meeting europe’s renewable energy targets in … · sociedad española de ornitología –...

MEETINGEUROPE’SRENEWABLEENERGYTARGETS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE

MEETING EUROPE’SRENEWABLE ENERGYTARGETS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE

Meeting Europe’s Renewable Energy Targets in Harmony with Nature

A BirdLife Europe report, with the support of the RSPB (BirdLife UK).

Participating organisations:

● BirdLife Europe● Association for Biological Research – BIOM/BirdLife contact in Croatia● BirdWatch Ireland/BirdLife Ireland● Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds – BSPB/BirdLife Bulgaria● Centar za zaštitu i proucavanje ptica – CZIP/BirdLife contact in Montenegro● DOPPS/BirdLife Slovenia● Hellenic Ornithological Society – HOS/BirdLife Greece● Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli – LIPU/BirdLife Italy● Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux – LPO/BirdLife France● Natagora/BirdLife Belgium ● Naturschutzbund Deutschland – NABU/BirdLife Germany● Natuurpunt/BirdLife Belgium● Romanian Ornithological Society – SOR/BirdLife Romania● Sociedad Española de Ornitología – SEO/BirdLife Spain● Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA/BirdLife Portugal● The Polish Society for the Protection of Birds – OTOP/BirdLife Poland● The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – RSPB/BirdLife UK

Edited by Ivan Scrase and Benedict Gove

Contributors:

Joana Andrade, Yann André, Boris Barov, Richard Bradbury, Ariel Brunner,Helen Byron, Marina Cazacu, Claudio Celada, Melanie Coath, Luís Costa,Vincenzo Cripezzi, Isabel Diez, Siobhán Egan, Claire Ferry, Rachel Furlong,Dariusz Gatkowski, Małgorzata Górska, Benedict Gove, Elmar Große Ruse,Hermann Hoetker, David Howell, Harry Huyton, Tomaž Jancar, Peter Jones,Thanos Kastritis, Malamo Korbeti, Dave Lamacraft, John Lanchberry, RowenaLangston, Domingos Leitão, Caroline Lemenicier, Irina Mateeva, KresimirMikulic, Aly McCluskie, Sarah Oppenheimer, Sandra Pape, Jean-Yves Paquet,Joelle Piraux, Dan Pullan, Ivan Ramirez, Lucie Renuart, Darko Saveljic, IvanScrase, Aedan Smith, Marija Stanisic, Steven Vanholme, Carsten Wachholz,Olly Watts, Mike Webb, Arfon Williams, Julieta Valls, Magda Zadrag.

This report can be cited as: BirdLife Europe (2011) Meeting Europe’sRenewable Energy Targets in Harmony with Nature (eds. Scrase I. and Gove B.). The RSPB, Sandy, UK.

PREFACE

CHAPTER ONETHE TWIN IMPERATIVES – STABILISING CLIMATE AND PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY

1.1 The imperative to cut greenhouse

gas emissions

1.2 The imperative to halt

biodiversity loss

1.3 Renewables and conservation

for a liveable planet

1.4 Principles for renewables deployment

in harmony with nature

1.5 Study approach and report structure

CHAPTER TWORENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND ECOLOGICALSUSTAINABILITY

2.1 Risk classification

2.2 Solar PV arrays and concentrated

solar power

2.2.1 Main conservation risks2.2.2 Avoiding and mitigating risks, and

achieving benefits for wildlife

2.3 Onshore wind power



2.4 Offshore wind power



2.5 Tidal stream and wave energy



2.6 Biomass for heat and power



2.7 Power lines



TABLE OFCONTENTS

5

6

8

10

11

13

14

16

18

23

23

25

26

26

31

34

35

37

40

40

41

43

43

49

50

52

54

CHAPTER THREE THE ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY OFEUROPE’S 2020 RENEWABLES PLANS

3.1 Low conservation risk technologies

3.1.1 Energy saving3.1.2 Solar thermal3.1.3 Heat pumps3.1.4 Electric vehicles

3.2 Medium conservation risk

technologies

3.2.1 Solar power3.2.2 Concentrated solar power3.2.3 Onshore wind power3.2.4 Offshore wind power3.2.5 Tidal and wave power3.2.6 Biomass for heat and power

3.3 High conservation risk

technologies

3.3.1 Hydropower3.3.2 Liquid biofuels

CHAPTER FOURHOW TO ACHIEVE A EUROPEANRENEWABLES REVOLUTION INHARMONY WITH NATURE

4.1 Commit politically and financially

4.2 Protect the Natura 2000 network

4.3 Minimise energy capacity and

infrastructure needs

4.4 Ensure full stakeholder participation

and joint working

4.5 Strategic spatial planning for

renewables

4.5.1 Use of biodiversity sensitivity maps4.5.2 Use of strategic environmental

assessment (SEA)

4.6 Minimising project impacts

4.7 Achieving ecological enhancements

4.8 Guidance and capacity building

CHAPTER FIVERECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONALAND EU POLICY MAKERS

5.1 Evaluation of national policy

frameworks

5.1.1 Stimulating investment inrenewables

5.1.2 Biodiversity protection5.1.3 Minimising overall

infrastructure needs5.1.4 Spatial Planning5.1.5 Minimising project impacts5.1.6 Common strengths and

weaknesses across Europeancountries

5.2 Policy recommendations for the

European Union

5.3 Policy recommendations for

project partners’ countries

5.3.1 Belgium (Wallonia)5.3.2 Bulgaria5.3.3 Croatia5.3.4 France5.3.5 Germany5.3.6 Greece5.3.7 Ireland5.3.8 Italy5.3.9 Montenegro5.3.10 Poland5.3.11 Portugal5.3.12 Romania5.3.13 Slovenia5.3.14 Spain5.3.15 The United Kingdon

REFERENCES

ENDNOTES

56

60

61626263

64

646667696971

73

7374

76

78

80

84

85

88

92

96

98

100

101

102

104

104104

106106106

106

107

109

110111112113114115116117119119120121123124126

128

133

Dear Reader,

A few years ago my attention was drawn to apowerful advertisement – part of a brandingcampaign launched by a big global bank. It wasbased on the observation that having differentpoints of view can be a strength rather than aproblem. Pictures of the same object were displayednext to each other, but with different accompanyingtext, reflecting different views and values.

A sports car, for example, could be viewed as“freedom” or a “status symbol” or even a“polluter”. The bank was conveying the messagethat it understood and was able to encompass the different values of its customers, and thereforecould offer solutions to a variety of clients all overthe world.

When we look at renewable energy sources andtechnologies, we are facing a similar situation. Forsome they are an exciting business and developmentopportunity. For others, they are the main solutionto cutting emissions and avoiding disastrous climatechange. Renewable energy sources are oftenassumed to be less damaging for biodiversity thanfossil energy sources, yet they are not always seenas “green”.

Are all viewpoints valid? Yes, the more you look atrenewable energy sources and technologies, themore you come to recognise that people are rightin perceiving them differently. Is it possible toreconcile these viewpoints, making renewables agood business opportunity, as well as a good wayto cut emissions and avoid further biodiversityloss? Yes, it is. Through this report, which is theresult of the work of 17 leading bird and wildlifeconservation organisations across Europe, weshow that strategic planning, environmentalassessment and stakeholder engagement are keyelements of the solution.

PREFACEWe cannot afford to miss the EU’s 2020 targetsfor energy efficiency, reducing CO2 emissionsand increasing the share of renewables in theenergy mix. Indeed, BirdLife Europe supportsincreasing the emissions target from 20% to 30%.

At the same time, we cannot afford to missanother important EU 2020 target, that of“halting the loss of biodiversity and degradationof ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, andrestoring them as far as feasible, while steppingup the EU contribution to averting globalbiodiversity loss”. These climate and biodiversitytargets are strongly interrelated andinterconnected. We cannot achieve one aimwithout or at the expense of the other. What weneed is to adopt holistic approaches andsolutions encompassing both.

This report shows how policy makers can helpmake it possible to meet Europe’s renewableenergy targets in harmony with nature. Like thebank adverts, we see no problem in differentpoints of view, only potential. And in order todeploy the full potential of renewables we needthe wisdom, the long-term vision and the positiveplanning that you can find in the following pages.

Yours faithfully,

Angelo Caserta (Regional Director, BirdLife Europe)

6 RUNNING HEAD LOREM ISPSUM DOLOR

THE TWINIMPERATIVES –STABILISINGCLIMATE ANDPROTECTINGBIODIVERSITY

CHAPTER 1

BirdLife International is a globalpartnership of conservation organisationsthat strives to conserve birds, theirhabitats and global biodiversity, workingwith people towards sustainability in theuse of natural resou rces. The BirdLifePartnership operates in over 100countries and territories worldwide withover 2.5 million members, 10 millionsupporters and over a million hectaresowned or managed. It is the world'slargest partnership of conservationorganisations. Together the BirdLifePartnership forms the leading authority onthe status of birds, their habitats and theissues and problems affecting bird life.

The development of renewable energysources is an essential element infighting climate change. However, somemeasures intended to contribute toclimate change mitigation, likeunsustainably produced biofuels, are posing new threats and stresses on birds and their habitats. BirdLife works topromote effectiveemissions reductionsusing renewableswithout harmingecosystems andbiodiversity, both atinternational andEuropean levels.

BirdLife Europe supportsaction to cut Europe’sgreenhouse gas emissionsthrough energy savings and

displacing fossil energy with clean,sustainable, renewable energy sources.To be sustainable, harm to birds andbiodiversity must be avoided, andEurope’s most important sites for wildlifemust be protected. This means thedevelopment of renewable energysources must follow a strategicapproach, so that the most appropriateenergy sources are exploited in the mostappropriate places.

BirdLife strongly supports theachievement of the EU’s 20% renewableenergy target. We believe it is anessential element in the fight againstglobal climate change. With currentpolicies and prevailing technologies,however, meeting the transport targetusing liquid biofuels does not meet theecological sustainability criteria above.Therefore, BirdLife cannot support thiselement of the targets, and calls for

greater use of energy savings,electrification of transport and other ecologically acceptable renewables instead.

This report explains why we support sustainablerenewables deployment,and shows how policymakers can help to meetEurope’s renewablestargets in harmony with nature.

A Climatic Atlas of EuropeanBreeding Birds predicts extinctionsdue to climate change.

8 MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE

The scientific evidence is overwhelming: climatechange is a stark reality, with a greater than 90%likelihood that this is caused by human activities(IPCC, 2007). It presents very serious global risksfor people and biodiversity around the world andit demands an urgent global response. Climatechange is already having multiple impacts on birdsand their habitats, such as:

● changes in behaviour, for example timings ofmigrations

● range shifts and contractions ● disruption of species interactions and

communities, and ● exacerbation of other threats and stresses, such

as disease, invasive species and habitatfragmentation, destruction and degradation.

The publication of A Climatic Atlas of EuropeanBreeding Birds (Huntley et al., 2008) was animportant landmark in understanding the potentialimpacts of human-induced climate change on ourenvironment. The Atlas projects that under amedium climate change scenario (a 3°C rise inaverage global temperature), the potential futurerange of the average European bird species willshift by nearly 550 km north-east, and will reduce insize by a fifth. Many more species look set to loserather than to gain from projected climatic change.

For some species, there is no overlap between theirpotential future range and their current range; andfor a few, there is no future potential range left inEurope. Some bird species that are currently foundonly in Europe, or that have only small populationselsewhere, are expected to run a significantlyincreased risk of extinction. This picture of climatechange driving extinctions is seen across theliterature on climate impacts and biodiversity (eg,

Maclean and Wilson, 2011; Pimm et al., 2006). Asynthesis study published in Nature estimated that15–37% of plants and animals will be “committedto extinction” by 2050 as a result of climate changeunder a mid-range warming scenario (Thomas etal., 2004).

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in theworld’s atmosphere has risen from a pre-industriallevel of around 270 parts per million (ppm) toalmost 400 ppm today. With current rates ofemissions the concentration is likely to reach twiceits pre-industrial level in a matter of decades. If CO2

levels are stabilised at twice their pre-industriallevels, the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC, 2007) estimates there would be agreater than 90% probability of global averagetemperatures increasing by 1.5°C or more thiscentury, and a greater than 60% probability ofaverage temperatures increasing by 2°C or more.Warming of 1.5°C would have some severeimpacts, and 2°C is the limit beyond which manyscientists would consider that warming hadbecome “dangerous” to ecosystems and humanityalike. Avoiding this has been adopted as a target bythe European Union (EU).

The likely impacts of a 2°C increase in global meantemperatures, according to the IPCC, include theaccelerating loss of many of the world’s most bio-diverse ecosystems including coral reefs, andincreased risk of extinction for 20–30% of theworld’s species. For many species, poor ability todisperse, combined with fragmentation of habitat,will limit the extent to which they can adapt toshifting climatic conditions (Box 1). For some,particularly those already at geographical limits,such as mountain tops and high latitude landedges, there will simply be nowhere to go.

1.1 THE IMPERATIVETO CUT GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS

THE TWIN IMPERATIVES – STABILISING CLIMATE AND PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY 9

Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere are also expected to lead to a gradualacidification of the ocean with likely dramaticconsequences for all marine organisms withcalcium-based shells.

Society can help biodiversity adapt (Box 1), but theprimary response must be deep cuts in greenhousegas emissions to limit warming and stabilise theclimate at the rate and level required to allowecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change

(UNFCCC, Convention on Climate Change Article 2). To have a greater than 50% chance of keeping global temperature increasesfrom exceeding 2°C, the concentration ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere will need tobe stabilised at well below twice pre-industriallevels (Meinshausen, 2005; Baer and Mastrandrea,2006). For this to be achievable, global emissions will need to peak within the next 10–15 years and then be reduced by at least 50% by mid-century.

BOX 1

Can biodiversity adapt to climate change?

There is considerable concern that many species andnatural ecosystems will not be able to adapt fast enoughto keep up with the rapid rate of future climate change. Asthe climate warms, species may adapt “autonomously”through behavioural or evolutionary changes, or maybenefit from human intervention. The chances of successvary between species and ecosystems, and will dependon the extent of warming. Cutting greenhouse gasemissions to limit future warming is paramount, butplanned adaptation is also essential because of globalwarming that is already “in the pipeline” due to pastemissions. Fortunately, many key current conservationactions are also those most required to address theimpacts of climate change. Actions particularly importantfor climate change adaptation fall into four broadcategories:

Increasing the population of threatened species. Thisincreases “resilience”, by reducing the risks of localextinction, and provides colonists for new sites. Actionsinclude enlarging and improving management of importantsites and special habitats. Large population sizes indiverse habitats also maximise genetic diversity, assistingevolutionary adaption to climate change. It must also beremembered that climate change effects are synergisticwith other pressures, such as habitat loss andfragmentation. Therefore, actions to reduce thesepressures, including through buffering wildlife sites, will likely increase resilience to climate change.

Assisting species movement by increasing ecologicalconnectivity across landscapes. Better connectedlandscapes will allow species to move naturally to trackthe changing location of suitable climate. Key strategieshere include increasing the size of current wildlife sitesand creating new sites, as well as providing steppingstones, corridors and management to make theintervening landscape less hostile to specialist species.This strategy is sometimes known as a “landscape scale”approach to conservation.

Assisting relocation. For species with poor powers ofdispersal, and those in poorly connected landscapes,help may be required to enable movement. In practice,time and cost (as well as technical feasibility andecological risk) probably make this a viable option forrelatively few species. Captive breeding and conservationof genetic material in seed and DNA banks are furtheroptions for consideration.

Developing landscape heterogeneity. Creating climaticrefuges, below the mean temperature of theirsurroundings, improves the chance that species can stay in current locations. This enables local movements,rather than requiring longer-distance dispersal, and canenhance ecological resilience and accommodation ofspecies on the move.


Dangerous climate change threatens humans asmuch as it does wildlife: the IPCC predicts that 2°Cof warming will result in water scarcity affecting anadditional 2 billion people, and significantreductions in agricultural productivity and foodavailability in developing countries. These impactswould have dire knock-on effects for everyone’squality of life, and even their security. In a speechin London in July 2011, the UK Secretary of Statefor Energy and Climate Change saidi:

“A changing climate will imperil food, water, andenergy security. It will affect human health, tradeflows, and political stability. And the resultingpressures will check development, undo progress,and strain international relations. These risks willnot be neatly divided. Different countries will facedifferent challenges. Political solutions will becomeharder to broker; conflicts more likely. A world

where climate change goes unanswered will bemore unstable, more unequal, and more violent.The knock-on effects will not stop at our borders.Climate change will affect our way of life – andthe way we order our society. It threatens to ripout the foundations on which our security rests.”

Tackling climate change is an enormouschallenge for an industrialising world with agrowing population. Europe and other relativelywealthy regions have by far the highest percapita carbon emissions. The more developedcountries bear historic responsibility for theclimate change we are already experiencing, andto which we are already committed. Europe has,rightly, shown leadership in pushing for a globalagreement to limit warming, and in promotingenergy efficiency, renewable energy and otherways to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2001 the EU Heads of State agreed to abiodiversity target under which, by 2010, the EU should have halted the loss of biologicaldiversity within its own territory and beyond.That it had failed to do so was very clear by2010 – the International Year of Biodiversity. The principal reasons in the EU for this failureare well known: implementation of the Birds andHabitats Directives, which are the backbone of EU nature conservation policy, is still incomplete;failure to integrate biodiversity concerns intoother policies; and a severe shortage of fundingfor conservation work.

While this makes depressing reading, there arereasons for optimism. The Birds and Habitats

Directives have been shown to be effective athalting and reversing biodiversity loss, whenproperly implemented and adequately financed(Donald et al., 2007), and great progress has beenmade in setting up the Natura 2000 network ofprotected sites. Furthermore, in March 2010 the EUHeads of State adopted an ambitious 2050 Visionand 2020 Target for biodiversity conservation. The2020 target commits the EU to: “halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystemservices in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EUcontribution to averting global biodiversity loss”.

We cannot afford to miss this target either. Thebiggest mistake is to think of the risks of climate

1.2 THE IMPERATIVETO HALT BIODIVERSITYLOSS


change to people as a separate issue to thethreat to biodiversity. Societies and oureconomic prosperity are dependent on the“ecosystem services” that nature provides – for example, enabling crops to grow, providingbuilding materials, storing carbon, purifyingwater and protecting coast lines from erosionand flooding (Millennium EcosystemAssessment, 2005; TEEB, 2009). Withoutproperly functioning ecosystems the cost ofadapting to a warmer climate would increasedramatically, compounding suffering and loss of lives and livelihoods. Large parts of the worldcould become uninhabitable, not because theyare too hot or the weather events too extreme,but because the natural world is so damagedand impoverished it can no longer supporthuman livelihoods.

In the words of José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commissionii: “Biodiversity isintegral to sustainable development, it underpinscompetitiveness, growth and employment, andimproves livelihoods. Biodiversity loss, and theconsequent decline of ecosystem services, is agrave threat to our societies and economies.”

The EU is committed to halting theloss of biodiversity by 2020.

1.3 RENEWABLES ANDCONSERVATION FOR ALIVEABLE PLANETGetting greenhouse gas emissions down to a safelevel will take enormous human effort, ingenuityand investment, particularly in the energy sector.Europe has taken a lead in the industrialised worldin committing to making the transition to asustainable energy system. By investing inrenewables, leading nations are showing the worldthat prosperity can be built without ever increasingcarbon emissions. Each time another political

commitment is made to tackling climate change,and each time investment goes into renewablesrather than fossil fuels, the world looks on and thetransition to safe, clean energy gathers momentumand becomes a more realisable goal.

Sustainable renewable energy must become thebackbone of our energy systems so that we leave a world that is able to continue to support people


BOX 2

BirdLife at the international climate talks

Climate change is likely to have catastrophic effects onwildlife unless greenhouse gas emissions from humanactivities around the world are reduced both significantlyand rapidly. BirdLife Partners have therefore attendedmeetings of the UN’s Framework Convention on ClimateChange since 1997, to try to ensure that global emissionsare curtailed and that ecosystems can adapt to the climatechange that will inevitably occur. As the threat of climatechange has grown, increasing numbers of Partners haveattended the climate negotiations, peaking in 2009 whenPartners from 17 countries attended.

In addition, by tracking and influencing the bigger, politicalaspects of climate change policy, BirdLife focuses onareas where it has special expertise and where it cancontribute most. Most Partners attending the negotiations,

and livelihoods. Biodiversity protection is animportant consideration in the investment plansand decisions made by the renewables industriesand developers of power lines in Europe.

The challenge now is for all policy makers to graspbiodiversity’s importance and relevance to theirwork, and to push for positive change. BirdLifeEurope believes renewable energy is central to a sustainable future. However, there are manychoices to be made about how we move to arenewables-based energy system in Europe. Makinggood choices, through the right policy frameworks,is vital to make the twin imperatives of renewablesdeployment and nature conservation compatibleand mutually reinforcing, rather than in conflict.

and the ecosystems upon which we and otherspecies depend. We need to think of these as twinimperatives, or two sides of the same coin. Natureneeds to be as resilient as possible in order tosurvive in a changing climate and continueproviding services to society. This means we musturgently step up and reconcile climate changemitigation and biodiversity conservation efforts.

It is not an either/or choice between cuttingemissions and protecting biodiversity, but animperative to do both – so the planet in 2100 is fitto live in for people and for wildlife. Biodiversitymatters in its own right, as well as for the millionsof people who love and care for nature, and forwhole societies that depend on it for their security

therefore, take an interest either in reducing emissionsfrom deforestation in developing countries (REDD) or inecosystems adapting naturally to climate change, or inboth subjects. There is also interest from developedcountry Partners in land use change and forestry indeveloped countries, especially in forest management and saving carbon by restoring degraded peatlands.

We try to build up teams of Partners who, in addition tocontributing to the UN negotiations, can also work on theimplementation of UN decisions at home. For example,Burung Indonesia, Haribon (Philippines) and Guyra Paraguayoften attend the international talks on REDD and also workon forest issues at home. Similarly, the RSPB and NABU bothattend the climate talks and work with developing countryPartners on forest projects in Africa and Asia.


In Europe, the Renewable Energy Directive(2009/28/EC), with its legally binding targets tomeet 20% of Europe’s overall energy consumptionfrom renewables by 2020, has become a key driverin reducing EU carbon emissions and promotingthe use of renewable energy. BirdLife Europesupports achieving and going beyond Europe’s2020 targets, in line with the following fourprinciples:

1 Renewables must be low carbon. Renewableenergy sources must make a significantdifference in reducing greenhouse gasemissions, accounting for emissions from the fulllife-cycle. This is the case for most renewablestechnologies such as wind or solar power, but isnot a given fact for all technologies and in allinstances. For example, most current biofuelssuch as ethanol produced from maize or wheat,or biodiesel produced from oil seed rape, palmoil or soy do not meet this condition (Croezen etal., 2010; Bowyer, 2011).

2 A strategic approach to deployment is needed.“Positive planning” frameworks are needed sothat the most appropriate energy sources areexploited in the most appropriate places. Iflocated in the wrong places, some renewablestechnologies can cause significant harm to birds,bats and other wildlife. However, impacts can beavoided or greatly reduced by choosing the rightsites, assisted by maps showing ecologically

sensitive locations. Early-stage and high-levelstrategic planning, strategic environmentalassessments (SEA) and stakeholderconsultations can help avoid conflicts and delaysat the project level, and help realise projectobjectives more quickly.

3 Harm to birds and biodiversity must be avoided.Precautionary avoidance of harm to biodiversityand ecosystems is essential when locating anddesigning renewable energy facilities. Dependingon the technologies, habitats and speciesinvolved, developments may be possible in placesthat are important for their biodiversity withoutresulting in significant negative impacts onwildlife. BirdLife considers that technologies thatcan present risks to birds, such as wind turbines,should in most cases be located outside ImportantBird Areas (IBAs), and in every case should haveno significant negative impacts on IBAs.

4 Europe’s most important sites for wildlife must

be protected. Where significant impacts on aNatura 2000 site (those protected under the Birdsand Habitats Directives) cannot be ruled out,development may only proceed under strictconditions. Conduct of environmentalassessments must be rigorous, and theconditions must be robustly applied.

