Webinar: Examining processes of social site characterisation and stakeholder engagement through detailed case studies of the ulcos ccs project

  • 255 views
Uploaded on

On 4 December 2013 a special Global CCS Institute webinar was held where Laurent Jammes from Actys-BEE and Philippe Vervier from Acceptables Avenirs presented “findings and insights” from the ULCOS …

On 4 December 2013 a special Global CCS Institute webinar was held where Laurent Jammes from Actys-BEE and Philippe Vervier from Acceptables Avenirs presented “findings and insights” from the ULCOS Study: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/social-site-characterisation-stakeholder-management

Since the early work of Sarah Wade and Sally Greenberg, comprehensive social site characterisation and stakeholder identification and analysis have been recognised as fundamental components of any successful CCS stakeholder engagement strategy.

To bring these critical concepts to life for CCS project developers, the Institute supported two of France’s leading public engagement specialists to perform and record each of the key stages of a social site characterisation and prepare a stakeholder engagement process plan to an actual CCS project - the ULCOS Blast Furnace CCS project in Lorraine, France.

The final report comprised four detailed case studies capturing all the processes and tools used to manage the following key public engagement processes:

context analysis
stakeholder identification and mapping
issues identification and materiality analysis
design and evaluation of the project stakeholder engagement plan.
During this webinar, the report authors, Laurent Jammes, COO at Actys-BEE, and Philippe Vervier, CEO Acceptables Avenirs, introduced the key findings from the case study work and took questions on the processes and techniques used to achieve a comprehensive social site characterisation and create a successful stakeholder engagement strategy.

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
255
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Hello my name is Kirsty Anderson, I am the Principal Manager of Public Engagement for the Global CCS Institute and I am going to be your host for this morning’s webinar!
    I said this morning, because right now I am rubbing the sleep from my eyes in Paris, but I am thrilled to let you know that we are joined by an international audience today, so a very big thank you to those giving up their Wednesday evening in the Asia Pacific regions, and to those die-hard Public Engagement enthusiasts in the US and Canada that are tuned in in their pyjamas… no pressure at all Laurent!
    This webinar is being recorded and will be made available on our website in the near future if you would like to listen again or pass it on to your friends or colleagues.
    Hopefully you can all see from the title slide, that today we will be discussing processes of social site characterisation and stakeholder engagement and this discussion is based around the findings of a case study report on the French Steel Manufacture CCS project – the ULCOS project - that we have recently published on the Institute website. The link to the report is on the bottom of the slide.
    Today I have the co-authors of the report Laurent Jammes who is with me here in Paris and Philippe Vervier who is dialing in from Toulouse to talk more about the findings of their work and answer your questions…
  • Laurent is Chief Operating Officer of Actys’ Bee. A company that provides expert consulting on subsurface engineering projects and related public acceptance issues.
    He is a member of several evaluation committees for research programs on CO2 Capture and Storage and decarbonized energy systems across the European Union.
    Previously, Laurent worked for 23 years with Schlumberger, where his last position was Marketing & Technique Director for Carbon Services, the business unit in charge of developing CCS technology and business.
    Prior to Schlumberger, he held a variety of technical and managerial positions in R&D, in France and also in China.
    Laurent has given many short courses and lectures on CCS to Utilities, Oil & Gas companies and governmental agencies.
    He is teaching at the Nancy School of Geology and at the Earth Physics Institute of Paris. He has a PhD in Physics, an Engineering Diploma from Ecole Centrale de Paris and a Masters in Psychology. Laurent is a member of SPE.
  • Philippe is the CEO of Acceptables Avenirs, a company which develops e-technology to support the social acceptance of projects that have proven or potential environmental and societal impacts.
    He has been a senior researcher at the French National Research Centre (CNRS) for 30 years, Philippe was the Executive Officer of a cluster of 44 laboratories.
