to mobilize the public and politicians.
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
Abstract
2
Working With Conflict SituationsConflicts arise when parties hold perceptions of diverging interests or views of reality suggesting some kind of incompatibility of simultaneous benefit from a situation. Very often the conflicts are very complex. However, tools have been developed that may allow for progress and collaboration, if the view of incompat-ibility can be changed into mutually benefitting outcomes. Tools such as those provided in Collaborative Learning are examples of this (Daniels and Walker, 2001). Setting Behind the ConflictMost countries recognise the need to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately. On an international as well as national scale, focus is currently giv-en to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) underground from point sources such as power plants. The EU is planning for 12 pilot plants for research on CCS (In-geniøren, 2008). At the power plant the CO2 emissions produced is captured, compressed and then injected into subsoil geological structures. In Denmark, 11 such structures have been identified. It is expected that Denmark would be able to cut emissions by 30-40% of the national CO2 emissions this way, and the capacity of the cavities in Denmark equals a reduction of Danish emis-sions from point sources for the next 575 years (Christensen et al. 2004).
History of the ConflictIn 2008, Vattenfall carried out preliminary investigations of the geological struc-ture (the Vedsted structure) near the towns Birkelse and Arentsminde. At the same time Vattenfall announced its intention to develop a full-scale CCS demon-stration project in Denmark at their power plant in Northern Jutland . The CO2 will be captured and transported to a where it will be stored in a reservoir at a depth between one and two kilometres (Vattenfall, ref ).Local landowners started opposing to the investigations when their land and roads were damaged by Vattenfall’s machinery. 306 landowners have already agreed to the project. Despite this, the 27 landowners who formed the group “No to CO2 Storage Association” own about 50% of the land in question, and therefore they have been able to obstruct the process of further investigations. They have raised their voices to the government. Now, They have refused to provide land to further investigations and formed alliance with environmental organisations such as the Danish Society for Nature Conservation (DN), Greenpeace Denmark and NOAH (Naturvidenskabelige OnsdagsAftener) – Friends of the Earth Den-mark.In August 2009 Vattenfall postponed further investigations in Northern Jutland allegedly due to the economical crisis (Danmarks Radio, 2009 ). Vattenfall will wait till CCS becomes commercial, meaning that CCS at their powerplant in Northern Jutland will at the earliest start a couple of years after 2014 (Vattenfall ref ). At the same time, their application for further seismic investigations is still waiting for approval in the Danish Ènergy Agency (Nordjyske, 2009). One of their conditions for continuing to invest in the project is that they can get the rights to use the cavities if they appear to fullfill all the criteria (ref ). Vattenfall has also made en-quiries into the possibilities of applying for expropriation of the local landowners while the investigations will be carried out (Information, 2009).
Our Client NOAH.According to NOAH, CCS is contrary to the policies of EU and Denmark on the en-vironmental arena concerning prevention, the principle of intervening on envi-ronmental damage at the source and the principle of polluter pays. Furthermore NOAH does not believe that CCS can provide sufficient reductions, and that the reductions will come too late and be too expensive. CCS will commit us to a cen-tralised and inflexible energy supply based on coal (and the energy consumption of these power plants will increase in the order of 40%) and hinder the develop-ment of 100% renewable energy systems. Energy prices may increase 21-91% ac-cording to Greenpeace (Information, 2009). NOAH calls for a public debate about
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
Case Description
Fig. 1- Conceptual CCS Design
XXXXXX
3
CCS as an alternative to renewable energy and enhanced energy effectiveness (www.ccs-info.dk). NOAH continues to investigate the public subsidies to these projects and the consequence for alternative energy projects and to provide in-formation to a more detailed overview of the consequences of CCS and to create awareness amongst policy-makers and the public.
What makes this case especially complex is that no actual decision about imple-mentation of CCS has been made so far. Thus the conflict which has arisen, con-cerns assumptions and speculations regarding a potential project. The conflict is based on questions of uncertainty (also in the question of whether the project will actually be implemented), risk and ethics. On the basis of these questions are conflicting views of reality, which complicates the potential for progress.
This kind of conflict which often occurs when dealing with natural resources re-quires more in-depth reaching techniques than if merely dealing with conflicts of interests. Environmental mediation needs to address the conflict via several di-mensions as is possible with the Progress Triangle. This way it is possible to focus on where the conflict arises in each of the dimensions, Substance, Relationship and Procedure, and thereby identify a set of possible strategies accommodat-ing for the unique circumstances of that particular conflict (Daniels and Walker, 2001).
TheoryIn assessing what the conflict is actually about, the Progress Triangle can be a use-ful tool. It helps the different parties see the collaborate potential of the situation or conflict. The triangle proceeds from three categories : Substance, Relationship and Procedure, identified by Daniels and Walker as the fundamental dimensions of a conflict (Daniels and Walker, 156:2001). Through making progress in these three dimensions, the parties are also making progress in the conflict manage-ment. The aim of the triangle is to reach a collaborative interaction in the conflict where the parties understand and work with the different dimensions and reach a mutual understanding, and hence move away from competition. First of all, it is necessary to identify the “players” or the stakeholders in the conflict and with this also identify what relationship they have to each other and if they have a history. Then the parties move on to state how the conflict should or need to be handled. In others words what are the rules and the setting for working with the conflict. This is done under procedure. Finally, under substance the issues of the conflict are identified and analyzed. When the three dimensions are in place they are analyzed to each other to make visible the relations and interactions between each other. In this way the conflict can move forward in a strategic way making the conflict visible and workable (Daniels and Walker, 156-168:2001). Concerning the case of the Vattenfall CCS project in Northern Jutland, the three corners of the Progress Triangle can be filled in like that:
SubstanceThe conflict concerns the use of the Danish underground to store CO2 emissions from a power plant. As in most of conflicts, the different stakeholders regard the substance differently. The Vattenfall CCS project in Northern Jutland involves a conflict over different views of the risks and uncertainties, and benefits and costs. But our society has mechanisms only for resolving conflicts of interest, not con-flicting views of reality. Vattenfall regards the reservoir in the subsoil as an opportunity for making mon-ey and expanding their enterprise. On the other hand, the local people who own the land ascribe a completely different value to the area that often constitutes a patrimony for us. Furthermore they are uncertain about what might happen to the area if a CCS project is initiated. The environmental organizations regard the substance either as nature that shouldn’t be destroyed, or as a political discussion of whether this is the “best” solution to climate change.