1.4 PRINCIPLES FOR RENEWABLESDEPLOYMENT INHARMONY WITHNATURE


A key approach in strategic deployment ofrenewables is mapping resources (eg, windspeeds) overlaid with maps of environmentallysensitive areas, such as IBAs, protected areas orbird migration corridors. These maps provide apractical tool for developers, so their investmentplans are informed by the most extensive and up-to-date data possible. Location guidance and/or“resource and constraint/sensitivity” maps canbe useful in policy making and planning. Incombination with SEA, such guidance and mapsenable governments to give the industries a steertowards priority zones for development, and indicateareas where greater precaution and more detailedenvironmental assessments are likely to be needed.

In the short-term, and on a narrow financial basis, it might be “cheaper” to proceed without applyingthese principles. In the short-run at least, “cheaper”might mean more overall investment inrenewables, rather than in competing technologies.Equally, however, in this perspective, tacklingclimate change is not a priority – the benefits arenot financial or immediate. Fortunately, acrossEurope, energy markets are incentivised andregulated to serve the public interest. The rightpolicy frameworks for renewables – particularlystrategic planning and adequate, stable incentiveregimes – will enable rapid and sustainabledeployment while safeguarding the naturalenvironment for generations to come.

1.5 STUDY APPROACHAND REPORTSTRUCTUREThis report was developed by BirdLife Europe withsupport from the RSPB/BirdLife UK. The work waspart-funded by a grant from the European ClimateFoundation. The RSPB co-ordinated the projectover a one year period to November 2011.Seventeen BirdLife Partners (or contactorganisations), each a leading bird and wildlifeconservation NGO, participated.

The project followed five phases:

(i) Scoping and developing an understanding of

current issues.

First a series of telephone interviews with projectPartners was used to develop an understanding ofrenewable energy development and relatedconservation issues across Europe. In parallel, apreliminary literature review was undertaken onthe ecological impacts of renewable energytechnologies. Project Partners then met in Brussels

for a two day workshop covering three main areas:scientific evidence on ecological impacts ofrenewables technologies; initiatives led by Partnerorganisations; and BirdLife’s policy positions onrenewables development in Europe.

(ii) Risk assessment of renewable energy

technologies.

An assessment was carried out to identify the risks posed by different commercially availablerenewable energy technologies in Europe, basedon the initial literature review and Partners’experiences. Technologies were categorised into three groups:

1 Low risk technologies: those presenting zero or negligible additional risks to birds andbiodiversity, such as rooftop solar thermalpanels.

2 Medium risk technologies: those that can be


developed without negative impacts, providedthe right policy frameworks are in place anddeployment proceeds sensitively.

3 High risk technologies: those presentingunacceptable risks in most instances withcurrently available technologies, such as newlarge hydropower dams and liquid biofuels.

(iii) Scientific literature review of biodiversity

impacts and mitigation responses.

BirdLife makes constant use of scientific evidenceto inform its work. BirdLife scientists involved inthe project undertook a detailed, new literaturereview to assess known and potential sources ofrisk, and to identify proven means to avoid orreduce these.

BOX 3

Chapter Two focuses on “medium risk” technologies,which include wind, solar, wave, tidal and biomass forheat and power. It presents a detailed review of thescientific evidence on impacts, mitigation andenhancement measures for these technologies, and forassociated power line development.

(iv) Analysis of current EU renewable energy plans.

The project team also undertook a quantitativeanalysis of EU Member States’ National RenewableEnergy Action Plans (NREAPS). This focuses on theadditional renewables entering Europe’s energymix to 2020, by technology and location. In manycountries renewables industries have alreadybecome established, and BirdLife Partners havedeveloped an understanding of the kinds oftechnologies involved and how they are beingdeployed on the ground.

From a conservation perspective, what is nowneeded is an impression of the scale anddistribution of Europe’s renewables ambitions to 2020. Therefore the data extracted from theNREAPs and presented here is on the energycontributions the various technologies and nationswill make in 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline.

BOX 4

Chapter Three explains the contribution each technologyand conservation risk group is expected to make toincreased renewable energy consumption by 2020, and theextent to which each Member State intends to make useof energy from each source (according to their NREAP).

BOX 5Chapter Four sets out BirdLife Europe’s conclusions onhow policy frameworks can enable renewablesdevelopment in harmony with nature. It considers howsustained growth in renewables output can be achievedwith minimal ecological impacts, through measures suchas strategic spatial planning, mapping ecologicalsensitivities, use of environmental assessments andproject-level mitigation.

BOX 6

Chapter Five evaluates how well national frameworkscontribute to these goals, and identifies some areas ofcommon strengths or weaknesses across Partners’countries. In some areas, such as environmentalprotection, the European Commission has a major role toplay, and some policy recommendations for Europe arepresented. In addition, policy recommendations for eachPartner country are suggested.

(v) Policy analysis and development of

recommendations.

Project Partners then completed a surveyquestionnaire on the adequacy of their nationalpolicy frameworks for the promotion ofrenewables in harmony with nature. The surveyresults were then used in a second series oftelephone interviews, in which Partners suggestedpolicy recommendations relevant to their countryand the EU.


RENEWABLEENERGYTECHNOLOGIESAND ECOLOGICALSUSTAINABILITY

CHAPTER 2

Based on scientific evidence, ecologicalreasoning and conservation experience,the project team classified therenewable energy technologies intothree risk categories: low, medium andhigh. Section 2.1 presents theclassification, and a brief explanation for our assessment that certaintechnologies present particularly lowor high risks. The detailed scientificreview focuses only on the medium riskcategory. These are some of the majortechnologies available for industrial-scalerenewable energy development: solarphotovoltaic (PV) arrays andconcentrated solar power (CSP); onshorewind power; offshore wind power; tidalstream and wave energy; and biomassfor heat and power. Together thesetechnologies account for two thirds of additional renewable energyconsumption foreseen in EU countries’

NREAPs to 2020 (see Chapter Three).The review also considers the powerlines needed to distribute and transmitelectricity. The Chapter explains howrisks can be avoided and minimised,and how, in some instances, positiveecological benefits can be achievedwhile also cutting greenhouse gasemissions.


The ecological risks presented by renewableenergy technologies cannot always be defined veryprecisely, since much will depend on technical andsite-specific variables, how developments areconstructed and managed, and what mitigationmeasures are in place. Nonetheless, it is possible toput the major technologies into three broad classesof risk category.

Those that are small-scale, involve little or noadditional new infrastructure, and/or do not resultin any land-use change, are very unlikely to presentsignificant risks to biodiversity. This “low risk”category includes roof-mounted solar panels, heat pumps and electric vehicles. Energy savingmeasures, while not renewables technologies, arerelevant here since they make achievement ofrenewables targets easier. Conversely, technologiesthat result in complete changes in land use willinevitably present significant risks for the wildlifepresent, for example where valuable habitats arelost to intensive land use for energy crops orthrough the construction of dams for hydro or tidal range power. The “high risk” category refersto technologies that present unacceptable risks in most instances with currently availabletechnologies, such as new large hydropower dams and liquid biofuels. With adequatesafeguards and/or technical innovation some use of these technologies may become possiblewithout significant ecological risks, but BirdLifesees current potential as extremely limited.

Low risk technologiesEnergy saving measures. Europe’s renewableenergy targets are expressed as a percentage oftotal energy consumed. Therefore, measures thatreduce total energy consumption, or limit itsgrowth, make the renewables targets easier to achieve. These are not renewable energytechnologies in themselves, but each unit of energy saved is as valuable as one produced andconsumed. Moreover, all of the potential impactsassociated with producing that unit are avoided,and energy saving measures typically presentnegligible risks to wildlife in themselves.

Vehicles using renewable electricity. In the lightof the serious ecological and climate risks posedby liquid biofuels, a move to electric vehicles (EVs)is desirable for journeys that cannot be avoided,walked, cycled or moved to rail or ships. While EVsrequire some dedicated infrastructure for chargingbatteries, this would not be expected to result insignificant direct ecological impacts. Combinedwith a major shift towards renewable energy in the EU’s electricity mix, EVs have the potential tobecome serious low carbon alternatives to fossil-or biofuel-powered vehicles.

Heat pumps. Heat pumps draw heat from the air,water or ground and use it to heat or cool buildings.Pumping creates some demand for electricity, but heat pump technologies reduce energyrequirements overall. As with electric vehicles,

2.1 RISKCLASSIFICATION

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY 19

Solar power poses low risks towildlife. Installation of solarpanels at Sandwell Valley RSPBreserve by Solar Century.

use of renewable electricity makes heat pumps a low carbon technology. Refrigerant leaks are anenvironmental risk, but significant short-termecological impacts are unlikely. However, somelocalised impacts on biodiversity might occur, eitherthrough small changes to ground temperatures, ordisturbance of habitats/soils during installation.

Rooftop solar thermal and PV panels.Microgeneration technologies can be deployedwidely with minimal impacts on biodiversity, whilehaving the potential to contribute significantly toreductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Solarthermal panels on rooftops heat water for use inbuildings. They are a simple and reliable, low-costtechnology with negligible conservation risks. SolarPV panels mounted on roofs and in cities or

previously developed areas will also be veryunlikely to be detrimental to wildlife.

High risk technologiesLiquid biofuels. While certain forms of bioenergyclearly have a role to play in tackling climatechange, production of liquid biofuels is leading to severe negative impacts on biodiversity andnatural resources. Competition for land, leading to clearing of natural habitats and unsustainableforms of intensification, is a particular concern (Box 7). Further, liquid biofuels are failing to deliveremission reductions in the short- to medium-term.The “carbon payback time” (Gibbs et al., 2008) or“carbon debt” (Fargione et al., 2008) for someliquid biofuels can be decades or even centuries(Chum et al., 2011).


BOX 7

Indirect climate and biodiversity impacts of EU biofuels policyBiofuels do not necessarily save emissions compared tofossil fuels. Indeed, research has found that some biofuelshave a greater overall climate impact than conventionalfuels. In particular, the indirect land-use change (ILUC)caused by European rapeseed, Asian palm oil andAmerican soybeans, means that they can create moreemissions than they save (Bowyer, 2011). By comparison,crops like sugar beet used for ethanol production have amuch lower land-use change effect, and so can creategenuine emissions savings. New generation biofuelsbased on enzymes and algae may also offer a positivecontribution if they do not rely on land for the productionof feedstocks and providing issues of commercial viability can be overcome.

The Renewable Energy Directive contains sustainabilitycriteria that go some way towards preventing biofuelsproduction leading to the conversion of areas of highcarbon stock and high biodiversity value. However, thesecriteria are by no means comprehensive and highbiodiversity areas, such as savannah grasslands, notcovered by the criteria are not protected. In orderto avoid sensitive sites, BirdLife is calling for all KeyBiodiversity Areas, as recognised by IUCN, to be protected.

There is increasing evidence that European targets,together with other global biofuel policies, are drivingdestruction of highly biodiverse forests and wetlands.

For example, the Dakatcha woodlands of Kenya arethreatened by a proposal from an Italian biofuels companyto grow the oil rich crop jatropha. This would destroy oneof the last remaining tracts of coastal forest in East Africa,potentially causing the endangered Clarke’s weaver tobecome extinct and threatening other vulnerable species,as well as displacing 20,000 local people from theirhomeland. A life-cycle analysis of the energy cropjatropha from this site (North Energy, 2011) also found itwould cause between 2.5 and 6 times more emissions thanfossil fuels. While biofuels from this site would not beeligible to count towards European targets, they could stillbe sold on international markets, and traded on theEuropean Emissions Trading Scheme where nosustainability criteria for biofuels are in place.

Furthermore, despite an ever increasing body of evidencepointing to the damaging consequences of indirect land-use change, the European Commission has failed toadequately deal with this issue. At the point of writing, theCommission still has not put forward proposals to addressILUC in EU legislation. Of the potential options beingconsidered by the Commission, only feedstock-specificILUC factors would represent a genuine attempt to reflectthe impacts of ILUC on the climate. There are no proposalsto deal explicitly with the impacts of ILUC on biodiversitybut feedstock-specific ILUC factors may help rule out thefeedstocks that are also most damaging to wildlife.

The Dakatcha woodlands in Kenyaare threatened by plans to growjatropha for biofuel.

Liquid biofuels from agricultural cropswill make biodiversity and climatetargets harder to meet.


Tidal range power. Tidal range power is risky froma conservation perspective.”High head” shore-to-shore barrages, in particular, are likely to result insignificant losses of important intertidal habitats tosubmersion and erosion (Box 8).

New hydro power. Dams can have significant andlasting impacts on wildlife if they disturb speciesduring construction, destroy habitat or createdramatic changes in physical and hydrologicalconditions. They can result in a permanent loss offreshwater and terrestrial habitats, drainage ofwetlands and bogs, and subsequent loss of habitatand species diversity. Large dams disrupt thenatural flows of rivers and migratory pathways offish such as salmon and eels. Dams and reservoirs

BOX 8

Potential impacts of a tidal power barrage on the UK’s Severn Estuary

The Severn estuary and the rivers that feed into it contain a wealth of biodiversity, supporting over 60,000 winteringwaders and wildfowl and several rare or scarce fishspecies. This wildlife wealth has been recognised in aseries of national and international designations. TheSevern Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) supportsinternationally important numbers of Bewick’s swan,gadwall, dunlin and redshank. The Severn Estuary SpecialArea of Conservation (SAC) is important for a range ofhabitats including sandbanks, mudflats, salt meadows andreefs. SACs on the Severn’s major tributaries are importantfor fish such as salmon, bullhead, lamprey and twaite shad.

Tidal power could make a significant contribution to theurgent task of decarbonising the UK’s electricity supply.However, the impacts on wildlife and the naturalenvironment could be very severe, depending on the waythe energy is harnessed. Tidal power barrages cansubmerge and erode intertidal areas, harming wildlife andpotentially leading to increased flood risk. The 2008–10Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study showed that anystructure in the Severn is likely to cause harm to wildlife. In particular, the so-called “Cardiff-Weston barrage” wouldlead to 80% loss of internationally protected intertidalhabitat and cause 100% mortality of migrating fishpopulations such as shad and sea lamprey in the Severn.

The study also noted that a Severn barrage would causechanges to sediment erosion and deposition, resulting inerosion of existing flood defences. The cost of revetmentworks to address this for the Cardiff-Weston barrageoption was estimated at between £672 million and £2,015million. The erosion problem is most acute in wideestuaries with high sediment loads. The Eastern Scheldtstorm surge barrier in the Netherlands provides somealarming lessons, revealed in a reportiii by theRijkswaterstaat – part of the Dutch Ministry ofInfrastructure and the Environment. There the barrier hashad massive negative implications for wildlife and floodrisk management. By around 2050 the area of intertidal willhave halved. As intertidal areas in front of flood defencesare lost to erosion, flood risk increases, resulting in a needfor additional flood risk investment. As tidal flats areeroded, the area and duration of their exposure for feedingbirds is reduced – Dutch Government calculations suggestan 80% decline in oystercatchers by 2045.

act as major sediment traps, interrupting naturaltransport of sediments. Water level fluctuations inreservoirs and the loss of habitat diversity can haveindirect impacts on birds by decreasing theinvertebrates and fish they eat or by flooding or stranding their nests. However, some carefullydesigned schemes, of appropriate scale and insuitable locations, with fish-friendly turbines andfish passes, may be able to avoid significant harmto biodiversity.


BOX 9

TABLE 1

New hydro in Montenegro, Europe’s first“ecological state”

Montenegro is a small country, with only 620,000 inhabitants.It was proclaimed an “ecological state” in its constitution20 years ago. It already obtains over three quarters of itselectricity from renewables, largely hydropower. Nationalrenewable energy plans focus almost exclusively on furtherhydro – other sources such as solar power are given littleattention despite the significant potential.

Plans have been outlined for four dams on the river Moraca,with a combined capacity of 238 MW. Several small hydrogenerating stations are also being planned, with a combinedcapacity of over 30 MW. In parallel with the strategy ofbuilding dams on the Moraca, and contrary to the SpatialPlan of the State, there are plans to build 144 km of powerlines through Montenegro continuing by undersea cableunder the Adriatic to Italy. This will make Montenegro a

hub for exporting energy from the Balkans to the EU. Many of Montenegro’s NGOs consider the nation’s wellpreserved nature should be its product for “export”, ratherthan electricity.

During the public debates on the plans for the riverMoraca, NGOs argued that reducing transmission lossesin the electricity network could save as much electricityas the proposed dams would generate, while avoidingvery significant investment and damage to biodiversity. An SEA for hydropower plans was started, but theGovernment decided to begin the tendering proceduresbefore it was completed. Because of the high biodiversityvalue of the area and the incomplete SEA, CSO/BirdLifeMontenegro are currently challenging the MontenegroGovernment for violation of legal procedures.

Ecological risks associated with technologies needed to meet Europe’s renewable energy targets

LOW RISK

Energy savings measures eg,domestic insulation

Vehicles using renewable electricity

Heat pumps

Rooftop solar thermal and PV panels

MEDIUM RISK

Solar PV arrays

Concentrated solar power

Onshore wind power

Offshore wind power

Tidal stream power

Wave power

Biomass for heat and power

HIGH RISK

Liquid biofuels

Tidal range power

New hydropower

Medium risk technologiesMost renewable energy technologies fall betweenthese extremes, and are classified here as “mediumrisk”. This category includes the major renewablestechnologies: onshore and offshore wind turbines,ground mounted solar PV and CSP installations, tidalstream and wave power, and biomass for heat andpower. Each of these can result in changes in thesuitability of habitats for sensitive species, and may

present collision, displacement or other risks.However, in each case, they can be developedwithout significant negative impacts – provided theright policy frameworks are in place to guidedevelopments to the right locations and deploymentproceeds sensitively. Technologies in this category,and overhead power lines, are addressed in detailin the Sections 2.2 – 2.7 below.


Large-scale solar electricity generation takes twoforms. The first involves an array of ground-mounted PV panels. The second is CSP, in whichmirrors, or “heliostats”, are used to concentratesunlight. This solar energy can be used to raisesteam to drive turbines and generators in theconventional way, or it may drive Stirling engineswith generators. “Concentrating photovoltaic”technology uses mirrors to concentrate sunlighton to special heat-resistant PV panels that convertthe concentrated sunlight directly into electricity.The first commercially operating CSP plants havebeen built in the US and Spain.

Industrial-scale solar plant developments may have a greater direct impact on biodiversity thandomestic-scale systems, depending on where suchprojects are located. Land deemed suitable forlarge arrays may be marginal in an agriculturalcontext, but could nevertheless be important forwildlife. In order to minimise these risks,developers should seek to avoid protected andsensitive sites, manage surrounding land for thebenefit of wildlife, and limit the ecologicaldisturbance created by installation andmaintenance operations, as well as associatedinfrastructure such as fencing and power lines.

2.2.1 MAIN CONSERVATION RISKS

The wildlife impact of a solar array scheme will belargely determined by location. Steppic (opengrassland) bird species, such as bustards, facepotential risks where habitats are lost orfragmented, for example. Where proposals are notwithin or close to protected areas and functionallylinked land, it is unlikely that there will be majorwildlife concerns. However, this will depend on

the ecological characteristics of the site and itssensitivity to the proposed changes. Some nationaland internationally important bird resources arelocated outside of designated sites (and associatedfunctionally linked land). For example, in Englandhoney buzzard and woodcock fall into this category.In all cases, care should be taken to seek toimplement appropriate mitigation andenhancement measures.

Significant negative ecological impacts are veryunlikely where PV arrays are mounted on roofs,or on previously developed or sealed land withlow wildlife value. Large PV arrays and CSPinstallations mounted in agricultural fields (or other non-urban/unsealed areas) are also unlikelyto present significant risks, provided they aredeveloped in suitable locations. If the site isnot valuable for wildlife – eg, intensive arableor grassland – direct impacts are unlikely tobe significant and may be positive, however,the indirect impacts of land-use change mustbe considered.

Some proposed sites may have strong potential to become more valuable for wildlife, for example,land behind sea walls identified for future“managed realignment” and strategic parcels ofland for landscape-scale conservation initiatives.Realising this potential, however, is not necessarilyincompatible with solar power development.

If the site is already valuable for wildlife, andparticularly if it is in or near a protected area, the scheme will require greater scrutiny inenvironmental assessments, as there is potentialfor significant impact. Concerns are most likelywhen proposals are located in or close to protectedareas, or near to water features where their

2.2 SOLAR PV ARRAYSAND CONCENTRATEDSOLAR POWER


development could pose risks to aquaticinvertebrates, waterfowl and waders.

Direct habitat lossIn rural areas, it is likely that the least productiveland for agriculture will be targeted fordevelopment, raising concerns as these gradesare often valuable (or potentially valuable) innature conservation terms. Some speciesspecialising in open habitats (eg, bustards,lapwings or skylarks) may be displaced fromforaging, roosting or breeding sites. Conversely,biodiversity gains are possible, particularly whereintensively cultivated farmland is converted tolower-intensity grazing,or where projects and sitesare actively designed and managed to achieve localecological enhancements.

Direct impacts on birds There is no scientific evidence of fatality risks tobirds associated with solar PV arrays. Heliostats –the mirrors used in CSP – have been found tocause fatalities through collisions and burns in theUS (McCrary et al., 1986), though mainly duringmaintenance operations. Both heliostats and PVpanels inevitably present some risk of collisionmortality to birds. Birds may also collide with anyfixed object or man-made structure, such as fences,towers or buildings (Drewitt and Langston, 2008).While PV panels or heliostats may be more likely tobe developed in sensitive locations, there is no firmevidence of large numbers of bird strikes associatedwith either. There is some concern that waterfowlmight be attracted to PV panels, mistaking them forwater surfaces, but there is little evidence for this.

Solar power in built-up areas is a win-win, but poorly sited large-scale arrays can causehabitat loss for species such as bustards.

Security fencing around PV arrays could represent acollision risk for some bird species, particularly thosewith large body-mass and high wing-loading such asbustards, grouse and swans.

Direct impacts on other wildlife Insects that lay eggs in water (eg, mayflies,stoneflies) may mistake solar panels for water bodies due to reflection of polarised light. Undercertain circumstances insects have been found to layeggs on their surfaces, reducing their reproductivesuccess (Horváth et al., 2010). This “ecological trap”could affect populations of these insects, so theremay be concern if solar arrays are located close towater bodies used by rare or endangered aquaticinvertebrates, or where such insects are an importantfood source for birds or other wildlife using thelocality. Security fencing around PV arrays could actas a barrier to the movement of wild mammals,reptiles and amphibians. Loss of habitat for wildlifesuch as rare arable weeds and invertebrates may bea concern at specific sites. Some solar panels trackthe movement of the sun; moving parts may be apotential risk to wildlife and grazing animals, but thisis unlikely given the slow movements involved.

Habitat fragmentation and/or modificationThe development of solar farms within otherwiseextensive areas of farmed or semi-natural landscapescould result in fragmentation of habitats and act asbarriers to movements between populations. Themodification of otherwise suitable habitat mayreduce carrying capacity or ecological integrity.


Cumulative impacts Each of the potential impacts described above mayinteract cumulatively, either increasing the overallimpact on biodiversity or, in some cases, reducinga particular impact (for example, where habitat lossor changes in management causes a reduction inbird activity which might then reduce the risk ofcollision) (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). Directimpacts, barrier effects, habitat loss and indirectimpacts might all lead to population level effects.Cumulative impacts might occur as a result of anumber of energy developments operating on thesame bird population and could have impacts incombination with other types of development.

There is a risk that large PV arrays may beclustered together due to limitations of locationchoices in terms of climate, topography, access,existing land uses, shading and proximity to gridconnections. While each solar farm may be of littlerisk to wildlife individually, this clustering couldpotentially give rise to significant cumulativeenvironmental impacts.

2.2.2 AVOIDING AND MITIGATING RISKS, ANDACHIEVING BENEFITS FOR WILDLIFE

Avoidance and mitigation A variety of mitigation measures may be adoptedby developers to avoid and reduce the potentialenvironmental impacts of solar powerdevelopments. The suggested mitigation measuresbelow should be considered on a case by casebasis. Not all will necessarily be relevant to anyparticular case.

● Avoid legally protected areas (eg, SAC, SPA,Ramsar sites, sites of national or sub-nationalvalue), and other sensitive sites such as IBAs andsome freshwater aquatic features.

● Hedgerows between sections may reducecollision risks to waterfowl.

● Landscape features such as hedgerows andmature trees should not be removed toaccommodate panels or avoid shading.

● Time construction to avoid sensitive periods (eg, during the breeding season).

● Time maintenance operations to avoid sensitive periods.

Enhancement opportunities Solar power developments may present lowerecological risks during their operational lifetimes

than other potentially competing land uses (such asurbanisation or road building) or other pressures(eg, agricultural intensification). Moreover, thereare significant opportunities to actively managesites for positive ecological benefits. Thesuggestions below should be considered forsuitability at specific sites.