    Philippe’s research was on modeling complex systems. He led a team of 30 scientists in biology, hydrology, ecotoxicology and ecology. He initiated and led several multidisciplinary International and European research programs combining social and natural sciences.
    He has developed methods and hybrid networks for science-policy-stakeholders interfacing, to enhance the integration of research results and expertise in the decision-making process.
    This has led for example to the Concert’Eau methodology – a technological platform to support environment planning with the participation of stakeholders and integration of expertise for Integrated Water Resources Management.
  • Now for those of you who have made the effort to tune in today, we do welcome questions throughout the presentation – these will be moderated by my colleagues Angeline and Kylie and passed through to me to read out as many as possible at the end of the presentation.
    You submit questions through the “questions” tab on the GoToWebinar control panel on your screen, please feel free to send them throughout the presentation in preparation for a Q&A session at the end.
    So now with out further a do, let me introduce today’s two expert presenters…
  • So you can tell why I am excited to have the opportunity to have both Laurent and Philippe on air and willing to share their experience and expertise with the wider CCS community.
    Please remember to send in your questions to our moderators by submitting them through the GoToWebinar control panel on your screen, and I am going to handover to Laurent to get us started…  
    LAURENT WILL TAKE OVER
  • SUGGESTED QUESTION FOR AFTER THIS SLIDE…
    Thanks Laurent, I think this is a really helpful clarification. I think it is worth highlighting at this point that the work that you and Philippe will discuss today, and the very detailed case studies that people will find in the report, were really about understanding the processes that PE/ Outreach staff must go through to properly prepare for and understand how best to interact with their key stakeholders, to get them on the path of making this judgement that you mention, and providing them with the support, information and contact with trusted professionals to enable them to make decisions…is that correct?
    Now I know you analysed a lot of the experiences of other CCS demonstrations before undertaking this work… what were your key conclusions from this analysis?
  • Can you keep this pretty light – mainly focusing on the findings and recommendations?
  • So you can tell why I am excited to have the opportunity to have both Laurent and Philippe on air and willing to share their experience and expertise with the wider CCS community.
    Please remember to send in your questions to our moderators by submitting them through the GoToWebinar control panel on your screen, and I am going to handover to Laurent to get us started…  
    LAURENT WILL TAKE OVER
  • QUESTION for after this slide…
    Thanks Laurent. I found the PESTEL acronym pretty handy and the detailed level of research that you provided in the case study for the ULCOS project was really helpful in terms of explaining how comprehensive a good social site characterisation should be. Now the area that I often get asked question on is about stakeholder identification or mapping… can you talk a little about this?
  • Laurent I changed the wording of the objective to slightly simpler English I hope this is ok?
    Suggested question/ comment from Kirsty after this slide…
    So now that you have identified and analysed your stakeholders (something that you should to on a fairly regular basis throughout the life of the project) you then identify what are the main issues for stakeholders and also for the project. Can you explain a little about this and maybe touch on some of the methods that you use to get this information like small focus group discussions to verify the issues you identified?
  • Suggested Question/ comment from Kirsty after this slide…
    Thank you Laurent/ Philippe?
    Your methods of mapping and analysing stakeholders are pretty inventive and people can see more of these worked out examples in the report if they would like more information.
    I was hoping that you might be able to now talk just briefly on how you applied all of this social site characterisation work to an actual Stakeholder Engagement Strategy…
  • Slight change to objective wording – is that OK?
  • Suggested Kirsty comment/ question…
    Thank you both so much! Why don’t we kick off the questions with one from INSERT NAME , from… INSERT PLACE.
    They are asking…
    Laurent Philippe – give me an idea of any questions you would like to be asked…

