SMILEGOV
Enhancing effective implementation of sustainable energy action
plans in European islands through reinforcement of smart
multilevel governance
Agreement No: IEE/12/047/SI2.645923
Strategic guidelines
Priority areas
Good Practices
Local workshops
Think tanks
Deliverable D 3.3
Strategic Guidelines for facilitating the
implementation of sustainable energy projects
20/09/2014
www.sustainableislands.eu
Part. N°
Partner’s name
Short name
CO1
Network of Sustainable Aegean Islands - Greece
DAFNI
CB2
Conference of Peripheral & Maritime Regions
CPMR
CB3
Region Gotland – Sweden
GOTLAND
CB4
Ölands Municipal Association - Sweden
ÖLAND
CB5
Hiiu Municipality - Estonia
HIIUMAA
CB6
Saare County Government – Saaremaa - Estonia
SAAREMAA
CB7
European Small Islands Federation
ESIN
CB8
Samsø Energy Academy - Denmark
SE
CB9
Canary Islands Institute of Technology - Spain
ITC
CB10
Regional Agency for Energy and Environment of the
Autonomous Region of Madeira - Portugal
AREAM
CB11
Cyprus Energy Agency
CEA
CB12
Local Councils Association – Malta
LCA
CB13
Scottish Islands Federation
SIF
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the contractor and
can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.
2
www.sustainableislands.eu
Content
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................5
1
Get motivated! How can MLG help the islands of Europe? .............5
1.1
1.2
1.3
What is multi-level governance?.................................................................................... 6
MLG barriers for ISEAP implementation – Priority areas............................................... 7
MLG challenges for the islands of Europe ..................................................................... 8
2
Get the methodology! How to put good practice into your process .9
3
Get prepared! MLG strategic guidelines ........................................10
3.1 The MLG pragmatic elements ...................................................................................... 10
3.2 Overview of good experiences..................................................................................... 12
3.2.1
Good Scandinavian MLG experiences (separate report)................................ 13
3.2.2
Good MLG experiences from the islands (separate report)........................... 13
3.2.3
International MLG models (separate report) ................................................. 14
3.2.4
MLG models from the EU by CoopEnergy ...................................................... 17
4
Get knowledge! MLG experience of strategic guidelines and the priority
areas ..............................................................................................19
4.1 Overcoming MLG barriers in different timeframes ..................................................... 19
4.1.1
Overcoming MLG barriers for short term goals ............................................. 20
4.1.2
Overcoming MLG barriers for middle term goals .......................................... 20
4.1.3
Overcoming MLG barriers for long term goals ............................................... 20
4.2 Overcoming barriers in different priority areas ........................................................... 21
4.2.1
Good MLG practices for mobility ................................................................... 21
4.2.2
Good MLG practice for communication ......................................................... 22
4.2.3
Good MLG practice for business models ........................................................ 23
4.2.4
Good MLG practice for new technology ........................................................ 24
4.2.5
Good MLG practice for smart grids ................................................................ 24
4.2.6
Good MLG practice for permit process .......................................................... 25
5
Get going! Tools for a good process ..............................................27
5.1
5.2
Logical Framework Approach (LFA) (separate handbook) ........................................... 27
Other available tools .................................................................................................... 28
6
References .....................................................................................30
3
www.sustainableislands.eu
4
www.sustainableislands.eu
Acknowledgements
These guidelines have been prepared by the Smilegov Task Force consisting of the advanced islands,
Öland, Gotland and Samsø, demonstrating and sharing their experiences of good multi-level
governance (MLG) practices for the implementation of sustainable energy action plans and projects.
Together with examples from the international literature, the Coopenergy IEE project and the rest of
the Smilegov islands, the guidelines identify key elements of MLG-transferability on how to
successfully implement renewable energy projects and overcome multi-level governance barriers. A
surprisingly small amount of relevant studies on MLG has been identified at academic level which
makes the subject even more important to investigate as MLG barriers in any sector, are also barriers
for the sustainable development of the European Union.
1 Get motivated!
How can MLG help the islands of Europe?
Within the Pact of Islands initiative many good energy projects have been developed for the islands
of Europe; the process started with emissions inventories and energy planning and resulted to
bankable energy projects. The final outputs were Island Sustainable Energy Action Plans (ISEAP),
which were presented and politically adopted; the on-going Covenant of Mayors framework was
used as a role model. Thanks to the ISEAPs a work plan of RES projects was created and made
available on local level, ready to be implemented. Many
islands depend on regional and national support to be able
to implement projects of renewable energy. If there is poor
communication or other barriers between the levels of
By overcoming the Multigovernance the projects are often held to a standstill
Level Governance barriers
awaiting for a better coordination process. As a consequence
it is possible to create a
of such delays investors turn their funding to other projects,
sustainable and resilient
where the implementation can be obtained in a faster and
development, making the
less complicated way.
We believe that
islands the golden buttons
While facing multi-level governance barriers not only do the
of the European coat.
islands suffer the loss of sustainable energy projects, local
work opportunities and other supporting investments, but
they are also stuck with obsolete energy systems based on
fossil fuels leading to fuel poverty and future emigration. Many barriers are due to the lack of
coordination between different levels of legislation creating an uncertainty for investors on how to
evaluate the possibilities of establishment. There are also other types of barriers such as political,
technical, financial, social and environmental. The islands become white spots for investors, research
and development, this in a world where more than 180000 people immigrate to a city somewhere
every 24 hours. Yet, it is verified that the islands are excellent places for sustainable systems and a
high quality of life. By overcoming the multi-level governance barriers it is possible to create a
sustainable and resilient development, making the islands the golden buttons of the European coat.