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
Initial Progress Triangle
Fig. 2 - Location for CO2 Storage in Nordjylland
Foto: GEUS
Foto: Danmarks samfund
The orange area is a geological suitable area for CO2 storages and is located 30 kilometer west of Nord-jyllandsværket. The black cirkel around is an area with an annual CO2 emisson more than 0,2 mill tons
Aalborg
NordjyllandsværketBirkelse
4
ProcedureIn the end it will be the Danish Government (FEPU) which will decide the fate for all the parties involved. The prospects for the CCS project in North Jutland will also depend on what happens in the other CCS projects around the world (suc-cess or failure). Other unforeseen factors that may play in are the market (e.g. fi-nancial crisis that can hamper the implementation), a Post-Kyoto agreement (that may force the Danish Government to act in a specific way concerning CO2 emis-sions) or an enormous public protest (probably triggered by an action group). Furthermore, legislation on underground use and planning law will play a key role to handle the conflict. Likewise media could influence all the stakeholders in different levels, but particularly the local people. Finally, the landowners could perhaps also obstruct future research in the area.
RelationshipVattenfall is a huge international cooperation with a lot of finance and power that intervene in a local area in Denmark in order to make money. In opposition stand the local landowners backed up by NOAH and in a lower level by Greenpeace. It is hard to know how much power this group actually possesses – it could be the wicked witch. At Vattenfalls homepage nothing is mentioned about the locals or the environmental groups protesting, which could indicate that they are not really concerned with that. It implies a tensed relationship between this com-pany and landowners that can lead to an obstruction and threats from Vattenfall. We can notice also a cooperation between “No to CO2 Storage” and NOAH. Also, communication between Vattenfall, government and municipality is quite good whereas with the landowners it is not at all the same. These different kind of rela-tion result from a power imbalance.
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
• CO2 storage underground • Reducing CO2 from the air• Making clean energy production• Risks of leakage, now, future• Expensive solution • Increased energy consumption• The need for coal for power• Time spectre for storage• Pollution for future generations• Economic growth vs climate catastrophy
Substance
Procedure
Relationship
• Vattenfall’s information group• Civil meetings, guided tours• Hostility
• Vattenfall’s lack of communication• Land owner rights• Civil obedience• Compensation• Threats to expropriate• Lobby the government• Meeting with politicians• Call for public debate
Initial Progress Triangle
Fig. 3 - Initial Progress Triangle
5
Introduction to Stakeholder TheoryEvery case involves one or more stakeholders, meaning people or groups in dif-ferent ways interested or ivolved in the case. The stakeholders will determine the ability of the organization to achieve its aspirations (C2 Stakeholder analysis and management) and are hence important to identify and aknowledge. It is the stakeholders that set the context and determine what the conflict or situation will be like. The stakeholders do not necessarly hold shares in the conflict and can appear to have no significant power or influence. But even smaller groups, for example pressure groups, can show to have great importance in conflicts. Small groups can hence be strong stakeholders (C2, Stakeholder analysis and manage-ment). It is crucial for an organization to consider a wide array of stakeholders when analyzing the situation. Forgetting or neglecting to aknowledge certain groups can have a devastating effect and hinder the conflict management.
It is common that the conflict has some key stakeholders, groups that will have a greater influence on the case, that has more power or more interest in the case than the others. These stakeholders might be the ones that are managing the process the driving forces in the conflict. The different stakeholders are bound to have different aims and motives for the conflict. These aims determine to an extent the way the stakeholders will act as well as it explains why they act in a certain way.
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
Stakeholder Analysis
Introduction to Stakeholders
C - The local community We define the community as the closest neighborhood to the site. Vattenfall can choose to take in regard the wishes of the community as can FPU but they can also choose to ignore them.
M - MunicipalityCO2 storage and Vattenfall operations in the local area will increase job opportu-nities and hence benefit the local municipality in the job sector why this group possible will have a positive attitude towards the project.Stakes in the case regarding land use. The ability to create CO2 storages will among other things depend on the local restrictions and plans for the area.
NoTo - ‘No to CO2 storages ‘So far there is one “no to CO2 storage” group involved in the case. The significance of this group will probably depend on media and public awareness and attitude and the groups ability to create a stir around the case.
LO - LandownersHave stakes in the case hence its their land that is being used and the landown-ers can decide to sell or not to sell making the process harder for Vattenfall. The landowners can also create strong pressure groups and is a group that Vattenfall needs to be aware of and keep informed about their doings.
Energy producing companies VF - VattenfallA key stakeholder in this case hence it is the Swedish state owned energy com-pany Vattenfall that is holding the case and looking into having Co2 storage in Jutland. Vattenfall is one of Europe major Energy companies with strong financial power.
DONGDenmarks largest energy company. A concurrent to Vattenfall but also a co-player who can benefit on a positive outcome for Vattenfall. With strong financial power..