● Biodiversity gains are possible where intensivelycultivated arable or grassland is converted toextensive grassland and/or wildflower meadowsbetween and/or beneath solar panels and infield margins.

● Grazing by sheep, chickens or geese is oftenpreferable to mowing, spraying or mulching.However, there may be more appropriatemanagement options for arable wildlife andfarmland birds that could be incorporated intodevelopment designs.

● Hedges used to screen security fencing or forlandscape mitigation can provide wildlifehabitats, particularly if planted with a mix ofnative species of local provenance.

● Built structures such as control buildings can bedesigned or adapted to promote access bynesting, roosting or hibernating animals such asbirds and bats, eg, by providing nest boxes oraccess to loft spaces.

● It may be possible for PV panels to be at asufficient height for regular cutting or grazingto be unnecessary. Rough pasture could thendevelop, potentially providing nesting sitesfor birds.

● Lower density of PV panels may offer greaterscope for environmental gain, depending on thecharacteristics of the site. However, any indirectland-use change impacts, in which the displacedland use is effectively reinstated elsewhere, willbe greater.

● “Community gain” may provide money forenvironmental enhancements such as energyconservation measures and nature conservation.

● Biodiversity enhancement at solar PV sites could contribute to landscape scaleconservation, climate adaptation, ecologicalnetworks or green infrastructure.

● Planting wild bird seed or nectar mixes, or othercover crops (such as linseed) between rowscould benefit birds and other wildlife, byproviding cover and food resources.

● Bare cultivated strips for rare arable plants, and rough grassland margins could alsobe beneficial.


Onshore wind energy will be critical to deliveringrenewable energy over the next two decades, whenemissions must begin to fall sharply. A singletechnology currently dominates the market – thefamiliar three-bladed horizontal axis turbine. Themajor area of technical innovation is in up-scalingto larger turbines. This increases a site’s generationcapacity, and with fewer individual turbines thereare lower overall risks to most bird species (Hötkeret al., 2006) and collision rates per unit of electricityoutput are expected to decrease (Smallwood andKaras, 2009). Many wind farms have no discernibleimpacts on wildlife at all, and the scientificevidence does not suggest that species populationsas a whole have been affected by wind farmdevelopment at present. However, there have beenvery few studies that have assessed populationeffects to date; such studies are only just comingforward now.

Furthermore, the impact of wind farms on birdpopulations depends crucially on where theturbines are located. If wind farms are located onsensitive wildlife sites, the results can be disastrousfor the wildlife using the site. For maximum outputand profitability, wind farms are often sited inopen, exposed areas where there are high averagewind speeds. This means that they are frequentlyproposed in upland and coastal areas (andoffshore), thus potentially affecting importanthabitats for breeding, wintering and migratingbirds (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). The effects ofwind farms on birds are highly variable and dependon a wide range of factors including specificationsof the development, the site topography and that ofthe surrounding area, the habitats affected and,importantly, the species of birds present, theirpopulation size, vulnerability to wind farms andactivity levels. With so many variables involved,broad location guidance is valuable but the impactsof each wind farm must be assessed individually.


There are several ways in which wind farms canhave negative impacts on birds and other wildlifesuch as bats: disturbance/displacement, habitat lossor damage, and collision. All of these impacts can beavoided and/or managed by choosing appropriatelocations and then designing wind farms tominimise any damage to the natural environment.

There have been few comprehensive studies on theecological impacts of wind farms. There are evenfewer published, peer-reviewed scientific papers on this subject. Many studies are of inadequateduration to provide conclusive results (Langston and Pullan, 2003). Many others suffer from a lack of “before and after” data (or wind farm area andreference area comparisons), or fail to addressrelevant factors such as collision risk and differencesin bird behaviour (eg, between night and day).

Factors such as the biogeographic range of aspecies, population size and the amount ofavailable suitable habitat will all have a bearing onthe potential for cumulative impacts. For example,collision mortality at several poorly sited windfarms or displacement of birds by multiple windfarm installations may have population leveleffects. Cumulative mortality, or more subtle effectson productivity, due to multiple wind installationscould contribute to population declines insusceptible species (Langston and Pullan, 2003).Moreover, site-specific impacts and effects on localwildlife populations are significant concerns. Theseare well-documented, and can be anticipated withsome accuracy for specific sites.

2.3 ONSHORE WIND POWER


Disturbance/displacement The reasons for displacement of birds by wind farminstallations are not fully understood. Disturbancemay potentially arise from increased humanactivity (eg, during construction and maintenance,or where road construction improves recreationalaccess by the public). The presence, noise ormovement associated with turbines and associatedinfrastructure may also deter birds from usingareas close to turbines (Langston and Pullan, 2003).Disturbance can lead to displacement andexclusion from areas of suitable habitat, whicheffectively amounts to reduction in quality or lossof habitat for birds, leading to reductions in birddensity (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009). There mayalso be an increase in predator activity and/orsusceptibility, due to improved access andincreased disturbance. The effects attributable towind farms are variable, and are species-, season-and site-specific (Langston and Pullan, 2003). Thereis now some evidence that wind farm constructioncan have greater impact than operation (Pearce-Higgins et al., in review).

Displacement may be temporary for species thathave the capacity to habituate to the presence ofturbines. For example, there is evidence ofhabituation by pink-footed geese to the presence of wind turbines in winter foraging habitats(Madsen and Boertmann, 2008). However, asystematic review of the effects of wind turbines on birds has shown that increasing time sinceoperation typically resulted in greater declines inabundance (Stewart et al., 2005), suggesting thathabituation is unlikely in many cases.

Pearce-Higgins et al. (in review) found that mostdecline in the density of breeding upland wadersoccurred during construction, with little furtherchange thereafter during wind farm operation,indicating stabilisation at a lower level rather thanpost-construction recovery in birddensity/abundance. The long-term implications ofhabituation where it does occur are not clear. Evenif individual adult birds show habituation, youngerindividuals, which would eventually replace themmay not colonise, so habituation in the short- tomedium-term may mask adverse impacts.

BOX 10

Susceptibility of different types of birds to disturbance/displacement by onshore wind farms

Wintering waterfowl and waders. Disturbancedistances for onshore wind farms (the distance fromwind turbines in which birds are either absent or lessabundant than expected) from zero up to 850 m havebeen recorded for wintering waterfowl and waders (eg,Pedersen and Poulsen, 1991; Kruckenberg and Jaene,1999; Larsen and Madsen, 2000; Kowallik and Borbach-Jaene, 2001; Hötker et al., 2006; Madsen andBoertmann, 2008). However, 600 m is widely acceptedas the maximum reliably recorded distance for themajority of species (Langston and Pullan, 2003; Drewittand Langston, 2006). Some caution is needed ininterpreting disturbance distances, as theconsequences of such disturbance depends on boththe availability of alternative habitat and the “fitnesscost” of the disturbance event (Gill et al., 2001).

Breeding waders. Studies of breeding birds haveindicated smaller displacement distances (eg, Hötker etal., 2006; Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009). However, this may in part be due to the high “site fidelity” (return inconsecutive years to the same breeding site or territory)and long life-span of breeding species (Drewitt andLangston, 2006). This may mean that the real impacts ofdisturbance on breeding birds will only be evident in thelonger-term, when new recruits replace (or fail to replace)existing birds.

Passerines. Few studies have considered the possibilityof displacement for short-lived passerines. These arethe “perching birds” such as sparrows, which accountfor more than half of all bird species. However, Leddy et al. (1999) found increased densities of breedinggrassland passerines with increased distance fromwind turbines, and higher densities in a reference areathan within 80 m of the turbines, indicating thatdisplacement in these species can occur. Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) showed displacement of meadowpipits (up to 100 m) and wheatears (up to 200 m) fromwind turbines. However, other studies have failed tofind evidence to suggest that farmland birds avoidareas close to wind turbines (Devereux et al., 2008).


Barrier effectsThe effect of birds altering their migration flywaysor local flight paths to avoid wind farms is anotherform of displacement known as the “barrier effect”.This has the potential to increase energy expenditure(which might have fitness consequences) or mayresult in disruption of linkages between distantfeeding, roosting, moulting and breeding areas(Drewitt and Langston, 2006). The effect depends ona range of factors: species; type of bird movement;flight height and distance to turbines; the layout andoperational status of turbines; time of day and windforce and direction. It can be highly variable, rangingfrom a slight change in flight direction, height orspeed, through to significant diversions, which mayresult in fitness costs or reduce the numbers of birdsusing areas beyond the wind farm (Drewitt andLangston, 2006).

There is some evidence that wind turbines may actas barriers to movement of some bird species, withbirds choosing to fly around the outside of clusters,instead of between turbines (Langston and Pullan,2003). The cumulative effects of large numbers ofwind farm installations may be considerable ifbirds are consequently displaced from preferredhabitat or such detours become significant in termsof energy expenditure (eg, Masden et al., 2010).

BOX 11

Possible disturbance impacts during thelifetime of a wind farm

Construction Phase: These may include visual intrusion,noise, vibration, dust and the physical presence of aconstruction plant, and the presence of personnelassociated with works and site security.

Operational Phase: These may include: visual intrusion ofthe turbines themselves; noise and shadow flicker;turbines and other structures providing vantage or accesspoints for predatory species; the presence of personnelassociated with maintenance and site security; andimproved access by the public.

Decommissioning Phase: These may include visualintrusion, noise, vibration, dust and the physical presenceof a construction plant, and the presence of personnelassociated with construction and site security.

Collision mortality Since the early 1960s it has been known that batscould be killed by collision with wind turbines (Halland Richards, 1962). However, only in recent yearshave studies been made of the scale of resultingmortality. Estimates vary between zero and 50collisions per turbine per year (for review see Hötkeret al., 2006). Both migrating and foraging bats fromlocal populations could be vulnerable to collisionswith turbines. Bats might be at particular risk ifturbines are located close to roost sites, in or nearto woodland, hedgerows, rivers or lakes, or within or adjacent to a protected site designated for bats(Natural England, 2009). There is evidence thatmortality may increase on nights with low windspeeds (<6 m/sec) and immediately before andafter the passage of storm fronts (Arnett et al.,2008). Therefore, mitigation efforts focused onthese high-risk periods could be valuable to reducebat fatalities.

Direct mortality or lethal injury of birds can resultnot only from collisions with rotors, but also withtowers, nacelles and associated structures such asguy cables, power lines and meteorological masts(Drewitt and Langston, 2006). The majority ofstudies have found low collision mortality rates perturbine (Langston and Pullan, 2003), but in manycases these are based only on chance finds ofcorpses, leading to under-recording of the actualnumber of collisions.

A review of the available literature indicates that,where collisions have been recorded, the rates perturbine are very variable, ranging from 0.01 to morethan 60 bird collisions annually (Drewitt andLangston, 2008; Everaert and Steinen, 2007). The

Badly located wind farms inSpain have killed griffon vultures.


Collision with wind turbineblades is a risk for certainbird species.

higher figure, relates to birds of a wide variety ofspecies at a wind farm on a mountain ridge in Spain(Lekuona, 2001; Hötker et al., 2006).

This problem of under-recording is noted in atechnical report for the USDA Forest Service(Erickson et al., 2005), which compares bird killingrates in the US due to anthropogenic sources. Thereport estimates that wind turbines were asignificantly smaller cause of bird deaths thancollisions with buildings, power lines, vehicles andcommunication towers, or killings by cats orpesticides. The authors note, however, thatcumulative bird mortality from all of these sourcesis a concern. The figures are totals across all birdspecies; as more wind turbines are installed,

total collisions will increase. Moreover, birds of conservation concern may be particularlyvulnerable to collision with wind turbines, becauseof behaviour and location-related variables.Collision rates per turbine and information onvulnerable species are therefore importantadditional considerations.

Although providing a helpful indication of risk,average collision rates per turbine must be viewedwith some caution as they are often cited withoutinformation on variance around the mean, and canmask significantly higher rates for individualturbines or groups of turbines (Drewitt andLangston, 2006). Furthermore, as turbine size and output increases, this metric is unsatisfactory

as a means of comparison with smaller, olderturbine models. In addition, there may beconsiderable variation in total numbers of collisionsassociated with wind farms, which may differ greatlyin terms of the number of turbines. Smallwood andKaras (2009) have found that mean fatality ratesdeclined substantially with increasing turbine size formost species, though they increased for some birdand bat species. Repowering projects generally killedmany fewer birds per MW per year than did the old-generation turbines.

Relatively high collision mortality rates have beenrecorded at several large, poorly sited wind farmsin areas where high concentrations of birds arepresent (including some IBAs). In particular,migrating birds, large raptors or other large soaringspecies are at risk (Langston and Pullan, 2003). Inthese cases, actual deaths resulting from collisionat certain poorly located wind farms have beenparticularly high, notably of golden eagles (USA)and griffon vultures (Spain). Repowering of olderwind farms in the USA is beginning to reduce therisks to golden eagles there.

Wind speed and direction, air temperature andhumidity, flight type, distance and height, time ofday and topography all influence the risk of collision,as do species, age, behaviour and stage of the bird’sannual cycle (Langston and Pullan, 2003). All thesefactors need to be incorporated in collision riskassessments. Collision risk is likely to be greatestin poor flying conditions that affect the birds’ abilityto control flight manoeuvres, or in rain, fog, and ondark nights when visibility is reduced (Langston andPullan, 2003). In these conditions, the flight heightof migrating birds tends to be greatly reduced.Lighting of turbines has the potential to attract birds,especially in bad weather, thereby potentiallyincreasing the risk of collision, depending on thetype of lighting used (Drewitt and Langston, 2008).

Habitat loss Loss of, or damage to, habitat resulting fromthe development of wind farm infrastructure is notgenerally perceived to be a major concern for birdsoutside designated or qualifying sites of nationaland international importance for biodiversity(Langston and Pullan, 2003). However, dependingon local circumstances and the scale of land-takerequired for the wind farm and associatedinfrastructure, the cumulative loss of, or damageto, sensitive habitats may be significant, especiallyif multiple developments are sited in such habitats.


Furthermore, direct habitat loss may be additiveto displacement.

The scale of direct habitat loss resulting from theconstruction of a wind farm and associatedinfrastructure will depend on the size of the project,but, generally speaking, is likely to be small perturbine base (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). Typically,actual habitat loss amounts to around 2–5% of thetotal development area (Fox et al., 2006). However, in certain habitats wind energy development mighthave more widespread impacts, such as throughhydrological (eg, disruption of ground-water flow inupland bogs and mires may lead to drying or water-logging of peat) or micro-climatic changes. Habitatloss from associated infrastructure (roads,transformer stations etc.) could also be significant. In a number of documented cases, erosion and largescale slumping has taken place followingconstruction. Even relatively small-scale destructionand fragmentation of priority habitats in protectedareas can be significant, for example, Ponto-Sarmaticsteppe habitat in Bulgaria and Romania.

Indirect impactsImproved access to remote areas (through improvedaccess tracks etc.) might lead to increased recreationaldisturbance and/or an increased risk of predation.Agricultural intensification or changes in landmanagement arising from the increased accessibility of the development site and surrounding areas mayresult in habitat changes, which may impact on theability of an area to support birds or other wildlife.

Cumulative impactsEven where collision rates per turbine are low, thisdoes not necessarily mean that collision mortalityis insignificant, especially in wind farms comprisinglarge numbers of turbines or in landscapes withmultiple small wind farms. Even relatively smallincreases in mortality rates of adult breeding birdsmay be significant for populations of some birds,especially large, long-lived species with generallylow annual productivity and long adolescence,notably wildfowl and raptors (Langston and Pullan, 2003).

This is particularly the case for species which arealready rare or facing a number of other pressuresfrom environmental and/or anthropogenic impacts. In such cases, there could be significant effects at thepopulation level (locally, regionally or, in the case ofrare and restricted species, nationally orinternationally), particularly in situations where


cumulative mortality takes place as a result ofmultiple installations (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). For example, there could be cumulative impacts onmigratory species where a migratory route passesthrough the footprint of multiple wind farm sites.


Site selectionAll projects need robust, objective baseline studies to inform sensitive siting to minimise negativeeffects on birds, other wildlife and their habitats,and post construction monitoring at consentedinstallations where there are environmentalsensitivities (Langston and Pullan, 2003). There isclearly a distinction to be made between temporaryeffects (for example disturbance due toconstruction activities) and those of a morepermanent nature. There is also a need to putpotential impacts into context, to determine thespatial scales at which they may apply (site, local,regional, national and/or international).

The weight of evidence to date indicates thatlocations with high bird use, especially by speciesof conservation concern, are not suitable for windfarm development (Langston and Pullan, 2003).Site selection is crucial to minimising collisionmortality. The precautionary principle is advocatedwhere there are concentrations of species ofconservation importance that are vulnerable toaspects of wind power plants. Where at allpossible, developers should avoid areassupporting the following:

● High densities of wintering or migratorywaterfowl and waders, where importanthabitats might be affected by disturbance,or where there is potential for significantcollision mortality.

● Areas with a high level of raptor activity,especially core areas of individual breedingranges and in cases where local topographyfocuses flight activity, which would cause a largenumber of flights to pass through the wind farm.

● Breeding, wintering or migrating populations ofless abundant species, particularly those ofconservation concern, which may be sensitive toincreased mortality as a result of collision ormore subtle effects on survival and productivitydue to displacement.

● Areas which have been identified as important

for birds such as SPAs, SACs, IBAs, Ramsar sites,and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)should all be avoided.

Environmental assessmentsStrategic environmental assessments (SEAs) areused by authorities in the development of spatialplans for a range of infrastructure needs, includingenergy installations. They provide a structuredprocess of analysis and public consultation tointegrate environmental protection considerationsinto plans and investment programmes, to promotesustainability. SEA is discussed in Section 4.5.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) areundertaken by developers to avoid, reduce andmitigate the impacts of projects, and their findingsare taken into account in planning decisions.Potentially significant harmful effects on wild birdsidentified by an EIA must be addressed. If animpact can be avoided or mitigated then theassessment should identify suitable measures(Drewitt and Langston, 2006). In addition, in theevent that the wind farm is consented, theassessment should include measures tocompensate for any residual damage not coveredby mitigation measures. If a proposed project orplan could significantly affect a Natura 2000 area,stricter “appropriate” assessment procedures andother tests apply (see Section 4.6)

If there are any other projects (including non-windenergy developments) that have been developed orare being proposed in an area where significanteffects on an SPA or SAC are likely, then it isrequired that the assessment should take intoaccount any cumulative effects that may arise fromthe wind farm development in combination withthese other projects (Drewitt and Langston, 2006).SEAs and EIAs require detailed ecological surveydata, and often make use of models and otherpredictive techniques, discussed below.

Modelling collision risks and estimatingdisplacement impacts Collision risk models enable a standardisedapproach to be taken to the measurement of thelikelihood of collisions where birds take no avoidingaction. Models such as the Band model (Band et al.,2007) provide a potentially useful means ofpredicting the scale of collision risk attributable towind turbines in a given location. To verify themodels, they must incorporate actual (measured)avoidance rates and post-construction assessment of


collision mortality at existing wind farms (Langstonand Pullan, 2003). To be useful, the models requiresufficient data on bird movements (numbers,activity, flight height and angle of approach)throughout the annual cycle and across a range of weather and light conditions (Scottish NaturalHeritage, 2005; Drewitt and Langston, 2006).

Assessment of bird collision risk and mortality,arising from collision and electrocution, needs toinclude wind turbines and associated structures,including overhead power lines transportingenergy from the wind farm (Langston and Pullan,2003). It is recognised that the actual rate ofcollision is likely to be under-recorded, owing tothe limitations of study techniques, particularlycorpse searches, so it is essential that calibration isundertaken at each site to enable correction factorsto be applied to produce more realistic estimates ofcollision mortality. Population modelling, or“population viability analysis” (PVA), provides ameans of predicting whether or not there are likelyto be population level impacts arising fromcollision mortality (Langston and Pullan, 2003).Population models also require post-constructionverification at consented wind farms in light of theobserved collision rates.

Spatial models may be useful for estimatingdisplacement impacts, by testing differentscenarios. The scale of displacement/effectivehabitat loss, together with the extent of availabilityand quality of other suitable habitats that canaccommodate displaced birds, and theconservation status of those birds, will determinewhether or not there is an adverse impact(Langston and Pullan, 2003). Few studies areconclusive in their findings, often because of a lackof well-designed studies both before and afterconstruction of the wind farm. Furthermore, veryfew studies take account of differences in diurnaland nocturnal behaviour, basing assessments ondaytime only, which is inadequate for those specieswhich are active during darkness and which maybehave differently at night, and could be usingdifferent areas compared with daytime (Langstonand Pullan, 2003).

Sensitivity mapping and location guidance Wildlife “sensitivity maps” record the locations andmovements of species that are vulnerable to theimpacts of specific types of infrastructuredevelopment, such as power lines or wind farms(Bright et al., 2008). They can be developed at local,

regional or national scales, and can be used in a variety of ways by developers, policy makers,regulators and conservationists. They may simplyprovide information to developers, indicating broadareas in which ecological impacts are likely to bemore or less significant. This information can bevaluable to financiers and developers whenweighing up the planning risks associated withspecific proposals or investment plans. In severalcountries, and many European regions and localities,sensitivity maps have been used in official locationguidance for developers, and to inform strategicspatial plans and associated SEAs. Strategic plansand guidance can then be taken into account inregulations and planning procedures. In somecountries policy makers encourage developers tolocate wind farms in low risk areas, by varying thelevel or availability of subsidies. Sensitivity mappingis one of the most valuable tools for “positiveplanning” for renewable energy, and is discussed indetail in Section 4.5.1.

MitigationMitigation measures fall into two broad categories:best-practice measures, which should be adopted asan industry standard, and additional measures,which are aimed at reducing an impact specificto a particular site/development.

Examples of best practice include the followingmeasures:

● Ensuring that key areas of conservationimportance and sensitivity, including the Natura2000 network and IBAs, are avoided.

● Siting turbines close together to minimize thedevelopment footprint (subject to technicalconstraints).

● Grouping turbines to avoid alignmentperpendicular to main flight paths and to providecorridors between clusters, aligned with mainflight trajectories, within large wind farms.

● Where possible, installing transmission cablesunderground (subject to habitat sensitivities andin accordance with existing best practiceguidelines for underground cable installation).

● Marking overhead cables using deflectors andavoiding use over areas of high bird concentrations,especially for species vulnerable to collision.

● Implementing appropriate working practices toprotect sensitive habitats, for example, providingadequate briefing for site personnel and, inparticularly sensitive locations, employing an on-site ecologist during construction.


Ecological enhancements areoften possible within wind farms.

● Timing construction to avoid sensitive periods.● Implementing habitat enhancement for species

using the site.● Implementing an agreed post-construction

monitoring programme through planning orlicence conditions.

At specific sites it may be necessary to prepare a site management plan designed to reduce orprevent harmful habitat changes followingconstruction, and to provide habitat enhancementas appropriate (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). Off-site mitigation or compensation measures may beappropriate to reduce impacts (eg, throughprovision of alternative foraging areas to reducecollision risk or to accommodate displaced birds).Other measures that may be suitable in somecircumstances include the relocation of proposed

(or removal of existing) turbines associated withparticular problems, halting operation during peakperiods of activity or during migration, or reducingrotor speed. For birds with poor manoeuvrabilitysuch as griffon vultures, however, it may be thatslow rotation speed remains a problem becausethe associated low wind speed makes flightavoidance more difficult.

EnhancementSome habitat changes might be beneficial towildlife, for example changes in land managementthat enhance particular sites for certain species(providing they are not at increased collision risk,which could outweigh the benefit). Opportunities forenhancement in respect of onshore wind energygenerating projects should only be explored after all significant adverse impacts on biodiversity have


Although more costly than their terrestrialcounterparts, offshore wind farms have a numberof advantages. Winds at sea tend to be strongerand more consistent, and weighty turbinecomponents are more easily transported at sea,permitting larger turbines to be constructed. Inaddition, offshore wind farms typically encounterless resistance from local communities. However,the costs of installation at sea are greater thanthose on land, so larger installations are usuallyproposed. Some major differences with onshoredevelopment are the greater scale and pace atwhich offshore wind farms are planned in somecountries such as the UK, and the relatively pooravailability of ecological survey data and incompletenetworks of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

Birds, fish and marine mammals may be disturbedor damaged by the construction of offshore windfarms, the movement and vibrations of operatingturbines, and the activity of servicing craft. Onceestablished, however, offshore wind farms have the potential to protect wildlife from other impacts,potentially providing safe havens for spawningfish, for example. Trawling, which is possibly themost severe threat to the marine environment, isprohibited or inhibited inside offshore wind farms.