5
www.sustainableislands.eu
1.1 What is multi-level governance?
Multi-level governance refers to the effective interaction between the different political levels for an
improved coordination and coherence between the local, regional, national and European policy
level. The following definition can be found
in the International Energy Agency
EU
information paper, Innovations in multilevel
level governance for energy efficiency,
(December 2009): “In order to define MLG,
it is useful to understand what governance
National level
is in general. There is no single unequivocal
definition of the term governance. Instead,
the governance concept can be used in a
diverse range of contexts to investigate
issues from the role of the state, corporate
governance, and public management to
good governance. In this way, governance
is not so much a term that should be
defined, but rather an approach, or
perspective, to investigating issues relating
Regional level
Local level
to the governing process.”
And it continues, “It is clear that using a
governance
framework
requires
understanding of the complex role and
interactions of all actors in the policy
governing process. The concept of MLG
takes these essential elements and focuses
on the relationship between different levels
of government.”
As the IEA report informs us, the term MLG
was initially used by Gary Marks (1992) to
describe developments in EU policy
following the Single Act of 1986. MLG
initially described a “system of continuous
negotiation among nested governments at
several territorial tiers – supranational,
national, regional and local that was
distinctive of EU structural policy”.
Multi-Level Governance
Multi-Lateral Governance
Local
Stakeholders
Financing
Institutions
Academia
NGOs
In the framework of these guidelines focusing on island MLG models and structures the IEA approach
will be adopted; MLG can be understood as the complex system of interactions between actors at all
levels of government, engaged in the exercise of authority together with stakeholders, NGOs, NPOs
and others. In this context the MLG abbreviation can occasionally be translated as multi-lateral
6
www.sustainableislands.eu
governance capturing the key role of parallel informal governing bodies like the diverse local
stakeholders, NGOs, NPOs, financing institutions, etc.
It is a fact that in the field of sustainable energy projects many levels of governance are often
involved and the need for cooperation is essential for their successful implementation. The
challenges for islands are that these levels are not always represented on the island and appear
within regional and national departments on the mainland. As a consequence history has shown little
cooperation between mainland and island authorities and through time this has evolved to a
common bureaucratic barrier.
1.2 MLG barriers for ISEAP implementation – Priority areas
The sustainable energy projects that usually used to be promoted by higher levels of governance
have now become part of the local authorities’ agendas and strategic plans. This is a new situation
were bottom-up initiatives demand a sort of smart grid of governance where the decision making has
to work in both directions, top-down and bottom-up. With politically adopted ISEAPs the islands
started to face barriers when it came to their implementation phase.
During the first steps of the Smilegov project these barriers were identified in each geographical
cluster during workshops and think tank meetings and they were always connected to experiences
coming out of actual projects and ISEAPs. One important aspect, besides overcoming existing
barriers, was to also identify and foresee MLG barriers for the implementation of new technologies in
the future. As a next step the barriers were processed into priority areas and grouped under 6 main
categories of priority areas.
Mobility
•transportation
•infrastructure
Communication
•knowledge sharing
•info in community involvement
Business Models
•financing of energy efficiency
•funding in general
New technologies
•ICT and E-solutions
•marine RES technologies
Smart Grids
•inter-connections
•energy storage
Permit Processes
•spatial planning
•legal obstacles
Analysing the state of the art of each cluster through the outcomes of their initial workshops it was
realised that the aim of the Smilegov activities would focus on learning and supporting each other in
7
www.sustainableislands.eu
the process to overcome their barriers instead of trying at the end of the project to bring the clusters
at the same level of progress regarding their projects and ISEAPs.
The focus, besides overcoming identified barriers, is to create possibilities of good multi-level
governance in general for the islands. There must be a clear goal what will happen once the barrier is
removed. The main aim is therefore to enhance the knowledge of good multi-level governance
processes so that the islands can gain from long term investments on sustainable development in
general which will provide local green growth.
1.3 MLG challenges for the islands of Europe
The islands have all different conditions of size, population, infrastructures, modes of governance,
institutional knowledge, financial and social structures, etc. meaning that the structure and process
of every challenge is unique, but in the same time common,
and that is what make Smilegov such an interesting project
as the islands always have something to learn from each
other.
Every challenge is unique,
We know that
The MLG challenges are often diverse depending the size or
geographical situation of the island. The smaller the
population the more MLG barriers are on local level
regarding funding, capacity building and daily practical
concerns such as energy efficient heating, use of local RES
and having good and affordable communications.
All these small islands are lacking support from higher levels
of governance especially in the case where the islands do
not have an elaborated SEAP.
but in the same time
common, and that is what
make Smilegov such an
interesting project as the
islands always have
something to learn from
each other
The islands that do have a SEAP, thanks to Pact of Islands or Covenant of Mayors, have more barriers
aimed at the lack of coordination between governance or/and resources for developing tools. Islands
with long experience and political consensus about sustainable development face barriers of
constructing joint ventures between local authorities and stakeholders especially while introducing
new technologies and finding functioning business models.
8
www.sustainableislands.eu
2 Get the methodology!
How to put good practice into your process
The purpose of these guidelines is to identify key MLG elements, models and techniques in good
experiences located in international studies, in the experiences coming out of the IEE project
CoopEnergy, and in case studies of the advanced Scandinavian islands of Samsø, Gotland and Öland
plus exceptional good MLG experiences from other islands.
Methodology
In order to produce useful guidelines and to categorise and analyse the good MLG practices
identified on the way important overall practical issues, so called pragmatic elements, of MLG
models have been used. In addition to that some recognised tools meant to assist the structuring of
the work of overcoming barriers at cluster level are proposed.
Preparation: Important elements in a MLG process
Knowledge: Study and analyse of good MLG practice
Execution: Recognised tools to assist the MLG process
Looking at the case studies there seems to be many structures of good MLG arrangement. Some of
them follow a top-down approach while others are bottom-up based on local initiatives. The funding
schemes also vary from local funding, national or regional subsidies to EU-project grants and funding
by investors and stakeholders.