Experts / Scientistse.g. GEUS Geological survey of Denmark and GreenlandSome experts/scientists support the project while others oppose it depending on personal, economic interests and scientific fields. SU - support OP - opponent
VE - VestasDanish wind power manufactorer and seller. Producing renewable and ”green en-ergy” without fossil fuels. This groups creates a countergroup to fossil fuel energy companies.
FEPU - Folketingets energipolitiske udvalgGovernmental underorganisation for energypolitics. FPU will be the concerned insitution that takes the decission in the case of governmental approvement.
6
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
KEMIN The Danish ministry of climate and Energy.
Citizens (national) + future generationsThe citizens and future generations are the ones taking in concern when talking about sustainability in the system, and limited climate change as well as when discussing safety issues in the case over longer time period.
NGOs NOAH - Friends of the Earth DenmarkA non profit non- governmental environmental organization. A network of local groups. Actively against the project. DN - The Danish society for nature conservationDenmarks largest nature and environmental organization. Against CO2 seques-tration. GP - GreenpeaceInternational non profit non governmental environmental organization.
P - PoliticiansWith the climate change and reduction of CO2 being an important issue in the political agenda the case is important for politicians in gaining and sustaining votes and creating a political framework for the issue.
EUWith strong political decision and financial power. Interest in reducing CO2 emis-sions and be leading in new technology.
DG - Danish GovernmentUltimately deciding regarding energy policies and authorisation for expropria-tion of land and rights to develop CO2 storages.
Aims
Sustain livelihoods
Creating new jobs, economic asset, people, Sustainable use of landPrevent the project
Maximize profit, economic
Maximize profit, Be the first in Denmark,Economic
Economic, draw attention to the project
Economic, maximize profit, reducing emission
Make politically sound decisions
Environmental sustainability
Protect the environment
Sustain votes
Competitive / innovative, good imagesCompetitive / innovative, good images
Stakeholders
Local Community
Municipality
‘No to CO2 storages ‘
Landowners
Energy producing companies - e.g. Vattenfall DONG
Experts / Scientists - e.g. GEUS suport opponent
Alternative energy - e.g. Vestas
Folketingets energipolitiske udvalg
Klima & Energi Ministeriet
NGOs: -NOAH - Dansk Naturfrednings-forening - Greenpeace
Politicians
EU
Danish Government
initial
LC
M
NoTo
LO
VFDONG
SUOP
VE
FEPU
KEMIN
NOAHDNGP
P
EU
DG
7
Status of Stakeholders
The local community wants to sustain its livelihood. The community is extreme-ly diverse and can therefore not be said to have a specific interest in the project. They will however be very much influenced by the project.
The No to CO2 storage group is a once off group that is formed only in relation to this specific project, meaning that they have no other interests or aims than those connected to opposing this project. They have no concerns in relation to sustain-ing good relationships with any of the other stakeholders.
The local landowners are looking to maximise profit and sustain their livelihood. We anticipate that this group of people is neutral in relation to the CCS project, as we assume they would be involved it the “No to CO2 storage” group if they were opposing the project. This placement as neutral gives them an interesting status, as they can be influenced by both the supporters and the opponenets and maybe convinced to join one of these sides.
The energy producing companies that are involved in CCS like Vattenfall and Dong aim to maximise profit and look to be the first in Denmark to implement such a project. Since this particular conflict concerns a Vattenfall project they are naturally very much in favour of it, whereas the role of Dong is a bit more difficult to determine. If Vattenfall is given permission to CCS in Denmark it may be easier for DONG to get approval as well, but on the other hand they naturally want to be given permission before Vattenfall.
Experts/ scientists (like those from GEUS) have an economic and scientific inter-est in CCS projects. Being involved in this kind of projects allocates funding for research and creates publicity. Research may be funded by different stakeholders in the conflict, and this may influence the outcome of the research (even though it ideally shouldn’t).
Providers of alternative energy (like Vestas) are looking to maximising profit, but at the same time they work to reduce CO2 emissions. They may be in competi-tion with a future CCS project. They don’t have any power to influence the deci-sion or process, but will most likely be influenced by the outcome and therefore be following the process closely.
FEPU is responsible for granting permission to the initiation of CCS projects. They have no specific interests in the subject since they are supposed to be an impar-tial board, but they are still the most powerful stakeholder.
The Danish Ministry for Climate and Energy (KEMIN) has environmental sus-tainability as a key interest together with image. They have no specific interest in this particular CCS project but may support if it is shown to have great potential.
The municipality has the power to allocate land to different uses and is inter-ested in a sustainable use of local land and also of its image. This stakeholder has the power (if not overruled by the Danish Government) to decide whether or not to permit Vattenfall to use its land for CCS. It is, like the neutral landowners, a party which is interesting for the strong opponents or supporters as they may be moved to either side.On the other hand the municipality is interested in job creation making it in fa-vour of a CCS project that will do this.
In general, national citizens and future generations have an interest in sustain-ing or improving their livelihoods. Since this is an extremely diverse group, it is not possible to assign them to one interest in this CCS project. They will however be influenced by the decisions taken about CCS.
NGOs like NOAH, DNF and Greenpeace are large environmental organisations that have a specific interest in the environment but not in CCS in particular. Unlike the “No to CO2 storage” group these NGOs have to sustain their reputation and relationship to other stakeholders, as they may be forced to work together with them in other cases later on. These organisations may be regarded as the “wicked witch” as their power and influence may be underestimated by the other stake-holders. However, if they can raise public awareness through the media they may become extremely powerful.
