2. Ways in which AAT have tried to undermine TAG.
3. Reasons AAT have tried to undermine TAG
4. AAT’s lack of contact with TAG members
5. Empty promises
6. Why so much opposition from Tairgwaith?
7. AAT supporters
8. The need for another voice.
9. Summary
Tairgwaith has presented AAT with certain challenges throughout the consultation process. AAT’s reaction to opposition was and continues to be manifested in many forms. As would be expected, any negative comments towards the project have been attributed as arising from TAG supporters, without defining what a ‘supporter’ is. It is evident from one AAT report that a TAG ‘supporter’ seems to be anyone with a negative view about the project. The more animated or verbally challenging this point of view is, the more likely the individual is a TAG supporter. Thus AAT have employed the techniques of ‘scare mongering’ and ‘scape goating’ and have pigeon-holed community members into ‘frantic’ or ‘open-minded individuals’ depending on whether their views are anti-AAT or pro-AAT, respectively.
It is clear that TAG have had a substantial and significant impact on AAT. In one AAT report TAG and the villagers of Tairgwaith were afforded a whole section (10 pages). This has not only served to add recognition to the TAG campaign, but has also served to gain additional support from members of all communities who have read the report and have realised how ‘low AAT will stoop to get them some support’ (male c 35, GCG) ‘they’re clutching at straws now if they have to resort to writing this about TAG’ (female, c 60, Garnant).
2. Ways in which AAT have tried to undermine TAG.
Again AAT have employed numerous methods to try to undermine TAG. In one public Meeting, AAT's Project Researcher asked the Vice-chair of TAG 'do you have a brain!? we've not been doing this for three years - it's only been 18 months!' and kept repeating the phrase when questioned on matters any further 'you don't seem to be understanding what I say'.
When a suggestion was put forward by TAG regarding the merits of using the cash already used by AAT and invest this in energy saving light bulbs, the Chair of AAT shouted out at one meeting - 'what difference will a couple of bulbs make - they're [the people of Tairgwaith] only going to pinch them' Another member of the Steering Committee claimed that she 'used more electricity now with the energy saving bulbs than before'. It was evident that any reasonable suggestion TAG put forward was immediately criticised by AAT steering committee members or their supporters.
The Project Co-ordinator unable to accept questioning as part of the consultation process commented at one public meeting "!that's all TAG are doing is criticising, criticising, criticising, and we all know how it's easy to do that". (Dan McCallum, Jan 2001).
Another member of the Steering committee then criticised the residents of Tairgwaith for demanding that AAT hold a referendum 'the only reason why the money [for the referendum] is now needed is that the people of Tairgwaith didn't accept the 15% vote' (Peter West, Jan 2001) AAT have tried to undermine the source of TAG's information and assume that this has come exclusively from the Country Guardian.
Again AAT have made errors in their statements as no member of the Action group 'downloaded and distributed information from the Country Guardian Website at the [Rhiwfawr] meeting'.
3. Reasons AAT have tried to undermine TAG
AAT have admitted that TAG's questioning and enquiries for more information have led them to become increasingly 'frustrated' and 'irritated' and efforts to provide this information have been 'time-consuming' and 'demoralising'. It would prove much more beneficial to AAT if TAG were not a factor in the consultation. Thus any opportunity to undermine the reputation or respect TAG members have been able to foster in the local communities have been seized with increasing pettiness.
This has again only served to aid TAG's Campaign. Local residents on reading some of the comments published by AAT in one report were ' it doesn't do anything for them as people or an organisation does it?!' and 'what's the point in slagging off Tairgwaith - they both come from the place!'
An external observer also commented 'these people are trying to be professional about their company and yet they go and hurl insults like they're in a school playground'.
Throughout the consultation process it has been evident that AAT have underestimated the scope of TAG's campaign This is despite the fact that they stated at the outset that 'part of the project is to look at ways of dealing with opposition' (AAT 2000) and had a strategy in place to combat any opposition ' an initial period of intense press coverage will be sought to raise awareness of the project and before opposition is able to gain a similar level of coverage'. However, AAT showed signs of fatigue in their campaign 'public meetings are too confrontational for a dialogue with TAG' (Awel Aman Tawe)
AAT have also failed to gain the respect TAG have gained throughout the community. This is a key failure of AAT's campaign, the inability to deal with negative response and opposition. As one villager commented 'it's as though they were expecting this to be able to canvas peoples opinions on the scheme and not have anyone dislike it' The highest percentage turnout at the referendum was at Tairgwaith and was significantly higher than any other of the 14 villages involved. The only other village who opposed the scheme was GCG. These were the two villages TAG had actively campaigned and held public meetings in.
