CHAPTER 1:
Zinzile Seepie
IGC
0
Contents
1.
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.
Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.
Significance of Research ................................................................................................................. 5
4.
Research Objective ......................................................................................................................... 5
5.
Provisional Research Question: ...................................................................................................... 5
Sub-Questions: ........................................................................................................................... 5
6.
Scope and Limitations of the study................................................................................................. 6
7.
References ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Table
Table 1: RIM Strategy for stakeholder engagement and negotiation process ....................................... 4
Figures
Figure 1: Two proposed sites for the PV Solar Plant.....................Ошибка! Закладка не определена.
Figure 2:RIM Strategy for stakeholder engagement and negotiation process ....................................... 5
1
1. Background
Sustainable development is strongly connected to the low carbon cities concept. Carbon emission
reduction is a well-accepted strategy in climate mitigation efforts. Within developing countries, local
energy efficiency (EE) and Renewable energy (RE) Projects play a critical role in “narrowing the
emissions gap and decarbonizing future energy growth” (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014, p. 1354). The
incorporation of these strategies in Urban planning and development academia is especially important
as it is held that within cities; energy is tied up “technically, economically, and politically …in very
diverse ways” (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014, p. 1354). Tangible cultural Heritage can be described as
historical buildings, monuments, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, natural biodiversity, and
historic items (Fatorić & Biesbroek, 2020). Together these hereditary resources offer cities vast
economic and environmental benefits (Fatorić & Biesbroek, 2020). These resources further require
practical climate adaptation to increase their resilience to global climate change impacts. However
due to their protection status under heritage conservation regulation, perceptions and values of
stakeholders, these adaptations can be difficult and even impossible to implement.
Achieving greater sustainability in monuments requires adherence to a multitude of regulations and
quality measures in ensuring the integrity of the heritage sites and making no alterations to the
structure (Fatorić & Biesbroek, 2020). Similarly, a significance of cultural heritage is tied to the values
that society espouses to the structures and site, thus community disproval to heritage adaptation can
impede sustainability (Perry, 2015). For this reason, adaptations like solar panel installations can be
extremely challenging ( PV Europe, 2019). Heritage management regulations may not approve these
installations without multiple permit applications and may require design considerations which may
affect the efficiency of the adaptation. For example, if the regulations do not permit panels to ‘disturb
the visual materiality of the site, this may effect where panels may be installed as well as their efficacy.
This further speaks to engineering and design complexity of adapting hermitage, where alterations
are strictly not permitted ( PV Europe, 2019). Notably there is a global gap in academia and policy
regarding the assessment of suitable climate adaptation and mitigation to heritage structures and
sites. This absence is further echoed in literature regarding the relationship between stakeholder
empowerment in heritage management.
According to Perry (2015), a key factor of the Climate adaptation of the World Heritage is the array of
stakeholder values, norms, and standards and how this can be the stumbling block for implementing
or installing adaptation measures (Perry, 2015). Literature further confers that programmes and
initiatives which lack public support can be categorised as having “socio-cultural barriers to adapting
cultural heritage to climate change impacts” (Fatorić & Biesbroek, 2020, p. 311). This emphasises that
the role of stakeholders in climate adaptation approval goes beyond mere consultation, but rather
balanced-bottom-up management approaches. This perspective recognises that climate change
mitigation strategies may be transformational in the opportunities they offer to empower stakeholder
communities. While still weak, the concept of socio-cultural barriers and how they relate to heritage
climate adaptation and mitigation literature, could enhance our understanding of the dynamics at play
in combatting this problem (Perry, 2015). It is held academically that there is inadequate cross sectoral
transfer of best practices in heritage management to advise acceptable climate change adaptation in
the decision-making processes. (Fatorić & Biesbroek, 2020, p. 310). The acceptance of climate
adaptation in global heritage resources contributes to lowering the emissions of heritage structures
and sites worldwide, yet there is a gap in academia on the nuances of the dynamic relationship
between impact mitigation and stakeholder community empowerment. This gap threatens the
acceptance and or implementation of climate adaptation.
However, despite these challenges, The Robben Island Museum World Heritage Site (RIMWHS) was
able to install a PV Solar Plant on a highly protected site.