Politicians are elected and their aim is to sustain votes. In this specific case some may be in favour of the project, some may be against. All in all the politicians are interested in serving their voters and looking out for their interests. The politi-cians have a certain amount of power in this situation as they can make amend-ments to Acts in the Danish legislation determining FEPU’s power.
Hand in 1 Hand in 18
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
Fig. 4 - Primary, Secondary and Key StakeholdersThe EU has a common target for the Kyoto agreement of a reduction of 8% by 2012 in CO2 emissions. They have an overall goal of sustaining a competitive and innovative image to the outside world. Since the EU can grant rather large amount of finance to CCS projects, they have significant power over when and where such projects are initiated.
The Danish Government has an overall goal of keeping a competitive and in-novative image for Denmark. In relation to climate change, the Danish Govern-ment has committed itself to a 21% reduction in emissions compared to 1990 CO2 levels by 2012. The government may therefore be interested in CCS to reach that target. The government has the power to force the region or municipality (?) to give up land to Vattenfall for CCS.
In the figure above, primary stakeholders are placed in the center, whereas secondary stakeholders are located in the periphery. Stakeholders between the center and the dot-ted circle are difficult to assign to one of the aforementioned groups, because they will be less influenced than the primary stakeholders but more influenced than the second-ary. Key stakeholders are underlined.
GP
M
NoTo LO
VFDONG
SUOP
VEKEMIN
PEU
DG
FEPU
NOAHDN
Stakeholder definitions “Stakeholders are individual persons, groups and institutionswith vested interests in an intervention.”
Primary stakeholders are those who will be directly or ultimatelyaffected by an intervention, either positively (beneficiaries) ornegatively.
Secondary stakeholders are intermediaries such as implementingorganisations or other individuals, persons, groups or institutionsinvolved.
Key stakeholders are those of the primary and secondarystakeholders who can significantly affect or influence anintervention either positively or negatively during the course, andwho will share responsibility for quality and sustainability ofsubsequent effects and impact”
(SIDA, 2000: 11) Lecture 6, Stakeholder analysis,C. Gamborg
Stakeholder Definitions
9
Interest PatternFirstly, we can notice that all private stakeholders uppermost aim to maximize profit. Indeed, subsoil i.e. land constitutes for them a tool to earn money. How-ever, unlike companies, for landowners it often constitutes also a patrimony with a sentimental value. On the other hand, most of public stakeholders give priority to image. In particu-lar, for public stakeholders land is rather considered like a natural resource. That is why these stakeholders have a greater interest in natural conservation. But that is essentially true for players who have a direct link with environment, like NGO’s for example.Concerning sustainability, most of stakeholders give it some priority, what seems quite logical.Finally, image is an element globally important for most of stakeholders, private or public. However, citizens and landowners have a less important interest in that. Indeed, generally their success doesn’t directly depend on others like it can be the case for companies or politicians organizations that have consequently a very important interest in their image.
Interests Stakeholders Maximized
profitSustainability Natural
conservationImage
Community ? +++ ? ? Municipality + ++ + +++ No to CO2 storage (once off)
+ +++ ? ?
Landowners +++ +++ ? + Vattenfall
DONG Energy
producingcompanies Vestas
+++ ++ + +++
Experts / Scientists + + ? +++ Alternative energy producers (eg Vestas)
+++ + ++(+) +++
FEPU + + + + KEMIN + + ++(+) +++ Citizens (national) and future generations
+ +++ ? +
NOAH DNF NGO’sGreenpeace
+ ? +++ +++
Politicians + ++ ? +++ EU + ? ? +++ Danish government + ? ? +++
From the positions diagram we can identify an overweight of supporters com-pered to opponents. However the supporters are evenly distributed between strongly supportive and neutral, whereas the opponents are concentrated in the strongly opposive part of the gradient. Politicians appear through out the po-sition gradient. The most economical powerfull stakeholders are located in the supportive end.
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
Supporter Neutral OpponetModerate opponetModerate supporter
GP
M NoToLOVF
DONGSU OPVE VEKEMIN
P P P P P
EUDG FEPU NOAH
DN
Fig. 6 - Interests MatrixFig. 5 - Positions
10
Situation MapA tool for communication, like a situation map, is needed to manage the com-plexity in an environmental conflict, such as multiple stakeholders, many issues and interests, cultural differences and values, legal requirements and scientific knowledge. Drawing a situation map of the conflict at hand is based on soft sys-tems thinking (both social and environmental aspects are regarded as dynamic systems). Soft systems stand in opposition to hard systems, which are based on a belief in linearity and technical solutions. When the conflict is drawn up in a situation map it facilitates communication between the stakeholders, as it pro-vides a common basis for discussion. It ensures that all involved parties perceive the situation at hand in the same way. Thus collaboration between stakeholders benefits from system thinking and situation mapping. Since the situation map is dynamic, it is also fairly unpredictable and should continuously be updated. It is a simplified graphic representation and does not reflect the complex reality 100% veraciously (Daniels & Walker 2001, chap. 6).
When making a situation map on our case of CO2 storage in the underground in Northern Jutland, we should ideally go out and ask the involved stakeholders and look at the system at play, but in this case it is not practically feasible.
A situation map to be used in a collaborative learning process must show dy-namic complexity (showing the big picture), including the fundamental forces that drive, reinforce and constrain the stakeholders and their actions (Daniels and Walker 2001, chap. 8). Our situation map is, however, quite different from those shown in Daniel & Walker (2001) chap. 8, because in our case the system is comprised of the relationships and interactions between stakeholders and not natural ecosystems.