Transcript

  • 1. Examining processes of social site characterisation and stakeholder engagement through detailed case studies of the ULCOS CCS Project Webinar – 4 December 2013, 1900 AEDT
  • 2. Laurent Jammes COO – Actys-Bee  Chief Operating Officer at Actys-Bee.  Expert consulting on subsurface engineering projects and related public acceptance issues.  Member of several evaluation committees for research programs on CO2 Capture and Storage and decarbonised energy systems (EU, Germany and France).  23 years with Schlumberger, last position was Marketing & Technique Director for Carbon Services.  Variety of technical and managerial positions in R&D, in France and China.  Laurent gives many short courses and lectures on CCS to Utilities, Oil & Gas companies and governmental agencies.  He teaches at the Nancy School of Geology and at the Earth Physics Institute of Paris.  He has a PhD in Physics, an Engineering Diploma from Ecole Centrale de Paris and a Masters in Psychology.  Laurent is a member of SPE.
  • 3. Philippe Vervier CEO – Acceptables Avenirs  Chief Executive Officer, Acceptables Avenirs .  Developing e-technology to support the social acceptance of projects that have proven or potential environmental and societal impacts.  Senior Researcher at the French National Research Centre (CNRS) for 30 years, Philippe was the Executive Officer of a cluster of 44 laboratories.  Research was on modeling complex systems, leading a team of 30 scientists in biology, hydrology, ecotoxicology and ecology.  Leads several multidisciplinary International and European research programs combining social and natural sciences.  Developed methods and hybrid networks for science-policystakeholder interface.  Concert’Eau Methodology – a technological platform to support environment planning with the participation of stakeholders and integration of experts.
  • 4. QUESTIONS  We will collect questions during the presentation.  Your MC will pose these question to the panel of presenters after the presentation.  Please submit your questions directly into the GoToWebinar control panel. The webinar will start shortly.
  • 5. Outline  An attempt to define social acceptability  Towards Social Acceptance – a 2-phase methodology o Social site characterisation: 1) Context analysis 2) Stakeholders identification and mapping 3) Materiality analysis of project-related issues o Stakeholder engagement  Conclusions and lessons learnt
  • 6. What is social acceptance? A socio-economical and ecological perspective introduces key concepts… Social acceptability is the result of a process during which stakeholders and project developers work together to decide on the conditions to be fulfilled, so that the project is seamlessly integrated, at a given time, in its natural and human environment. A psychological approach highlights the dynamics of the process: Conditions that result from a judgmental process by which individuals impacted by or in capacity to impact – a project: 1.Compare the perceived conditions in which a project is to be implemented with the current situation and alternatives 2.Decide whether these conditions are acceptable or not 3.If existing condition are judged not to be sufficient, individual will initiate behavior often, but not always, within a constituency group - that is believed likely to shift conditions toward a more favorable alternative.
  • 7. Social acceptance in the CCS world Practices Findings and recommendations Bełchatów Findings Involvement of scientists and NGOs Monitoring of media Opponents kept involved Early stakeholder engagement does not ensure public acceptance Public opinion cannot be rushed – to do so only raises resistance Educating the public does not always increase acceptance Local opposition should not be underestimated Porto Tolle Strong collaboration between supportive stakeholders Compostilla Transparent communication and dialogue Local presence of a scientist Don Valley Engagement approaches adapted to stakeholders categories Use of thematic groups ROAD Engagement based on stakeholder mapping (interest/influence) Jänschwalde Use of a stakeholder engagement model Acceptance of new ideas and solutions Recommendations Adapt communication to stakeholders Adopt a transparent and open-minded communication Obtain support from local and central governments Involve scientists / research institutes and supportive NGOs
  • 8. In search of social acceptance… Standard practices Accounting for the context Engaging stakeholders 1 - Project context analysis Environmental and Social Impact Assessment 2 - Stakeholder identification and mapping Limited stakeholders’ interviews 3 - Materiality analysis of issues and impacts Definition of stakeholder engagement strategy Risk mitigation plan 4 - Stakeholder engagement Societal action plan Social acceptability ? Social acceptability
  • 9. Outline  An attempt to define social acceptability  Towards Social Acceptance – a 2-phase methodology o Social site characterisation: 1) Context analysis 2) Stakeholders identification and mapping 3) Materiality analysis of project-related issues o Stakeholder engagement  Conclusions and lessons learnt
  • 10. 1 – Context analysis Objectives  Characterise and understand the characteristics of the project scope  Identify key stakeholders  Identify the main issues in the project area Structured multi-factor analysis (PESTEL) Political: What is the local political landscape? Its alignment with central government? Economic: How is structured local economy? Social and cultural : What are the socio-demographic characteristics of the area? Its cultural specificities? The industrial history? Technological: What are the regional R&D activities? The competitive advantages? Environmental : What are the local conditions of flora and fauna? Protected areas and species? Legal: What is the regulatory framework for the project? Any local characteristics?
  • 11. 2 – Stakeholder identification mapping Who are the project stakeholders? A project stakeholder is characterised by their/its relationship to the project A broad typology of stakeholder can be adopted C. In capacity to influence the project Public authorities  Economic actors Civil society organisations  Local communities  Research institutes and universities  B. Concerned by the nature of project impacts   A. Impacted by the project Company internal
  • 12. 2 – Stakeholder identification mapping Objectives  List project stakeholders  Evaluate the positioning of the stakeholder with respect to the project  Evaluate the intensity of the relationship with the project Power Intensity of relationship: High Medium-High Medium Medium-Low Low High Low Low High Hostile Challenging Opportunist Collaborative Interest Attitude