2
2. Problem Statement
The 2013-14 RIM Annual report emphasised the need to manage the operational costs and carbon
footprint of the Museum (Robben Island museum, 2016). It articulated the development of strong
strategic governmental and non-governmental network partnerships to achieve this in line with the
Integrated conservation management Plan (ICMP) (National Government of South Africa, 2013-2018).
In 2015, under a partnership agreement with the National Department of Tourism (NDT), the RIM was
included into the Destination Development Project of the NDT (Robben Island museum, 2016). The
objective of the project was to reduce the island’s carbon footprint by installing a 1-hectare PV Solar
Plant on the highly protected world heritage site (Robben Island museum, 2016). Due to the immense
cultural heritage and biodiversity value, the site was listed as ‘Highly sensitive’ and protected ardently
by the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25) of 1999 and the National Environmental Management
Act 1999. The process of obtaining a permit to install this project on the island required the
preparation of a set of documents such as Heritage Impact assessment, Environmental impact
assessment, Visual Impact assessment among others (Cedar Tower Services, 2018). Each of these
assessments required the approval of key stakeholders including the ex-political prisoner’s association
(EPPA), residents, non-profits, government representatives, etc (Cedar Tower Services, 2018). The
EPPA was to be consulted directly as they contributed to the intangible heritage of the site (South
African Heritage Resource Agency, 2016). The rest of the stakeholders were consulted in line with the
public participation guidelines (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2002). The national
policy was streamlined to the international policy to share the objective of involving and empowering
communities in the heritage management processes to ensure their sustainability in the long term
(Deegan, 2012). Figure 1 below, depicts the Island and two proposed sites for the development of the
solar plant. The approval of the prepared assessment reports by the stakeholders was a significant
challenge of the overall permit process. To succeed with the approval the RIM partnership employed
the legislated stakeholder engagement strategy for the support of the project (Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2002). This strategy is composed of the actions which are
described in greater detail in Table 1.
3
Table 1: RIM Strategy for stakeholder engagement and negotiation process
Action
Identify key
stakeholders and
their
representative
bodies
Consultation
Empower
Stakeholders:
Provide
opportunity for
stakeholders to
comment in
writing.
Negotiation,
trade-off and
testing:
Test the
acceptability of
proposed
mitigation
measures.
Finalisation/Way
forward
Approach
An extensive list of representatives from state, and non-state actors and organisations was identified
1. RIM Partnership held public participation forums where they explained the trouble that the RIM was
facing in terms of decreasing funding, high operational cost, and decaying state of museum due to poor
maintenance and the threat to loss of heritage if action was not taken. Shared project aspirations and
recommended sites for development
2. Consulted the EPPA directly
3.Shared a draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR) with each stakeholder representative (including organs of
state) for comment where a few possible sites were recommended for development of the solar plant.
1.Each stakeholder submitted comments and concerns (glare, visual impact, safety, environmental,
heritage) back to the RIM partnership and consultants.
2.The consultants recorded all comments received from stakeholders and responded timeously, before
submitting the draft BAR to relevant authorities.
1.Stakeholders did not oppose the development of the project on the old cricket pitch as it had minimal
heritage, environmental and economic impact on the island, its stakeholders, and properties.
2.Consultants ensured key issues discovered in specialist studies had been considered and tested from
stakeholder perspectives.
3. Additional studies for trade-offs were conducted to allay the concerns (glare, visual impact, safety,
environmental, heritage) of stakeholders.
4. Design adjustments were made to ensure that glare would not negatively impact properties across the
shore or shipping routes.
5.The partnership maintained consistent communication with all key stakeholders for the full duration of
the specialist studies.
1.Describe outcome from authorities and conditions.
2. Expand on opportunities for ongoing involvement in construction as well as in the RIM.
2.Provide opportunity for stakeholders to appeal against the decision Conflict management and resolution
Outcome/indicator
Comprehensive stakeholder
database
Stakeholders buy-in of process:
1.EPPA public participation report.
2. signed public participation
meeting agenda
Partnership consultants responded
individually in writing to each
concern raised and included the
initial comments as well as the final
comments in the draft BAR for
submission.
