**3. Case studies – Some challenges when wind farming is considered in Australia**

In 2008, wind energy provided 487,537 Australian households with electricity, which presented 1.3% of national electric demand (IEA, 2009, p. 79), however, as mentioned earlier, more than 80% of electricity (CSIRO) or, more specifically, 83% (Bond (2009, p. 2) was coalfired. Let's look at some of the challenges associated with the development of wind energy projects.

In February 2009 Acciona Energy began generating green power in Waubra (approximately 150 km west-north-west of Melbourne, the capital city of the State of Victoria, and 35 km north-west of Ballarat, Victoria). The wind farm consists of 128 turbines of 1.5MW, the installed capacity is 192MW, offsetting 635,000 tonnes of CO2-e annually (Acciona Project Snapshot). Acciona then wanted to establish another wind farm, Waubra North, close to the township of Evansford. But some challenges emerged: According to Radical Green Watch (February 13, 2010), the Pyreness Landscape Guardians organised a meeting in early 2010. This meeting "brought together sixty wind farm opponents from across the state". At the meeting a petition was signed requesting a moratorium on wind farms until health studies were undertaken. A representative of Acciona, present at that meeting, stated that "the company was still conducting investigations of the site at Evansford". Acciona (Newsletter, June 15, 2011) announced that "its early feasibility work on the site at Waubra North …has indicated a wind farm in that location would not be viable"(p. 1). The company had undertaken investigations in relation to the environment, flora, fauna and, most importantly, wind resource.

The further north you travel from Waubra we found the wind resource to be less viable, primarily because of different topography (Acciona Newsletter, June 15, 2011, p. 1).

Interesting here are some political connotations. According to Courtice (July 30, 2011), a former member of the Liberal Party sits on the board of the anti-wind power Waubra Foundation, and a businessman, who was involved in oil, gas and mineral exploration companies, set up the foundation. Did Acciona Energy know about these powerful opponents?

Some other issues are worth noting because they relate to issues of NIMBYism. Firstly, there is the deliberate creation of "fear, uncertainty and doubt" (FUD) (Courtice, July 30, 2011) by the opponents of wind energy. FUD undermine an objective debate. Secondly, here are some facts about Acciona and its involvement in the local community of Waubra: Waubra has, according to information on the net, a population of 494, it is not far away from Melbourne and Ballarat, and its football team, the Waubra Kangaroos, has won several

Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review

discussed in Section 7).

Regarding Australia's Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions 457

analysis a little further, visual amenity, the destruction of the view, the aesthetics of the landscape can be related to sense of place (place attachment and place identity to be

The issue of "income of the participating landowners" not being "shared with the affected neighbouring properties" must cause a great deal of angst amongst those landowners who

NIMBYism in relation to wind farming3 is encouraged by proponents of the coal industry. While the present Australian government (Labor, The Greens, three independents) are committed to create a more sustainable environment, a survey of wind companies ,commissioned by the Clean Energy Council in 2010, found that between 50 to 70% of proposed wind farms would be abandoned if the Coalition (Liberal Party, National Party) would pursue its policies. According to the National Times (February 22, 2011), the Coalition has promised to support the reduction of CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, however, "their anti-wind farm policy threatens to do the opposite". This finding cannot be

**4. The pervasiveness of the Not-in-my-Backyard syndrome (NIMBYism)** 

A short overview of national and international newspapers4 will demonstrate the allpervasiveness of NIMBYism: Kagkelidon (April 13, 2007) reports from Greece: "Serifos island opposes gigantic wind park plans". Siegel (November 27, 2007) also reports about the island of Serifos: "NIMBYism – Global obstacle to a renewable energy future". Howden (June 12, 2007) writes about "Conservationists fight to keep wind farms off Skyros". Russel (January 1, 2008) looks at the situation in Great Britain: "Local planning logjams are preventing renewable power projects being given the green light, research reveals two out of three applications for onshore wind farms are being rejected". He further comments that "Britain could fulfil its full potential for land-based wind power if the proposals currently going through the planning system were built". Walker (January 19, 2011) considers Great Britain's *Localism agenda* which seems to oppose low-carbon strategy: "Wind industry warns Localism bill could spark yet more planning delays for new renewable energy projects".

The proposal to construct the 39 turbine power station provoked considerable controversy from its announcement in early 2000. By the time that the application was approved by the local planning authority in July 2001, it had generated a public debate that split communities, political parties and pressure groups, and prompted public meetings, demonstrations, petitions and letters to the press (Woods, 2003, p. 271).

