Introduction

This case study describes a wind-energy project, located near the village of Vép, in Western Hungary, close to the Austrian border.  The focus is on the coordination and communication of the company – called Szélerő Vép Kht. – with the different groups and representatives of stakeholders.  Description of the authorization process is an important part.  This research is based on documents, brochures, articles concerning the project, and on interviews as well.

Objectives and target audience

Financial Resources and Partners involved

A large part of the already installed development was financed from EU support, the rest from bank credit and some own capital and similar is the financing strategy for the sec-ond and third phase, also involving grants and Austrian support.
Project cost: 862.000€
Partners involved:

• Hungarian Energy Office
• Ministry of Economy and Transport
• Local Government of Vép
• Administrative office
• Hungarian Trade Licensing Office (Technical safety licensing and inspection, Győr)
• Ministry of Environment and Water

Process

The wind farm built so far is the first phase of this investment. The second phase would include the construction of an additional three wind power stations with a total installed capacity of 4.8 MW.
The required environmental permits have all been granted, while construction permits are not all available. What is more, network connection agreement and the MEH (Hungarian Energy Office) permit are still missing.
The third phase of the investment would include the construction of 167 wind power stations with a total capacity of 32 MW and the issuing of connected environmental permits is already in progress.  The design phase and further permission-granting would be the next step.
The realization of these planned investment phases would have considerable additional influence on the life of the village of Vép since, based on the agreement signed with the Municipality, the company would spend the majority of its income on community purposes, thus the company would support developments related to local education as well as tourism and infrastructure.

Testing ESTEEM
The Hungarian Environmental Economics Centre (MAKK) has tested a draft version of the ESTEEM tool applying it to support the Vép wind project.  ESTEEM consists of six consecutive steps, which MAKK executed together with the project manager, Rudolf Piller during 2007.
The expectations of the project manager (PM) of Szélero Vép Kht were to explore and structure strategies that they can follow in order to be able to continue the project, to widen their field of contacts and negotiations from the local level, since locally they were already quite well prepared and ‘embedded’. The ESTEEM process entered the project line when it had already started, the first phase was implemented, but then further phases were blocked. Thus, it was not an early planning phase, but still a point of time when ESTEEM still had the potential to contribute. Its potential value was actually seen quite substantial if it could give a push to move further from the halted situation.
Step 1:  Past and present of the Vép wind project
Step 1 is constructed to establish the ESTEEM process. In a questionnaire aided interview, the project manager gave an account of the past from the project idea to the present status of his project in a systematic way, and based on this, the consultant drafted the first ‘substep’, the Narrative. The second substep, using two table templates examined the project put in its context, and identified what opportunities and barriers emerge from the policy, technologic, socio-economic, cultural and geographical environment. In the third substep the defining moments thus far in the life of the project were taken account of, their causes, consequences and irreversibility. The two major events were the erection of the first turbine and the national wind capacity limit that led to rejection of the permit of further turbines. The second and the third substep were first drafted by the consultant, then the PM reacted, corrected and complemented if it was necessary. In the fourth substep the project manager and consultant listed and briefly assessed the stakeholders of the project, their actual and potential role, interest, power and attitude.
During this step the consultant also got acquainted with the necessary details of the wind project. The step helped to build a common understanding between the consultant and PM. The PM deemed useful to reflect on the position of the project and it was a basis for strategy elaboration.
Step 2:  Vision building
In this step the PM’s and ‘core’ group stakeholders’ visions about the project and its context were constructed.  As an input, this formed the basis of comparisons of visions and analysis for the third step.
The present, intermediate (around till 2015) and future (2020-2030) PM’s visions, as well as the present and future social network maps were drafted by the consultant from Step 1 material and a phone discussion and then sent to PM for review and amendment. A meeting was then organised with the PM to finalise the visions and maps.
Step 3:  Collating visions
In this step MAKK analysed Step 2 material without much involving the project manager. The consultant first compared the PM’s visions with those of core stakeholders in order to discover in what they contradict and coincide and thereby to identify and characterize conflicting and synergetic issues. To this end, in the Conflicting Issues table the consultant listed numerous issues that characterised the vision of a given stakeholder, then examined which elements of these contradict or support the vision of the PM. There were only a few (but substantial) conflicting points, and quite many synergetic ones.

Step 4:  Identifying solutions
For each conflicting issue identified in Step 3, PM and MAKK searched, identified and discussed several possible solution options to overcome the controversies. The solution possibilities were divided into three categories: 1. adjustment of the design or operational mode of the wind turbines, 2. filling knowledge gaps through information provision and/or new research, 3. offering (or requesting) financial incentives. Eventually three of the four ranked conflicting issues were dealt with. The fourth issue (securing finance for advancing with the wind project) was dropped as it proved to be trivially solvable using bank loans and support funds once the major conflicting issue (having no permit from the Energy Office) is solved (that is its solvability is fully conditional on another major issue).
Step 5:  Stakeholder Workshop
A stakeholders’ workshop was held on November 16, 2007 to start discussions between stakeholders on their differing views, the barriers standing in the way of the Vép wind project and further wind developments so as to find compromising solutions for the blocked situation. The discussion was channelled into the themes of the three major conflicting issues selected in Step 3 and 4, but the solution options identified in Step 4 were only offered by the consultant for negotiation at a final point if stakeholders themselves did not mention those.
Step 6:  Planning for action
In the last step the consultant and PM synthesised and turned into action plans what they had learnt throughout the ESTEEM process – especially in Step 4 and the Workshop – about the adaptation possibilities of the wind  project and/or influencing its context. The goal of the action plans was to help the PM be able to move the project out of the current deadlock situation 1. by adjusting its features and operation mode whereby making it more acceptable for stakeholders 2. via collaboration with allies to achieve favourable changes in attitudes and rules/regulations of opposing stakeholders.

Results

The wind turbine in Vép replaces an annual amount of 600 tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Critical Success Factors