1.Stakeholder mitigation
comments
2. Consultant trade-off studies and
community 3. Ensure all reasonable
mitigation measures have been
integrated into the project design.
4. Submission of draft BAR and
associated reports including all
stakeholder comments
1. signed agendas
2.consensus on the way forward
Source: (WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2016)
4
The objective of this research is to explain how the stakeholder engagement strategy implemented by
the partners (RIM and NDT) managed to influence the approval of these stakeholders to build the
Solar Plant on this sensitive environmental and cultural site?
3. Significance of Research
City planners and academics face the challenge of achieving sustainable low carbon cities while
protecting heritage resources of cities with climate adaptations in an environment which can be rife
with socio-cultural barriers to altering high value heritage sites (Fatorić & Biesbroek, 2020). Academics
have held that a delicate balance must be maintained in our approaches to the relationship dynamics
in Heritage management as in the Brundtland Report. Where top-down management frameworks
offer formal protection through impact mitigation, grass-roots frameworks protect the social value of
heritage at local scale. This work interrogates the RIM strategy for stakeholder engagement for
approval of the Solar plant. This is pertinent as heritage management has not been the priority of the
evolving urban resilience knowledge, despite its significance on the sustainability agenda. In South
Africa, closing this academic gap offers the opportunity for expanding current academic knowledge
on the decentralization of power in heritage management for climate adaptation and mitigation.
4. Research Objective
The objective of this study is to assess the contribution of Stakeholder empowerment and
Negotiation to RIM partnerships’ approval of climate adaptation measures on highly sensitive
heritage site in the case of the RIMWHS PV Solar plant. This strategy is composed of the actions
illustrated in figure 1 below.
Figure 1:RIM Strategy for stakeholder engagement and negotiation process
Identify key
stakeholders
Consultation
Empower
Stakeholders to
contribute to
decision making
Negotiation and
trade-off
Finalisation/Way
forward
Source: (South African Heritage Resource Agency, 2016)
5. Provisional Research Question:
To what extent did the stakeholder engagement strategy of the RIM partnership (Empowerment and
Negotiation) influence the approval of the RIM PV Solar Plant on the sensitive environmental and
heritage site?
Sub-Questions:
1.What can a summative assessment of the stakeholder engagement strategy tell us about
the relationship between empowerment and Negotiation in the approval of climate impact
mitigation to heritage sites?
2.Which negotiation approaches are optimal for the maximum benefit of climate mitigation
measures on sensitive cultural and heritage sites?
3.How did stakeholder empowerment influence the approval of the project with the
mandated permitting agent?
5
6. Scope and Limitations of the study
The study is applicable to sizable (1 hectare minimum) renewable energy climate adaptation on
sensitive heritage sites and structures and does not extend to sites without cultural and environmental
significance. This research will be context sensitive, deep-rooted and policy focused on specifically
Robben Island’s stakeholder engagement strategy. The focus will be on stakeholder empowerment
and negotiation within a greater strategy for stakeholder engagement of high-value heritage sites.
Due to the Covid-19 restrictions and time constraints of the research, this research will be conducted
mainly using qualitative desktop research of secondary data gained from the project developers,
stakeholders, and relevant legislation. Some interviews will be held online with key stakeholder
involved.
7. References
PV Europe. (2019, March 03). Recently IBC Solar realized a challenging PV rooftop installation on the
historic Hermitage Amsterdam museum. . Retrieved from Solar panels on the Hermitage
Amsterdam museum: https://www.pveurope.eu/installation/solar-panels-hermitageamsterdam-museum
Abodohoui, A., & Su, Z. (2020). Influence of Chinese managerial soft power on African skills
development. International Business Review (29), 1-11.
Cedar Tower Services. (2018). SOLAR PV PROJECT: ROBBEN ISLAND WORLD HERITAGE SITE. Cape
Town: SOLA Future Energy.
Deegan, N. (2012). The local-global nexus in the politics of World Heritage: space for community
development? UNESCO: Community Development through World Heritage, 77-82.
Department of Energy. (2013). IRP 2010-2030 UPDATE REPORT. Pretoria: National Department of
Energy.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. (2002). Stakeholder engagement, Integrated
Environmental Management, Information Series 3. Pretoria: Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).