Risks to birds, mammals and fish can be classified inthe same way as those for onshore wind turbines, ie,disturbance/displacement, collision and habitat loss.Pollution and indirect impacts associated withconstruction and operations may also present risks.

2.4 OFFSHORE WIND POWER

been removed through negotiation, or throughmitigation or, as a last resort, compensation.There is potential to carry out enhancementmeasures on land which is under the direct orindirect control of the developer, and which may beinside the project boundary. Onshore wind isparticularly suited to an “enhancement” approach,for the following reasons:

1 Most major projects are located in either uplandor coastal locations, in the remote countryside.These are also the areas which are most likely tocontain substantive wildlife resources. They thushave the most potential to be the recipients ofenhancement measures because theenhancement builds upon existing resources.

2 The physical footprint of such projects isrelatively small, compared with the size of theproject, which means that there is great potentialto carry out enhancement measures on landwhich is under the direct or indirect control ofthe developer, and which may well be actuallyinside the “development boundary”.

Measures such as control of grazing regimes,control of hydrology and conifer (or other exotictree-species) removal can improve, restore orcreate upland or coastal habitats of acknowledgedbiodiversity importance.

Offsite ecological enhancements are also apossibility. Developers of many kinds ofinfrastructure sometimes provide incentives tolocal communities. This is sometimes in the formof funding for amenities such as sports facilities orschool equipment. BirdLife recommends thatcreating new wildlife-rich areas, or helping improveexisting ones, is an excellent way to benefitcommunities. Access to green space that is rich inwildlife has been found to be good for people’sphysical and mental wellbeing (Diaz et al., 2006;Barton and Pretty, 2010), and provides local schoolswith opportunities for educational experiences.


As with onshore developments, the risks may besmall for individual developments, but significantin combination with other developments and ascumulative impacts of multiple developments.


Disturbance/displacement Noise has the potential to cause short- and long-term impacts (Gordon et al., 2007). It is a potentialsource of disturbance to cetaceans and could leadto displacement from an area and therefore loss ofaccess to potentially important habitats. There isconsiderable concern that there might be a highrisk of hearing damage in the vicinity of pile-drivingand that animals will be able to hear and thereforebe displaced by noise over large areas of sea (formore detailed review see Gordon et al., 2007).

The impact of noise on marine mammals can bedivided into three levels (BERR and DEFRA, 2008):those that cause fatal injury; those that cause non-fatal injury such as deafness and other auditorydamage such as “temporary threshold shift”; andthose that cause behavioural change (eg, avoidance,cessation of feeding). Available information suggeststhat species of marine mammals will show a strongavoidance reaction to sound levels of 90 dBht(species) and above (BERR and DEFRA, 2008).

While there are data demonstrating that constructionnoise will have effects on mammals and fish, whichcan detect pile driving noise over considerabledistances, there are very few equivalent dataavailable on birds. We can assume, however, that themost likely response is avoidance, and that noisemay also have an impact on the availability of preyspecies of fish. Levels of marine noise are likely to be

Noise created by wind farminstallation is a risk to marinemammals such as dolphins.


greatest during installation, especially from piledriving. However, mitigation measures to attenuatenoise levels are estimated to reduce the distance atwhich noise from pile driving could affect marinemammals by at least 66% (Nehls et al., 2007), and sopresumably would also reduce any impacts on birds.

There is now evidence from operational offshorewind farms that densities of some bird speciesdecline in the vicinity of offshore installations(Garthe and Hüppop, 2004; Desholm and Kahlert,2005). In particular, divers and sea ducks have beenshown to be displaced by up to 2–4 km from windfarm areas. This may have implications for foragingsuccess, hence for individual survival and breedingsuccess, and, in breeding birds, provisioning rates(the number of visits adults make to the nest withfood). However, there is evidence that, at least forcommon scoter, birds displaced during the first fewyears after construction may return to using thewind farm area at similar densities to those presentoutside the wind farm. It is unclear to what extentfood availability may have affected use of the windfarm area (Petersen and Fox, 2007). Evidence fordivers so far does not indicate recovery of use ofvacated areas and further spatial analysis isnecessary to determine cause and effect. Themagnitude of impacts will be determined in part bythe extent and suitability of alternative habitat, andso the cumulative impact of multiple developmentsis an extremely important consideration.

Offshore wind farms may also cause “barriereffects”, creating a physical or perceptualdisruption to functional links, for example, betweenbreeding and feeding areas or causing diversionsof migrating birds (eg, Desholm and Kahlert, 2005;Madsen et al., 2010).

The installation of submerged fixed structures suchas support piles and anchor plinths and associatedunderwater substations and power cables maycause considerable disturbance to the seabed, forexample, trenching for cables could causedisturbance from the turbines all the way to theshore. The level of impact will depend to a largeextent on the method of installation, the sensitivityof seabed substrates/habitats and the speciespresent in the area.

Collision riskDuring installation and decommissioning, somecollision risk with vessels is possible, such as boatsand helicopters (McCluskie et al., unpubl.). While

collisions with installation vessels are likely tooccur to the same extent as with other marinevessels, those involved in turbine construction aremore likely to be stationary or moving slowly incomparison with other commercial vehicles.Overall there is a lack of empirical data to evaluatethe risk (Wilson et al., 2006).

It can be assumed that “rafting” bird species (thoseswimming on the surface, often in large groups),particularly those that do so at night, are more atrisk of being hit by installation vessels than thosethat roost overnight on land (Daunt, 2006).Similarly, since the danger of collision with turbinesis potentially greater at night or during periods ofpoor visibility, it is likely to increase with species thatspend a higher proportion of time flying at night.There is evidence that in good light or weatherconditions there is a considerable degree ofavoidance of wind turbines at sea (eg, Garthe andHüppop, 2004; Desholm and Kahlert, 2005).

Experimental studies at the Danish Tunø Knoboffshore wind farm and the surrounding areaindicated that wintering common eiders reacted tothe visual presence of the wind turbinesindependently of whether or not the turbines wererotating (Larsen and Guillemette, 2007). Not allspecies however, show such a large degree ofavoidance, and species such as gulls and terns,which spend a high proportion of flight time atturbine blade height, might be at considerable riskof collision (Everaert and Stienen, 2007).

Disturbance of the seabed during construction mayresult in an increase in suspended sediment levelsand a consequent increase in turbidity. Divingbirds’ risk of collision with installation machinerymay be raised by any increased turbidityassociated with the installation, although theresponse to other non-visual cues, such asvibration, may compensate for the lack of visibility(McCluskie et al., unpubl.). Furthermore, the reducedvisibility caused by increased turbidity duringinstallation could have effects on foraging success;marine birds are thought to have a high sensitivityto reductions in visibility (Strod et al., 2008),although in all but the largest developments anysuch impacts are likely to be relatively short-lived.

Collision risk can also affect marine mammals.Harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin are thecetaceans most commonly encountered anddescribed as part of offshore wind farm projects


(BERR and DEFRA, 2008). Harbour porpoise are byfar the most abundant (Hammond et al. 2002).While there are no accurate records of the numberof incidents of accidental collisions between marinemammals and shipping in UK waters, it isconsidered that a direct relationship exists betweenshipping intensity, vessel speed and the number andseverity of collisions (eg, Hammond et al., 2003).

Habitat loss and indirect effects Changes in food availability could be associated withdisplacement from preferred habitats, or throughlosses due to temporary or more permanentalterations in seabed communities. For example, piledriving is known to have significant adverse affectson fish (Hasting and Popper, 2005; Thomsen et al.,2006; Mueller-Blenkle et al., 2010). There areparticular concerns over impacts on local sand eelpopulations, which are the prey species for a numberof seabird species of acknowledged conservationconcern. In addition, more permanent damage toimportant sea bed communities could occur, eitherdirectly during the construction of turbine bases, orindirectly through smothering of neighbouringhabitats by sediments mobilized during installation(Gill, 2005), resulting in loss of foraging resources.

PollutionPollution can occur through the disturbance ofcontaminated sediments, and through oil andhydraulic fluids leaking or leaching fromconstruction vessels and associated plant. Pollutionincidents can poison birds and other marine life, oilfeathers and they may result in negative changes towater quality (McCluskie et al., unpubl.).

Fine-grained benthic sediments tend to accumulatecontaminants reducing the toxicity to aquaticorganisms (McCluskie et al., unpubl.). The physicaldisturbance of these sediments can lead to changesin the chemical properties of sediments, and can inturn stimulate the mobilisation of contaminants(Eggleton and Thomas, 2004). The increase in toxiccontaminants and possible accumulation in preyspecies may have implications for seabirds.

2.4.2 AVOIDING AND MITIGATING RISKS, AND ACHIEVING BENEFITS FOR WILDLIFE

Baseline surveys and targeted pre-construction studiesAdequate ecological survey data is unavailable formost offshore areas, and previously unknown bird

concentrations may be identified during datacollection. Year-round baseline data collection,over a minimum of two years, is needed for allspecies (not just those thought to be the most likelypriority species) in potential development zonesand other areas proposed for wind farmdevelopment, to cover breeding and non-breedingdistributions (Langston, 2010). Spring and autumnsurveys are needed to detect significant migrationmovements of seabirds, waterbirds and passerines(Langston, 2010).

Radar is a valuable tool in some cases, calibratedwith visual observations, for example, in assessingmigration activity or tracking movements ofindividual species groups such as geese and swans(Langston, 2010). Once the range of species presentin each wind farm proposal area has beenestablished, from a combination of existinginformation and baseline surveys, further studiesshould focus on addressing specific questions forpriority species relevant to each zone or applicationarea, to inform the project EIA and to improveunderstanding of the potential environmentaleffects of offshore wind farms (Langston, 2010).The scoping stage of EIAs is crucial to ensure thatresources are targeted at the most relevant species.Such studies should include tracking individualbirds to establish foraging areas in relation tospecific coastal breeding colonies, SPAs, andparticular development areas.

Understanding foraging associations withparticular environmental features in the oceans isessential for identifying offshore feedingaggregations, for designation of marine SPAs andfor risk assessment of offshore wind farms(Langston, 2010). It is likely that multidisciplinaryapproaches will be necessary, together withcombinations of techniques. For example, surveysof distribution and abundance alone are inadequateto determine the importance of a feeding locationwithout also knowing which colony or colonies arethe sources of feeding aggregations.

Research on migrations and foraging destinationsfor a range of seabirds have been carried out usingsatellite tracking and data loggers (Langston, 2010).Further studies at different breeding colonieswould greatly enhance our understanding ofconnectivity between specific colonies and foragingareas. This would provide essential information forEIAs of offshore wind farms.


Modelling is likely to be a valuable tool foridentifying environmental determinants of birddistributions at sea as part of the risk assessmentprocess (Langston, 2010). Spatial prediction modelscan be used to estimate impacts of displacement ata population level. For example, Skov et al. (2008)used landscape, topographic, hydrographicvariables and data on prey availability to estimateimpacts of Horns Rev wind farm (Denmark) ondivers and common scoters.

Spatial planning and site selectionSpatial planning of offshore wind developmentshould, logically, begin after thorough surveyshave been completed and MPAs have beendesignated. However, SEA has been used in theNorth Sea to identify development zones, takinginto account available ecological survey data andother factors such as average wind speeds, waterdepth and other constraints such as shipping lanes.In the UK, the process of Offshore Energy SEAs hasenabled the industry to develop rapidly and withreduced risks to wildlife, although in this instanceecological data was considered of lower prioritycompared with so-called “hard constraints” suchas shipping lanes, oil and gas platforms etc. Inaddition, given the poor quality of underlying datathere is a significant risk to developers thatpreviously unidentified and strictly protected birdspecies will be identified during EIA survey work.

Mitigation and enhancement measures Location remains the most important mitigationmeasure, so spatial analysis of bird distributiondata in relation to environmental variables is likelyto provide the most productive tool for refining thesiting, design and layout of offshore wind farms,in conjunction with information on constraintsto turbine placement. Enhancement measuresoffshore encompass designation andimplementation of conservation measures inMPAs, and safeguarding prey species (fish stocks,spawning areas). Enhancement measures onshoreapply to seabird breeding colonies, includingpredator control and/or protection frompredators, and management measures to controlor reduce disturbance to breeding and non-breeding/wintering birds.

Monitoring and research. Discrete surveys couldbe used to add value to our knowledge of seabirddistribution and movements. These could perhapsbe funded through existing statutory monitoringprogrammes for MPAs or could be stand alone

projects. Other projects could be focussed on fillinggaps in knowledge (eg, European Seabirds At Seadata), or through contribution to seabird trackingstudies, either stand-alone or through providingadditional resources for ongoing work such as theFuture of the Atlantic Marine Environment (FAME)project (See Box 25).

MPA management funding. Where renewabledevelopment is adjacent to existing or new MPAs,contribution might be made towards designation,management, monitoring and surveillance ofsuch sites.

Conservation (plus onshore benefits). These mightinclude contribution to the delivery of the seabirdconservation species action plans, or funding ofinitiatives such as predator removal (eg, rateradication on seabird breeding islands) andimproved management of breeding colonies (eg,vegetation control). There may be potential tosecure terrestrial habitat gains for biodiversity at the onshore terminus of cabling landfall, orancillary developments (substations etc.).

Reef effects and marine no-take zones. Whilst itmay not be possible for operators to exclude allfishing activity within their sites, it is likely thatthe presence of the turbines and underwaterinfrastructure will reduce fishing activity to somedegree. The formation of marine reserves, wherefishing is prohibited, has been shown to increase fish density, diversity and abundance not onlywithin no-take zones but also in adjacent areas (for review see Langhamer et al., 2010). Thedevelopment of wind farms might benefit somemarine species, for example there is evidencethat the hard substratum of monopiles and scourprotection can lead to the establishment of newspecies and fauna communities (Lindeboom et al., 2011).

Human Resources. The training and/oremployment of marine ecologists, peopleengagement officers and related staff might offer wider benefits to marine species.

Once operational offshore windfarms may be good news for fish.


Wave power devices are designed to absorb theenergy from waves and convert it to electricity.There are three main types of wave technology:buoyancy devices, fixed or semi-fixed pressuredifferential devices and channelling devices. Wave energy is an emerging technology, with the potential to supply a very significant amount ofrenewable electricity. For example, theoretically the wave power resource around the UK’s coast is more than twice UK electricity consumption. The greatest potential is in the Atlantic seas, forexample off western Scotland and Portugal. Test centres for wave power technologies have been established in both countries.

Tidal power also has the potential to generatesignificant quantities of energy. BirdLife has seriousconcerns regarding ecological impacts where this isexploited by impounding water at high tides andthen releasing it through “high head” barrages (largedams). Tidal barrages of this kind were discussed inSection 2.1. Here the focus is on more innovative andpotentially less risky technologies that make use ofenergy in tidal streams.

Currently, there is limited experience of operationalwave and tidal devices at sea and hence littleinformation about their impacts on marine birds(McCluskie et al., unpubl.). Therefore, this sectionmakes inferences about potential effects derivedfrom existing knowledge of marine processes andengineering, as well as bird ecology and behaviour.Fish and marine mammals may also experiencerisks and/or benefits where tidal stream or waveenergy devices are installed, but this section doesnot attempt to address these for the same reasons.


Marine birds can be potentially affected by tidalstream or wave energy devices in a number ofways. These may be direct (eg, from the device

itself) or indirect (eg, reducing visibility throughincreased turbidity), they may be adverse (eg,collision mortality) or beneficial (eg, creation ofnew foraging habitat). Additionally, the impactsmay be temporary or long-term, and last thelifetime of the device or beyond. In most cases,little or nothing is known about the likelihood of occurrence or scale of potential impacts. Anunderstanding of potential cumulative effects will also be vital (McCluskie et al., unpubl.).

Collision risk Wave and tidal devices are likely to present muchsmaller collision risks to birds than wind turbines(Grecian et al., 2010), with the risk related tospecies, size and location. It has been argued thatnocturnal and crepuscular species may be morevulnerable to collision (Daunt, 2006), but suchspecies often have enhanced visual capabilities,and this may make them more able to respond tothe presence of devices.

Collision may occur above or below the watersurface, and risk to diving birds could be a concern.Little information exists regarding collision risk ofanimals with underwater structures (Wilson et al.,2006; Inger et al., 2009; Grecian et al., 2010), andcollisions are more poorly understood for birdsthan other species groups (Wilson et al., 2006). Thislack of knowledge has meant that few mitigationmeasures have been developed. Wave and tidalstream devices with rotating turbines are likely topose a greater threat to birds than those withoutsuch blades (McCluskie et al., unpubl.).

While in many ways analogous to both windturbines and the propellers on ships and boats,turbines of wave and tidal devices spin atconsiderably slower speeds (at or below 12 ms-1)which may pose a lower risk of injury, although thismay not apply to less manoeuvrable species. Theburst speed of birds, while considerably slowerthan the speed of the turbine blade tip (Fraenkel,

2.5 TIDAL STREAMAND WAVE ENERGY


2006), is thought to be fast enough to enableescape from the path of the blades under manysituations (Wilson et al., 2006). The majority,though not all, devices have fairly narrow turbineblades, which will further reduce the risk ofcollision injury (McCluskie et al., unpubl.).

The response of birds will depend on theirdetection of a device and any associated structures;whether it is detected above or below the surfaceand how close they are before detecting it(McCluskie et al., unpubl.). Fixed structures arelikely to be less risky than mobile structures, suchas anchor chains and cabling. The risks will begreater when birds are diving for prey, thereforethe highest risk is when devices are located withinthe foraging range of diving species.

Devices with a surface presence will be more likelyto be detected before a dive commences than fullysubmerged devices, which may not be detectedbefore avoidance behaviour can be initiated(McCluskie et al., unpubl.). Devices that are notdetected until the bird itself is in the water willprobably be avoided to some extent, depending onwhen detection occurs, which in turn is influencedby the nature of the environment and foragingbehaviour of the species, eg, plunge diving birdsmay have less time to react and less ability to avoidcollision than pursuit feeders. The risk of collisionmay be increased if the devices alter thecharacteristics of currents, since this may impact onthe manoeuvrability and agility of birds in the water.

Entrapment A number of structural elements of offshore energydevices, particularly turbine housing, articulationsand mooring equipment, may entrap and killseabirds (McCluskie et al., unpubl.). In studies ofthe impact of fisheries on sea birds, pursuit divingspecies, particularly auks (eg, puffins), are most atrisk of entrapment in gill nets and other fixed gear(Tasker et al., 2000).

Disturbance/displacement Disturbance is initially likely to be a temporaryimpact associated with construction activities.However, its effects may continue for severalyears for some species/location combinations(McCluskie et al., unpubl.). The most probableresponse will be avoidance. Unlike tidal barrages,which can cause significant habitat losses (Clark,2006; Fraenkel, 2006), other offshore renewabledevices are thought to present a high risk only

when inappropriately sited in relation to certainspecies groups, such as sea ducks (Inger et al.,2009). These risks will vary depending on thetype and size of installation, location andwhether they are situated in degraded or goodquality habitat.

Offshore wave power devices could contribute tounderwater noise that disturbs sea mammals andfish. It is likely that any effects on birds will dependon both species and location. It is important thatwave power developers avoid, wherever possible,concentrations of feeding and breeding seabirdsand other wildlife where harm may occur.Shoreline wave devices are likely to have fewerimpacts on marine species but should also be sitedto avoid important bird breeding colonies andfeeding areas. Thorough environmentalassessment and monitoring are needed to avoidany such problems. BirdLife encourages thedevelopment of devices that produce the least noisepossible, and with moving parts that minimise oilspill risks and do not endanger wildlife.

Indirect effects As well as increased turbidity and risk ofdisturbance of contaminated sediments, there isevidence that seabirds are often attracted to largeoffshore structures (Wiese et al., 2001). There is awell established body of literature detailing thetendency for a large number of fish species toaggregate around and beneath floating objects(Castro et al., 2001). It is likely that energygenerating devices attached to the seabed but freeto float at the surface will act as such an attractant.It is unclear whether the effects of this on seabirdswill be positive or negative. Since the greatestpossibility of underwater collision is when devicesare located within foraging areas, there is apotential problem in the creation of good foragingareas around devices; in other words attracting fishto a device would increase the risk to birds andmammals of collision or other terminal impacts.


Tidal energy schemes could benefit some birds’ability to look for food: they may provide refugesfrom which other human activity, such as fishingand recreation, is excluded. This could lead to newspawning grounds and nursery areas for fish, andtherefore better feeding areas.


For the EIA of any proposed marine renewabledevelopment, information on the use of thedevelopment site and surrounding areas byseabirds is essential. In order to obtain these data,surveys must be carried out, and these will then beused to determine potential receptors and impacts.Surveys should not only be of the “impact” area,but should also provide ecological context, and sothe methods used for survey must be carefullyconsidered (McCluskie et al., unpubl.).

Seabird distribution is stochastic – densities andbehaviours are highly variable and therefore needto be surveyed with a high spatial and temporalresolution. Understanding the mechanisms of thisnatural variability is vital for any assessment ofwhether a development has caused changes in birdbehaviour or distribution. Therefore, distributionpatterns need to be described in a context ofgeographical and oceanographic influences, as wellas the effects of food supply and anthropogenicactivity (McCluskie et al., unpubl.).

Mitigation and enhancement measures Given the diversity of technologies competingin the wave and tidal stream sectors, and lackof robust evidence regarding potential ecologicalimpacts, it is not possible to identify genericmitigation or enhancement measures here.

Location remains the most important mitigationmeasure, so spatial analysis of bird distributiondata in relation to environmental variables islikely to provide the most productive tool forrefining the design and layout of offshorerenewables. Enhancement measures offshoreencompass designation and implementationof conservation measures in MPAs andsafeguarding of prey (fish stocks, spawningareas). Enhancement measures onshore apply toseabird breeding colonies, including predatorcontrol and/or protection from predators, andmanagement measures to control or reducedisturbance to breeding and non-breeding/wintering birds. See section 2.3.2 formore detailed discussion of the various optionsfor mitigation and enhancement in the marinerenewables sectors.

Wave or tidal power devices thatare visible from the air may belower risk for diving birds.


Bioenergy has a vital role to play in movingtowards a low carbon economy, but it is also alimited resource that needs to be produced anddeployed in the most efficient and sustainable waypossible. This requires understanding theavailability and competing uses of different sourcesof bioenergy; their greenhouse gas efficiencies; thepotential environmental impacts of their productionand use; and the best ways to deploy them in theenergy system. In addition to domesticallyproduced material, a large range of feedstocks arealready imported for energy use in Europe from avariety of sources, and volumes of feedstocks areset to increase dramatically as renewable energytargets and incentives in Europe and elsewheredrive up demand for such resources.

Biomass for heat and power is included among the“medium risk” technologies here on the basis thatfeedstocks can be produced sustainably and insignificant quantities. Importation of feedstocksfrom outside Europe, however, presents significantrisks as it will often be very difficult or impossibleto monitor associated ecological impacts. In somecountries such as the UK rapid expansion ofbiomass for electricity generation, usually withoutuse of waste heat, has caused significant concernbecause the fuel required will greatly exceed whatcould be produced domestically (RSPB, 2011).

Bioenergy is often referred to by the industry as“carbon neutral”, as growing plants absorb carbondioxide and then release it back into theatmosphere as they are burnt as fuel in vehicleengines, boilers, stoves or power plants. However,the full life-cycle emissions of different bioenergytypes can vary dramatically, and the “carbonpayback time” (Gibbs et al., 2008) or “carbon debt”(Fargione et al., 2008) for some liquid biofuels andeven some wood fuel (Zanchi et al., 2010) can bedecades or even centuries (see Chum et al., 2011for an IPCC review). Furthermore, emissions fromcombustion of the biomass itself are not

adequately captured in international carbonaccounting rules.

Bioenergy produced from many kinds of wastes orharvested from sustainably managed woodlands inEurope may deliver good greenhouse gas benefits,compared with fossil fuels. Some dedicatedbioenergy crops, however, may generatesignificant greenhouse gas emissions from director indirect land-use change, the use of inputs suchas fertilisers and pesticides, harvesting/processingand transportation.