4An internet search regarding Australia and NIMBYism established 659,000 entries on the web but only

two books in our library; these two books deal with the NIMBYism and waste disposal.

Another very interesting issue emerged in relation to the facilitation of wind turbines: The proposed 26-turbine wind farm at Glen Innes that was the first to be approved in New South Wales's six newly created 'wind precincts' has sparked legal action against the government. Neighbouring landowners are not happy with the turbine set back distances from their properties and that the income of the participating landowners is not shared with the affected neighbouring properties. Three local families are challenging Ms Kenneally's

decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court (Infigen, April 8, 2011).

are leasing their property to developers of clean, renewable energy.

And Woods discusses conflicting environmental visions of the rural:

when underestimated NIMBYism is considered.

3 For further discussion see Sections 5 and 6.

Australian rule football finals. Expanding on these limited facts, it can be assumed that the Waubra wind farm provides employment for local residents. Acciona is also contributing annually \$64,000 to a Community Benefit Fund (\$500 per turbine per annum) and, interestingly, arrangements have been made for post 2035, when the Waubra wind farm ceases to operate: 5% of the Community Benefit Funds are allocated "to provide the community with ongoing project support" (Acciona Newsletter, June 15, 2011). Further, Acciona is involved in social events, such as the Waubra Corporate Footy Day, and is producing a quarterly newsletter, delivered to local residents and available at local shops and offices of the Shire and the City of Ballarat. All of this indicates that Acciona Energy is contributing in a positive way to this regional society (employment, community funds, social events), however, local residents "did not want more Acciona in the district. I think it is a huge win for the local community", and "it wasn't a good idea in the first place" (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Ballarat, May 25, 2011).

I was not able to find out whether the "sixty opponents to wind farms from across the state" (Radical Green Watch, February 13, 2010) or the two politically influential executives played a part in Acciona's decision to abandon the Waubra North project, however, the remarks by residents are underpinned by NIMBYism.

Another case, also relating to Acciona, further demonstrates the force of NIMBYism. In an article entitled "Man vs Wind farm", Impey (ABC South East SA, June 22, 2011, pp. 1-3) reports about a decision that "has rocked the renewable energy industry": courts have ruled in favour of a man who lodged an appeal against the development of a proposed wind farm in Allendale East on the basis of visual amenity.

In a landmark ruling Eight Mile Creek dairy farmer Richard Paltridge lodged an appeal with the State's Environment Resources and Development Court against the decision by the Grant District Council's independent planning assessors to go ahead with a 46-turbine project (Impey, ABC South East SA, June 22, 2011, p. 1)

This project was meant to deliver substantial economic and environmental benefits to Mount Gambier and the South East region of South Australia. The A\$175 million investment by Acciona was expected to generate fifty construction jobs and eleven highly-specialist fulltime jobs. It was expected that the forty-six turbine project would meet the needs of about 43,000 households and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 181,568 tonnes annually (The Border Watch, June 23, 2011, p. 3). The Grant District executive officer "was surprised … given the company's extensive public consultation, that was the most comprehensive of any developer in the past 10 years". This officer also mentioned that he was not aware "of any other wind farm development that has been refused through the courts due to visual amenity". In contrast to these remarks, a member of the Concerned Residents Group, which had been formed to oppose the wind farm, stated that "many residents and adjoining landholders were celebrating the ruling". While claiming that the group was not against wind farms, "… multinational companies should not be allowed to place these farms 'willynilly'" (The Border Watch, June 23, 2011, p. 3).

The two news items, broadcast by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), and the article in The Border Watch demonstrate the rational consequences of NIMBYism. The Clean Energy Council policy manager finds that "the ruling was subjective", that "visual amenity is subjective [and that] they rejected it purely on that basis" (Impey, ABC South East SA, June 22, 2011, p. 1). The argument of subjectivity is substantiated by Finlay-Jones and Kouzmin (2004) who find that "visual amenity is a subjective matter", that it is entirely dependent on the experience of individuals and that "acceptance … increases with time" (p. 3). To take the