Fatorić, S., & Biesbroek, R. (2020). Adapting cultural heritage to climate change impacts in the
Netherlands: barriers, interdependencies,and strategies for overcoming them. Climatic
Change (162), 301–320.
Goldthau, A., & Sitter, N. (2015). Soft power with a hard edge: EU policy tools and energy security.
Review of International Political Economy Vol. 22, No. 5, 941-965.
Griffiths, S. (2019). Energy diplomacy in a time of energy transition. Energy Strategy Reviews (26_, 110.
Gustavsson, T. K., & Hallin, A. (2014). Rethinking dichotomization: A critical perspective on the use of
“hard” and “soft” in project management research. International Journal of Project
Management 32, 568–577.
HANEŞ, N., & ANDREI, A. (2015). CULTURE AS SOFT POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
International Conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION (Vol. XXI) (No.1), 32-38.
Project Name: Robben Island Museum SOLAR PV
Makhurane, J. P. (2003). Robben Island - Developing an integrated environmental and heritage
management system: ‘Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments.
Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe: 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium.
Marklund, C. (2020). Soft Power. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 291-296.
Mercedes, M., & Cantarero, V. (2020). Of renewable energy, energy democracy, and sustainable
development: A roadmap to accelerate the energy transition in developing countries. Energy
Research & Social Science, 1-15.
Mokveld, K., & von Eije, S. (2018). Final Energy report South Africa. Amersfort: Netherlands
Enterprise Agency.
Mwenda, M. (2018, May 30). Robben Island, where Mandela spent 17 years in prison, goes green
with solar energy. Retrieved from www.lifegate.com: https://www.lifegate.com/robbenisland-solar-energy
National Government of South Africa. (2013-2018). Robben Island Museum Integrated Conservation
Management Plan . Pretoria: National Ministry of Arts and Culture South Africa.
Perry, J. (2015). Landscape and Urban Planning:Climate change adaptation in the world’s best places:
A wicked. Elsevier 133, 1-11.
Phaahla, E. (2015, August 05). THE STATE OF ELECTRICITY IN SOUTH AFRICA - PART I: THE PROBLEMS
IN ESKOM. Retrieved from Helen Suzman Foundation : https://hsf.org.za/publications/hsfbriefs/the-state-of-electricity-in-south-africa-part-i-part-i-the-problems-in-eskom
Robben Island museum. (2016). ANNUAL REPORT for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. Cape
Town: Robben Island Museum.
Rutherford, J., & Coutard, O. (2014). Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Processes, and Politics of
Socio-technical Change. Urban Studies 51(7), 1353–1377.
Sally Titlestad, Rennie Scurr Adendorff Architects,Cedar Tower Services. (2016). PROPOSED
PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL PLANT: ROBBEN ISLAND WORLD HERITAGE SITE. Cape Town: South
African Heritage Resource Agency (8981).
South African Heritage Resource Agency. (2016). Basic Assessment Process for the Proposed
Renewable Energy Generation. Cape Town: SAHRA.
The One Gigaton Coalition. (2017). Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Developing Countries:
Contributions to Reducing Global Emissions. United Nations Environment Programme.
The Soft Power 30. (2021, April 04 ). What is Soft Power. Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Ting, M. B., & Byrne, R. (2020). Eskom and the rise of renewables: Regime-resistance, crisis and the
strategy. Energy Research & Social Science (60), 1-15.
Wesgro . (2016). Tourism numbers . Cape Town: Capetown and Western Cape tourism, trade and
investment .
WSP in Africa. (2021, April 04). https://www.wsp.com/en-ZA. Retrieved from Robben Island Solar
Microgrid: https://www.wsp.com/en-ZA/projects/robben-island-solar-microgrid
Project Name: Robben Island Museum SOLAR PV
WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff. (2016). DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT:PROPOSED RENEWABLE ENERGY
GENERATION FACILITY ON ROBBEN ISLAND,WESTERN CAPE. Cape Town: WSP Parsons
Brinkerhoff.
Yung , E., & Chan, E. (2012). Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings:
Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat International 36, 352-361.
Project Name: Robben Island Museum SOLAR PV