There are also many potential end uses forbioenergy. It is far more efficient to use biomass togenerate heat and power in dedicated boilers, forexample, than to use liquid bioenergy in cars. As aresult, it makes more sense for the climate if weuse bioenergy supplies to power our homes andbusinesses than to power vehicles. BirdLife hasserious concerns about the ecological risksassociated with the production of liquid biofuels(Sections 2.1 and 3.3).

The main classes of biomass (“feedstocks”)currently used in energy production are forestryproducts, dedicated energy crops, agriculturalresidues, waste streams (including food andindustrial waste, animal manures, sewage sludgeand waste wood) and by-products/co-productsfrom other production processes (Gove et al.,2010). The conservation risks and benefits varygreatly between feedstocks, and therefore thereview below deals with each feedstock type in turn.


Each feedstock type has advantages anddisadvantages associated with its production. In this section feedstock types will be dealt withseparately. The issues of indirect land-use changeand by-products and co-products are also considered.

2.6 BIOMASS FORHEAT AND POWER


Timber products and forestry waste Resources available for bioenergy include woodharvested from forests but unsuitable for timberproduction (eg, stems, branches and brash, poorquality roundwood, deadwood and diseased trees),sawmill by-products and arboricultural arisings frommunicipal activities. It is possible that high subsidiesfor energy use could lead to higher-qualityroundwood also being used for energy. Theexpansion of the forested area and an increase in themanagement of existing woodland might have bothpositive and negative impacts on biodiversity (Goveet al., 2010).

An increase in the structural diversity of Europeanwoodland due to more active management will belikely to benefit much woodland wildlife, and tomake woodland more resistant to the potentialimpacts of climate change (Fuller et al., 2007).Careful management of woodland should allow for varying stand structures. Increased forestmanagement (in a European context) will hopefullymean the reinstatement of the coppice cycle inneglected woods and its introduction, ifappropriate. Regular felling and re-planting mightbe expected to serve a similar function in someregions (providing the scale is appropriate at thelandscape level). This will generally benefit thosespecies particularly associated with earlysuccessional habitats (Helle and Fuller, 1988) oropen habitats within woodland such as rides, heathand grassland (Forestry Commission, 2007).

Increased overall management of forests mightresult in a reduction in “old growth” conditions(more often found in the east of Europe), and maytherefore have a negative impact on speciesadapted to these habitats (Gove and Bradbury,2010). However, the vast majority of woodland inthe west of Europe has a long history ofmanagement, and therefore the number of speciesassociated with old growth forest interiors is ratherlimited. Careful management of these forestsshould provide sufficient dead wood and preserveareas of mature trees and high forest to lessenthese potential impacts. However, if forest biomassis derived from undisturbed primary forests theimpacts on biodiversity are likely to be high.Although selective cutting and “continuous coverforestry” are probably less harmful to forestecosystems than clear cutting, their effects onbiodiversity remain largely unexplored.

The removal of arisings and residues fromwoodland could have adverse impacts on thehabitat and resources available to a wide rangeof wildlife. Impacts have been observed onmicrobial organisms (Kappes et al., 2007);bryophytes and lichens (Humphrey et al., 2002);invertebrates (Kappes et al., 2007); fungi (Ferriset al., 2000; Humphrey et al., 2000); saprophyticbeetles (Jonsell et al., 2007); small vertebrates,including bats (EEA, 2006; Forestry Commission,2007), as well as fungi and detritivores (Lonsdaleet al., 2008). Many of these species are at riskand some provide important roles in forestecosystems. Similarly, the removal of deadwoodcould have an impact on a number of species thatdepend on itor species associated with it for food,for example woodpeckers (Forestry Commission,2007; Paltto et al., 2008).

Biomass cropsIn general, the positive biodiversity impactsof energy crops are dependent on careful planningand good management of plantations. Speciesand varieties used, planting regimes, structuraldensity and the level of floral cover are all likelyto be important, with a potential conflict betweenmaximum yield and biodiversity value.

Dead wood provides food forwoodpeckers.


Management of the crop will be central inestablishing longer-term benefits (eg, rotationof cropping to allow open and closed habitat toboth be present, linking harvest to the breedingregimes of sensitive species) (EEA, 2006; Semereand Slater, 2007a; Bellamy et al., 2009). Ultimately,genetic improvement of feedstock varieties andcrop management techniques that attempt tomaximize biomass production and simplify cropvegetation structure will be likely to reduce thevalue of perennial biomass plantings to birdpopulations (Robertson et al., 2011b).

Most studies have compared biomass crops toarable farmland systems. However, no energy cropcompares well to hedgerows and other semi-naturalhabitats – eg, ancient woodland, wet meadows,hedgerow, scrubland and unimproved grassland(Semere and Slater, 2005; EEA, 2006; Sage et al.,2006; Woods et al., 2006; Rowe et al., 2009). Incomparative studies of biodiversity in energy cropsand other land uses, the intensity with which thearable/grassland control is managed can have aneffect on the apparent benefits of perennial crops(Cunningham et al., 2006). Therefore, the land usethat it replaces will be paramount in predicting itsimpact. Importantly, if energy crops replace set asideor other land uses rather than crops or intensivegrassland, the impact on biodiversity is expected tobe negative. There is also a possibility thatplantations will be concentrated on land with a loweragricultural value, some of which has a high existingbiodiversity value.

Many of the benefits associated with farmed land arelinked to field structure, with most biodiversity foundat the margins and in boundaries (Semere andSlater, 2005; 2007a). Greater floral establishment,a larger numbers of bird species and higher densitiesof male breeding birds are all found at the edges ofplantations (Semere and Slater, 2005; 2007a; EEA,2006; Sage et al., 2006; Rowe et al., 2009). Maximumbiodiversity benefits would be obtained from apatchwork of relatively small plantations mixed witharable and grass crops (Cunningham et al., 2006;Defra, 2006), which maximise edge effects. Similarly,retaining headlands and field margins will have abeneficial effect, allowing species with a variety ofhabitat requirements to exploit those areas(Cunningham et al., 2006). In addition, energy cropshave the potential to act as a buffer to vulnerablehabitats (Cunningham et al., 2006; EEA, 2006; Woodset al., 2006), and possibly in providing corridorslinking isolated habitat fragments.

There have been no studies to date of the potentialcumulative impacts of dedicated energy crops. Inparticular, there could be impacts on vulnerableopen-field species and displacement of farmlandspecialists if sizeable stands are planted or thedensity of the crops in the landscape is high.Species such as yellow wagtail, skylark or greypartridge, for example, might suffer (Bellamy et al., 2009). Woodland specialists are unlikely toestablish in energy crop plantations, which aremore likely to be colonised by species of disturbedor edge habitats. Perennial biomass feedstockshave the potential to provide post-breeding andmigratory stopover habitat for birds, but theplacement and management of crops will be criticalfactors in determining their suitability for species ofconservation concern (Robertson et al., 2011a).European energy crops do appear to be valuable to migrant warblers, as well as several species ofconservation concern including kestrel, woodcock,dunnock, woodlark and snipe (Sage and Robertson,1994; Rowe et al., 2009). The potential benefits and risks to biodiversity are therefore heavilydependent on location, plantation design,management and scale, especially with respect to sensitive or vulnerable species.

Perennial grass cropsUnderstanding the impacts of the cultivation ofperennial grasses, such as Miscanthus, is limiteddue to the small number of field trials that havebeen undertaken to date. The few studiesconducted in the first years of crop growth indicatehigher microbial, floral, invertebrate, avian andmammalian biodiversity (in terms of bothabundance and number of species) in Miscanthusfields compared with arable crops (Semere andSlater, 2005; 2007a; 2007b; Bellamy et al., 2009;Rowe et al., 2009; Smeets et al., 2009). The higherspecies diversity has been shown to be related tothe greater patchiness and weed flora inMiscanthus fields, which provides seed resourcesas well as habitat for invertebrates and thereforefood for birds and other species, as well as cover,refuges and micro-climates (Bellamy et al., 2009).However insect prey resources for birds associatedwith Miscanthus itself were lower compared withwheat crops.

Perennial plantings of switchgrass have also beenshown to support greater diversity and biomass of arthropods and avian richness was higher inperennial plantings with greater forb content and a more diverse vegetation structure compared with


annual crops (Robertson et al., 2011b). However, notall perennial grasses are equal in terms of wildlifevalue, with Miscanthus plots appearing to attractmore biodiversity than those of reed canary grass orswitchgrass (Semere and Slater, 2005; 2007b),although reed canary grass itself supported a largernumber of invertebrate species than Miscanthus.

Miscanthus has been shown to provide a habitatfor some ground-nesting species at certain times ofthe year, and a general foraging resource and coverover winter for a wider range of species (Semereand Slater, 2005; 2007a; 2007b; Sage et al., 2006;Bellamy et al., 2009). Studies to date do not provideinformation on breeding success and populationeffects, and the survival and fecundity of speciesassociated with mature energy crops remainsunknown (Sage et al., 2006). Some Red and AmberList bird species (such as skylark and reed bunting)have been found in slightly higher numbers inMiscanthus compared with arable fields, either asresidents or using it occasionally in summer orwinter (Bellamy et al., 2009). One particularconcern is that the crops might act as breedingsinks, appearing early in the season to be suitablebreeding habitat encouraging breeding attempts,but then growing extremely rapidly, quicklybecoming unsuitable and so leading to nest failure.Bird use of Miscanthus in summer and winter islikely to be variable, affected by region, weediness,crop structure and patchiness (Sage et al., 2010).

Most investigations of the ecology of Miscanthusto date have focused on a small number of fieldtrials, with many of the stands having poorestablishment and resulting in weedy crops. It istherefore not clear what level of floral and faunaldiversity would be present in well-colonised ormature stands (Semere and Slater, 2005; 2007a;Sage et al., 2006; Bellamy et al., 2009; Rowe et al.,2009). No mature Miscanthus stands have beenstudied (all plots were less than five years old),but they are not expected to be as attractive tobiodiversity as younger plantations, based oncurrent findings, as most weed flora become shadedout as the crop develops (Semere and Slater, 2007a;Bellamy et al., 2009; Rowe et al., 2009). Thecultivation of perennial grasses is relatively new andas farmers gain experience in their cultivation andimproved varieties become available, the densityand uniformity of the crop is likely to increase andweediness will be reduced, thus making them lessattractive for wildlife in general.

Short rotation coppiceShort rotation coppice (SRC) appears to supporta higher abundance and diversity of species thanarable and improved grassland (Cunningham et al.,2006; EEA, 2006; Sage et al., 2006; Woods et al.,2006; Rowe et al., 2009). Studies have found ahigher floral and associated invertebrate diversityin SRC compared with arable crops (Britt et al.,2002; Cunningham et al., 2006; Defra, 2006; Roweet al., 2009). Many of the species recorded are oflow conservation concern, however, for examplehigh densities of common nettle or bramble. Thereduced ground disturbance and less intensive weedcontrol associated with the crops may, over time,lead to the development of more diverse plantcommunities than those associated with annualarable crops, although this will depend on theavailable seed resource, which itself isrelated to previous land use and location.

Positive overall effects on avian diversity havebeen found when SRC is grown within the farmlandlandscape. The density and number of bird speciesrecorded is higher than arable land, with particularbenefits for scrub and woodland species (Britt et al.,2002; Cunningham et al., 2006; Defra, 2006; Sage etal., 2006; Rowe et al., 2009). However, many of thespecies recorded are of low conservation concern –such as blackbird, sedge warbler and chaffinch(Britt et al., 2002; Hardcastle, 2006). Crucially, whilstthe use of SRC by birds for foraging and shelter hasbeen established, less is known about the use ofSRC for breeding, so without further study the long-term impact of large scale SRC plantings on avianbiodiversity are unclear (Sage et al., 2006; Rowe etal., 2009). Nonetheless, some species of highconservation concern have been shown to holdterritories in the breeding season (eg, bullfinch,reed bunting and song thrush) (Defra, 2006; EEA,2006; Sage et al., 2006) and SRC provides wintercover for many species (EEA, 2006), with snipe,woodcock, redwing and fieldfare being recorded(Sage et al., 2006).

SRC fields harvested in winter/early spring canbe attractive to species favouring open countryside,with studies recording skylark, lapwing and meadowpipit (Sage and Robertson, 1994; Defra, 2006; Sageet al., 2006; Rowe et al., 2009). However, theavailability of this habitat to birds will depend onthe harvest time of the crop, which may varygeographically.


Short rotation coppice could displacebirds such as Montagu’s harriers.

Overall, large-scale planting of SRC is expected tohave a negative impact on open habitat species(Cunningham et al., 2006; EEA, 2006; Rowe et al.,2009). There is a potential for locally occurringfarmland specialists to be displaced (eg, yellowwagtails, grey partridges, or stone curlews) (Sageet al., 2006; Rowe et al., 2009). Less widespreadspecies are particularly vulnerable. For example, if SRC replaced arable land, stone curlews,Montagu’s harriers and quails might be at risk; andif it replaced grassland, breeding waders such aslapwings would most likely be negatively affected(Sage et al., 2006). Therefore, it will be important toavoid the habitats of vulnerable species whenplanning plantations.

The value of SRC as habitat appears to change overtime, with the greater structural complexity of olderstands attracting a higher number of species as aperennial ground flora is able to develop(Cunningham et al., 2006; Rowe et al., 2009). There

may be a trade-off between value for wildlife and productivity (yield), such that maximumbiodiversity benefits may require a compromise in terms of profit. However, it may be possible toincorporate management techniques (eg,harvesting in a cycle which allows a maximumdensity of breeding birds, installation of nestboxes, sowing of perennial ground flora) thatattract support through agri-environment paymentschemes (Cunningham et al., 2006; Sage et al.,2006; Rowe et al., 2009).

Short rotation forestry (SRF)Positive overall effects on bird species richness anddiversity, similar to those found in SRC, have beenobserved if SRF is grown within a farmlandlandscape, with particular benefits for speciestypically associated with scrub, hedgerows andwoodland (Hardcastle, 2006). As with SRC, many of the species recorded are of low conservationconcern (Britt et al., 2002; Hardcastle, 2006).


Species that feed on litter and soil-dwellinginvertebrates are likely to benefit, for example,woodcock and snipe, as are insectivorous specieshunting in the canopy. Other species ofconservation concern potentially benefiting includegrey partridge, woodlark, dunnock, song thrushand bullfinch (Hardcastle, 2006). SRF also provideswinter cover, which may be particularly valuable inopen landscapes (EEA, 2006).

A number of rare species that depend onplantations could benefit greatly from widespreadSRF, depending on the tree species grown (eg, inthe UK, common crossbill, goshawk, firecrest andgolden oriole) (Hardcastle, 2006). The edges ofplantations and associated habitats appear to havegreater attraction to birds, including species ofconservation concern such as yellowhammer, cirlbunting and corn bunting, and birds of prey such as barn owl, kestrel and sparrowhawk are likely toadapt well to using SRF plantations for hunting(Hardcastle, 2006). Species requiring habitatsassociated with mature semi-natural woodland (suchas mature or decaying wood) will not automaticallybe attracted to plantations, however – for example,marsh tit and nuthatch.

Some exotic tree species seem to provide morefood for insectivores than native ones (Hardcastle,2006), but the density of the canopy has a largeinfluence over the species likely to use SRF – forexample, those which rely on understoryvegetation for food or cover will not be attracted todense plantations with little understory cover.Eucalypts are likely candidates for Europeanplantations due to their vigorous growth rates, butconcerns have been raised over potential impactson biodiversity due to high canopy densities andsuppression of other plants, as well as the highwater demand of these species. There is alsoconcern that eucalyptus stands might not survivecold winters, with research underway into hybridsto overcome this (Hardcastle, 2006).

Little evidence is available to indicate that birdswould avoid these plantations – in fact some speciesappear to favour them, but eucalyptus trees supportfewer arthropods (eg, insects and spiders), andtherefore provide less food for birds (Hardcastle,2006). Likewise, sparse understory vegetation islikely to reduce the abundance and diversity of otherwildlife able to utilise the plantations. As so fewstands have been studied, these areas need furtherclarification before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Agricultural residues Using agricultural residues as feedstocks caninvolve their conversion into biogas and digestatevia anaerobic digestion (AD), combustion indedicated power plants (eg, straw), co-firing withconventional fuels, or potentially fermentation toproduce alcohols. The use of this material forbioenergy is likely to be of benefit by reducing theneed to store and then dispose of these materialsand reducing the demand for biomass from othersources. Environmental benefits might consist ofreducing point source pollution from storedmanures/wastes, and less material going to landfill.The digestate from AD can be used in place of rawslurry or manure to fertilise crop fields, reducingleaching and overall fertiliser demand. The ADprocess also destroys weed seeds (reducing theneed for herbicides), reduces pathogen content andrenders nutrients more readily available to crops.Better use of material which is otherwiseincinerated (eg, poultry residues) could alsoimprove local air quality.

Municipal solid waste, including wood wasteMunicipal solid waste (MSW) consists of food andgarden wastes, waste from home improvements,large household items, local commercial waste andlitter. Waste wood encompasses a wide range ofmaterials (eg, paper and paper production by-products, end-of-life furniture, domestic andindustrial packaging). While it is important not tocompromise the “waste hierarchy” of first reducing,then reusing and then recycling waste, the large-scale utilisation of the biodegradable element inMSW for energy would have significant benefits by reducing leachate and greenhouse gas productionby landfilled material. There may be environmentalimpacts of using MSW for energy production(depending on the technology used to generatebioenergy), but increased efficiency of use ofmaterial is likely to outweigh any negative impacts.

Imported feedstocks It is extremely difficult to quantify the directenvironmental impacts of imported feedstocks forheat and power generation, given how little isknown about their provenance. Imported cropswhose production has resulted in the destruction of biodiverse forests will carry a particularly highenvironmental burden. The use of palm oil as afeedstock, for example, is particularly alarming,given that palm oil production is implicated indriving the destruction of South East Asianrainforest. While this is largely for transport use,


liquid biofuels are also sometimes used in heat andpower generation. Other areas of great concerninclude products from primary temperate forests,where management is unsustainable and damageslocal wildlife, ecosystem services and livelihoodsas well as releasing carbon into the atmosphere.There is good evidence that forestry standardsapplied to many temperate forests are inadequateto prevent such damage.

Research by the RSPB/BirdLife UK (RSPB, 2011) hasraised concerns over imported woody biomass forelectricity generation in the UK. In Florida, forexample, the scale of impacts is expected to bevery significant. Just four biomass power stationsproposed by one developer in Scotland, ifconsented, could lead to importation of up to 3.3million tonnes of biomass annually from Florida.This area contains some of the most biodiversity-rich ecosystems in North America and has alreadyexperienced huge losses, with the conversion ofnatural forest to industrial pine plantations.According to the US Forest Service Southern ForestsResearch Assessment, only about 182 million acresof the original 356 million acres of natural forest stillremain (Weir and Greis, 2002). New demand forwood production from these forests will putincreasing pressure on this limited resource.

Indirect land-use change Without significant improvements in resourceefficiency or reduction in demand, the cultivationof dedicated biomass crops on land, whichpreviously produced food will inevitably resultin production being shifted elsewhere. ThisILUC will potentially impact on biodiversity, carbonstocks, resource availability and other ecosystemservices. The environmental costs of ILUC shouldtherefore be taken into account when assessingthe sustainability of dedicated biomass crops,in particular, but also other potential bioenergyfeedstocks.

Residues/by-products/co-products It is often assumed that bioenergy derived fromsecondary products (ie, residues or by-products),are environmentally benign since they do notdrive production, and would otherwise be treatedas wastes. However, a crucial factor to consideris whether certain waste co-products or by-products have an alternative value as a feedstockfor another process, or in providing a servicewhich will need to be replaced. This is importantsince the value of commodities changes in

response to demand. If demand increases then afeedstock, which is a waste product, can quicklybecome a by-product or a co-product, which maythen become a driver of production, either directlyor indirectly. For example, a significant volume ofcereal straw is either chopped up and returned tothe ground where it acts as a soil improver, or isused for animal bedding. If the demand for strawfor bioenergy use increased to the point where asignificant proportion is diverted from these uses,then either the services they offer will not befulfilled (ie, soil quality will decline) or alternativematerials will be required to fill the demand.Another example might involve the use of a wastesuch as tallow (or tall oil) for bioenergy, therebyincreased the price of these feedstocks. This mightlead to a switch by oleochemical industries to usingnon-waste oils such as palm oil instead, which ispotentially more environmentally damaging.


Location guidance The analysis above has highlighted the need forenergy crops to be cultivated in the right locations tominimise direct, indirect and cumulative impacts onbiodiversity. Location guidance should be valuable inensuring the most important areas for biodiversityare avoided or that biodiversity constraints at a localand regional level are not exceeded.

Good practice guidelines Many of the impacts identified from the literatureinvolve a positive effect (co-benefits) on one groupof species, or ecosystem services, at the expenseof another; are heavily influenced by previous landuse; and are largely dependent on the managementtechniques employed in their production.Therefore, there appears to be potential to mitigatenegative and enhance positive effects with carefulplanning, planting the right crop in the appropriatelocation (and scale) and with informedmanagement (Gove et al., 2010). The productionof good practice guidelines assists in ensuring thatbiomass feedstocks (from dedicated or wastestreams) are produced and used in the mostsustainable and biodiversity friendly ways.


Sustainability certification In principle the introduction of a system of robustcertification of sustainability should ensure thatbiomass feedstocks are produced and used in anefficient and sustainable manner with as fewenvironmental impacts as possible. However,existing standards, such as those set out in theRenewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) or basedupon them, are inadequate to protect biodiversity(RSPB, 2011). It is important that biomassproduction complies with national andinternational standards for sustainablemanagement and production, and associatedguidelines on water, soils, carbon and biodiversity,and that there is proper enforcement of suchstandards for all planting, management andharvesting activities. There is an urgent needfor the development of robust national andinternational sustainability certification schemes.

The lack of information on imported biomassis likely to mean that in many cases highsustainability standards are not adhered to.Therefore, there is an urgent need to developmethods of centrally recording traded biomass ona national basis to ensure that origins aretransparent, impacts are fully understood andmethods of production are fully sustainable.

Monitoring commodity prices At present there are large volumes of crop residueswhich are currently unused, and so it is unlikely thatthe majority of these represent a significanteconomic driver for primary production.Nevertheless, a major increase in demand forbiomass could change the economics of productionfor a range of crops. Therefore, monitoring ofcommodity prices should be an element ofcontinuing sustainability appraisal for bioenergyfeedstocks. Where necessary, policies should be putin place to ensure that the demand for biomass forbioenergy production does not impact other biomassmarkets (thereby indirectly reducing sustainability).

Integrated policies for waste reduction As with all potential sources of biomass forenergy, there are multiple other uses for wastes,therefore energy, food, agriculture, forestry andwaste policies must be integrated to incentiviseand facilitate reduction in avoidable wastes (such as waste food and other MSW), and ensurethe most efficient and sustainable “re-uses”, for example, in efficient energy generation or composting.

2.7 POWER LINESThe transport of electricity from energy producersto users is mainly via above-ground power lines.The increase in renewable energy production andthe locations in which such energy is produced willrequire the construction of new power lines, bothto increase capacity and to create a wider and morecoherent network. This will require the constructionof new power lines in some of the more remoteparts of the continent. This is likely to increasinglybring them into (and through) areas which areimportant for birds. Most above-ground powerlines pose some level of risk and many significantlyaffect the habitats of vulnerable species,particularly the breeding, staging and winteringareas of large birds (Haas et al., 2005).

Underground cables for high-voltage electricitytransmission are expensive, and therefore are onlyused in exceptional cases. Consequently, above-ground power lines will remain in use forhigh-voltage power transmission (60,000 to 750,000Volts). At these high voltages, safety standardsrequire high hanging cables. The towers of thesepower lines often rise to heights of 50 m. Migratingbirds flying at heights between 20 m and 50 m areat considerable risk of collision with such lines(Haas et al., 2005).

Low-voltage power lines. In a number of countries,all or most of the low-voltage supply lines arerouted underground, which is the best solution in


terms of bird safety. When above ground, low-voltage supply lines often use well-insulated cables,directly attached to support poles, which is thesecond-best solution. Collision risks are minimised,because the black cables are highly visible. The riskof electrocution is low, because of the relatively lowvoltage and the high electrical resistance of birds.Collision risk with low-voltage power lines is higherwhen thin wires which are hardly visible are used.Generally, the risk of collision can be reduced byusing single-level wire arrangements, or bychanging to insulated cables (Haas et al., 2005).