The impact that TAG had on the scheme was to create apathy towards AATs campaign which has been documented by AAT: 'a week prior to the visit [to Carno Windfarm] only 12 people had booked places - all the local primary schools were then contacted' (AAT, July 2000).
A true measurement of TAG's impact came with the referendum results; 'some individuals have been aggressive an awkward, and this is losing them support in the community' (AAT Project co-ordinator, August 2000) after a 70-30 split against the referendum at the Tairgwaith Public Meeting. Tairgwaith referendum result - March 2001: For the scheme 22% , Against 78%.
4. AAT's lack of contact with TAG members
The lack of contact with TAG members by AAT has resulted in a lack of knowledge about who the members of TAG really are. AAT have always considered TAG members to be comprised of nine individuals whose picture appeared in the local newspaper shortly after the first Public Meeting but prior to the Action Group being formally set up. As a direct result of this fundamental error, quotes from some of these villagers , who are not founder members of TAG , have, nevertheless, been attributed to TAG. Such misquotes are evident throughout and have been a hallmark of AAT's monthly progress reports
The progress report for August describes TAG as ' interrupting the Public Meeting ' when the Action Group asked a question during the designated Q/A section after the presentations at the Rhiwfawr meeting. It went a step further in embellishing the report by including fabricated incidents such as - 'TAG forced people to sign their petition, when no petition was brought along to the meeting.
On a separate incident the Chair of AAT embarrassingly mistook the Vice Chair for the Secretary this was despite the AAT Chairman being present at the recent Tairgwaith Public Meeting where all members of TAG were clearly identified. When the Vice-chair of TAG approached the AAT Chairman about a certain matter at the Tairgwaith Open day, he replied - 'yes yes yes, I've already spoken to your father about this' (the Vice-Chair of TAG then went on to discretely explain to the AAT Chairman that her father had passed away a few years previously).
The only contact the Secretary of the Action Group has been able to obtain with the Project Researcher (who is also the Company Secretary and Director of AAT) during the whole consultation process was just after the project office was set up. The Secretary of TAG (who was not appointed as Secretary at that point) spoke with the Project researcher who attempted to gain an indication of 'which side you're on' before answering any questions. Since then, the project researcher has refrained from attending any public meetings and has distanced herself from any public consultation.
All communication with AAT has now been through the Project co-ordinator (who is also the Project researcher's partner). When questioned on this point at the GCG public meeting the Project Co-ordinator stated:
' Emily works for the University of Wales, she has a contract with them as a researcher, she's got a three-year contract with the University of Wales, she doesn't represent the project…to try and demand as TAG have done that Emily speaks isn't appropriate because I represent the project'
The constant requests for Emily Hinshelwood, Project researcher to be present to answer questions raised by her many publications that she has written about the project have led the AAT staff to become paranoid that TAG have run their campaign in a underhanded way. An example of this distrust of TAG and its supporters is evident in the following example:
A phone call was made to the AAT office by a resident of Cae-Newydd (a small hamlet on the route out of Tairgwaith) The resident recounted her experience at a public meeting in GCG: 'I phoned up the office to find out when the public meeting was, I has heard that there were rumours that there would be another meeting soon. The woman [project researcher] who answered the phone kept asking me if I was her [TAG Secretary] over an over again and wouldn't tell me where the meeting was until I gave her my name and address!
An earlier incident (before the formation of the Action Group) demonstrated how distrustful AAT were of any person who demonstrated a negative opinion of the scheme.
The Secretary (again, not appointed at that stage) had been unable to attend the first meeting in Tairgwaith as she was out of the country at the time. In respect of this situation, an enquiry was made (during a Phase One Interview with AAT) whether it would be possible to attend the next public meeting. The Project Researcher replied : 'no the next meeting is in Rhiwfawr, for Rhiwfawr residents only, you have already had your meeting in Tairgwaith you're not allowed to come to the one in Rhiwfawr'. This was despite the meeting being billed as a 'public' meeting.