In our case, the boundary is set so all stakeholders (elements) are included in the “environment” except for the future generations, who cannot interact with the others. They will benefit or suffer from all the outcomes of the “environment”. Some of the stakeholders have been merged (The Danish Government and KE-MIN, and the municipality and the landowners), since it is anticipated that they will interact with the other stakeholders in the same way. A new player has been added, namely the media, who plays an important role in providing the differ-ent stakeholders with publicity and information. The stakeholders have been grouped so the stakeholders representing the public sector are placed close together, and likewise the private sector and the NGOs. The stakeholders have been connected with arrows that show their relationship (support, influence/
Hand in 2 Hand in 2
LegislationFinance
Non policy making bodyInfoOthers
Fig. 7 - Situation Map
Legend
FEPU
Scientists
CreationVattenfall
Land
DONG
No to CO2 Storages
Politicians
National citizens
Media
Danish Government +
KEMIN
NOAHDNFGP
Municipality +Landowners
Alternative energyVestas
EU
Reduce CO2
Uncertain
Finacial - Cost/benefit
ResponsibilityFuture generation
Natural catastrophy
Unexpected incident to CO2 storage in other places
LobbyPublicity
SupportCometition
Policy making body
Situation Map
11
Applying TheoryThe Power/Interest grid is used in the process in developing strategies for a given organization. By mapping the different stakeholders and their interest in the strategic activity of a specific organization as well as their power to influence a specific strategy, a conceptual basis for stakeholder management is provided. Thus it is possible to map and establish strategic alliances and future coopera-tion between stakeholders and the Organization.(Eden & Ackermann 1998:121-123) In this short theory description the Organisation will be analog to NOAH because NOAH is the organisation which this project aims to develop a conflict management strategy for. The core part of this mapping deals with those who have the power and interest in sabotaging or supporting NOAH’s future strat-egy. It is other parties possible future actions which is the basis for strategy development., (Eden & Ackermann 1998:120)
The Power/Interest GridThe grid distinguishes between actors and stakeholders. The overlap of these two represent the most important group called ‘Players’Actors have enough power to influence the strategic future of an Organisation whereas stakeholders have the interest and willingness to influence the strategic future of the Organization. This can be both in positive and negative directions.‘Players’ are the most important group of stakeholders because they have the
pressure, publicity, financial flow, competition, information/knowledge, legisla-tion and some unique ones: land and creation).
When looking at the system (in fig. xx) it is apparent that the media is very influ-ential in the way that they can choose to give publicity to some and not to oth-ers, and that this ultimately may influence the outcome. The scientists also play an important role, as they can be paid by different stakeholders to do research in certain fields, and when this outcome is displayed in the media it can have a significant influence on the national citizens who ultimately elect the politicians (both local and national) that sit in the Danish Government (feedback). The poli-ticians may also be influenced by the NGOs and the No to CO2 storage group, whose message can be displayed in the media enhancing the pressure on the politicians. The EU does not have any incoming arrows, but have some impor-tant outgoing ones, as they have influence through legislation on the Danish Government and can provide finance to Vattenfall and Dong. EU will, however, be influenced by the outcome of the case as the reduced CO2 emissions also will be beneficial to them. Dong and Vestas are both in competition with Vattenfall, and are, like Vattenfall, supported by the Danish Government. FEPU (created by the Danish Government) is also a special player as they have the final say. Their decision may be influenced by the findings of the scientists, but also by unpre-dictable events in relation to CO2 storage other places in the world. The munici-pality and the local landowners must provide Vattenfall with their land needed for this project. However they may be overruled or strongly influenced by the Danish Government (and to a lesser extent by the No to CO2 storage group).
When looking at the different arrows, it is apparent, that the green and purple arrows (publicity and influence) are primarily situated in the lower left corner, whereas the red/orange/yellow ones (competition, support and finance) is con-centrated in the upper right corner of the map. This shows that the relationships between the stakeholders in the conflict are of quite different character. NOAH can use this information to decide where to put their emphasis on creating alli-ances or preventing opponents from getting too much influence. From the map, NOAH can derive information about which relations they want to influence or intervene with, which they want to stay out of, and which relations they want to use for what.
Hand in 2 Hand in 2
Power and Interest Grid
Fig. 8 - Theoretical Power/Interest Grid
(Reproduced from Eden & Ackermann 1998)
Subjects Players
ActorsBystanders
Stak
ehol
ders
Una
ffect
ed
CrowedS t r a t e g y C o n t e x t
Setters
Hig
hLo
wIN
TERE
STHighLow POWER
12
power and the willingness to influence future strategies.‘Subjects’ are stakeholders who feel they are subjected to the consequences of the strategies of the organization, but do not posses the power to influence it.‘Strategic Context Settlers’ are strong independent actors who can affect the con-text within which the strategy has to work. The organization has no possibility to control these actors and therefore has to consider them as part of an alternative future.The different stakeholders are placed in the Power/Interest grid according to their relation to the strategic future of NOAH.
Possible AlliancesGP, DN and Vestas are parties whose strategy can be of interest for NOAH, which is due to the common interests on environmental issues. However, in general it is crucial to look at other parties interest in NOAH’s future strategy as well as their power to influence it to determine whether NOAH consider them at all in the fu-ture strategy making process.
The parties who are likely to form alliance with NOAH (marked green) are all cat-egorized as Stakeholders and therefore have great interest in the future strategy of NOAH. Greenpeace(GP), and Danish Nature Conservation(DN) are ‘players’ who are concerned about the future strategy of NOAH because they belong to the same group of NGO’s often involved in the same conflicts with similar interests.Vestas(VE) is a powerful business which is potentially an organization NOAH can collaborate with. Their main concern is of economic interest but as they serve as an alternative to CO2 storage they will be interested in the future strategy of NOAH. Vestas is an international business which is of economic means for Den-mark in terms of job creation and export. They are also important in terms of rep-utation because they symbolize sustainability and contribute to a Danish ‘Green profile’. Therefore they have political influence and thus power which could ben-efit NOAH if collaboration is established.