  • 13. 2 – Stakeholder profiling Objectives  Identify stakeholder profiles which can be used to predict behaviour Background influence Attitude Interest (Attitude*) Power / influence (Selfefficacy*) Behavioural Intention (*) in the model of rational behaviour Attitude Profile Intensity High High Collaborative Sponsor High High Hostile Opponent High High Low Challenging Cynic MediumHigh High Low Collaborative Sleeping giant Medium High Control beliefs & perceived power Interest High Behavioral beliefs & outcome evaluation Power Low Opportunist Walking his way Medium low Low Low Opportunist Silent gambler Low
  • 14. 3 – Identification of project-related issues Objective  Identify topics of concerns for stakeholders and project developer
  • 15. 3 – Materiality analysis of issues Objective  Evaluate the significance of issues for both stakeholders and project developer Significance to stakeholder Important issue for stakeholders and project developer: Critical issue for external stakeholders, but not for project developer Minor issue for external stakeholders Not material Issue C Issue A Issue B Significance to project developer
  • 16. Illustration with ULCOS – Social site characterisation Project Description Context Analysis  Project supported by all politicians, local to national.  Moselle (Capture): Industrial background but strong impact of the economic crisis. The CCS chain includes: Capture on a Blast Furnace in Florange, Moselle. Transportation over about 80 km. Storage in a deep saline aquifer in Meuse.  Meuse (Storage): Agricultural activity.  Nature (water, landscape) is an important asset.  Regulatory framework in place (CCS directive and national legislation).
  • 17. Illustration with ULCOS – Social site characterisation Stakeholder Mapping Project Material Issues Time-Bomb Sponsor Punisher Ambusher Cheerleader Watchdog
  • 18. Outline  An attempt to define social acceptability  Towards Social Acceptance – a 2-phase methodology o Social site characterisation: 1) Context analysis 2) Stakeholders identification and mapping 3) Materiality analysis of project-related issues o Stakeholder engagement  Conclusions and lessons learnt
  • 19. 4 – Stakeholder engagement Objective  Create an appropriate social context for successful project implementation. Methodology A step-by-step process to push forward the stakeholder involvement by revealing and asserting their expectations, and by taking into account their positions and demands. To run the step-by-step process, the ULCOS Project has been split into 3 areas: CO2 capture, transport and storage. The engagement methodology was then simulated with ArcelorMittal data of a stakeholder survey.
  • 20. Context 3 components Capture Capture Transport Transport Storage Storage Stakeholder concerns are specific regarding these 3 components Focus group Focus group Capture Capture Focus group Focus group Transport Transport Focus group Focus group Storage Storage 3 categories of strategic issues Techno-economic issues Techno-economic issues Techno-economic issues Environmental issues Environmental issues Environmental issues Socio-economic issues Socio-economic issues Socio-economic issues
  • 21. Process STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 CONFIGURATION EVALUATION COMPARISON  Focus groups Evaluation matrix  Options  Criteria for options assessement Environmental Options are evaluated according to two criteria: 1.Equilibrium illustrates the propensity to balance the three strategic issues (position of the circle) 2.Performance informs on the ability to comply with strategic issues (size of the circle) Socio-economic Techno-economic
  • 22. Results – Example of the storage component The stakeholder engagement phase was simulated in a role-playing exercise. Four ‘stakeholders’ were asked to propose and evaluate project options (12 in total): The project developer The environmental alliance (local NGO) A representative of the administration A local government Storage conditions (5)  Medium depth (around1000 m)  Deeper storage solution (> 1000m)  Safety barriers to ensure containment of fluids (Prevention of leakage toward the exploited part of aquifer)  Long-term trapping efficiency  Participation of stakeholders in project management  Long-term operator liability (> 60 years) Multiple storage complex  Project governance and liabilities (3)  Stakeholder participation in the design of the CO2 losses monitoring system Local development (1)  Creation of a research and education platform Operating conditions (3)
  • 23. Results – Example of the storage component Ranked Options based on simulation 1. Technical monitoring of CO2 losses survey (S5) 2. Research and education platform (S4) 3. Stakeholder participation in the design of the CO2 losses monitoring system (S6) Environmental The previously identified material issues are partially addressed by options: • 1 and 3 for “Health and safety” • 2 for “Social equilibrium” • 2 and 3 for “Company image” S11 S10 S7 S6 S12 S3 S8 S2 S9 S5 S4 S1 Techno-Economic Socio-Economic
  • 24. Main lessons learnt Final stakeholder acceptance relies on each party’s ability to disentangle and make preferences clear through science-based assessment and comparison based on jointly-established rules.  The adaptation to the socio-cultural, economic, political, environmental and technical context.  The respect of each proposed option (each proposed option is evaluated).  The opening of the evaluation process to the stakeholders.
  • 25. Conclusion and lessons learnt  Social acceptability is the result of stakeholders’ judgment on the conditions in which a project is implemented.  These conditions should not be given but discussed and agreed upon during the stakeholder engagement process.  The favorable outcome of this ‘negotiation’ process depends on: o The understanding of the project context o The acknowledgement of stakeholders’ concerns (as well as project developer constraints) o The attitude and willingness of the project developer to engage into a dialogue o A careful planning of the engagement strategy.  A successful process requires a multidisciplinary team of to liaise between project stakeholders and project developer.  Conditions for social acceptability, including stakeholder engagement, should be maintained throughout the project life.
  • 26. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION Please submit your questions in English directly into the GoToWebinar control panel. The webinar will start shortly.
  • 27. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com Report available from: www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/social-site-characterisation-stakeholder-ma