The MLG barriers related to the priority areas are often just one of the problems that need to be
solved in order to reach the higher aim of a sustainable island; but it could be the crucial one where
the local authorities have limited possibilities to solve the barrier on their own.
9
www.sustainableislands.eu
3 Get prepared!
MLG strategic guidelines
3.1 The MLG pragmatic elements
There are seldom two MLG processes alike as the conditions vary but all of them have a similar
content and context. They can be divided into nine pragmatic elements as you can read in the
summary of the IEA report (2009).
They are identified as follows:

Mode of governance
The mode of governance refers to who took the incentive to overcome the barrier, whether it is by
legislation, by national funding, or enabling conditions by project funding, or if it is by local incentive.
In the case of these guidelines most of the barriers concerning the priority areas are due to the fact
that many islands have an elaborated SEAP enabling the local authority to take incentive. The modes
of governance are to keep in mind as there could appear possibilities to solve the barriers by the
different modes where the different levels could have access to funding.

Level of inclusion (plus horizontal and vertical analysis)
The level of inclusion is an important factor where a (vertical) broad participation by authorities on
different levels together with stakeholders always is a key factor to a good MLG process. Sometimes
though, the barrier might be found at the same level of governance where different departments
and decision-makers lack coordination. Then a more horizontal inclusion is needed to solve the
barrier. When discussing whom to include in the MLG process please keep in mind the end users who
will final benefit from removing the barrier.

Type of priority area promoted
When analysing a barrier, the verifications needed to reach the goal for the priority area are to be
decided. This could often be a combination of demonstration projects, capacity building,
dissemination activities, involving stakeholders and end users, change in regional decision-making
structure etc., all of them contributing to overcome the barrier.

Nature of participation
When the invitation list of levels of governance and stakeholders is prepared, the importance and
role for each one in the process has to be considered. This is to decide if their participation needs to
be mandatory or voluntary to reach the aim for the process.

Formality of administrative structures
If there is a need of mandatory participation then maybe the MLG organizer should be on a high level
of governance making the participation possible. Consider that the higher the level where the MLG
process is initiated the more formality and administrative structure the process will have. Not saying
that a local or community organized process has no need of structure but it is always important to be
clear and transparent regarding the structure.

The initiation and decision-making process
10
www.sustainableislands.eu
Sometimes a top-down structure of the process might be more efficient to reach the aims if they
include permit processes, legislation issues, spatial planning etc. When it comes to awareness,
introduction of new technology, R&D etc., a bottom-up approach is better when it comes to flexible
decision-making.

Level of accountability
Any MLG process needs a certain level of open accountability for reporting, monitoring, verification,
evaluation and communication. These are important factors to pay attention to as a poor level of
accountability could ruin a, from other aspects, a good organized process.

Budget size
The need of funding and budget size is also to be evaluated in a MLG process where finding
possibilities through the different modes of governance is a good starting point. It is wise to discuss if
the planned actions of the process will require funding of any kind or the levels of governance or
stakeholders will need funding to in order to participate.

Funding symmetry
Keep in mind that the bigger the share of the funding process a partner have, the more likely they
would like to have more influence on the decision-making reaching their objectives.
Levels of
Governance
Funding
Decision Making
Transparency
Participation
Final Beneficiaries
11
www.sustainableislands.eu
3.2 Overview of good experiences
The good experiences identified in the advanced Scandinavian islands of Samsø, Gotland and Öland,
in the rest of the learning Smilegov clusters, in international studies and in the experiences coming
out of the IEE project CoopEnergy are analytically presented in separate reports in order to avoid
making the Strategic Guidelines a very long methodological document.
In the next table the main good experiences are presented and their respective modes of
governance, inclusion, initiation, decision making level and participation are identified. What is
notable about the cases is that they have a big variety of approaches and context, but they all end up
being successful MLG processes.
Mode of
governance
Mode of
inclusion
Mode of
initiation
Mode of
decision making
Mode of
participation
Bicycle story, Copenhagen
GA
H
TD
R
M
Community Energy, Samsø
SG
V
BU
L
V
Spatial planning, Denmark
GA
V
TD
N,R,L
M
Biogas, Gotland
SG
H
BU
L
V
Wind power plan, Öland
GE
V
TD
R,L
M,V
Electric Mobility, Öland
SG
V
BU
R,L
V
Carpooling, Öland
SG
H
BU
L
V
Boosta project, Öland
GE
H
BU
R,L
V
Electric vehicles, Samsø
SG
H
BU
L
V
Swimming pool, Syros
SG
V
BU
N,R,L
V
Wind-hydro power, El Hierro
GA
V
BU
N,R,L
M
Mobility planning, Cyprus
GA
V
TD
N,R,L
M
Community energy, Scotland
SG
H
BU
N,L
V
Project
Modes of governance: Governance by Authority(GA), Governance by enabling(GE), Self-governing(SG)
Modes of inclusion: Horizontal(H), Vertical(V)
Modes of initiation: Top-down(TD), Bottom-up(BU)
Modes of decision making: National level(N), Regional level(R), Local level(L)
Modes of participation: Mandatory(M), Voluntary(V)
Bicycle story
Copenhagen
Mode of
governance
Mode of
inclusion
Mode of
initiation
Mode of
decision making
Mode of
particiaption
By Authority
Horizontal
Top-Down
Regional
Mandatory
12
www.sustainableislands.eu
3.2.1
Good Scandinavian MLG experiences (separate report)
Each region or clusters have their own conditions for MLG processes. In the case of the Scandinavian
countries they have a long history of decentralized political systems with resources available at local
level and a network-building tradition. Nevertheless,
this could also create barriers if the decision-making is
too horizontal, making it difficult to get final
agreements. A good MLG process is like plasma, not - decentralized political systems
solid, not liquid or gas, only behaving in relation to the - resources available at local level
desired outcome. The Scandinavian good experiences - network-building tradition
illustrate how good multi-level governance can be - involvement of levels of governance
and stakeholders at an early stage
enabled from a variety of conditions, initiated from
long-term political goals
top-down approaches to bottom-up. What they all
Keywords
have in common is a clear purpose for the end user
which is crucial for any MLG process. Other important
success factors are the involvement of levels of governance (multi-level) and stakeholders (multilateral) at an early stage and the benefits of long-term political goals.