Hostile PartiesVattenfall and Dong belongs to the group of ‘Players’ who are likely to be hostile to any future strategy of NOAH and have a interest in any strategic choice made by NOAH and eventually respond to it. Moreover Vattenfall and Dong will try to influence NOAH in order to weaken the power and limited the influence of NOAH.The Danish Government and EU are actors who through legislation and policy making have a great influence on how NOAH will and can act in the future. It seems impossible that NOAH can have any direct influence on DG and EU due to NOAHs relatively little power in this respect.
Parties of Uncertain Future RelationThe municipality and politicians are ‘Players’ with an uncertain future strategic relation to NOAH because they do not have clear and distinctive interests in the case. Therefore the relation to NOAH will depend on what strategy they will choose in relation to their interest. Whether they will support CO2 storage or not NOAHs future strategic choices will be of importance for the municipality and the politicians. This is due to NOAHs possibility to influence the local community or other parties of importance for the municipality and the politicians.FEPU and KEMIN are parties of great importance for NOAH. They have the power to directly influence the outcome of the conflict through permission assignments and political influence, but they do not have specially interest in the specific case.
Hand in 2 Hand in 2
Fig. 9 - Power/Interst Grid
Potential colaborationPotential hostilePotential for colaboration depending on which strat-egy NOAH or the specific actor expects to deploy.
Legend
FEPU
KEMIN
DONG
EU
LCDG
VF
VE
MP
DN
GPLO
NoTo
Stak
ehol
ders
Una
ffect
ed
Hig
hLo
wIN
TERE
ST
ActorsBystanders
HighLow POWER
13
When aiming at finding areas where progress can be made, the issues in the ini-tial progress triangle (fig.xy, the initial triangle) are substituted by issues where progress can be made, as highlighted in fig.xx, the new triangle. The initial progress triangle outlined the immediate issues behind the conflict, such as eth-ics, economy and environmental aspects. However, the conflict has transformed and developed over time as a result of interaction between the involved parties. Shifting focus from the initial issues to the underlying causes of the conflict, it becomes evident that diffuse issues such as power, communication and trust influence the development and character of the conflict. These issues are high-lighted in the new progress triangle explained here.
Substance An issue at the base of the conflict is the power imbalance which has been evident from the beginning of the conflict. So far, Vattenfall has not enabled the landowners (including the “No to CO2 storage”-group) to have influence on the process. Opposition has reacted to the top-down decision-making and the fact that power seems to give rights to trespassing others livelihoods. The communi-cation has been directed from the top to the ground level as a one-way commu-nication. At the very heart of the conflict initially, the property rights were being violated. In the interest of de-escalating the conflict, this issue clearly needs to be addressed. Dialogue, discussed further down, is critical here.The fact that the different sides of the conflict have different perceptions about the substance of the conflict leads to a potential risk for misunderstandings and furthering of conflict. Indeed, conflict may be defined as a breakdown in com-munication (Emborg, 2009, L.15). As Krauss and Morella (2000) also note: “Good communication cannot guarantee that conflict is ameliorated or resolved, but poor communication greatly increases the likelihood that conflict continues or is made worse”. (p. 143).The very same misunderstandings that may cause the conflict may be the components that may bridge the parties. As Krauss and Morsella (2000) notes; “A paradoxical fact about human nature is that few things are as effective in induc-ing conflicting parties to cooperate as a common foe. In communication, the common foe is misunderstanding, and in collaborating to vanquish this enemy the parties to a conflict may be taking the first step toward reducing their differ-ences”, (p 141).This shift in focus may encourage the recognition of a mutual problem which again may encourage the willingness to collaborate to find mutually benefitting solutions.
ProcedureThe scepticism amongst the opponents to Vattenfall’s project is strong. At a time of climate change and calls for reductions in the use of fossil fuels, it seems strange to invest in technology that most likely prolongs the use of fossil fuels. Indeed, why should a coal-driven power plant invest billions in a technique to reduce emissions, unless there was a financial benefit?As mentioned earlier, it is crucial to change the type of communication if posi-tive progress is to be made. The key lies in facilitating a potential for participa-tion and dialogue. However for the dialogue to have a positive effect, both sides must agree that they are willing to work together to find ways to making prog-ress in the conflict. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that the aim is to find solutions that are mutually beneficial.Dialogue, in this sense, is perhaps the most powerful tool to creating progress in a conflict situation. Unlike other forms of communication, collective effort and shared understanding is required for creating meaning (Krauss and Morsella, 2000). Constructive cooperative communication could be encouraged by setting nor-mative rules such as those suggested by Deutsch (2000). Parties may be more inclined to enter cooperation when they meet on a platform of norms of good practice such as:
• Reciprocity (do to yourself as you wish others do to you)• Human equality (there is no right to impose ones power on others) • Shared community • Fallibility (recognising that ones judgement may be wrong)• Non violence.• Respect, responsible, honesty and caring behaviour.• Find common interests and ground• Address the issue not the person• Understand the issue from the other persons’ view.
Indeed setting normative rules for the collaboration may also help facilitating re-establishment of trust as will be explained below.
