Bornholm. Photo: Ágúst Bogason

Analysing the results of the case studies in the Nordic context, this study operationalises the concepts of just transition theories (see 1.2.) in the following way. Recognitional justice refers to measures featuring co-creation and participatory methods that allow societal groups to define their needs for themselves, an especially pertinent question when considering Indigenous rights in green transitions. The case studies included examples of new participatory methods being first trialled and then introduced, such as the online citizen panel in Finland. Still, it remains unclear whether citizen involvement begins early enough, that is, at a stage where local people can articulate their own needs. Similarly, failures regarding recognitional justice are often linked to debates about Indigenous rights. Distributive justice includes discussing (monetary) compensations and legal and regulative matters, and procedural justice encompasses the entire process of stakeholder engagement, impact reviews and feedback rounds taking place during a project. Previous literature has discovered that these are often the most adequately addressed, and the same applies to the case study results presented here. These are the aspects of the just transition that are, to a considerable extent, embedded and systematised into the existing process and, therefore, are usually formally addressed at the very least.

Restorative justice can be understood as involving rural communities in a long-term perspective to redress past inequalities and to compile future visions. The case studies here present several examples where this element is included as a transition process goal, but often, it seems to depend on singular actors or a benevolent coincidence, not a systematic approach. Cosmopolitan justice considers the difficult dilemma of bridging the global environmental benefits or green transitions between the more precise needs and concerns of local stakeholders. This aspect of justice is tricky since it may be pivotal for some stakeholders, such as younger generations and yet of minor importance to others. Making indirect and invisible benefits more clearly legible in the local setting could also help entrench aspects of cosmopolitan justice in rural regions. Finally, spatial justice is relevant to all of these aspects, especially in the context of whether specific rural interests and needs are considered during a green transition process and in the importance conferred on rural actors’ agency. While there are positive examples of this actually happening, ensuring this approach seems to mainly fall back on the proactivity of the local population themselves. 

Heavily centralised, top-down decisions that neglect local needs and qualities evoke a sense of powerlessness. This sense of alienation easily leads to stiff resistance towards the specific energy project or the whole green transition agenda in general. A sense of justness is further corroded if the local population feels that the project’s social participation element serves mainly as an obligatory component that is rushed through, giving little thought to the final outcome. Nor should it be taken for granted that permission for one project applies to all similar projects in the future: for example, Danish municipalities are accustomed to the wind parks currently in place, but the scale of new installations, which may be up to 200 meters higher, raises new concerns. Similarly, in Pihtipudas, the municipality faces increased resistance to wind power now that the number of planned wind park areas has increased to five (Interview 10). 

To avoid this situation, beginning the engagement process as early as possible and via different platforms is vital. If the project’s presentation fails to spark some interest in the surrounding community, the likelihood of the community focusing solely on negative impacts increases dramatically. That communication should be open and transparent is a given. National and regional politicians or business sector representatives may be tempted to tout overly optimistic calculations regarding expected economic benefits in the surrounding region or even base their decisions on these inaccurate figures. This type of behaviour easily generates feelings of resentment and scepticism towards green transitions in general (Interview 12). Even though opposition to green energy projects, especially very tall turbines, is sometimes rooted in personal principles and therefore unlikely to be won over by any argument, it does not necessarily follow that attempts to increase a sense of justice are useless. If discussions with local people begin at the early project stages and maintain an open attitude to the expected outcome, they may well appreciate the transparency of the process even if they remain dissatisfied with the final decision. 

Common to all cases is that local or, at the very least, regional ownership increases trust and improves a sense of justness. This may contribute to new area identity (such as that of an “energy island”, “carbon neutral municipality”, or “pure life”) or assure people that the energy company is committed to the overall well-being of the surrounding area. However, what form of local ownership best ensures local benefits in practice remains unclear. For example, investing in a wind park may represent a too severe level of risk for a small municipality. Instead, strengthening local ownership ties by encouraging regional energy companies to take an active part in green energy projects could prove a more profitable and feasible path in the longer term.