Analytical information regarding the good Scandinavian MLG experiences can be found in the
separate report “Case studies on Scandinavian good experience of multi-level governance” appended
to the present report. The following information are included in the analysis of each case study:
-
Introduction
MLG element and Transferability
Structure
Funding
Results
Strengths & Challenges
For better understanding of the present guidelines the reader is highly advised to visit the separate
report and be inspired by the Scandinavian case studies.
3.2.2
Good MLG experiences from the islands (separate report)
One of the Smilegov tasks for all the island clusters during the early days of their establishment was
to identify good practices, either specific projects or general processes, where models involving
different levels of governance and/or different stakeholders have taken place and are considered
worth to be shared with the rest of the islanders. For this task the think tank of each cluster was
activated during their first meeting / workshop. In total 17 good practices in the form of factsheets
were collected from the 12 established clusters; the 7 best of them were included in the deliverable
“7 good practice factsheets on enabling conditions for good multi-level cooperation” (D3.1). The
deliverable has served as a direct input to these strategic guidelines.
For the good island practices besides a description of the respective project / process the results and
lessons related to MLG processes were identified and those were the main information that this
report made use of.
For better understanding of the present guidelines the reader is highly advised to visit the separate
report (D3.1) and be inspired by the MLG experiences of the islanders around Europe. Of course also
13
www.sustainableislands.eu
the additional 10 good practice factsheets which although not part of the best good practices still
contain interesting information for the reader and can be found uploaded at the Smilegov website.
Indicative MLG Results
-
Advanced web-meeting technology
Active involvement and participation at local and national level
Involvement of local authority personnel in project working groups
Good local environmental awareness and sensitivity
Prefeasibility studies to investigate different alternatives
Successful procurement strategy
Overcoming local authorities’ budgetary constraints in supporting
proactive communities
Indicative MLG Lessons
-
3.2.3
Economy of scale in meetings resources available at local level
Aiming to reasonable economy – Take advantage of existing competence
Highlight win-win conditions
Strong political stimulation and follow-up is needed for large scale innovative
energy infrastructure projects
Setting up new MLG structures can facilitate complicated decision making
Participatory vision making reassured the creation of demand before the offer
Community involvement through Trusts instead of Councils or Authorities
International MLG models (separate report)
In order to draw examples from MLG models outside of the island areas a thorough investigation of
the relevant existing documentation at international scale was carried out. This resulted in
identifying two main reports1 in relation to MLG being involved in energy projects.
The first report is the, already mentioned in previous chapters of these guidelines, Information Paper
published by the International Energy Agency back in December 2009 and titled “Innovations in
multi-level governance for energy efficiency”. The second report is the Inception Report published in
December 2013 by DG REGIO and titled “Study on promoting multi-level governance in support of
Europe 2020”.
1
Both reports can be found in the Library of the Smilegov project.
14
www.sustainableislands.eu
In the IEA report, which contains 30 international case studies, it is found that key issues for good
MLG practice are the following:
-
The involved parties to set clear goals and objectives; however, too many objectives can be
challenging; multiple objectives should be prioritized over time.
The management board of the project / process must have an overview and ability to
understand the full range of the goals and the
connection to other goals of economic, social and
political art. This is something that could be dealt in a
visual way, for example, by drawing a problem tree - set clear goals
- not too many objectives
and solving tree.
The level of inclusion is critical as some processes - prioritize objectives
including many levels of governance need to be - draw a problem tree
divided into sub-processes in order to have a - include a reasonable number
of policy makers
reasonable number of policy makers and
- include the target audience
stakeholders involved aiming to make short-term
progress. Encouraging different levels of government
to work together could be a key ingredient for successful energy policy implementation.
The target audience, or end users, benefitting from removing the MLG barrier in the process
is important to be on board taking part in the process.
Keywords
-
-
Making an investigation of good MLG practices at cluster level, it makes sense to ask the question
“What mechanisms currently exist to encourage governments at all levels to connect and coordinate
their energy policy activities?”
In a separate summary report the main findings of the good MLG models for energy efficiency
studied within this report are presented.
In the second report investigating the role of MLG for reaching the EU targets in 2020 various good
and bad experiences on MLG are investigated. Important key-factors for good MLG are:
-
The mobilization of stakeholders to increase the funding resources and to enhance the social
involvement.
This can also lead to better funding symmetry as in many cases relays on public funding
which often is crucial to get the process going.
A broad open participation at early stages gives the opportunity to adapt local solutions than
more traditional mainstream approaches.
A crucial point in the MLG process is the monitoring where good indicators give good input
for policy and decision making. This will be accomplished by defining concrete objectives.
Accountability is as mentioned earlier crucial.
The green economy dimension and socio-ecological dimensions are also important factors in
the process that should be highlighted.
A study made by Puppim de Oliveira et al (from the EU Inception report) has identified dimensions of
good governance for energy efficiency which slightly modified and adapted to island conditions are
the following.
