Energy
Waste
Water and Sewage
Transport
Green Blue
Buildings & land use
englishdeutsch
Project Summary Project Description Application of Tools Opinion of Tools Decision making process Contact Details

Opinion of tools

Name der Fallstudie
Awel Aman Tawe Community Energy Project.


Name of tool
For the Awel Aman Tawe Project as a whole:
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
AAT were attracted to the SLA believing that it takes a broader view than other tools encompassing social and financial aspects. Hinshelwood (2003) believes that "Simplicity is the trump card" of the approach and that "used flexibly, the DFID Sustainable Livelihoods framework can be an effective tool for organising and analysing ideas". It might not be the answer to all community development problems, but that "there is substantial scope to mould it to individual projects, play with it and explore the different directions it takes. This level of interaction with the framework requires an intimacy with the principles of community development work, development intervention and communities and how they work, all of which are part of the make up of a skilled community development practitioner". In the early days of AAT, when the concept of a wind farm was being discussed it was agreed that if it was to be developed it should be for the benefit of the community. The use and implementation of the SLA is a result of Hinshelwoods knowledge of the tool. Hinshelwood had previous experience of the tool and could see the benefits of implementing the SLA for AAT. As a result no other tools were considered.

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001b) identified three constraints to the consultation process:
• Organised opposition: from the outset of the project, one village located close to the proposed site of the wind farm, organised an opposition group the Tai?r Gwaith Action Group to the development. Hinshelwood and McCallum suggest a number of reasons why opposition was so strong, including past experience over protesting against an open cast mine that was then built in the village.
• Local media representation of the project: the project received significant media coverage – an issue that was considered important for the consultation process. In the beginning the coverage was very positive however coverage also took the form of shock headlines which helped to stimulate controversy. This was not considered a negative event as it encouraged discussion, however some newspapers did misprint information which contributed to a negative view of the project.
• The lack of open support from local politicians: Awel Aman Tawe were disappointed in a lack of open support for the project from the local Welsh Assembly Member (AM) and UK Member of Parliament (MP). Other wind farm applications in Wales have received support from local AM and MPs. Some people felt that the lack of open support for the project meant that this was a project not important to the local AM and MP.
Wind farms face well organised national opposition on visual grounds, no distinction about AAT in terms of its community nature was made. The Director of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales came to speak against the project at public meeting.


Name of tool
For the wind farm proposal:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
An EIA is a statutory requirement for projects of a certain size and scale and therefore had to be implemented within the project. Prepared in accordance with The Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulation 1999 no alternative tools fulfil the requirements.

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001b) identified three constraints to the consultation process:
• Organised opposition: from the outset of the project, one village located close to the proposed site of the wind farm, organised an opposition group the Tai?r Gwaith Action Group to the development. Hinshelwood and McCallum suggest a number of reasons why opposition was so strong, including past experience over protesting against an open cast mine that was then built in the village.
• Local media representation of the project: the project received significant media coverage – an issue that was considered important for the consultation process. In the beginning the coverage was very positive however coverage also took the form of shock headlines which helped to stimulate controversy. This was not considered a negative event as it encouraged discussion, however some newspapers did misprint information which contributed to a negative view of the project.
• The lack of open support from local politicians: Awel Aman Tawe were disappointed in a lack of open support for the project from the local Welsh Assembly Member (AM) and UK Member of Parliament (MP). Other wind farm applications in Wales have received support from local AM and MPs. Some people felt that the lack of open support for the project meant that this was a project not important to the local AM and MP.
Wind farms face well organised national opposition on visual grounds, no distinction about AAT in terms of its community nature was made. The Director of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales came to speak against the project at public meeting.


Name of tool
For the wind farm proposal:
Participatory Assessment Process (PAP)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
The process was undertaken in order to identify:
(i) The criteria on which people base their decision or whether or they want to pursue the community wind farm idea or not.
(ii) To support the participation of local people in making the decision as to whether the project should go ahead.
The decision to use and implement the PAP is a result of previous knowledge of the tool.

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001b) identified three constraints to the consultation process:
• Organised opposition: from the outset of the project, one village located close to the proposed site of the wind farm, organised an opposition group the Tai?r Gwaith Action Group to the development. Hinshelwood and McCallum suggest a number of reasons why opposition was so strong, including past experience over protesting against an open cast mine that was then built in the village.
• Local media representation of the project: the project received significant media coverage – an issue that was considered important for the consultation process. In the beginning the coverage was very positive however coverage also took the form of shock headlines which helped to stimulate controversy. This was not considered a negative event as it encouraged discussion, however some newspapers did misprint information which contributed to a negative view of the project.
• The lack of open support from local politicians: Awel Aman Tawe were disappointed in a lack of open support for the project from the local Welsh Assembly Member (AM) and UK Member of Parliament (MP). Other wind farm applications in Wales have received support from local AM and MPs. Some people felt that the lack of open support for the project meant that this was a project not important to the local AM and MP.
Wind farms face well organised national opposition on visual grounds, no distinction about AAT in terms of its community nature was made. The Director of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales came to speak against the project at public meeting.