Monetary benefits are typically in focus because they are quantifiable. But regions also use other assessment criteria to calculate benefits as well, e.g. when regional development plans are prepared where employment rates, social well-being, the vitality of the municipality, and development of skills in the region before and after the implementation of a project are taken into account (Interview 8). Visualising, analysing and comparing these alternative factors could help make a wider range of local benefits more tangible. Furthermore, rural municipalities often cover vast geographic areas, so the impacts and benefits of green transitions should also be considered at a nuanced micro level (e.g. the effect on villages).

Environmental benefits often appear as “fuzzy” compared to industrial development, financial profit, energy security or attracting more residents to an area. Nonetheless, as we noted in the Krafttak and GreenLab projects, some actors succeed in drawing more attention to environmental benefits by combining these under the common umbrella of new narrative creation. Image building and branding are benefits that may at first appear superfluous. However, in our research, they featured prominently in most expert interviews, suggesting that their role may be more substantial. All case studies advanced the concept’s vitality aspect, believing that it is important that a municipality is actively doing something so as not to fall behind. Proactively working with the green transition is one way of projecting a future-oriented image to the world. It is also important to note that attitudes regarding priorities and concrete benefits may also change, as was demonstrated by the recent energy crisis and the war in Ukraine altering people’s perceptions of the importance of locally produced energy in Finland and Norway. Finally, if the current plans for even more decentralised energy production and new energy islands (in a literal or figurative sense) materialise, they could further cement the connection between global climate goals and local benefits. These new opportunities would, in turn, encourage municipalities to strive for even broader carbon neutrality goals. 

During the interview process, we formed a hypothesis that direct monetary compensations for landowners and other local people represent a problematic approach to gaining social acceptance, and the interviewed experts generally agreed. Direct compensation schemes are insufficient at best and divisive at worst: since they usually only address a section of those impacted and only a small share of the impact, they risk provoking more dissatisfaction than alleviating it. In addition, they may feed into the view that wind energy companies are looking for easy get-outs to silence genuine concerns, which erodes a sense of community in a municipality and increases the polarisation around new green energy projects. In such a situation, even an initiative such as offering a share of the profits to the village association (e.g. EUR 500 m per annum, to be used to help underprivileged children, for example) may easily become controversial, especially in areas where the newer very-tall turbines are novel (Interview 10).

Community building and genuinely participatory negotiation methods can make direct monetary compensations a solution that increases the sense of justice rather than erodes it. For example, in Northern Central Finland, landowner advisory boards reviewed the proposed agreements (even before they knew where exactly the turbines would be built) and determined a profit-sharing solution where 85% of the profits go to people living in the vicinity of the wind park, while the remaining 15% are reserved for landowners renting land to the wind park. Until recently, this allocation was, in fact, the opposite. 

Centralised, top-down rural policies risk seeing rural municipalities as mere passive entities than is actually the case: small, rural municipalities can use their small size to their own advantage. For example, they may have more direct and flexible connections between different public authorities, enabling a more straightforward planning process. In addition, because small municipalities are involved in fewer contracts than larger urban areas, the negotiation process is often quicker, and focused administrative energy can be brought into play. Thus, they can allocate sufficient resources to the negotiations with the wind energy companies, for example, when pushing for compensation for everyone impacted or establishing shared transmission lines to decrease land use impacts (Interview 10). Other avenues open to the public sector to further just transitions include own investments (both money or staff resources), promoting innovative decisions to ensure adequate compensation for impacts, connecting policy goals previously assigned to different areas (such as smart adaptation and the green transition), and acting as a negotiator between the local population and energy companies. To achieve a more positive outcome, the complicated processes involving new energy installations should be better designed to decrease mistrust so that the weight of national ambitions is not solely borne by municipal resources.