15
www.sustainableislands.eu
Key-factors: Process setup
Mobilisation of
stakeholders
Organisational
capacity
Public funding
Key factors: Decision making process
Participation and
inclusivness
NPOs, NGOs
Community
Responsibility and
accountability
Open and clear
coordination
Decision-making
effectiveness
Quality of objectives
Improving conditions
Key factors: Capacity dimension
Organisational capacity
Economic and staff resources
Knowledge
Regulations
Political resilience
Flexibility
Community support
Awwareness raising
Behaviour change
The study also identified the main causes of MLG failures; a similar work has also been carried out by
the SMILEGOV partners identifying bad MLG practices in their clusters.
One common failure was the lack of knowledge and coordination. Another frequent obstacle was the
absence of a time structure and negotiations could go on forever between municipalities and
stakeholders leading the project to a halt. If a region or municipality lacks experience of MLG it could
be advisable to contact a third party to lead the project such as the regional energy office which has
been a good way forward for the different islands.
16
www.sustainableislands.eu
Key factors: Failure factors of MLG
Lack of effective regional structure
Weak regional governance
Insufficient cooperation capacity
Lack of targeted approaches
Weak regional governance
Insufficient cooperation capacity
Disoriented approach
Generally to match island specifications
Suppliers did not match requested demands
3.2.4
MLG models from the EU by CoopEnergy
The parallel IEE project CoopEnergy working with MLG along with Smilegov, has identified several EU
good practices of MLG projects.
ENNEREG – Regions 202020, an IEE project involving 12 regions across Europe. The project, carried
out by regional energy offices, created regional SEAPs combining all the local
SEAPs demonstrating benefits at both local and regional level on
infrastructure, funding, common learning and sharing goals.
Another EU-project on MLG, SEACS has been active in exchanging knowledge
and creating networks in order to coordinate the representatives from the levels of governance and
the stakeholders on a regional level. They also assisted local authorities by testing the technical and
economic feasibility of local SEAP projects.
A Scandinavian project was also highlighted, Energy Oresund, between the cities of Copenhagen in
Denmark and Malmo in Sweden. The cities are
connected by the Oresund Bridge. The aim was
to set common standards for the support of renewable energy systems by setting up a number of
demonstration projects to further stimulate the international green co-operation.
A simplified effort to summarise the findings by CoopEnergy can result to the following highlights:



Good MLG is characterized by creating and maintaining
networking structures across governance levels.
MLG leads to better integration of other strategic issues such as
social inclusion within an energy plan.
Technical and economic regional support to local authorities leads
to initiation of project pilots.
17
www.sustainableislands.eu
Furthermore, CoopEnergy has chosen 60 good practices from all over the EU of MLG models
supporting local sustainable energy planning. Accumulating the key factors for their success some
factors is more frequently repeated.
The four most important factors presented in the following graph.
The vision is known and
shared with the society
and the stakeholders
The political commitment
supports the vision, not
changing after the elections
Success factors
of MLG models
The society either as business
sector or simply community
has been involved and taken
part in realising the vision
During the processes
accessing experts
and funding is essential.
Remember that
A good MLG process is
like plasma, not solid,
not liquid or gas, only
behaving in relation to
the desired outcome.
18
www.sustainableislands.eu
4 Get knowledge!
MLG experience of strategic guidelines and the priority
areas
Here we will summarize the good experiences from the Scandinavian case studies, the island good
practices, the Coopenergy project and the IEA report, that are adequate to address the MLG barriers
identified by the Smilegov clusters. The guidelines have attempted to identify those experiences that
are characterised as potentially transferable to other similar situations.
The guidelines objective is that these, and the other observations offered, will enable the Smilegov
clusters to take advantage of the opportunities that MLG offers to overcome barriers for the
implementation of sustainable energy projects for islands. Many challenges for RES implementation
are a combination of barriers to overcome. For this reason the analysis of the good experiences has
returned different guidelines in the form of tips and advises in connection to the different nature,
mainly related to the timeframe in which the barrier is confronted, and kind of barriers, mainly
related to the priority areas linked to the barrier.
Apparently the good practices are likely to be complemented with more good stories as the Smilegov
project develops.
Before going into more detailed guidelines per kind or category of barriers in is interesting to
mention that there are some overall observations regarding the MLG models and practices studied in
the different experiences.
1. In general through time the MLG processes have gone from
top-down initiatives to more bottom-up approaches. This is
a result of more locally adopted visions, strategies and
SEAPs.
2. It has also been noticed for the task force Scandinavian
islands that the MLG barriers are shifted from being of
administrative or legislative nature to more practical issues
in relation to implementation of energy projects on local
level.
3. It was also observed that among the grass-root initiatives
there is a tendency that the driving factor is not actually for
making profit but mainly for improving local resilience, use
of local resources, creating local jobs and getting less
vulnerable to fluctuating prices of imported energy and
fuels.
MLG processes have gone
from top-down initiatives to
more bottom-up approaches
MLG barriers shifted from
administrative nature to
issues related to the
implementation of projects
on local level
Among the grass-root
initiatives there is a tendency
that the driving factor is not
actually to make profit
4.1 Overcoming MLG barriers in different timeframes
The guidelines have identified that the good practices can be structured in different ways depending
on the timeframe of the goal, whether it is expected to be accomplished within a short-term period
(within a few years), middle term (before 2020) or long-term (beyond 2020). Therefore the
transferable knowledge of good MLG is divided into these three categories linked to the timings of
the goals.
19
www.sustainableislands.eu
4.1.1
Overcoming MLG barriers for short term goals
This provides the need of an elaborated SEAP with longterm political goals and maybe also with some funding
included. Use existing networks that can be developed
- Make sure you have in place a SEAP
into a process workgroup and also check if further
- Use existing networks to develop
levels of governance, stakeholders and end users
working groups
should be invited. Identify early if there are negative
- Invite everyone to take part
outcomes for anyone by removing the MLG barrier, in
- Invite the reluctant ones
that case, invite them! Set aside considerable resources
- Have budget for coordination
for project coordination as good structure and
- Is It only the barrier or more?
accountability is vital. Choose a process tool that gives
the participants an easy overview. Make sure that by
removing the barrier the energy project will be implemented. Also, identify if more conditions needs
to be enabled for the implementation besides removing the barrier.