Medium-voltage power lines. World-wide themajority of medium-voltage (1,000–59,000 volts)

power lines are still above-ground. Often, theconductor cables are attached via relatively shortinsulators to poles constructed of conductingmaterial. Birds on the earthed pole can easily reachthe energised conductor cables, or vice-versa. Asimilar risk of collision exists with medium-voltagepower lines to low-voltage lines. Fortunately, mostmedium-voltage power lines have conductor cablesarranged on a single level, which reduces the risk(Haas et al., 2005). Overhead power lines on railwaystypically transmit power at 10,000–15,000 volts andtherefore represent a similar level of risk to birds toother medium-voltage lines. Similar aspects of birdsafety must be taken into consideration whendesigning such equipment (Haas et al., 2005).

Expansion of renewable energy will requirenew power lines to be built.


High-voltage power lines. High-voltage power linesare almost exclusively above ground. Because oftheir long suspended insulators, the risk ofelectrocution is generally low. Death by collisionwith the cables is by far the largest danger posedby high-voltage power lines. Different towerconstructions are in use and present varying levelsof risk. The highest risks are posed by those powerlines where the conductor cables are arranged atdifferent heights (multi-level arrangements), andwith earth/neutral cables high above the conductorcables. Less dangerous constructions are in use,which have the conductor cables arranged at oneheight (single-level arrangement) and with theneutral cable only slightly higher (Haas et al., 2005).


OverviewResearch suggests that collisions with human builtstructures are the largest unintended human causeof avian fatalities worldwide. Although bird collisionswith power lines are a relatively small part of thisproblem, it is considered to be a significant localisedphenomenon. From a conservation point of view it isof serious concern to conservationists for tworeasons: (1) when it takes place at specific high risklocations which exposes large numbers of birds tocrippling and mortal danger and (2) when it affectsalready threatened species for which an additionalrisk factor may prove fatal.

Although collisions affect many species,statistically the birds most prone to collision are thelarge bodied species with proportionally smallwingspan (eg, some birds of prey, pelicans, storks,bustards, cranes and waterfowl) or birds thatcongregate in large numbers during migration (eg,flocks of passerines and waterbirds). Collisions takeplace most often at specific high-risk locations,such as in proximity of wetlands or on a migrationroute to foraging grounds. Visibility is also thoughtto play a significant part with increasing risk inpoor lighting (including at night for night migrants).

In Europe it was estimated that approximately 25%of juvenile and 6% of adult white stork diedannually from power line collisions andelectrocutions over a 16-year period (Schaub andPradel, 2004). Electrocution is considered to be theprimary mortality factor for a number of threatenedspecies, such as the Spanish and Eastern Imperialeagle, Bonelli’s eagle and Egyptian vulture.

Electrocution is primarily associated with the low-and medium-voltage power lines (distributionnetwork) and to a large extent is a function of thepole design. As electrocution is better studied it isnow confirmed that the risks of electrocution areaggravated by increases in the energy demand ofcertain regions. It is particularly prevalent in naturalareas where the introduction of power lines is acause of significant disruption to local species(Rollan et al., 2010), and even local extinctions, forexample of the eagle owl in parts of the Alps andthe Apennines (Sergio et al., 2004).

Risk of electrocution Birds are attracted by power poles, just as they areattracted by large dead trees in the open countryside.They are favoured as lookout points, as well asperching and roosting sites, and are sometimes usedfor nesting. Birds sitting on power poles and/orconducting cables are killed if they produce a short

Birds can collide with powerlines, or suffer electrocution.


circuit. Short circuits can occur between phases (ie,from one wire to another), or to an earth source.Electrocution can also occur either by troops of smallbirds causing an arc or through the urination jets oflarge birds roosting on the cross-arms.

In particular, poor design of medium-voltage powerpoles has resulted in an enormous risk fornumerous medium-sized and large birds. Somecommonly used constructions of medium-voltagepower poles have become infamously known as“killer poles” due to high bird losses. In thoseregions and countries, where such “killer poles”are commonly used on medium-voltage powerlines, numerous species of large birds suffer severelosses. For example, ringing (banding) studies ofwhite stork have indicated that electrocution alongtheir European migration routes represents one ofthe main causes of death (Garrido and Fernandez-Cruz, 2003). Field research and investigations of

storks, vultures, eagles and eagle owls have shownthat these losses can drive these species intodecline and towards extinction (Haas et al., 2005).

It is the combination of badly engineered insulatorand conductor constructions and the attractivenessof poles as perches that explains the high riskposed to many birds. In particular, if the spacing ofthe energised wires (phases) is particularly small, ifonly very short insulators are used, or if protectivegaps (arcing horns for lightning protection) areinstalled on a power pole, birds down to the size of starlings or house sparrows can sufferelectrocution (Haas et al., 2005).

Risk of collision In principle, birds of any flying species can collidewith any type of aerial wires or cables. In most cases,the impact of collision produces fatal injuries orimmediate death. Potential high-risk areas include


those of high importance for breeding, winteringand migrating birds; and wetlands, marshes,coastal areas, steppes and meadows.Environmental conditions that influence the risk of collision include disturbances leading to escapeflight movements, poor visibility (eg, fog, night,dawn and dusk), weather conditions (eg,precipitation, strong head winds), and poor visibilityof cables (eg, old oxidised unmarked wires aredifficult to see).

Birds which migrate at night are particularly at risk,as are those flying in flocks, and/or large and heavybirds with limited manoeuvrability. High losses arereported from lines with thin and/or low-hangingwires in sensitive areas (Haas et al., 2005). Cranes,bustards, flamingos, waterfowl, shorebirds, falconsand gamebirds are among the most frequentlyaffected avian groups, and collision frequency isthought to be an influential factor in ongoingpopulation declines in several species of cranes,bustards and diurnal raptors (Jenkins et al., 2010).

In important areas of bird migration, considerablelosses can occur. Birds migrating at night, andbirds flying regularly between feeding areas andresting areas, are particularly at risk when powerlines cut across their migration corridors or theirstaging/wintering areas. Breeding birds, which aremostly resident, may adapt to obstacles in theirenvironment, but birds on migration and duringstopovers are likely to remain in an area for alimited time and will therefore be unfamiliar withlocal hazards. Dangerous flight manoeuvres,which can lead to collisions with cables and wires,are observed more often in migratory thanresident birds. At such locations, bird losses mayexceed 500 casualties per kilometre of power lineper year (Haas et al., 2005).

Migratory birds are at particular risk where powerlines cut across important flyways and migrationcorridors, such as river valleys, mountain passesand straits. Above-ground power lines in or nearto staging and wintering areas also cause a hightoll of collision casualties, for example in wetlandsor steppe areas. The risk is particularly high whenthey are located in the flight approach to theseareas (Haas et al., 2005), or between resting andfeeding areas.

Loss of habitatLoss of habitat might occur through disturbanceand/or displacement, or changes in the quality ofbreeding, staging and/or wintering areas. This is

most likely to occur when above-ground powerlines cut across open landscapes and habitats (eg,wetlands or steppe) (Haas et al., 2005). Forexample, Arctic geese have been shown to avoidthe close vicinity of power lines when feeding(Ballasus and Sossinka, 1997; Larsen and Madsen,2000), and the breeding density of little bustard hasbeen shown to be negatively related to thepresence of power lines (Silva et al., 2010). Thesituation for passerines is more complicated, withsome species avoiding power lines (eg, stonechat),while others (eg, skylark and wheatear) are foundin higher densities close to power lines (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009). Above-ground power linesmay also result in increased predation due toattraction of mammalian predators and by providingperching sites and lookouts for birds of prey.

In most situations the destruction of habitat throughthe construction of bases for power poles or towersis likely to be relatively localised. However, theundergrounding of long sections of power lines maycause significant damage to certain habitats (eg,heathland or peatland). It may take many years forsuch habitats to recover, and there may be impactsto very localised species. In some habitats there is asignificant risk of hydrological impacts fromsubterranean cabling.


Avoiding sensitive locations Sensible changes to the routing of the power lines,to avoid installation of overhead lines in areasimportant for vulnerable bird species, willdrastically reduce the number of collisions.Particularly sensitive areas such as wetlands andestuaries should be avoided wherever possible.Strategic spatial planning (including mapping andlocational guidance) and technological solutionssuch as upgrading existing power lines andundergrounding can be used to minimise the need for new corridors in sensitive areas.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA)In order to reduce collision losses, bird protectionissues should be taken into account early in theplanning stage of any new power line. A thoroughEIA is necessary, including detailed pre-construction surveys. Prior to or in the initial stages of planning at least one year of field work isnecessary for ornithological evaluation, and for theinvestigation of local flight routes and patterns


during migration, breeding and post-breedingperiods (Haas et al., 2005).

Retrofitting or replacing “killer poles”“Killer poles” should be replaced or retrofitted forbird safety. If all medium-voltage “killer poles”were rendered safe, numerous endangered speciesof large birds, like storks, eagles and eagle owls,might be allowed to recover and start to repopulatelost ranges (Haas et al., 2005). Attempts to re-introduce these birds will only be successful if themain mortality factors, such as electrocution andcollision, have been excluded as far as possible.

Fitting of rejectors and insulation Suitably arranged rejectors can be used to deterbirds from perching on poles and towers, therebyreducing the risk of electrocution. These can beretro-fitted to dangerous arrangements or used onnew equipment to ensure that birds do not perch inareas where they might be at risk. Insulationsheathing, hoods or plastic caps may be retrofittedor factored into the design of new infrastructure, toincrease the distance between exposed conductingcables/wires and earth sources.

National standards and guidance It is possible to reduce the risk of electrocutionsignificantly without raising the costs of installingpower lines to unacceptable levels (Haas et al.,2005). This can be achieved by developingconstruction criteria and principles for bird safetywhich ensure a high standard of design with birdsafety in mind (international agreements on birdsafe power lines are discussed in Box 22). Thisapplies to new constructions and for retro-fittingkits. National governments are recommended topass suitable legislation, which makes technicalstandards for bird safety legally binding.

Better design of new power lines In various parts of the world, different technicalsolutions for bird safety are under test andevaluation, so far with moderate results (Haas et al.,2005). Unfortunately, many electricity transmissioncompanies do not seem to be aware of the progressthat has already been achieved for bird safety inrelation to power lines. Adopting safe power pole ortower constructions can effectively reduce the risksposed to birds.

Undergrounding sections in sensitive areas Fortunately, with continuing technical progressmany types of high-risk transmission lines will

eventually be removed. In addition, favourabletrends can be reported from the low- and medium-voltage networks of some utility companies, whichhave made the step to change from above-groundpower lines to underground power lines (Haas etal., 2005).

Where sensitive locations cannot be avoided powerlines should be undergrounded where the terrain is suitable and ecological impacts are acceptable.However, this remains an expensive option forhigh-voltage lines and will therefore continue to be used sparingly. It is important that all of thepotential impacts of burying power lines are fullyconsidered when plans are drawn up, as impactson sensitive habitats might be significant.

Markers The use of markers to increase the visibility ofpower lines and earth wires has been shown to be effective at reducing collisions of many species(Jenkins et al., 2010). There are many designs andsome are more effective than others. There is alsovariability in terms of the lifespan of differentmarkers. Consideration of the need to renewmarkers on a regular basis should be made, or a design selected which has a long shelf-life.

Removal of the earth wire Many large power lines are designed to carry asingle earth/neutral wire above the current-carryingones. This earth wire tends to be thinner and lessvisible. Often on encountering power lines birdswill flare upwards on recognising the obstacle, butfail to clear the earth wire and collision ensues.Removal of the earth wire can significantly reducethe risk of collision (Jenkins et al., 2010).

Habitat managementThere are considerable opportunities for ecologicalenhancement through the management of habitatsbeneath and around power lines to benefit wildlife.There may be opportunities to mitigate (orcompensate) for losses elsewhere, throughmanaging habitats to benefit species which are notconsidered at risk of collision. Habitat managementto deter large raptors might be partially successful ifit reduces attractiveness of the areas to these birds.On the other hand, power poles and towers offerperching, roosting and nesting sites for some largebirds. Bird-safe power lines enable birds, like raptors,storks and ravens, to nest in otherwise treelesslandscapes, which may benefit these species.


THE ECOLOGICALSUSTAINABILITYOF EUROPE’S 2020RENEWABLESPLANS

CHAPTER 3

Under the Renewable Energy Directive(2009/28/EC), EU Member States wererequired to draw up NREAPs. Thesespecify how each Member State plans to meet their agreed contribution of theoverall target of a 20% share of renewablesin EU energy consumption in 2020.

Total (gross final) energy consumption in 2020 is projected to amount to 1189million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe).According to the NREAPs, by 2020 theEU 27 will consume energy fromrenewable sources equivalent to 244Mtoe per year, which is fractionallyover the 20% target. In 2005 renewablesprovided for 97 Mtoe (8.3%) of energyconsumed. Therefore sufficient capacityand infrastructure needs to be in placeacross the EU by 2020 to provide anadditional 147 Mtoe of renewable energy use per year, relative to 2005.

Figure 1 breaks down this additionalcontribution to the EU energy mix fromrenewables by technology. The largestcontribution is made by biomass forheating. In 2005 this technologycontributed 49 Mtoe to Europe’s energyneeds, and in 2020 it is expected toprovide 87 Mtoe, so biomass for heatcontributes an additional 38 Mtoe peryear – or 38 thousand kilotonnes of oilequivalent (ktoe).

The second largest contribution tomeeting the 20% overall target is to bemade by liquid biofuels (29 Mtoe peryear – an additional 26 Mtoe comparedto 2005). Onshore wind makes asubstantial contribution, with additionalturbines installed 2005–20 expected tocontribute 24 Mtoe of renewableelectricity to the EU’s energy mix in2020. Offshore wind is expected toprovide a further 11 Mtoe.


FIGURE 1

The “medium risk” technologies (see ChapterTwo) – onshore and offshore wind, solar, biomassfor heat and electricity, and tidal/wave – plus a smallcontribution from geothermal energy, togetherprovide for 69% of additional renewable energyconsumed in 2020 compared to 2005 (101 Mtoe ofthe total 147 Mtoe increase). A further 12% of theincrease is expected to be provided by technologiesin our “low risk” category: solar thermal and heatpumps, plus renewable electricity consumed inelectric vehicles. In our “high risk” category,additional hydropower provides a little over 1%(partly accounted for by small scale facilities and“repowering” existing facilities, which may presentfew risks) and the remaining 18% of the increase inconsumption is attributed to liquid biofuels. Thesestatistics are summarised in Table 2.

In order to give an impression of the implications on the ground in terms of land-use changes andinvestments, these increases in energy consumptioncan be related to the output of typical renewableenergy installations with current technologies andaverage load factorsv. For example, to meet the targetfor solar PV using domestic rooftops the EU wouldrequire an additional 19.4 million 4-kW photovoltaichome systems. The target for CSP would require 17050-MW facilities. The wave and tidal targets wouldrequire an additional 5,100 1-MW tidal/wave turbines.

TABLE 2

Meeting the EU renewables targets:contributions from low, medium and high risktechnology groups

Total energy use in the EUin 2020

Total renewable energyuse in the EU in 2020

Additional annualrenewable energy use2005–20

Additional “low risk”renewable energy use2005–20 (%)

Additional “medium risk”renewable energy use2005–20 (%)

Additional “high risk”renewable energy use2005–20 (%)

1189 Mtoe

244 Mtoe (20% of totalenergy use)

147 Mtoe

18 Mtoe (12%)

101 Mtoe (69%)

28 Mtoe (19%)

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!�� "�

!#�� "�

� ��

$ ��"��

%� �� &�

%� �� '�(�

)� �� &�

)� �� '�(�

*�"��+��,� ��(&�

�&"� �

-�.��"� � ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��"�!��

��"�� !#

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��"�� $ ��

��&�%� ��

��'�(�%� ��

��&)� ��

��'�(�)� ��

(&��,� ��*�"��+��

�"��&

-�.��"� � ��

EU-27 additional renewableenergy consumption in 2020compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv

THE ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF EUROPE’S 2020 RENEWABLES PLANS 59

Meeting the biomass for electricity target usingwood fuel would demand annual consumption ofan additional 194 million oven dried tonnes (odt) of wood. Additional annual consumption of over88 million odt of wood would be needed to meetthe target for biomass for heating. Despite thislower fuel demand for heat compared to electricity,in terms of meeting the EU’s 2020 renewableenergy target, biomass for heating makes a fargreater contribution than biomass for electricity.This reflects the inefficiency of thermal powergeneration when waste heat is not used. Forreference, total woody biomass production acrossthe EU each year for all purposes and servingexisting markets is approximately 500 million odt.

Providing for an additional 35 Mtoe of the EU’senergy consumption through wind power,approximately 59,000 2-MW onshore wind turbines

TABLE 3

Illustration of facilities that would meet additional EU renewables use 2005–20v, vi

TECHNOLOGY

Photovoltaic

CSP

Onshore wind

Offshore wind

Tidal/wave

Biomass elec.

Biomass heat

1 MTOE = APPROX. CAPACITY

11,000 MW

4,300 MW

4,900 MW

4,800 MW

5,100 MW

2,300 MW

N/A

EU-WIDE TARGETFOR ADDITIONALUSE IN 2020 (MTOE)

7

2

24

11

1

14

38

1 MTOE = EXAMPLEINSTALLATIONS/INPUTS

2.8 million 4-kW solarhome systems

86 50-MW CSP plants

2,450 2-MW turbines

600 8-MW turbines

5,100 1-MWdevices/turbines

13. 8 m oven driedtonnes wood

2.3 m oven driedtonnes wood

EU ADDITIONALINSTALLATIONS/ INPUTS2005–20 (ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY)

19.4 m solar homes systems

170 plants

59,000 turbines

6,600 turbines

5,100 devices/turbines

194 m odt wood

88 m odt wood

and 6,600 8-MW offshore wind turbines wouldneed to be installed across Europe by 2020. Thesewould occupy surface areas of approximately11,800 km2 onshore and 5,300 km2 offshorevi.Table 3 summarises these illustrative scenarios.

In Chapter Five the technology mixes in NREAPsfor project Partners’ countries are illustrated anddiscussed, showing how each intends to meet thisgreater consumption of renewable energy. Theremainder of this Chapter focuses on therenewable energy technologies themselves, and on which EU nations plan to make use of them. The technologies are classified into the same threerisk categories presented in Section 2.1 above. InFigures throughout this report, shades of greenindicate “low risk” technologies, shades ofblue/purple represent “medium risk” and shades of red represent “high risk”.


3.1 LOWCONSERVATION RISKTECHNOLOGIES

BOX 12

Small scale and local: essential but not enough

In Germany, the idea that building small PV systems couldsignificantly contribute to the country’s energy mix has longbeen contested. It was not until recently that home ownersall over Germany proved that PV does make a difference. In2010 alone more than 7 GW of PV capacity were installed inGermany. Following this development, on sunny days in thespring of 2011 (when, after the Fukushima accident, half ofthe German nuclear power plants were turned off) PV forthe first time ever fed more electricity into the public gridthan nuclear sources.

Despite this success, building small scale PV will never bethe backbone of Germany’s energy supply. The electricitysystem becomes too vulnerable to effects of regionalweather conditions when relying heavily on only oneenergy source such as PV. A balanced renewable energymix including solar energy, wave, tidal, onshore andoffshore wind, biomass, hydropower and geothermal energy is needed.

All over Europe, many municipalities have the potential tobe energy self-sufficient by making use of the localrenewable energy sources. In fact, in Germany more than100 local authorities strive to become “100%-renewable-regions” in the near future. For many people, self-sufficientenergy communities seem like a simple solution to avoidthe expansion of the power grid. However, very few regionsin Europe can completely rely on regional renewableenergy sources throughout the year. And even in theseregions, high-voltage power lines are needed to transport

surplus power to other regions, big cities, or industrialareas which cannot be completely energy self-sufficient.Developing regional energy storage capacities cancontribute to solving the problem, but is often muchmore expensive and inefficient in terms of energy lossesthan grid expansion. Connecting small scale PV systemsto batteries can help, but power lines with adequatecapacity and large-scale energy storage facilities willstill be needed.

Reducing the energy required to heat or cool buildings willbe vital to lower European CO2 emissions. “Zero carbon”or “passive house” design can decrease the energy needsof new buildings to very low levels. In some buildings, andat certain locations, the remaining heat energy demandcan be delivered by solar energy, heat pumps or biomass –ideally all of them integrated in highly efficient districtheating systems. And by 2020, all new buildings in the EUmust be constructed as nearly-zero-energy buildingsunder the proposed re-cast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. However, most of the demand forheating buildings derives from the existing building stock.Retrofitting existing houses for energy efficiency andmicro-renewables will make a big difference, but not allexisting houses can reach the “passive house” standardwithout very high costs borne by the owner, landlord,tenant or society as a whole. Again, small scale solutionssuch as building insulation must contribute to the abatementof CO2 emissions, but they alone will not do the job.


In general, energy saving measures, solar thermal,heat pumps and use of renewable electricity invehicles are not expected to result in significantadditional direct ecological impacts. A move toelectric vehicles is important because of theecological risks associated with biofuels, butoverall demand for private transport must also bereduced through better public transport provisionand measures to reduce the need to travel, such asurban planning. Both heat pumps and electricvehicles will increase electricity consumption –this underlines the importance of decarbonisingEurope’s electricity supplies. BirdLife calls forgreater ambition in the use of these technologies.

Building-scale renewables will make an essentialcontribution in the transition to a low carbonEurope, but decentralised sources and energysavings will not be sufficient to make large-scalerenewables and new power lines unnecessary (seeBox 12). This is particularly true if renewable electricityis to provide for transport and heating needs.

3.1.1 ENERGY SAVING

The NREAPs also include details of additionalenergy efficiency policies, and estimate how muchenergy these will save relative to the “business asusual” (BAU) scenario. In total, these additionalmeasures identified in the NREAPs are estimated tolower overall energy consumption in the EU in2020 by 10% (saving 128 Mtoe per year by 2020)relative to BAU. To give a sense of the magnitudeof this saving, total energy consumption in the EU27 in 2009 was just under 1114 Mtoevii. With theseadditional energy saving policies, this is expectedto grow only marginally to 1189 Mtoe in 2020.

Figure 2 shows where these savings will be made,expressed in ktoe. Three quarters of the energysavings are accounted for by just five countries:France, Spain, Germany, Poland and Italy.

FIGURE 2

��

��

�� !��" ��

#��!��$�$��

%��!&

$$�

%�� $�&�!��&��

'��!( ��'��& ��$

)��!(�

��

*+��!(

��

�+��!��$��

,�+-�"��

,��! �$��

,/�(�!��

0!��(

1�!�(+�$�� 2��

��

,��! �$

,/�(�!�

0!��(

1�!�(+�$�� 2��

��

2��

��

��

�� !��" ��

'��!(

*+��!(

'��& ��$

)��!(�

��

�+��!��$��

��

,�+-�"��

%�� $�

#��!��$�$��

%��!&&

*+��!(

&

$$�

&�!��&��

��

%�� $�

National reductions in annualenergy consumption in 2020compared to referencescenarios resulting fromadditional energy savingsmeasures indentified inNREAPs [ktoe]iv


FIGURE 3

Figure 3 shows the role energy saving is expectedto play in each country, with some aiming higherthan the overall EU figure of 10%. France andBulgaria both aim to consume over 20% lessenergy in 2020 as a result of additional energysavings policies. Poland, Spain, Sweden, Romaniaand Latvia also plan to go beyond the EU average.

The statistics are difficult to interpret as the EUMember States have widely varying startingpositions in terms of current energy efficiency andalso existing policies or targets. However, theysuggest that many EU countries could dosignificantly more to save energy. In particular,countries such as Belgium, Hungary, Portugaland the UK urgently need to revise their plans,taking the lead from countries such as Franceand Bulgaria.

3.1.2 SOLAR THERMAL

In 2005 solar thermal accounted for 1 Mtoe (0.1%)of the EU’s energy consumption. By 2020 anadditional 5 Mtoe of the energy consumed in theEU 27 will be provided by this technology, bringingits share of total energy consumed up to 0.5%. Onaverage in Europe, solar thermal is expected togrow by 10 to 15% per annum between 2010 and2020, and should account for 1.2% of total heating

and cooling energy demand in 2020 (EREC, 2011a).As Figure 4 illustrates, and as one might expect,many southern European countries plan to makegreater use of solar thermal technology. However,Germany and Austria also expect significantcontributions from this technology, and Polandix

and Belgium recognise the potential for thistechnology in Northern Europe. BirdLiferecommends much greater use of this technologyacross Europe, and calls for northern MemberStates that have neglected the potential forwidespread solar thermal to follow the lead ofGermany and increase their ambition accordingly.

