With the necessity of expanding renewable energy to mitigate the climate crisis, interest in offshore wind power is increasing. In South Korea, where offshore wind power is still in its infancy, there is increasing concern about how we must understand...
With the necessity of expanding renewable energy to mitigate the climate crisis, interest in offshore wind power is increasing. In South Korea, where offshore wind power is still in its infancy, there is increasing concern about how we must understand and resolve conflicts in the process of project implementation. The normative direction that local stakeholders should participate both procedurally and economically to improve the acceptability of renewable energy has been repeatedly confirmed in studies and cases. However, there is insufficient discussion on how to implement this in offshore wind farms (OWFs).
This study analyzes OWF conflicts as an interaction between the institutional aspect and the perception of conflict actors (the main actors in conflict with OWF projects, which in this research is typically fishers) and shows that, considering the characteristics of OWFs, facilitative mediation can be a solution to the conflict. An example of a typical conflict would be disputes with fishers who use public waters where OWFs are located. Tongyeong-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, and Yeonggwang-gun, Jeollanam-do were selected as the case study sites, both being coastal areas, with prominent fishing industries and OWFs located along the shore. The researcher conducted a multi-case study with participatory observation on the social experiments of OWF conflict mediation conducted in each case study site. Text analysis was performed on the in-depth interview results to analyze conflict actors' perceptions of the conflicts. Each case of the mediation program was analyzed cyclically in terms of process and contents. This study combined the frame theory and the institutional analysis and development framework for a theoretical ground.
There are three main research results. First, contextual factors hurt initial trust building. According to the current legal system, the conflict actors are informed of the OWF late, leading fishers and residents to become suspicious of the OWF project. Although the Korean government continued to improve renewable energy acceptance policies, the existing institutional principles for power generation business licenses and occupancy permits for public waters could not be changed significantly, and so it was insufficient to resolve the conflicts that had already occurred. The local government’s authority over OWF siting was also insufficient. So the local government's offshore wind power policy remained secondary to industrial development, post-conflict management, and profit sharing.
Fishers and residents had both concerns and expectations about OWFs. Since the sites of both case studies were experiencing economic stagnation, just like many rural areas, OWFs were also recognized as an opportunity for regional development. When the fishing industry was active, the non-fishers also showed a tendency to attach importance and pride to local fisheries. The conflicts experienced by the two regions in the recent past, such as the movement against sea sand extraction and conflicts before and after the site of the nuclear power plant, were also related to the OWF response pattern.
Second, while the promotion of OWF projects is maintained as the primary cause of conflict across both case studies, conflict actors responded differently in the two cases in terms of how action was taken against the OWFs and also in how the OWFs were perceived. When the OWF plans were first unveiled, fishers discontent with the projects were united in their shared dissatisfaction. They considered themselves the sole stakeholder in the battle against OWFs, resulting in an ‘us versus them’ perception and leading to the exclusion of other possible stakeholders, such as civil society and environmental movement groups. However, in the absence of an active regional coordinator, each actor experienced various conflict events, and actors perceived the problem in different ways. The fact that conflicts developed in different ways in the two case study sites and that different conflict frames were formed can be analyzed as a result of the strong projection of the influence of different community elements.
The results of this study’s conflict frame analysis showed that the OWF conflict included but also went beyond the single issue of conflict with the fishing industry. In both sites, damage to the fishery was the biggest conflict issue, and it was found that it was important to prepare a location method to minimize damage and a follow-up industrial transition policy to resolve the conflict issue. In addition, serious problems were raised in the process of OWF project promotion. The project was pursued by private business owners who were primarily profit-seeking rather than responding to climate change. In the process, there was a lack of central and local government policies to ensure publicity of commons. As time passed, a few actors tended to frame OWFs as a relationship problem rather than a damage issue, since they feel powerless and excluded. Not only fishers but also non-fishers recognize the sea as a regional identity, so wide community consent is needed for OWFs. Conflict actors wanted the government to responsibly promote the process in its entirety, rather than just promoting the business sector.
Third, mediation by a third party can provide an opportunity for those involved in the conflict to form an alternative frame on their own and find a solution. Although the case study here did not have all the elements of mediation, it was in a situation where social experimentation was possible to explore the necessity and effect of mediation. Therefore, implications could be derived from both the conditions for the establishment of mediation and the content of mediation. Whether or not mediation is acceptable depends largely on the conflict situation. As in Yeonggwang, when conflicts occurred between local actors and mutual distrust was formed, the opportunity for mediation was further reduced. In contrast, such as in Tongyeong, when civic groups are not at the forefront of conflict, but are paying attention to OWF issues, mediation could be more acceptable.
In terms of the content of mediation, it was also found that facilitative mediation could be effective for reframing to create an alternative cognitive framework. The intervening third-party expert could fully understand and expand the perception frame of the conflict actors and play a role in guiding them not to insist on only one alternative but to also consider other possibilities. The social dialogue experiment conducted in Tongyeong suggested that through reframing under the mutual discussion of the participants, participants could tentatively agree or confirm at which point they could reach an agreement. Although there was no mutual discussion in the location mapping method conducted in Yeonggwang, a third party was able to reconstruct opinions in a spatial dimension by reducing the complex aspects of conflicts to fishery issues through a new recognition tool called maps. In this process, a third party could contribute as analysts to clarify issues by reframing the participants’ views.
In both cases, many participants positively evaluated the fact that they were contributing to the joint framing for OWFs. However, at the same time, there was also a skeptical attitude about whether opinions could be realistically reflected to solve the problem. To expand the results of this study to a full-fledged mediation, it is necessary to participate with another important conflict actor, the business operator, and the national and local governments with the authority to permit OWFs.
This study is meaningful in that it attempted to explain local conflicts of OWFs from a multi-dimensional and dynamic perspective and to find practical solutions. Meanwhile, acceptance studies have been conducted in a state where the location of the OWF project has been established and without the participation of local stakeholders. This acceptability concept can observe only one part of the whole system. This study approached OWF conflicts from the institutional viewpoint to understand the characteristics of OWF conflict, based on understanding how the project was legally approved as well as the local public conflicts and economic and social contexts. Therefore here suggests that a facilitative mediation as social practice is necessary to prevent and alleviate OWF conflicts, in light of the experimental cases.
As for policy implications, above all else, it is necessary to establish a system for mediation and conflict management fitting the characteristics of OWF project development. In light of the research results, mediation was found to be useful in reducing OWF conflicts, rather than other alternative dispute resolution methods such as negotiation and arbitration. Mediation is characterized by the participation of the conflicting actors in relation to the subject, the creation of alternatives through discussion regarding the content, and the intervention of a third party when it comes to the process. Without a third party, negotiations would have to be made, but it was not a realistic solution in a situation where there was no interaction between the actors. In both case studies, many actors were positive about the method of dialogue, but neither actor could take charge of it. Without participation of the conflicting parties, a third party should try to create an arbitration plan, but it was difficult because OWF project development has urban planning characteristics. Therefore, applying the method of mediation discussed by stakeholders and a third party when establishing an OWF siting plan will reduce conflict and increase the practical rationality of the plan.
This study has the greatest significance in discovering the possibility of social solutions. The fact that all possibilities could not be tested at the same time remains a limitation of this study. Since there can be various techniques to promote alternative frames in mediation mechanisms, it is necessary to accumulate several intervention cases. Also, in terms of the continuity and implementation of the mediation, this study has limitations in explanation. In particular, although this study revealed that the government, institutions, and business operators were responsible for the conflict, the focus is still on the fishers and residents who expressed concerns. In the future, in-depth follow-up studies should investigate how policymakers and society implement a procedural solution.