Tips and Tricks
4.1.2
Overcoming MLG barriers for middle term goals
Spend a lot of efforts on dialogue and consensus
building with stakeholders using the goals of the SEAP
before moving forward with the actual project. This
- Aim to dialogue and consensus
can be done by combining networks or the set-up of a
- Being proactive about social
new cross-level network. It takes time but tend to
inclusive planning can save you
reduce objections from involved parties and the need
time and money
for late corrections and the total time spent for the
- Be diplomatic; Try to reduce
transformation process may be shortened. Do not rely
objections
- Do not rely on future perspectives
only on future market maturity to solve the barrier;
- Highlight win-win conditions to
especially for new technologies, sometimes the region
politicians
or local authority has to do the R&D to enable the
- Collaborate with Universities
conditions. Demonstrate the added value for other
political goals. It is recommended for local authorities
to have a close partnership with Universities as they
often look for suitable research test beds where islands provides a limited measurable area. The
academic presence enhances the possibilities for further projects and funding.
Tips and Tricks
4.1.3
Overcoming MLG barriers for long term goals
Make sure the SEAP is well-known by the community,
NGOs, NPOs as well as on regional level of governance.
Focus on the benefits of creating local business
- Communicate your SEAP
development and new jobs. Getting good support for
- Focus on local profits
the SEAP gives it credibility. Create networks between
- Establish networks
the different levels of governance, not only for any
- Have a clear vision
specific goal but for all the goals of the SEAP. Have a
clear vision on what has to be achieved. Do not forget
to include the goal in future local- and regional planning once implemented.
Tips and Tricks
20
www.sustainableislands.eu
4.2 Overcoming barriers in different priority areas
Key factors and transferable information is based upon identified good multi-level governance
practice by the Smilegov partners and are divided into each of the priority areas.
4.2.1
Good MLG practices for mobility
 Understand the reasoning by the use of the means transportation
Understanding what makes people (end users) interested and especially what their reasons
are for using or not using the desired transport option was a key factor for the
implementation of the Copenhagen bicycle project. The attitudes must be well known in
order to tackle them.
 Success comes through an overall efficient transportation program
Understanding that the success of a mobility project is related to an overall efficient
transportation program, focused on reducing unnecessary usage of fossil fuel transports by
advocating alternative methods of transportation where all sustainable transports interact if
you commute by bicycle, train, metro
or bus. When planning new urban
areas, sustainable transportation
infrastructure should be emphasized
- Understand the reasoning by the use of
like the Nicosia transport planning on
the means transportation
Cyprus. An approved vision for
- Success comes through an overall efficient
transports and decisions taken step
transportation program
by step forward is vital for a
- Create a demand and new market for new
successful result of the process.
solutions
- Electric mobility is easier through
 Create a demand and new market
Tips and Tricks
for new solutions
cooperation – Aim to funding symmetry
- Start with demo projects in collaboration
A Municipality or Region can together
with the academia
with local stakeholders create a
- Informality is a good start to any project
demand and new market for new
- Non-commercial lead partner facilitates
solutions as proven by the Gotland
the inclusion of more key players
biogas story. Innovation is a key
factor where new ways have to be
found including MLG and smart
procurement. Main factors for failure are usually lack of funding and local stakeholders. This
can be overcome by contracts that guarantee the sale of a certain product, like biogas. By
creating a local market a Municipality or Region can start a development following the aims
approved in for example an ISEAP. Once the process has started the incentive for both the
official body as well as the public sector becomes visible.
 Electric mobility is easier through cooperation – Aim to funding symmetry
The cooperation between the actors is very important to secure a broad participation of all
the stakeholders as shown by the electric mobility project Green Charge where Öland
participates. Not only does it gives clear and defined roles but also makes a good base for the
funding symmetry. The final users, often the public actors of local and regional authorities,
21
www.sustainableislands.eu
are important to be on-board at an early stage as they will get good knowledge along the
project and then make-well planned investment decisions.
 Start with demo projects in collaboration with the academia
The use of university research would lead to demonstrations and the result of the
demonstrations leads to further research using the public actors as a big test bed getting a
common perspective on the challenges of establishing new transport technology and
corresponding infrastructure.
 Informality is a good start to any project
People of small towns are quite informal to each other. The physical and mental distances
between authorities, companies and the general public are shorter than expected. It is
typical the Swedish way to spend a lot of efforts on dialogue and consensus building before
moving forward with societal transformation projects such as the carpooling project of
Öland. The latter may take more time initially but tend to reduce objections from involved
parties and the need for late corrections. Thereby the total time spent for the transformation
process may be shortened.
 Non-commercial lead partner facilitates the inclusion of more key players
Using a non-commercial actor could keep the door open to include companies that may
otherwise not have cooperated due to their state as competitors. The non-commercial status
of the lead partner such as University research has also facilitated the securing of substantial
public funds. As always in a project or process it is important to have a strong steering group
or committee with influence and capacity.
4.2.2
Good MLG practice for communication
 Participatory planning is a way of living and communicating – Raise awareness
The experiences from renewable energy projects show that the citizens´ participation is very
important; a well-known sustainable action plan is also essential to orchestrate the work,
while simple and good indicators are vital to communicate the progress; this is more or less
the Samsø approach. Raising awareness is
not an easy task, university studies have
proven that a good example from
neighbours is the most effective way to
- Participatory planning is a way of
make change through communication.
Tips and Tricks
 Communicate about local jobs and
not CO2 emissions
living and communicating – Raise
awareness
- Communicate about local jobs and
not CO2 emissions
- Holistic and inclusive local approach
All types of media resources can be used.