5. Empty promises
At each public meeting AAT asked that TAG and AAT 'work together'. At the second public meeting organised by TAG on January 26th 2001, TAG took AAT up on this invitation and asked to be involved either in the wording of the referendum or that a single member of TAG be co-opted on to the steering committee. This question was put by the Local AM to The Project Co-ordinator of AAT who replied ' No that's not possible'.
Soon after the referendum was over, TAG received the following email from Dan McCallum: 'I hope we can find ways of working together now that the community has given its view' (March 22, 2001), and went on to mention that 'not everyone likes windfarms, but we need to work together now to ensure that community groups benefit and the windfarm makes a contribution to regeneration… I accept we have made some mistakes over the past year'
The insistance that a windfarm would go ahead has been echoed by other AAT supporters and on one occasion a daughter of one of the Steering Committee said at a Public Meeting: 'if you refuse to have these you may have a nuclear power station', 'whether you like it or not, there will be a windfarm up there', ' I think TAG would rather have their electricity come from a wind turbine than a nuclear power station' . Nuclear power comparisons have been the only defence of wind energy TAG have faced throughout their campaign - both from AAT and their supporters. This has arisen from the erroneous judgement AAT made that all TAG's arguments come from a 'reworking' of the Country Guardian.
Throughout the project TAG have made numerous requests for information to AAT, this is information which has been detailed on their website as available to the public. The responses from AAT have been lethargic and incomplete at the best of time. Usually TAG are referred to other sources of information
6. Why so much opposition from Tairgwaith?
AAT have in one report reaffirmed some stereotypes that residents of Tairgwaith have been trying to dismiss for over a decade. When one resident read some of the derogatory comments that AAT has deemed necessary to include in the report about the residents and landscape of Tairgwaith 'I'm ashamed I ever listened to these people [AAT] if they feel they can go around fuelling the bad feeling people have towards Tairgwaith'. Another resident commented 'it's no wonder that nearly everybody in Tairgwaith dislikes these people when they allow things like that to be printed' One open supporter of the Action Group's campaign was in uproar 'you mean to tell me that people in the DTI will be able to read this - what must they think of us - it's an outrage'
7. AAT supporters
AAT have regularly referred to TAG members /supporters as being aggressive and awkward. When challenged to name the TAG members who the Projects Co-ordinator perceived to be aggressive and awkward the project co-ordinator replied 'I'm not going to name names, but it certainly wasn't any of you [TAG members]. This has been a recurring issue which TAG members have faced . Firstly a comment has been levied at TAG - its members or supporters, but when TAG has openly challenged AAT these comments are played down or the commentators are kept anonymous 'for fear of their own safety'.
This can be contrasted with comments members of the community have made to TAG. ' I don't really want to sign your petition - not because I don't support you - I don't want those b****y things up there, it's just that people I know might get to see this and I don't want them to see my name there…just in case …you know how it is'. Close ties between AAT and Amman Valley enterprise have ensured that AAT have brought the debate into the workplace within the community; 'AVE is an intimidating place if you don't support the windfarm' (female, 46, Tairgwaith), 'whenever you walk in there, they [AAT supporters] know if you don't want the windfarm, and make it difficult for you'.
Another members of the community was forced to quit her employment at the AVE education centre due to indirect intimidation, which was followed up with verbal taunts when she went to collect her children from the local primary school. The individual has not taken this any further with her old employer [AVE] as she has little faith in an impartial investigation and fears any repercussions such an investigation will bring.
8. The need for another voice.
Even the local AM and MP have commented that there needs to be another side of the argument presented and that the opinions of the opposition and local residents should be attended to: 'in the interest of providing a balanced view…consider launching your own website' Gwenda Thomas, AM 'it does not mean that every proposed windfarm shouldbe approved - especially when there are strong local objections' Peter Hain, MP
9. Summary
It is still clear that AAT have fought their campaign on two principles:
1. Threaten villagers with the thought that if they don't accept this 'community' windfarm, then we'll have a commercial windfarm in 5 years time and
2. Undermine any opposition that has formed against the scheme.
In reflection a more astute strategy for AAT would have been to co-opt a member of the opposition onto the steering committee at the outset, which would have gained the support and buy-in from more members of Tairgwaith and thus may have presented a challenge to TAG's campaign. However (to TAG's benefit) AAT made the wrong decision and tried to silence the opposition.
Home