Hand in 2 Hand in 2
Progress Triangle
14
RelationshipTo some extent the trust in Vattenfall and the effectiveness of the project to reduce CO2 from the atmosphere has been violated by the actions of Vattenfall. Several landowners have been forced into signing the permission for Vattenfall to enter their lands by threats of expropriation (Madsen, pers. comm.). The No to CO2 storage group does not trust Vattenfall. Indeed NOAH too, has reasons for not trusting the company. However, the kind of distrust may be differenti-ated. Considering the personal involvement of the farmers, the distrust may be referred to as identity-based or social-based distrust (referred to from now on as IBD). NOAH rather relates to Vattenfall in a principle-based or work-based man-ner, referring to the distrust here as calculus-based distrust (CBD) according to Lewicki and Wiethoff (2000).Trust is said to be “the ‘glue’ that holds relations together” (Lewicki and Wiethoff, 2000, p. 86). It is defined as “an individual’s belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions and decisions of another” (Lewicki and Wiethoff, 2000, p. 87). On the other hand, distrust is characterised by someone’s negative expectations to another person’s conduct (Lewicki and Wiethoff, 2000).It is likely that the most pressing issue for there to be progress is to establish trust. This is tightly coupled with the dialogue. And both depend on each other. However, at the same time, it is likely that all parties benefit from the collabora-tion and attempts to re-establish trust simply because they all share the need for a good reputation to gain public support and thereby indirectly at least the support of the politicians and the government.There are several ways to re-build trust…As mentioned earlier, there are several kinds of trust, and it may be possible to identify a kind of trust where initial efforts are most likely to have a positive effect. It is for instance likely that CBD be rebuild by setting normative ‘rules’ as mentioned earlier. This may additionally aid the reduction of IBD (Lewicki and Wiethoff, 2000).If it is impossible to build trust, there are ways to manage distrust. These again rely on normative ‘rules’ which can be agreed upon by both parties, such as:-agree on expectations, deadlines, penalties.-agree on monitoring options-finding alternatives that may fulfil needs-increase awareness of how performance is perceived
At the base of the collaborative process is the notion that every party is equal and deserves equal respect and rights to see their needs and interests met. As this new collaboration is established this equality will help the sense of empow-
• Power balance• Respect for rights• Communication
Substance
Procedure
Relationship
• Communication• Empowerment• Equality
• Trust/ dialogue• Mutual problem• Cooperation not competition
Initial Progress Triangle
Fig. 10 - Progress Triangle
erment of those who have felt disempowered. This may prove very important in this case of CO2 storage, as the conflict initially had elements of violations that related to the improper use of financial and legal power.
Hand in 2 Hand in 215
The Dual concern ModelThe dual concern model shows the different conflict strategies that are used by the stakeholders actors players. It holds four main categories being, avoiding, yielding, forcing or problem solving. The stakeholders are placed in each catego-ry depending on their concern of own outcome in relation to the concern for the other parts outcome. If the party has high concern for its own outcome and also a high concern for the other parties outcome it will be placed with problem solv-ing creating (with the assumption that the opponent party will have the same) a win-win situation. The choice of strategy will depend on the two factors in the dual concern model (concern for own outcome and concern for other parties out-come) and it on the perceived feasibility including the situational factors and the orientation of the party (Lecture 10, Jens Emborg 2009).
YIELDING PROBLEMSOLVING
Municipality
VattenfallLandowners
No to CO2 storageNGO’s
Concern for own outcome
Conc
ern
for o
ther
par
ties
outc
ome
AVOIDING FORCING
Strategies for different stakeholders
Legislative stakeholdersSince this case is peculiar both concerning key stakeholders and regarding the stage the case is in. FEPU, KEMIN and Danish Government three key stakeholders have legislative power and will not actively take side or use strategies to win the case. VattenfallVattenfall has started out with a rather aggressive forcing strategy operating without having a dialogue with landowners or community. They have however to some degree changed strategy creating an information group. This could mean that Vattenfall is moving or trying to move towards problem solving, starting a dialogue with the other groups and the conflict side and showing concern for the outcome of the other part. At the same time Vattenfall is still investigating the possibilities of expropriation of the people from the land and keeping it some-what as a background threat to landowners this means they are still more to-wards the forcing strategy.
Landowners Landowners are likely to show high interest and concern for their own outcome rather than the outcome of the other party. They will therefore make strategic choices that will benefit them the most. This will place landowners in the forc-ing strategy category. Landowners are however a low- power group with a large interest in the case and this might affect their strategy as well hence it can be more beneficial for them to take a problem solving approach with regard that they easily can be overrun by high-power groups and are not capable of setting much ultimatums.
VestasVestas are only indirectly involved in this case being a player on the market of energy and reducing CO2 emissions. They are competing with Vattenfall on the energy market and with their large financial power they can become an impor-tant player in the case depending on what strategy they use. Vestas competitive relation to Vattenfall will probably from a financial competi-tive point of view benefit from a non yielding or avoiding approach. They have a high perceived feasibility in the case and are probable to choose strategy after that. This leaves them with either the strategy of forcing, problem solving or com-promising.
Fig. 11 - Dual Concern Model
(Reproduced and modified from Pruitt, D.G., & Kim, S.H. 2004.)
Vestas
Hand in 1 Hand in 1
Strategic Choices of Key Stakeholders
16
Management OutlinesFrom the analysis carried out in the previous sections, we, as consultants for NOAH, have come up with some suggestions to how the conflict could be man-aged to avoid escalation.
The analysis of the progress triangle concludes that an improvement in the com-munication between the stakeholders is crucial. The focus of the process should be on the relationship and procedural issues instead of the substance. If the stakeholders can agree on a mutual problem to work together on (e.g. misun-derstandings) it may constitute a platform on which to commence dialogue and rebuild trust between all stakeholders involved. The problem of the imbalance in power between stakeholders can possibly by relieved through forming alliances among the weaker stakeholders, thus promoting empowerment.