RES projects should focus on the outcome
regarding the creation of local business
development and public benefit rather
than reducing CO2 emissions which was a success factor for the Syros island swimming pool
project. Therefore it is crucial that the business community and local organizations supports
the SEAP to give it credibility.
 Holistic and inclusive local approach
The lesson learnt is the importance of a holistic and inclusive local approach with a process
supporting cooperation between the municipality, citizens and the business community.
22
www.sustainableislands.eu
Official guidance of progress is important to raise awareness and credibility. The ability to
make change on your own is something that must be emphasized. When choosing the
indicators for your process keep in mind how they can be easily communicated, more on that
in the LFA example in the annex.
4.2.3
Good MLG practice for business models
Let’s face it. The local municipalities’ budget concerns to 90 % well-fare issues like social security,
elderly care and schools. The remaining 10 % are allocated to all other questions for example
investments in sustainability such as energy efficiency and RES.
 Make sure all stakeholders are behind a project involving the local authority
For a municipality to make a budget commitment for RES projects or investment of
renewables of any form requires a strong planning and excellent foreseen results. So any
business model must look at all stakeholders and make sure they are behind the project like
the public lightning project in Gozo, Malta.
 Look for joint venture like PPP (public private partnership)
Try also to look for joint venture like
PPP (public private partnership)
where for example on Gotland the
municipality signed a contract of
replacing the municipal cars and bus
fleet within three years with biogas
so the private biogas producer has a
guaranteed market.
 Involve local volunteers
interest groups
and
Local volunteers and interest groups
can be a significant driver of projects
and should be included on an early
stage as they can be project drivers
such as the Samsø electric mobility
project.
Tips and Tricks
- Make sure all stakeholders are behind a
project involving the local authority
- Look for joint venture like PPP
- Involve local volunteers and interest
groups
- Aim to project with a good economy of
scale – Group with others
- Include a demonstration case before the
actual project to attract attention
- ESCO is good when you have available
good procurement template and guidance
 Aim to project with a good economy of scale – Group with others
Regarding municipal investments it is wise to look at the larger investments like EPC and
municipality owned wind power if they could be combined with other related projects. It is
often a result that some smaller projects get funding and some do not which makes the
march towards sustainability go slowly. Try to include PVs, charging post for EVs, nearby
street lightning when planning an EPC as they only will take a minor part of the total budget.
Experience has shown that it is easier to get funding for a project package than for separate
approaches like the ELENA funding for a smart grid project between five Greek islands.
 Include a demonstration case before the actual project to attract attention
Another good practice is to include a demonstration case (or pre-study) where it is visible
how it works from A to Z for all the stakeholders before scaling up the project such as the
Öland electric mobility.
23
www.sustainableislands.eu
 ESCO is good when you have available good procurement template and guidance
The use of ESCOs is good as they have the technical knowledge but for a small municipality it
is recommended to have a procurement template and guidance throughout the process to
secure the success like the street lightning project from Madeira. This service could be
provided by the local energy advisor or the regional energy agency.
4.2.4
Good MLG practice for new technology
Introducing new technologies to penetrate the island markets requires a substantial pre-study.
Because of the geographical situation many technologies demands a certain market size to reach the
conditions for introduction. For islands, with in many cases a volatile population, this creates a
challenge as the market size changes through the year. For some technologies the local authority can
be role models and initiators for the introduction of a specific technology but it also depends on the
new technology companies to invest in the island markets.
 A pre-study to be the first step for introducing a new technology in an island market
A pre-study showing the islands potential for the introduction of new technologies is vital to
ensure the stakeholders’ involvement. The pre-study should demonstrate the market
possibilities, experiences from similar cases in the past while also the opportunities and risks.
 Political consensus to ensure the
availability of an island as a new
technology test bed
- A pre-study to be the first step for
Create political consensus about letting
introducing a new technology in an island
public authorities offer the island (or
market
parts of it) as test bed for research,
- Political consensus to ensure the
both to Universities as for new
availability of an island as a new technology
technology companies. For example as
test bed
Gotland did in their smart grid project
- Highlight the threats by leaving islands out
of the new
or the Canary Islands El Hierro project.
- Highlight how new technologies are part of
 Highlight the threats by leaving islands
the overall system and infrastructures
out of the new technology markets
technology markets
In order to reach consensus among a
broader part of the society the
consequences of how the lack of new
technologies would affect the island markets should be demonstrated.
 Highlight how new technologies are part of the overall system and infrastructures
Demonstrate how new technologies is an important part of renewable energy systems and
sustainable development for future political decisions like the Madeira and Malta street
lighting projects.
Tips and Tricks
4.2.5
Good MLG practice for smart grids
A common complaint in renewable energy production projects is the lack of coordination between
energy producer and grid owner where grid capacity is a barrier. The electric grid system is complex
(and many times obsolete) and has no technical space for fluctuating energy production. The need
for more flexible grids is urgent as it provides possibilities for local electricity production. For
24
www.sustainableislands.eu
connection to the mainland the major grid operators (TSOs and DSOs) unfortunately claim the
connecting “producer-pays-cable” principle which of course brings many projects to a halt.
 Grid operators to cover the cost of new grids and receive usage fee from producers
An alternative is that the grid operators pay the
initial cost and then the following users
(electricity producers) can pay a fee according
to their usage.
- Grid operators to cover the cost of
new grids and receive usage fee
 RES technologies reaching grid parity can
from producers
intensify the decentralised energy production
RES technologies reaching grid
Although local electricity production down to
parity can intensify the
private owned PVs can in many countries be fed
decentralised energy production
to the grid there are few electric distributers
- Island stand-alone electrical
who give a fair (if any) price for that electricity.
systems as model areas for testing
Therefore production for internal use is gaining
smart grids
momentum in Europe (for plus-energy houses)
which requires smart systems and possibly
energy storage.