Opinion of tool - assessment by tool users
For the Awel Aman Tawe Project as a whole:
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
From a positive viewpoint, the tools provision of support for the project team resulted in a comprehensive shift in focus from a technical environmental product focused initiative to a broad-based community regeneration scheme. This helped shift the focus of the project from looking at end results to the process. As a result the development of the wind farm became second to the issues of local peoples livelihoods and community change.
Criticisms of this tool include:
? for maximum benefit it needs to be used as one of a number of tools.
? that there is a lack of recognition of time as an asset and the absence of political capital within the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, which as the project develops, is increasingly important (http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/case_studies/lesson-engy1.html).
This tool is designed by the Department for International Development (DFID) to help understand and analyse the livelihoods of the poor, as well as being useful in assessing the effectiveness of existing efforts to reduce poverty. It is a tool well used and supported by DFID, for case studies of how the tool has been implemented elsewhere see: http://www.livelihoods.org/.
The actors would recommend this tool and a paper has been published illustrating Awel Aman Tawe as a case study (Hinshelwood, 2003).

For the wind farm proposal:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): used on the wind farm proposal;
EIA provided a thorough understanding of site and issues therein.
A lot of information was generated which will add to local understanding of history and ecology, this has been fed into our work with local schools.
The EIA had to be followed, it is a requirement of wind farm planning application.
The EIA will be used again if we have another big project
AAT would try and do more of the work themselves in future rather than use consultants.

Participatory Assessment Process (PAP);
Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001b) concluded that the PAP was a valuable exercise "in that:
? as a result of the consultation people generally moved in favour of the project, and the referendum results showed that a majority of local people supported the idea of the wind farm;
? it helped to tailor the project to the local context, and identify appropriate benefits and opportunities for the local area;
? it raised awareness of the issues of Renewable Energy in general and wind farms in particular across all ages and types of people in the area".
Through using the PAP recognition for AAT was gained from donors and government.
Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001b) extracted a number of lessons from the consultation process:
"Awareness raising
? Place an emphasis on awareness raising about issues relating to Renewable Energy and wind farms.
? Make sure information is accessible, consistent, up-to-date and relevant.
? Inform people about the broader context.
Local benefit
? Identify the ways in which the local area could benefit from the proposed scheme.
? Plan and implement the project in such a way that local benefits are realised.
Local context
? Recognise the importance of the local context and past experiences on people?s opinions.
? Recognise the importance of social networks. These networks exist through neighbourhoods and communities, and these networks act as information channels for dissemination and discussion.
Local involvement
? Recognise Communities as Key Stakeholders in the development of RE:
? Involving local people strengthens RE projects.
? Involving local people contributes towards Local Agenda 21 objectives.
? Involving local people could be cost effective. By listening and incorporating local populations considerations throughout the progress of a planning application is less likely to be delayed by objections.
? Plan the appropriate level of local involvement.
? Democratic decision-making is empowering.
Opposition ? Recognise the tactics of opposition and target information accordingly.
? Remember that it is usually a minority of residents that oppose Renewable Energy schemes.
? Acknowledge the impact of an opposition group.
? Stay calm and do not get defensive.
? Ensure that word does not get out about the proposed scheme prior to the start of the consultation.
Consultation process
? Think strategically.
? Plan and implement a consultation strategy appropriate to the proposed scheme.
? Utilise the three directions of information flow in the consultation process.
? Encourage and facilitation discussion and debate about the proposed scheme in informal as well as formal settings.
? Maintain an active use of the local media.
? Feed local ideas into the project."

The two papers (Hinshelwood E and McCallum D (2001a) and Hinshelwood E and McCallum D (2001b)) were written to assist with the implementation of this tool in other projects. Hinshelwood E and McCallum D (2001a) is a practical guide to implementing PAP, while Hinshelwood E and McCallum D (2001b) discusses the results from AAT.

This tool comes recommended from the actors and has been included in a number of publications as an example of a consultation process.

Opinion of tool - reviewer\'s assessment
For the Awel Aman Tawe Project as a whole:
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
Without applying the tool, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach appears to be quite a hard tool to initially understand. However the Guidance notes and Distance Learning package produced by DFID are comprehensive and thorough, but do require a significant time to read. However, those actors who have used the tool strongly recommend its implementation. The person who applied the tool in this project was an expert on the tool and was therefore able to adapt it significantly to the project which provided a significant advantage. However, Hinshelwood (2003) believes that the simplicity of the tool "lends itself to adaption, to recreation, to an informal, flexible practical use".

This is not a tool that is designed to be used alone to produce results, but as one of a number of community development tools. Hinshelwood (2003) argues that its use "provides a useful addition to the conceptual toolkit used in some if not all stages of community development".

For the wind farm proposal:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA);
The EIA covers only environmental issues, and does not consider the other pillars of sustainability (social and economic impacts), this requires further impact assessments to be completed. The tool is only applied at the design stage and impacts at future time periods particularly during operation are ignored.

An additional criticism of EIA, is that the information output is fairly subjective, since the lack of prescriptive guidelines for the implementation of a tool means that the information investigated will be different for each project, meaning that EIAs cannot be compared.

Participatory Assessment Process (PAP);
The implementation of this assessment tool within AAT is extremely unusual in the length of implementation time that it has been applied. The PAP used a wide range of methods and approaches to discuss and inform the surrounding community including taking members of the community to visit nearby wind farms. The thoroughness of the consultation process has been discussed in a number of papers (including Elliot, D (2003) A Solar World, Climate Change and the Green Energy Revolution, Schumacher Briefings Number 10, Totnes Devon, Green Books for The Schumacher Society) however if the wind farm does go ahead perhaps it will be a process considered by a wider number of organisations.

Welche Tools wurden verwendet, um Nachhaltigkeit zu beurteilen?

For the Awel Aman Tawe Project as a whole:
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)

For the wind farm proposal:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

For the wind farm proposal:
Participatory Assessment Process (PAP)

Weiterführende Informationen (nur auf Englisch):

Für den vollständigen Bericht hier klicken (pdf)