3.1.3 HEAT PUMPS

The NREAPs suggest heat pumps will provide1% of total energy consumed in 2020, supplying12 Mtoe compared to just 1 Mtoe in 2005. Heatpumps represent 2.6% of the planned EU heatingand cooling mix in 2020 (EREC, 2011a).

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �!��

"��

#��

��

#��

$��

%��&�

%��

'��(��

'��

'�)��!��

*��

+!��&�

+!��

�!��

,�!(�

��

,��

,/�&��

��&�-��&!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

��

��

"�

��

#��

��

��

#�

��

��

$��

��&�

%�

��

%� �(��

'�

'��

��

��!��

'�)

��

*��

!��&�

+

��

!��

+ !��

�

� ��

(,�!

,��

�&��

/,

&!��

�&�-��

��

Figure 3: Energy saving plans of the EU-27 States, comparing business as usual scenarios to theirenergy saving scenarios for 2020 [%]viii


FIGURE 4

Additional solar thermal energy in EU energyconsumption in 2020 compared to 2005, byMember State [ktoe]iv, ix

FIGURE 5

Additional heat pump-derived energy in EUenergy consumption in 2020 compared to 2005,by Member State [ktoe]iv

FIGURE 6

Additional renewable electricity used invehicles in 2020 compared to 2005, by MemberState according to NREAPs [ktoe]iv, ix

Figure 5 shows which countries account for this expected increase in renewable energyconsumption from heat pumps. Most EU countriesplan to make greater use of this technology, withthe UK, Italy, France and Sweden most ambitious.There is clearly scope for further use of heatpumps, for example in Spain or Poland.Geothermal energy, derived from heat in theearth’s core, is expected to provide an additional1 Mtoe of electricity and 3 Mtoe of heat in 2020.

3.1.4 ELECTRIC VEHICLES

The NREAPs report on expected renewable energyconsumption in EVs. Europe’s ambitions for EVsas set out in the NREAPs are very modest, takingtheir share in energy consumption from less than0.1% in 2005 to less than 0.3% in 2020. However,commitments to EV technology by many EUgovernments, notably Germany, France, Italyand Spain (Figure 6) are pushing forwardcommercialisation and technical improvements.

��.��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��!��

� ��

�"��

#� $�%��"��

#��

��"�

&�'��"�

��

��

��!��

#��

�"�

�%��"$#�

��"

��"�

&�'��

��

��

#��

(�

��

��

� ��

��"�

��

��

��

��

��!��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

(��

� �

��

��

��

��

!��

"��&��

��

"��#�

$��&��

!� �%��

%&��&��

'�&��(�

� �

)*��!��

+,��

!��

-�&��

.��*��

��#��

/&��!��

��

&��!��

��

0(!��

-�&

�*��.��

/&��

��

&��!��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

�

�*��

��

��

��

&��(�

��&

��

�*��

%&

'�

� �

*��!��)

,+

!��

.��

��#��

"��

��

��

�*��

��

!��

��

��#�"�

��&&��$��

!� ��%�

&&�

��#��

�&&�"��

��#�

0(&��!!��

��

��

��

��

!"��

�� #�$�� !�

%��

%&��

��

'��&��(�

)�&��*�

��

+,��#��

+,�&��!��

-��(��

-/��((�

0��&��

1��,��

#!�2&��(�

��

��

.*&��

2

-/�� ((

0��&��

1��,��

#!�2&��

��

��

.*&��

��

�� (

��

��

��

$�� !�

%&��

%��'��&��(

��)�&��*�

��

+,��#��

+,�&��!��

-��(

-/��( ��

��

��

%&��

��

�� #�

!"��

$�� !��

��

��


3.2 MEDIUMCONSERVATION RISKTECHNOLOGIESAs Chapter Two indicates, there are low risksassociated with most renewable energytechnologies when sensitively deployed. Solar PVis low risk when mounted on roofs or land with lowecological value, but is included here because thereare some risks associated with large “solar farms”and CSP. Similarly, while we consider tidal rangetechnologies “high risk”, tidal power is includedhere as our data analysis does not distinguish

between “range” and “stream” technologies.

3.2.1 SOLAR POWER

Depending on location and scale, large PV arrayscould reduce the conservation value of agriculturalland and rural areas. Conversely they couldenhance a site’s conservation value if projects areactively managed for that purpose (Box 13).

BOX 13

Solar PV for conservation in Germany

Since 2005, new feed-in-tariffs for electricity from PVpanels have resulted in a roll out of solar farms acrossGermany. By the end of 2010 these installations coveredabout 7,500 hectares of land. While the largest projectsdemand up to 200 hectares, the average land consumptionof a solar farm is estimated between five and 30 hectares.Although about 85% of all PV systems are still installedon buildings, conservation concerns about possibleimpacts of solar farms on landscape, habitatfragmentation and biodiversity were raised at an earlystage. In association with the German Solar Association(BSW), NABU/BirdLife Germany (2005) publishedguidelines for sensitive development of solar farms,and these have been widely applied.

The German Renewable Energy Act contains a legalprovision that specification in a Local Development Planand an EIA are required before a location for a solar farmcan be approved and the operator can claim the feed-in-tariff. In most cases this instrument has been veryeffective in directing PV investments towards sites of lowecological sensitivity. Usually construction is only allowedon land that has already been sealed alongside existinginfrastructure corridors like railways, and previously

developed sites that are no longer used for economic ormilitary purposes.

Until 2009 it was also possible to build a solar farm onagricultural land, which then had to be converted into lowintensity grassland. Land that is deemed suitable for solarfarms may be considered marginal in an agricultural oreconomic context, but could nevertheless be an importantsite for wildlife. On the other hand, over a solar farm’slifetime of 20–25 years there is a valuable opportunity tocreate synergies if development is restricted to lessbiodiverse areas of a site and revenues from the feed-in-tariff are partly spent for additional decontamination ornature conservation measures. The German RenewableEnergies Agency (2010) has published a useful report onsolar farms and biodiversity, with helpful guidelines andcase studies showing how solar farms can benefit wildlife.

Created by: Created by: Sergio Boggio, CDMU, 20 October 2011Sergio Boggio, CDMU, 20 October 2011

Notes:Notes:

Additional solar power 2005 - 2020Additional solar power 2005 - 2020

Additional electricity in total final energy consumption derived fromAdditional electricity in total final energy consumption derived fromsolar photovoltaic cells and concentrated solar power in EU Member solar photovoltaic cells and concentrated solar power in EU Member States National Renewable Energy Action Plans 2005 - 2020States National Renewable Energy Action Plans 2005 - 2020

Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:

00 1,0001,000500500

KmKm1:26,000,0001:26,000,000

Scale on A4 paperScale on A4 paper

100 ktoe*100 ktoe*

1000 ktoe*1000 ktoe*

* kilo tonnes of oil equivalent* kilo tonnes of oil equivalent

Solar Solar photovoltaicphotovoltaic

10 ktoe*10 ktoe*

Concentrated Concentrated solar powersolar power



The NREAPs suggest consumption of electricityfrom solar PV will grow from a negligible amountin 2005 to 7 Mtoe in 2020. According to EREC(2011a) analysis of the NREAPs, 2.35% of EUelectricity consumption in 2020 will be derivedfrom solar PV.

FIGURE 7

Additional solar PV power in EU energyconsumption in 2020 compared to 2005, byMember State [ktoe]iv

FIGURE 8

Additional concentrated solar power in EUenergy consumption in 2020 compared to 2005,by Member State [ktoe]iv

As Figure 7 shows, just under half of this additionalPV capacity will be installed in Germany. Spain,Italy and France also plan to make significant useof solar PV. Strong, sustained support for the PVsector in countries such as Germany is rapidlydriving down costs. Germany has alsodemonstrated that very significant electricitygeneration is possible relying almost exclusivelyon rooftop installations. While southern Europeancountries have the greatest solar energy resource,the UK, Netherlands and Belgium have recognisedits potential as a clean energy source in northernEurope. By applying some readily achievablesafeguards (Section 2.2 above), and with greaterambition and support from many Member States,solar power has huge potential as a major sourceof clean and ecologically benign electricity acrossEurope. Current low ambitions in many MemberStates are a missed opportunity, and mean higher risk technologies will be used to meet the 2020 targets.

3.2.2 CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER

A further 2 Mtoe (0.2%) of energy consumed in2020 is expected to be provided by CSP. More thanthree quarters of this will be located in Spain, asillustrated in Figure 7. EREC (2011a) analysissuggests that 0.5% of the EU’s electricity will beprovided by “solar thermal electricity” by 2020.

CSP is a relatively novel technology compared tosolar PV, and has very significant potential. Withsix countries now intending to develop CSPfacilities, the sector should benefit from technicaladvances. This demonstrates the value of bindingrenewable energy targets for stimulatingtechnological innovation.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��


3.2.3 ONSHORE WIND POWER

In 2005 onshore wind power provided 6 Mtoetowards the EU’s energy consumption, and theNREAPs suggest this will rise to 30 Mtoe (2.5%)by 2020. Germany, the UK, Spain and France areexpected to account for a little under two thirdsof this increase.

That so many EU Member States intend to makegreater use of onshore wind power reflects thefact that it is one of the lowest cost and mosttechnologically mature renewable energy sources.Since the NREAPs were drafted some countrieshave decided to increase their targets. For example,Scotland has decided to produce renewableelectricity in sufficient quantities by 2020 to meet100% of its electricity needs. Stimulating theonshore wind industry and steering developerstowards suitable locations are key ingredientsin Scotland’s policy framework for achieving theirambitious targets. Meanwhile in many countriesthe wind power industry is in its infancy, andgovernments have yet to fully appreciate theimportance of strategic spatial planning and stableincentive frameworks for sustainable growthof the sector.

FIGURE 9

Additional onshore wind power in EU energyconsumption in 2020 compared to 2005, byMember State [ktoe]iv

Onshore wind is a low cost,proven technology.

.*&��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!"��

#�"��$%�

��

&'��$��

��(�

&'"��

�(��

�'��

��

)�� (�

)*�$��

��

+�"�$�

,��$'��

��

-"��

��.�%

�$�

�

�$�� *)

��

��

+�"

$'��,��

��

-"��

��"��

��

�$�

�.�%��

��

��

��

��

�

��

'��

��

��

#

)�� (�

'��$�&

��(�

��'"��&

�(��

'��

��

��)�� (� ��

��

�

��

��!"

"��$%�

��



Notes:Notes:

Additional onshore and offshore wind power 2005 - 2020Additional onshore and offshore wind power 2005 - 2020

Additional electricity in total final energy consumption derived fromAdditional electricity in total final energy consumption derived fromonshore and offshore wind in EU Member States National Renewable onshore and offshore wind in EU Member States National Renewable Energy Action Plans 2005 - 2020Energy Action Plans 2005 - 2020


00 1,0001,000500500

KmKm

1:26,000,0001:26,000,000Scale on A4 paperScale on A4 paper

100 ktoe*100 ktoe*



OnshoreOnshore OffshoreOffshore

Centr al gr id ref eren ce: Wind _on sho reWIN D

Wind _re gionWIN D0

Worl dCo untri esSi ngle Obje cts_ regio n


3.2.4 OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Offshore wind power is expected to grow as ashare of EU energy consumption from a negligibleamount in 2005 to 11 Mtoe (1%) in 2020. As Figure10 demonstrates, the North Sea is the focus formost of Europe’s offshore wind development, withthe UK, Germany and the Netherlands havingambitious plans. France and Spain also plan toexploit wind energy in the Atlantic, and a smallcontribution is expected in the Mediterranean.

Combined, onshore and offshore wind power isexpected to reach over 14% of total electricityconsumption in 2020, according to EREC (2011a)analysis of the NREAPs. As with onshore wind,strategic spatial planning will be vital for orderlyand sustained growth of offshore wind. Co-operation between Member States, particularly theNorth Sea states, will be needed to ensuredevelopment of offshore wind and associatedelectricity transmission infrastructure is developedin a rational way and without unacceptablecumulative impacts. Rapid development of theoffshore wind sector adds urgency to the need todesignate a coherent network of marine Natura2000 sites.

3.2.5 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER

The contribution to EU energy consumption madeby tidal and wave power is expected to grow froma negligible amount in 2005 to approximately1 Mtoe in 2020. According to EREC (2011a)analysis ocean energy is planned to represent0.15% of electricity consumption in 2020.

Just six countries plan to make use of thesetechnologies. The UK share (Figure 11) assumes a large contribution from tidal range power on theSevern Estuary. A feasibility study concluded in2011 that there was no economic case to supporta major scheme on the Severn, and that a tidalbarrage in particular would cause very significantharm to birds and biodiversity in the estuary(Box 8). It is now very unlikely that a scheme willbe in place and generating electricity by 2020.Therefore the actual contribution from thesetechnologies in 2020 may be lower thansuggested in the NREAPs. Despite this smalloverall contribution, however, nationalcommitments to support research anddemonstration projects is vital to enable thesetechnologies to make a significant contributionbeyond 2020.

FIGURE 10

Additional offshore wind power in EU energyconsumption in 2020 compared to 2005, byMember State [ktoe]iv

FIGURE 11

Additional tidal, wave and ocean energy in EUenergy consumption in 2020 compared to 2005,by Member State [ktoe]iv

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !

"#�$��

%�$��

&$�'��

��

(��

��

��

��

(��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !

��

��

�

"#�$��

%�$�

��&$�'

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

� ��

��



Notes:Notes:

Additional biomass heat and power 2005 – 2020Additional biomass heat and power 2005 – 2020

Additional electricity and heat in total final energy consumption derived Additional electricity and heat in total final energy consumption derived from biomass in EU Member States’ National Renewable Energy Action from biomass in EU Member States’ National Renewable Energy Action PlansPlans


00 1,0001,000500500

KmKm1:26,000,0001:26,000,000

Scale on A4 paperScale on A4 paper

100 ktoe*100 ktoe*



Biomasss forBiomasss forheatingheating

Biomass for Biomass for electricityelectricity


3.2.6 BIOMASS FOR HEAT AND POWER

Sustainably sourced biomass has a major role toplay in meeting the EU’s renewable energy targets.It is possible to manage woodlands, grow energycrops and source waste material in Europe inecologically acceptable and even beneficial ways(Box 14), to provide large quantities of fuel (EEA,2006). However, there is also potential to causesignificant ecological harm, particularly if fuel issourced from international markets. Biomass forheat makes a much greater contribution to meetingthe 2020 renewables targets (see map), using muchless total biomass fuel (see Table 3). Unless theheat from power stations is used for “combinedheat and power”, generating electricity is awasteful use of biomass resources.

As Figure 12 demonstrates, almost every EUcountry plans to make greater use of biomass inelectricity generation over this decade. Electricityfrom biomass contributed 6 Mtoe (0.5%) of overallEU energy consumption in 2005. This is expectedto grow to 20 Mtoe (1.7%) in 2020. EREC (2011a)calculates that biomass will represent 6.5% ofelectricity consumption in 2020.

Biomass for space heating already makes asignificant contribution to Europe’s energy needs,largely in the form of domestic wood burning. In2005 it accounted for 4% (69 Mtoe) of EU energyconsumption, and this is expected to grow to over7% (87 Mtoe) in 2020. Biomass is planned torepresent 17.2% of the planned EU heating andcooling mix in 2020 according to EREC (2011a).

Again most EU countries plan to make significantlygreater use of this technology (Figure 13). ManyMember States such as the UK (RSPB, 2011) andthe EU as a whole (Hewitt, 2011) will only be ableto meet demand for fuel on this scale throughimports. While bringing some European forests or even wetlands (Box 14) into better managementcould help meet both energy and biodiversitytargets, wood fuel imports from countries such as the US, Russia and Canada will be necessary.This has raised concerns among NGOs overpotential ecological impacts outside the EU (RSPB,2011; Hewitt, 2011).

FIGURE 12

Additional biomass electricity in EU energyconsumption in 2020 compared to 2005, byMember State [ktoe]iv

FIGURE 13

Additional biomass heat in EU energyconsumption in 2020 compared to 2005, byMember State [ktoe]iv

.�%"��

�/��

��

��

��

��

��

!��& �"#��

!�� ##�

$��& ��%��

%&�& � � "�'&(� � # �

'�&�� #��

)�&��* �

��

+,�� #��+,�&�� "��

�,��

-�,(��

-�� ""�

-.�� #�

/��&��

0��,� � �� 3&��

��

,��

�� (-�,

-�� "

�� .-

��/��&

�,� � ��0�� 3&��

&�� ##�1�*

��

��

� ��&��

��

��

��

��

��

,�� #��

%&&(� � # �'

'�&�� #��

&��*)�

��

� � "�� +,�&�+

,��

��

�"#��#�� && !��

&& �$�� %�

� � "�&&

##

��

1�*&��

��

��

��

��" ��

��

��& ��

��

!��& ��

"��" ��

"#��& ��

$�#%� ��

$#��

&�#��"' �

��

()��" ��

*�)%��

*��

*/�"��

0�#�"�

1�")� ��2#��

��

�� %*�)

*��

�"�� /*

�"�0�#

")� ��1�2#�

��#��

��

+�'��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��" ��

#%� ��

"#

)��" ��

$�

$#��

#��"&�

��

(

�

��

��

��

)��" ��

��&& ��

��&& ��!��

��" ��"�

��&& "#

��

��


BOX 14

Biomass fuel production for wetlandconservation in Poland

The famous wetlands of the Biebrza Valley in north-eastPoland are probably Europe’s most pristine fen mires. Themain reason for their popularity with visitors is the sheerwealth of their wildlife. A unique system of fen mires andwet meadows supports both nature and local employmentin nature-oriented activities.The Biebrza Marshes are saidto be one of the EU’s best sites for species such as greatsnipe and greater spotted eagle. Moreover, the aquaticwarbler, the only globally threatened songbird of theEuropean mainland, breeds here. With about 2,500 singingmales, the Biebrza Valley holds 20% of the species’ worldpopulation. In the Biebrza Valley OTOP/BirdLife Poland, in partnership with RSPB/BirdLife UK, is running twoprojects (both supported by LIFE Nature programme) foraquatic warbler conservation.

The need for conservation measures arises from thethreat of the wetlands becoming overgrown with densereeds and trees, caused mainly by changes to thehydrology of the valley and the decline of extensiveagriculture. For hundreds of years this ecologicalsuccession was prevented by extensive traditional handscything practices, but from the 1970s onwards thatpractice died out. By the end of the last millennium, overhalf the area of open fen mire vegetation was alreadyovergrown. Breeding waders like black-tailed godwits,redshanks and lapwings had abandoned large areas, andsuitable habitat for the aquatic warbler had significantlydecreased, despite the establishment of a National Park.Biomass production has helped find and fund a solution tothis problem, and conservation measures are nowundertaken on 12,000 ha of National Park land. Handmowing has been replaced by machines that can be usedon the boggy ground, using an adapted alpine “piste-basher” on caterpillar tracks, with very low groundpressure (to protect the delicate peat soil and vegetation)and fast working speeds. Financial support formanagement was secured thanks to work with theGovernment to develop a targeted aquatic warbler agri-environment package. Now, farmers and entrepreneurswho use land occupied by aquatic warblers can getfinancial support for regular mowing. Finally, all of theelements needed for starting large scale conservationworks were available: the machines, financial support and the land.

As the fen mires conservation system started to work, ause had to be found for the harvested biomass (sedges,reeds, grass), which is produced in huge quantities. The

biomass, which is too poor quality for animal feed, is nowbeing used for bioenergy generation. A processing facilityhas been built in Trzcianne village that will processapproximately 2400 tonnes of dry biomass harvested fromapproximately 2400 hectares of wetlands into pellets. As wellas generating low carbon energy and local employment,profits will finance further nature conservation measures.

Mowing using a modified “pistebasher” to produce fuel and savethe aquatic warbler.


3.3 HIGHCONSERVATION RISKTECHNOLOGIESWith currently available technologies andregulatory frameworks, BirdLife considers thatnew hydropower facilities and liquid biofuelspresent high ecological risks. Whileacknowledging that both can be developedsensitively, BirdLife considers the potential forsustainable deployment to be very limited. TheEU’s ambitions for increased electricity fromhydropower are modest, in line with thisassessment. However, BirdLife considers theEU’s targets for liquid biofuels to be excessiveand should be scaled back.

3.3.1 HYDROPOWER

Hydropower was already a significant source of renewable energy in 2005, providing 30 Mtoe(2.6%) of total energy consumed. This isexpected to grow only a little, to 32 Mtoe in2020. Hydropower is expected to represent10.5% of electricity consumption in 2020 (EREC, 2011a).

This limited growth reflects the fact that suitablesites, particularly for new large hydro schemes,are very limited in Europe (Box 15). A proportionof the increase will be achieved by repoweringexisting hydro facilities. Provided this isachieved in compliance with the WaterFramework Directive’s requirements regardingthe conservation status of water bodies, this isan acceptable way to boost renewable energyoutput from a conservation perspective.

BOX 15

Are there suitable sites for new hydro in Slovenia?

Hydropower is the most important source of renewableenergy in Slovenia apart from biomass. The first publichydropower plant in Slovenia was built in 1914. The riverDrava now has eight hydro facilities, and its powergeneration potential is fully exploited. The Slovenianeconomic Ministry is preparing a new National Energy Planto 2030 in which the construction of 596 MW of newhydropower plants is planned. The proposal is for 448 MW of new hydro capacity on the river Sava, 55 MW on the riverMura and 93 MW on other, smaller rivers.

Almost half of Slovenian rivers are already used by powerplants, and are consequently degraded in ecological terms.Following construction of large hydropower plants on therivers Drava and Sava, and subsequent destruction of thelargest gravel bars in the late 1970s, stone curlew becameextinct in Slovenia, while little tern is now restricted to thecoast. Because the remaining unaltered rivers have high conservational value, it can be expected that it will be increasingly difficult to find suitable locations for new facilities.

Among the remaining larger rivers with potential foradditional hydropower production (Sava, Soča, Mura, Krka,Kolpa and Idrijca), only the Sava is not part of the Natura 2000network. Here there are no protected areas and conflictswith bird conservation are not foreseen, so this river offerssome suitable sites for new hydro facilities. However, it willnot be easy to place power plants on the river Mura – thelargest preserved lowland river in Slovenia, with extensivefloodplain forests and rich biodiversity. Construction of one or two power plants here may be possible, provided thatextensive compensatory habitats are created to comply withthe requirements of the Habitats Directive.


3.3.2 LIQUID BIOFUELS

According to the NREAPs, liquid biofuelscontributed 3 Mtoe (0.3%) of EU energyconsumption in 2005. This is expected to increaseto 29 Mtoe (2.4%) in 2020. Under the RenewableEnergy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC) everyMember State has a target of 10% of renewableenergy in the transport sector by 2020 (Figure 15).This can be met with renewable electricity,hydrogen and second generation biofuels, butliquid biofuels are the predominant technology inthe NREAPs.

The EU drive to increase the use of liquid biofuelsfor transport is rapidly bringing new pressures onland and natural resources, both inside the EU andglobally. The EU must urgently revise its deeplyflawed policy choices on liquid biofuels byscrapping the targets driving their production, andbringing in effective sustainability standards toensure that all bioenergy delivers for the climatewhile not harming biodiversity. Active policiesmust be pursued to ensure that the most promisingbioenergy technologies are developed while theworst ones are not supported. In particular,

ILUC caused by biofuels needs to be reflected infull life-cycle assessments of biofuel impacts andpolicy measures adopted that enable this to bemitigated effectively.

BirdLife considers that the ecological risksassociated with liquid biofuels outweigh anyenvironmental benefits. This is the one renewableenergy technology for which BirdLife considers the2020 targets are too high and should be lowered.To achieve the 15% 2020 target, greater use of thelow and medium risk technologies discussedabove, in particular energy saving, should make up the shortfall.


FIGURE 14

FIGURE 15

+�'#��

��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

!�� "�#$��

"�#��%%�

"&��

'��

(��

��

)��

��)��

��'��

��(��

��

��

��

��

*��

��

��

�� )��

��

��

��

��

$�� !

"&��

��

!!#"�

��%#"�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��!� �

"��#

!!��

"��

$��# ��

%��&��

%'��#

�! �

(�'��!

(�)��*��

��

+�'��,

�!&

-*��

-*�'��&��

.�*/��

.��!�&�

.0��&&

1��'��

2��*�

&�!�

3'��

��

��

2��&&0.