 Island stand-alone electrical systems as model areas for testing smart grids
By collaborating with universities and offer the island (or part of it) as a test bed is a good
gateway to funding and other opportunities.
Tips and Tricks
4.2.6
Good MLG practice for permit process
Enhancing the bureaucracy and the delays that are usually connected to the licencing and permit
processes of sustainable energy projects has been one of the main objectives for most
administrations. This objective can get even more difficult when it comes to island areas of intense
touristic activities, sensitive environments and land limitations.
 Focus on the client or the final beneficiary to tackle administrative barriers
The administrative structure at each cluster could look very different. Decision making
processes cannot easily be changed overnight. Therefore it is vital to focus on the client or
the final beneficiary. If you change the
authority approach to a business-client
approach then the permit process becomes
clearer. As an authority you are offering a
- Focus on the client or the final
beneficiary to tackle administrative
service of project legislation reviewing. Any
barriers
level of governance included in this chain of
- The initiator should be on a high
reviewing should have a common instruction or
level of governance to ensure good
work flow, for example by starting looking at
participation
the process from a LEAN perspective. Still each
region and municipality need to cooperate very
closely in order to secure a speedy and coordinated permit process, a lesson learned from
DAFNI.
Tips and Tricks
 The initiator should be on a high level of governance to ensure good participation
25
www.sustainableislands.eu
A good start for cooperation is to use and develop existing networks and if there are no
networks it is about time to start them. The initiator should be on a high level of governance
to ensure good participation but the first step should be taken by local authorities
demonstrating the economic and social consequences of poor coordination. The regular
meetings before starting the project was a key factor for the El Hierro project on the Canary
Islands.
26
www.sustainableislands.eu
5 Get going!
Tools for a good process
In order to use these strategic guidelines of transferable good experience it is wise to establish tools
and procedures at cluster level on how to proceed with the identified barriers. The procedures are
established in the Smilegov project using the local workshops and think tanks but sometimes it could
also require the need of setting up a new workgroup for a specific barrier. That is up to the
workgroup/think tank to decide. It is important that the good intension also becomes a good result
so the process has to be well structured. One way of doing that is to have a project tool where the
cluster step-by-step can develop, monitor and evaluate their work. First step setting up your process
would be with checking the pragmatic elements so that the process is well balanced. A full scale
example is provided in the Annex section.
Checklist
Mode of governance
•Right mode identified?
Inclusion
•Right process partner set-up?
Priority area
•Right focus?
Participation
•Everyone necessary?
Structure
•Reasonable formality?
Decision making
•Transparency?
Accountability
•Right indicators?
Budget
•Enough fuel for the trip?
Funding symmetry
•Funding match decision making?
5.1
Logical Framework Approach (LFA) (separate handbook)
The task force proposes the use of the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) as it provides an easy, clear
and effective tool to solve an identified barrier. This is of course not the only tool available on the
market and any tool chosen has to be matched to the complexity of the barrier. The LFA tool has
been used for many years by the UN for development projects and focus on good planning before
27
www.sustainableislands.eu
starting the project, it also contains flexibility as the conditions might change over time. A separate
step-by-step handbook has been developed by the task force for those clusters interested.
Summary
Indicator
Verification
Assumptions
Goal
Purpose
Outputs
Activities
5.2 Other available tools
Problem tree and solving tree may not be a tool of its own but it is a good visual way to structure the
work. From the solving tree it is easy to pick out the main goal (i.e. what will happen when the MLG
barrier has been removed), purpose, outputs and actions.
Critical chain project management (CCPM) works backward from a completion date with each task
starting as late as possible. Duration and resources are assigned to each task. The longest sequence
of resource-leveled tasks that lead from beginning to end of the project is then identified as the
critical chain. CCPM planning aggregates the large amounts of safety time added to tasks within a
project into the buffers—to protect due-date performance and avoid wasting this safety time
through poorly synchronized integration. Critical chain project management uses buffer
management instead of earned value management to assess the performance of a project. A
practical tool if the MLG barrier has to be overcome in a certain time to enable procurement
possibilities, decision-making of large investors and suppliers of RES etc.
28
www.sustainableislands.eu
A version of the CCPM is the Event chain diagrams as a part of event chain methodology. Event chain
methodology is an uncertainty modeling and schedule network analysis technique that is focused on
identifying and managing events and event chains that affect project schedules. Event chain
methodology is the next advance beyond critical path method and critical chain project
management. This is suitable where the outputs of the MLG process are uncertain due to external
changes such as change of legislation, political elections, unstable funding, establishment option
contracts etc.
If the goal is the most important thing to achieve in the MLG process then the Benefits realization
management (BRM) tool could be useful. It enhances normal project management techniques
through a focus on outcomes (the benefits) of a project rather than products or outputs, and then
measuring the degree to which that is happening to keep a project on track. This can help to reduce
the risk of a completed process being a failure by delivering agreed upon requirements/outputs but
failing to deliver the benefits of those requirements. One example could be that by removing a MLG
barrier (output) there was no increase in the implementation of the SEAP projects but focusing on
BRM made it possible to verify what went wrong.
29
www.sustainableislands.eu
6 References
European Commission, How to write clearly, Available in all EU languages
http://ec.europa.eu/translation/writing/clear_writing/how_to_write_clearly_en.pdf
at :
(time of link : 22.11.2013, 15:20 CET)
International Energy Agency, Innovations in multi-level governance for energy efficiency, Information
paper, December 2009.
OECD, Investing Together: Working Effectively Across Levels of Government, 2013.
European Commission, Study on promoting multi-level governance in support of Europe 2020,
Inception Report, Regional and urban policy, 2013.
http://evaluationtoolbox.net.au/
30