In the combination of our knowledge extracted from the situation map and the power/interest grid, some potential alliances for NOAH stand out as important. This could for example be trying to create an alliance with Green Peace and Dansk Naturfrednings Forening, ensuring that they speak with one common voice, thus enforcing NOAHs position. Another potential alliance is Vestas, who is financially strong and powerful and in competition with Vattenfall. Since the politicians can influence the Danish Government (and thus the ultimate decision), NOAH should strive to convince as many politicians as possible to support NOAHs case and speak on behalf of them. A good relationship with the politicians will give them influence and power. As shown in the situation map, the media is an important player (like also shown in the Brent Spa case, where Green Peace as the wicked witch through the media mobilised the national citizens to rise in protest). In our case, NOAH should use the media to advertise for their position. This should ad-vocate for public participation and promote a public debate about CO2 storage. This could then move the national citizens to become a more interested and pow-erful stakeholder in favour of NOAHs position. At the same time NOAH should try to calm the No to CO2 storage group, and prevent them from taking violent or destructive action, that may endanger their reputation and harm their case (e.g. through including them in the dialogue between stakeholders and giving them a chance to raise their voice).
MunicipalityThe municipality can choose to go different ways. It represents different view-points and is hard to put as a single actor using one strategy. But the municipal-ity will have a high concern for the own outcome but probably also have a high concern for other parties outcome hence other party are indirectly affecting the municipality. It will try and maximize gain for the municipality and its inhabit-ants which can both mean drawing work opportunities to the area by allowing and promoting CO2 storage as well as securing the area and its inhabitants from potential exploitation and an unsafe operation. This puts them around a problem solving strategy which can also move towards compromising.
“No to CO2 storage” groupThe “no to CO2 storage” group has chosen a forcing strategy threatening to use civil disobedience in the case of expropriation of the people from the land and a yes to CO2 storage. Since it is a rather small group in the subject section (see previous chapter) without the same financial strength as Vattenfall they would gain most from allying with some of the larger NGOs such as NOAH, Greenpeace and DNF. They would also benefit from allying with Vestas. This will give them increased power and will make them an important player.
NGOs -NOAH, Greenpeace and DNFGreenpeace and DNF are in the high–power group (see previous chapter) with a high interest in the case. NOAH is a low power group but might possibly ally with the two other NGOs placing them in the same group. They have a high concern of their own outcome in the case because they to some degree are not speaking for themselves as a group but as environmental representatives. This also con-tributes to their rigid aspirations because they build on important interests and strongly felt principles (Pruitt, D.G., & Kim, S.H. 2004.). The rigid aspirations in-creases the risk of conflict and will also influence the chosen strategy of the NGOs (lecture 11, Jens Emborg 2009)This standpoint and differential view of the case makes it difficult to “expand the pie” and instead creates a major obstacle in problem solving. NOAH regards CO2 as a threat against human and environmental security and sustainability. Com-promising this view would be compromising strongly felt principles and the very base of the organisation.
Hand in 2 Hand in 2
Management Outline
17
Literature
Christensen et al. (2004): Geological Storage of CO2 – a contribution to future climate policy in Geologi – Nyt fra Geus, nr 2, December 2004
Daniels, S. E. and Walker, G. B. (2001): Working through environmental conflicts, the collaborative learning approach, Praeger, London
Deutsch, M. 2000. Cooperation and competition. In: The handbook of conflictresolution. Theory and practice. Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P.T. (eds.) Jossey-BassPublishers, San Francisco, Chapter 1, pp. 21-40.
Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. (1998): The journey of strategic management. Sage, Lon-don, pp.113-135
Krauss, R.M. & Morsella, E. 2000. Communication and conflict. In: The handbook of conflict resolution. Theory and practice. Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P.T. (eds.) Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Chapter 6, pp. 131-143.
Lewicki, R.J. & Wiethoff, C. 2000. Trust, trust development and trust repair. In: The handbook of conflict resolution. Theory and practice. Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P.T.(eds.) Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Chapter 4, pp. 86-107.
Madsen, A. M., personal communication 14th December 2009.
Pruitt, D.G., & Kim, S.H. 2004. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, andsettlement, 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, Chapters 1-3, pp. 1-62.
Homepage
Bekendtgørelse af lov om anvendelse af Danmarks undergrundhttps://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=22698
Danish Energy Agency: www.ens.dk
Danmarks Radio: Vattenfall udskyder nordjysk CO2-lager, 31st August 2009
Referenceshttp://www.dr.dk/Regioner/Nord/Nyheder/Jammerbugt/2009/08/31/174708.htm
NOAH: www.ccs-info.dk
Vattenfall: http://www.vattenfall.com/
RC News: CO2 storage protests – Strong opposition to an underground carbon dioxide “capture chamber” in the north of Jutland”, Wednesday 5th August 2009http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/46485-co2-storage-protests.html
Lectures
Emborg, J. (2009): Lecture 10. The Dual Concern Model, Strategic Choice in Con-flict, Personal Orientations. Conflict Management course 400023, Tuesday 24th November 2009, LIFE, Copenhagen University, Denmark.
Emborg, J. (2009): Lecture 11. Conflict Strategy Perceived Feasibility. Conflict Management course 400023, Tuesday 24th November 2009, LIFE, Copenhagen University, Denmark.
Emborg, J. (2009): Lecture 15, Conflict and Communication, 1st December 2009. LIFE, Copenhagen University. Tuesday 1st December 2009, LIFE, Copenhagen University, Denmark.
18
Hand in 1 Hand in 119