Australian rule football finals. Expanding on these limited facts, it can be assumed that the Waubra wind farm provides employment for local residents. Acciona is also contributing annually \$64,000 to a Community Benefit Fund (\$500 per turbine per annum) and, interestingly, arrangements have been made for post 2035, when the Waubra wind farm ceases to operate: 5% of the Community Benefit Funds are allocated "to provide the community with ongoing project support" (Acciona Newsletter, June 15, 2011). Further, Acciona is involved in social events, such as the Waubra Corporate Footy Day, and is producing a quarterly newsletter, delivered to local residents and available at local shops and offices of the Shire and the City of Ballarat. All of this indicates that Acciona Energy is contributing in a positive way to this regional society (employment, community funds, social events), however, local residents "did not want more Acciona in the district. I think it is a huge win for the local community", and "it wasn't a good idea in the first place"

I was not able to find out whether the "sixty opponents to wind farms from across the state" (Radical Green Watch, February 13, 2010) or the two politically influential executives played a part in Acciona's decision to abandon the Waubra North project, however, the remarks by

Another case, also relating to Acciona, further demonstrates the force of NIMBYism. In an article entitled "Man vs Wind farm", Impey (ABC South East SA, June 22, 2011, pp. 1-3) reports about a decision that "has rocked the renewable energy industry": courts have ruled in favour of a man who lodged an appeal against the development of a proposed wind farm

In a landmark ruling Eight Mile Creek dairy farmer Richard Paltridge lodged an appeal with the State's Environment Resources and Development Court against the decision by the Grant District Council's independent planning assessors to go ahead with a 46-turbine

This project was meant to deliver substantial economic and environmental benefits to Mount Gambier and the South East region of South Australia. The A\$175 million investment by Acciona was expected to generate fifty construction jobs and eleven highly-specialist fulltime jobs. It was expected that the forty-six turbine project would meet the needs of about 43,000 households and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 181,568 tonnes annually (The Border Watch, June 23, 2011, p. 3). The Grant District executive officer "was surprised … given the company's extensive public consultation, that was the most comprehensive of any developer in the past 10 years". This officer also mentioned that he was not aware "of any other wind farm development that has been refused through the courts due to visual amenity". In contrast to these remarks, a member of the Concerned Residents Group, which had been formed to oppose the wind farm, stated that "many residents and adjoining landholders were celebrating the ruling". While claiming that the group was not against wind farms, "… multinational companies should not be allowed to place these farms 'willy-

The two news items, broadcast by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), and the article in The Border Watch demonstrate the rational consequences of NIMBYism. The Clean Energy Council policy manager finds that "the ruling was subjective", that "visual amenity is subjective [and that] they rejected it purely on that basis" (Impey, ABC South East SA, June 22, 2011, p. 1). The argument of subjectivity is substantiated by Finlay-Jones and Kouzmin (2004) who find that "visual amenity is a subjective matter", that it is entirely dependent on the experience of individuals and that "acceptance … increases with time" (p. 3). To take the

(Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Ballarat, May 25, 2011).

residents are underpinned by NIMBYism.

in Allendale East on the basis of visual amenity.

nilly'" (The Border Watch, June 23, 2011, p. 3).

project (Impey, ABC South East SA, June 22, 2011, p. 1)

analysis a little further, visual amenity, the destruction of the view, the aesthetics of the landscape can be related to sense of place (place attachment and place identity to be discussed in Section 7).

Another very interesting issue emerged in relation to the facilitation of wind turbines:

The proposed 26-turbine wind farm at Glen Innes that was the first to be approved in New South Wales's six newly created 'wind precincts' has sparked legal action against the government. Neighbouring landowners are not happy with the turbine set back distances from their properties and that the income of the participating landowners is not shared with the affected neighbouring properties. Three local families are challenging Ms Kenneally's decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court (Infigen, April 8, 2011).

The issue of "income of the participating landowners" not being "shared with the affected neighbouring properties" must cause a great deal of angst amongst those landowners who are leasing their property to developers of clean, renewable energy.

NIMBYism in relation to wind farming3 is encouraged by proponents of the coal industry. While the present Australian government (Labor, The Greens, three independents) are committed to create a more sustainable environment, a survey of wind companies ,commissioned by the Clean Energy Council in 2010, found that between 50 to 70% of proposed wind farms would be abandoned if the Coalition (Liberal Party, National Party) would pursue its policies. According to the National Times (February 22, 2011), the Coalition has promised to support the reduction of CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, however, "their anti-wind farm policy threatens to do the opposite". This finding cannot be when underestimated NIMBYism is considered.
