Deliberative Speak at the Turbine Face Community Engagement, Wind Farms, and Renewable Energy Transitions, in Australia

1. Deliberative Speak at the Turbine Face Community Engagement, Wind Farms, and Renewable Energy Transitions, in Australia Richard Hindmarsh& Catherine Matthews Griffith School of Environment, and Centre for Governance and Public Policy,Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane Towards STS Networking in the Asia-Pacific Workshop, Victoria University at Wellington,1-2 December 2008

2. in embracing climate & energy change

3. 0 late November 2007 (1) in ratifying Kyoto and reversing earlier policy trends

4. 563 • two significant problems • technical • social 4500 (2) making a commitment to meeting 20% of Australia’s energy consumption from renewable energy by 2020, but…

5. b. community consultation processes: ‘savagely’ criticised by local communities for non-inclusion in decision-making 2. socio-political problems a. A maze of inconsistent state, federal and local government policy positions and planning approval processes

6. 42 wind farms 21 coastal & landscape guardian groups

7. key problematic renewables, especially wind farms, are sited most often withincommunities, who are then confronted daily with their location and the many social, environmental and economic issues arising, but whose voices are neither solicited well or even heard, but which are vital for social harmony of place

8. research problem How might existing wind energy management be improved such that those developing and regulating wind farms establish effective participatory partnerships with affected communities, to ensure productive, democratically legitimate transitions to renewable energy, in response to the broader societal implications of climate change adaptation?

9. topics 1: the Australian political and policy landscape a. issue emergence and relevant policy events b. the federal government’s participatory policy response of a proposed National Code for Wind Farms • 2: comparative analysis and ‘participatory’ assessment • a. European experience of wind farms & community engagement • b. the proposed National Code for Wind Farms 3: research about to start

10. Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) (2001-10) starts a ‘wind rush’ 2003 Review findings no participatory community engagement mechanisms; state planning approval processes limited involvement ‘qualified’ supporters turn into objectors Key emergent issues (review and analysts) negative impacts on tourism, land values, visual amenity, community cohesion, wildlife, and environment (noise & development impacts) inadequate community engagement processes employed by developers and planning approval processes Community 'divided‘! 1a: emergence of issue & policy events

11. emergence of issue & relevant policy events … Senate Inquiry 2004 (Energy White Paper) • mainly pro-wind submissions (industry and env. NGOs) • ‘critical’ ones from affected communities • issues already identified continue to build + • A new one: of informed consent and options for energy mixes • The broader context: increasing objections about wind farm proposals • one non-govt response: Australian Wind Energy Ass. link up with the Australian Council of National Trusts to develop a Wind Farms and Landscape Values—National Assessment Methodology (with direct community participation).

12. 1b. National Code for Wind Farms! • 2006: Senator Campbell proposed a National Code: • fierce social conflict in Denmark (WA) & Sellicks Hill (SA) • ‘local communities ignored’ • lack of community engagement = ‘constraint’ for wind farm development • strong ‘inclusive participatory approach’ needed about wind-farm proposals • ‘active early community participation and throughout project’ proposed

13. Topic 2a: comparative policy analysis • European wind farm studies addressing the same problem endorse: • collaboration, local embedment and strong inclusive participatory frameworks • as the policy style with most potential to develop socially viable and constructive renewable energy transitions • factors of ownership, information and active participation are important to gain public trust for regional wind farm development.

14. 2b. assessment of proposed National Code • a strong participatory thrust and language in its attack on limited public involvement state government approval processes and techniques • but lacks information on how to redesign institutional processes, and the place and design of community engagement techniques • no reference is made to any informed choice mechanisms regarding community preferences for renewable energy options, or mixes thereof, for any one locale

15. A strong case of ‘deliberative speak’ • “a strategic language comprising a rhetorical array of terms reflecting deliberative principles and ideals of active public engagement—such as ‘inclusive’, ‘informed’, ‘transparent’ or ‘participatory decision-making’—accompanied by a lack of appropriate processes and practices of active public engagement to adequately address those principles and ideals”. Suggesting either use of the metaphor of ‘inclusiveness’ to image an empowered public engagement reality to attain broad public acceptability of wind power or genuine intent but a lack of capacity on how to do it

16. PLACATION!? • Citizens have some degree of influence athough tokenism is still quite apparent (Arnstein 1969) • Alternatively, social engineering: cooptation, absorption of protest, with incremental citizen gains, etc • So this suggests a sub-optimal or counter-productive ‘deliberative-placation’ approach • Where the Code suggests a ‘deliberative-partnership’ model of consensus building.

17. 1. Earlier consultation with publics through ‘best practice of community engagement’ (???) but signalled are traditional consultative practices by developers: 2. Aim: ‘better community support of wind farms’ esp.through the deficit model of educating the public that wind farms are needed in line with govt policies and commitments (to eg climate change). 3. “consistency and transparency” across Australia working in with existing state govt planning processes to help address some barriers to wind farm development. barriers = a NIMYism ‘kind of mentality’ “We’ve got to learn to love wind and the look of wind farms” National guidelines

18. C: a strong participatory transition management approach • overarching systems redesign • converges the key top-down role of government for environmental policy and planning, and the key bottom-up role of communities to achieve successful transitions: • through gaining in-depth understanding of: • community rationalities (values, beliefs and attitudes), so that better collaborative positions can inform enhanced community engagement and wider institutional practices • institutional contexts and policy and planning procedures, and • identifying and evaluating combinations of top-down and bottom-up participatory approaches to bring about about coinciding and coherent system innovation and improvement

19. Conclusions • Australian citizens in affected communities seek active participationin decision-making about proposals and options for renewable energy uptake, and continuity of involvement for policy responsiveness and accountability • Current policy responses are lacking, from existing technocratic state approaches to proposed new add-on participatory approaches, that reflect ‘deliberative-speak’ or intent only, and seemed doomed to failure as a mismatch between the desires of policy makers and publics (and the European experience) • A more relevant approachseems offered by overarching systems redesign like a strong participatory management transition approach. (We shall explore)