3'��

��

��

��!� �

��

��

��

�

��

��

1��'

�*�2��

&�!�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��*��

.��!�&�

(�)

��

'��,+�

�!&

*�� -

��&��*�'��-

�� /.�*

"�

.��!�&�##"��

!!��

$��

��&��%�(�'��!

��##%'

�! �

��*��

��

��

��##��$��

��&��

Additional liquid biofuels inEU energy consumption in2020 compared to 2005, byMember State [ktoe]iv, ix

Additional hydropower in EUenergy consumption in 2020compared to 2005, by MemberState [ktoe]iv


HOW TO ACHIEVEA EUROPEANRENEWABLESREVOLUTION INHARMONY WITHNATURE

CHAPTER 4

Harnessing the clean, renewable energyprovided by the sun, wind, waves andtides is the only sustainable energyfuture for Europe. The renewablesrevolution can and must work inharmony with, and not against, nature.This Chapter sets out BirdLife’s views on what needs to happen to stimulaterenewables investment and to makesure that investment proceedssensitively.


4.1 COMMITPOLITICALLY ANDFINANCIALLYExperience across Europe has clearly shown thatrenewables investment and innovation requirestrong political commitment and stable incentiveframeworks. Investors and their backers need theconfidence that they will receive an adequate return.Uncertainty over possible policy changes leadingto lower than expected returns deters investorsand drives up the cost of capital. Ambitious andfirm long-term commitments are needed at theEuropean level for tackling climate change and forincreasing the share of renewables beyond 2020,to give more certainty and confidence to allstakeholders. The European Renewable EnergyCouncil has called for 45% of total energy use tocome from renewables by 2030 (EREC, 2011b) andthe European Wind Energy Association stronglysupports binding targets for 2030.

The European Commission, national governmentsand non-government actors have begun to develop“roadmaps” towards a low-carbon, high-renewables future. Many of these come to similarconclusions on the technical feasibility of a veryhigh renewables energy system: the challenges aremainly political and economic. For example, theEuropean Renewable Energy Council’s report Re-thinking 2050 – A 100% Renewable Energy Visionfor the European Union (EREC, 2010) concludes“...it is not a matter of availability of technologies. Itis a matter of political will and of setting the coursetoday for a sustainable energy future tomorrow. A 100% renewable energy supply for Europe willrequire paramount changes both in terms ofenergy production and consumption as well asconcerted efforts at all levels – local, regional,national and European.”

The European Climate Foundation’s Roadmap 2050study (ECF, 2010) provides a system-wide European

assessment of the feasibility of very high shares ofrenewables, including an electricity systemreliability assessment. It is also the first study todevelop its analysis in co-operation with NGOs,major utility companies, transmission systemoperators and equipment manufacturers acrosstechnologies and throughout Europe. This study

BOX 16

The European Climate Foundation’s Roadmap2050 study

The European Climate Foundation’s Roadmap 2050 studyfound that by 2050 Europe could achieve an economy- widereduction of greenhouse gas emissions of at least 80%compared to 1990 levels and still provide the same level ofreliability as the existing energy system. The study assumesno fundamental changes in lifestyle, and use of technologiesthat are already commercially available today or in the latedevelopment stage. This transition, nonetheless, requiresthat all currently identified emission abatement measures inall sectors are implemented to their maximum potential.Realising this radical transformation requires fundamentalchanges to the energy system. The study concludes:“Achieving the 80% reduction means nothing less than atransition to a new energy system both in the way energyis used and in the way it is produced. It requires atransformation across all energy related emitting sectors,moving capital into new sectors such as low-carbonenergy generation, smart grids, electric vehicles and heatpumps... Realistically, the 2050 goals will be hard to realiseif the transition is not started in earnest within the next fiveyears. Continued investments in non-abated carbon-emitting plants will affect 2050 emission levels. Continueduncertainty about the business case for sustainedinvestment in low-carbon assets will impede themobilisation of private-sector capital.” (ECF, 2010, p. 9)

HOW TO ACHIEVE A EUROPEAN RENEWABLES REVOLUTION IN HARMONY WITH NATURE 79

BOX 17

BirdLife initiatives to promote public supportfor renewable energy

BirdLife has a role to play in improving the publicacceptability of renewables, through messages to ourmembers about their role in the fight against climatechange, and highlighting good practice in biodiversity-friendly renewables deployment. BirdLife Partners areincreasingly making use of solar power on their reserves.BirdLife Partners in Belgium, Natuurpunt and Natagora,have both set up a solar PV business and have found thatsales events are a useful opportunity to tell people aboutclimate change and the need for renewables.

also stresses the political and economictransformation needed to realise the potential ofrenewables (Box 16).

A political vision for EU countries to adopt a low-carbon, resource-efficient and biodiversity-friendlydevelopment pathway is therefore crucial. In March2007 the European Heads of State took a first stepwhen they decided on the so-called “20-20-20targets” for their climate and energy policy.Between 1990 and 2020 EU Member Statescommitted themselves to reduce greenhouse gasemissions by at least 20%, to increase the share ofrenewable energy sources to 20% of the totaldemand in Europe, and to improve energyefficiency by 20%. This was a strong signal toencourage suitable frameworks and conditions atEU, national and regional levels, and to speed upthe necessary investments for the transformationof energy systems in the coming years. Since thefailure of the UN Climate Change Conference inCopenhagen in December 2009 the EU hasstruggled to raise their ambition and to agree onbinding targets beyond 2020.

Transformation of the energy sector will requiresustained investment in reduced energy demand,renewable energy and “smarter” electricity gridinfrastructure. Massive investment over decades inlong-lived assets with long planning andinvestment cycles demands stable economic,regulatory and policy frameworks. Continualchange in incentives and frameworks damagesconfidence and raises the costs of capital. Whilesome very large energy firms can financeinvestments from their own balance sheets,instability in particular works against smallerinvestors, who cannot raise finance at reasonablecost if policy risks are seen to be high. Many smallinvestors are needed to stimulate competition, andto tap into renewables potential at all scales –including households and communities. Therefore,the EU should also provide for clear targets andachievable pathways for the medium- and long-term – to 2030, 2040 and 2050.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme(ETS) has a vital role to play, but needs major reform.Its future and effectiveness have become uncertain asnegotiations on an international climate regime after2012 stumble. Several cases of fraud, inconsistentrules, non-additional offsetting projects and otherloopholes seriously undermine the functioning of theETS. As a consequence, the market faces an over-

allocation of emission permits, and the carbon priceremains too low to provide certainty and to incentivisethe necessary investment decisions. In this situation,use of other, less flexible policy instruments, such asregulations on emissions and binding renewableenergy and efficiency targets, will become moreimportant and urgent.

Competition and private investment will remain majordrivers, but there is an urgent need to change thelogic of markets to achieve an energy system basedalmost exclusively on renewable sources by themiddle of the century. Only binding targets,instruments and regulations will give sufficientconfidence and clarity to innovators and investors.Providing clear, stable policy frameworks, incentivesand planning regimes is necessary to reduce politicaland planning risks and thereby reduce the cost ofcapital. Intelligent policy frameworks aim atminimizing overall infrastructure needs, optimizingthe geographical spread of renewable energytechnologies and unlocking the potential of smartgrids. Such an approach will lower both ecologicalimpacts and overall costs.

Clarity on the vision for Europe’s energy future is vital. The public acceptability of the necessaryinvestments, and the legitimacy of the necessarypolicies, will be undermined if doubts remain aboutthe imperative for change and its implications onthe ground for European citizens. Energy systemtransformation will raise costs to energyconsumers in the short-term, affect communities’landscapes and property values, and present risksto Europe’s cherished wildlife. In addition to clearpolitical signals, the EU and its Member Statesmust give much greater attention to building trust


Healthy, biodiverse environments play a vital rolein maintaining and increasing resilience to climatechange, and reducing risk and vulnerability inecosystems and human societies. In the EuropeanUnion, Natura 2000 sites provide these healthy andbiodiverse environments. The Natura 2000 networkof sites protected under the EU Birds and HabitatsDirectives lies at the heart of Europe’s efforts toprotect its biodiversity. Natura 2000 sites are not“fenced-off” protected areas. On the contrary, theyare often dependent on sustainable humanactivities and land uses that have shaped them andmaintained them over the years. They cover almosta fifth of the EU territory, over 25,000 sites wherenature can exist in harmony with humans. BirdLifemakes major contributions to data gathering andidentification of sites that make up the Natura 2000network. The network is now almost complete onland, but there is still much work to do offshore(Box 18, Box 25).

Marine spatial planning and a robust Natura 2000network will be vital for enabling biodiversity toadapt to climate change. In order to increase theability of ecosystems to adapt, as well asaccommodating the need of species and habitats to move into areas with more suitable climaticconditions, BirdLife promotes the followingprinciples:

● increasing efforts in addressing the existingthreats to species, sites and habitats, in particularthrough the full and swift implementation of EUconservation legislation set out in the Birds andHabitats Directives

● urgently implementing at all levels the EuropeanUnion's Biodiversity Strategy

● improving the connectivity and coherence ofprotected areas networks, crucially Natura 2000,and, where necessary, increasing protected areasin number and size

4.2 PROTECT THENATURA 2000NETWORK

and public acceptability through mechanisms suchas increased transparency, public participation indecision making and opportunities for buy-in andinvestment at an individual and/or local level.

Ambitious, clear and stable policy and regulatoryframeworks will be necessary, but are insufficientto enable a renewables revolution in harmony withnature. They will drive down costs for technologiesthat are already commercially available, but basicresearch and development (R&D) is also needed tobring forward the new technologies of tomorrow.Innovation will make the transformation to a low-carbon, high-renewables future more readilyachievable, by reducing costs and risks, and radicalinnovations remain a possibility. Basic R&D

budgets for low-carbon technologies should beincreased by an order of magnitude in Europe, withan increased emphasis on promoting innovationsthat minimise ecological risks and improve publicacceptability.

Cultural change will also play a role in making theenergy transformation possible, as people see thebenefits of avoiding waste and living with lowimpacts. We need to protect our natural heritage,and help people to reconnect with it, for this shift inlifestyles to make sense and gain momentum. And,in all this, we must not forget that protectingbiodiversity is not just about what nature can do for society – it is also right to protect nature simplybecause it is valuable in its own right.


BOX 18

Offshore wind farm development in Spain

Spain is a European and world power in terms of installedonshore wind energy capacity. Furthermore, with almost5,000 km of coastline, and a reliable coastal windresource, it should also be in the top rank of countries forcoastal offshore wind power capacity. However, a rangeof economic, commercial and licensing constraints haveimpeded offshore wind development in Spain. There areconcerns that, despite an SEA process that was positiveand ground-breaking in many respects, the lack ofattention given to the designation of future marine SPAswill further delay progress in what has the potential to bea key area of wind energy growth.

In April 2009, following the associated SEA process,the Spanish government published its StrategicEnvironmental Report of the Spanish Coast for theInstallation of Marine Wind Farms. In nature conservationterms the key output was a sensitivity map which, aftertaking into consideration numerous possible constraints,divided Spanish inshore coastal waters into three categoriesof sensitivity to wind farm development: suitable fordevelopment; suitable for development but with constraints;and unsuitable for development (but with some possibilitiesfor certain types of project if the concerns raised in EIAprocess can be adequately resolved).

The SEA process was led by the Ministry for Industry,Trade and Tourism (promoter) and the Ministry forEnvironment, Marine and Rural Affairs (environmental

authority). It involved wide consultation with the energysector, the regional governments, industry groups such as fishing and shipping interests and interested parties inwider society such as the environmental NGOs. In natureconservation terms it took into account existing protectedareas designated in the Natura 2000 network and otherareas protected under Spanish legislation, as well as theknown distributions of key protected marine species.

In general, the process and final product was well-regarded, although regional and sectoral concernsremain. The principal concern from a natureconservation point of view – raised consistently bySEO/BirdLife Spain (and yet to be adequately addressedby the Spanish government) is the failure to take intoaccount in the sensitivity analysis the marine IBAsidentified in a LIFE+ project and accepted as potentialSPAs by the Ministry responsible.

This hugely important project, innovative in nature andpioneering in its use of satellite and other technologies to identify the key areas most important for seabirdconservation, proposed 42 marine IBAs (covering nearly43,000 km2) for SPA designation in Spanish waters (Acroset al., 2009). It is clear that onshore wind energydevelopment cannot be allowed to proceed until theexistence of these areas is fully acknowledged in thesensitivity map produced by the Spanish Government.

● improving the "permeability" of the landscape in general, in particular by making land-use(policies) more biodiversity friendly

● seeking synergies and reducing trade-offsbetween climate change mitigation (eg,renewable energy generation) and biodiversityconservation.

The Birds and Habitats Directives represent an“enlightened approach to dealing withenvironmental constraints, and one that is at theheart of sustainable development” (SDC, 2007, p.143). A key part of this is making sure the bestareas for wildlife in Europe, Natura 2000 sites, areproperly protected in the wider public interest, sothat they continue to make their full contribution tosecuring the favourable conservation status of thehabitats and species they conserve. For good

reason, the Directives only allow these sites to be damaged in exceptional circumstances andrequire strict tests to be passed first (Section 4.6).Applied in a systematic, robust and transparentmanner, they can ensure decisions on whether todamage some of Europe’s most important wildlifeareas are taken in the genuine interests of societyas a whole. Where this fails in sub-nationaldecision making, Member States may decide that itis necessary to go beyond the Directives’requirements, by banning certain types ofdevelopment in Natura 2000 areas (Box 19).


BOX 19

In Italy, ill-conceived or non-existent spatial planning hasjeopardised many sites of great value for biodiversity. In thePuglia Region, hundreds of wind turbines have beendeveloped within an IBA (Monti della Daunia), resultingin serious degradation of the site. The nearby BasilicataRegion is the most important in Italy for red kite, and is hometo over half of the 10–12 pairs of black stork breeding in Italy.

Unfortunately the Basilicata Regional Energy Plan pays verylittle attention to IBAs and Natura 2000 sites. NearCampomaggiore, a wind farm development consisting ofseven 1.5 MW turbines has been recently completed. Thetowers are well within an IBA and between three Natura2000 sites, each of which is classified as an SPA. Red andblack kite, lanner falcon, short-toed eagle, eagle owl, andblack stork nest in the IBA; these are all species listed inAnnex 1 of the Birds Directive, and all have “unfavourable”overall pan-European conservation status (BirdLifeInternational, 2004). Nevertheless the regional authoritiesdecided that the project mentioned above was exempt fromEIA and from “appropriate assessment” under Article 6 ofthe Habitats Directive. The project was not even madepublic, so stakeholders had no chance to comment on it. On the wind farm site, a winter-roost hosting a stablepopulation of about 100 Red Kites was present – not any more.

In November 2007, a decree named “Minimumhomogenous criteria for definition of conservationmeasures for SACs and SPAs” was signed by the Ministerof Environment. In SPAs it prohibits certain activities suchas waste disposal and off-road driving, and restrictsothers such as hunting and fishing. The decree was issuedin response to the infringement procedure 2131 (2006),which points, among other things, to the lack of coherentconservation criteria for Natura 2000 sites. The focus ismainly on SPAs, but principles for future conservationmeasures for SACs are also laid out. It prohibits theconstruction of new ski lifts and ski runs. The decree alsoprohibits construction of new large wind turbines in SPAs.

This measure was recently referred to the European Courtof Justice by a wind energy company, based on the refusalof Apulia Region to authorise the location of wind turbinesin “Alta Murgia National Park” SPA. The developerbringing the legal action had argued that European lawrequired “appropriate assessment” before authorisationcould be refused, and that the Decree is thereforeunlawful. The court concluded that the ban on locatingwind turbines in SPAs does not contravene EU Directiveson nature protection and promotion of renewable energy.

Italian wind farm construction site that has displaced red kites.

The Italian reaction to inadequate application of the Habitats Directive tests


Natura 2000 and Common Database onDesignated Areas Sites in Europe, and windenergy full load hour potential.

The European Environment Agency (EEA, 2009)calculated that the technical potential for onshorewind energy in Europe is over 10 times totalelectricity consumption, and that excluding Natura2000 and other protected areas would reduce thisby only 13.7%. The same study estimated that theeconomically competitive potential for onshoreplus offshore wind energy in Europe by 2030 isover three times greater than total electricityconsumption. BirdLife agrees that the potential forrenewable energy in Europe is immense, and thattherefore sufficient suitable locations can be foundfor our energy needs to be met using renewablesand without creating risks for biodiversity inprotected areas or in the wider countryside.However this cannot be left to chance: sufficientsuitable locations for development must beidentified and developers must be steered towards them.


4.3 MINIMISE ENERGYCAPACITY ANDINFRASTRUCTURENEEDSMost project-related risks can be avoided by goodlocation choices and minimising reliance on theriskier technologies such as liquid biofuels.However, the ecological risks presented byrenewables development in aggregate willinevitably also relate to the total quantity of newstructures and extent of changed land uses –numbers of turbines, hectares of solar panels, orkilometres of new power lines, for example. Coststo society, to pay for new capacity andinfrastructures, will also be higher if systemdevelopment is not optimised.

Enabling competitive markets to function canstimulate overall investment, but without strategicplanning it is likely to result in piecemeal andinefficient energy system development. Forexample, the current UK framework for buildingpower lines to bring electricity to markets fromoffshore wind farms appears to emphasisecompetition at the expense of developing a rationalconfiguration with lower costs, fewer impacts andgreater potential to form part of a wider EUelectricity transmission network (Box 20).

The example of offshore grid development in theUK illustrates a wider point about energy systemdevelopment: competition does not automaticallyresult in an efficient outcome from systemic andlong-term societal perspectives. The same can besaid of renewable energy development acrossEurope as a whole. Under the NREAPs eachMember State has decided how much of each kindof renewable energy it aims to deploy, and theyalso decide on the appropriate level of financialincentives they will offer to attract investment.

BOX 20

The case for an integrated offshore grid in the North Sea

Under current UK arrangements, offshore transmissionowners (OFTOs) enter a competitive tendering process tobuild and own the assets. Large “Round 3 Zones” foroffshore wind development in UK waters have hugecapacity. For example, Zone 5 off East Anglia has a targetcapacity of 7.2 GW (enough power for 5 million homes).East Anglia Offshore Wind plans to develop six 1200-MWwind farms within the zone, in a rolling programme to 2022.The tendering process and regulatory framework meansthe only option is to allow the OFTOs to connect the zoneto the mainland in a piecemeal and inefficientconfiguration with six individual lines and six landfalls.Each landfall will require an onshore HVDC convertorstation, and onshore overhead (or underground) powerlines for connection into the national grid. National GridElectricity Transmission (NGET), which operates allonshore and offshore transmission, argues that this“radial solution” is an inefficient approach, will lead toincreased consenting problems and will fail to future-proofnetwork evolution as a more integrated European griddevelops. NGET argues that an “integrated” solution foroffshore grid development would be 25% less costly forconsumers, and require half as many landing sites and75% fewer kilometres of onshore lines.


4.4 ENSURE FULLSTAKEHOLDERPARTICIPATION ANDJOINT WORKING

Under subsidiarity rules this is the right approach,but it is not necessarily efficient or rational. Werethere to be uniform incentives for investment in thevarious renewable energy technologies across theEU, investors would be attracted by the availabilityof energy resources (wind speeds, sunshine and soon) and the availability of suitable sites, rather thanby subsidy levels. This would increase electricitygeneration for a given level of overall investment.Much more effort needs to be made at the EU-levelto envisage and plan for rational exploitation ofEurope’s renewable energy resources.

In addition to rational energy system planning, theneed for new capacity and infrastructure that carryrisks to wildlife can be limited by reducing theoverall growth in demand for centralised electricity

supply. In many locations it is possible for homes tomeet or exceed their own electricity and heatingneeds over the year, using effective thermal insulationand micro-renewables. Whole communities canbecome net exporters of electricity, using small scalerenewables generation connected into the electricitydistribution network. BirdLife considers that the EUand its Member States need to go further inpromoting energy savings, micro- and distributedrenewables and smart grid technologies to limit theneed for new large scale power generation of allkinds. Nevertheless, electrification of transport andsome heating and unpredictable renewable electricityoutput at any given location mean that verysignificant investment in new large-scale renewablesfacilities and power lines is unavoidable (Box 12).

Conflicts between different groups of stakeholdersare a symptom of failures to come together in theprocesses of developing policy and planningframeworks. Where policy makers, planners,authorities, NGOs, industry groups and researchersall work together in a spirit of openness andproblem solving, the necessary “buy in” andtrustful relationships are in place to head offconflicts and ensure successful policyimplementation.

BirdLife Partners welcome opportunities to workwith developers and policy makers to promotebiodiversity-friendly renewables deployment. Often

developers will approach BirdLife Partners beforemaking a project proposal to find out if there arelikely to be significant impacts on birds and otherbiodiversity. We also work with developers,scientists and government institutions to produceguidance documents on sensitive renewablesdeployment (eg, Boxes 21-23).


BOX 21

Working with government and industry forbiodiversity-friendly wind power in France

The French national programme on wind energy andbiodiversity, ‘Éolien – Biodiversité’, was created in 2006. Itis managed by the French energy agency (ADEME), theministry of the environment (MEDDLT), renewable energyprofessionals (SER-FEE), with overall co-ordination byLPO/BirdLife France. The programme is based on a set ofquality criteria, such as:

● respect for the ecological sensitivity of developmentsites, using spatial planning

● preservation of biodiversity when building, aiming forno net loss of biodiversity

● ecological monitoring for birds and bats duringoperation, and reduction of impacts found duringmonitoring

● rehabilitation of the site, taking into accountbiodiversity.

It aims to give tools to practitioners in order to help themto build nature-friendly wind farms. These tools are: apermanent national resource centre, providing, for

example, an up-to-date bibliography; a dedicated webresource area and online advice; accurate guidelines on EIA and specific surveys; expert advice on specificprojects (eg, R&D, spatial planning, surveys); financialsupport; and environmental NGO networking and capacity building.

The programme supports regional authorities to prepareregional wind energy schemes, defining zones withinwhich the feed-in tariff will be available. Biodiversitysensitivity maps are used to determine the best locations, and to minimize cumulative effects. The data needed formapping is linked with accurate knowledge on birddiversity, quantity, location and potential sensitivity towind turbines. The map below is an example of one of theregional maps produced through compilation of this data.

Example of a bird sensitivity map used in regionalspatial planning in France (Pays de la Loire region).


Another avenue for co-operation between BirdLife anddevelopers is through joint declarations of intent such asthe “Budapest Declaration” (Box 22) and the RenewablesGrid Initiative “Declaration on Electricity NetworkDevelopment and Nature Conservation” (Box 23).

BOX 22

Budapest Declaration on power lines and bird mortality in Europe

On 13 April 2011, Budapest hosted a special ConferencePower lines and bird mortality in Europe. This event wasco-organised by MME/BirdLife Hungary, the Ministry ofRural Development of Hungary and BirdLife Europe, andwas hosted by MAVIR (the Hungarian TransmissionSystem Operator Company Ltd.), as part of the officialprogramme of the Hungarian EU Presidency.

The aim of the Conference was to bring together natureconservationists, industry professionals and governmentsand to stimulate joint actions to address the problem oflarge-scale bird mortality on power lines at the Europeanlevel. The Conference was attended by 123 participants of29 European and Central Asian countries, the EuropeanCommission, UNEP-AEWA, six energy and utilitycompanies, experts, businesses and NGOs. Theparticipants adopted a special Declarationx calling onEuropean governments and EU institutions to ensure thatthe production and transport of our energy will not be thecause of unnecessary death of millions of birds.

The declaration calls on the European Commission andnational governments “as they formulate, commit to, andpursue an ambitious set of climate, energy and

biodiversity conservation targets and strategies toreconcile energy generation, transmission and distributionwith the protection of wild birds within and beyondprotected areas” to

“maintain high levels of implementation of the EU'senvironmental acquis including the Birds and the HabitatsDirectives and relevant international legislation throughthe application at national or regional level of effectivelegal, administrative, technical or other requisitemeasures for: 1) minimisation of the negative impacts ofpower lines on the natural environment and wild birds, 2)ensuring a system of general protection of wild birds asrequested by the Birds Directive, and 3) ensuring thatsuch measures are incorporated in the assessment ofinvestment projects such as the electricity ‘Projects ofEuropean Interest’ that will be advanced through thefollow-up of the EU’s Energy Infrastructure Package.”

The declaration then calls on all interested parties tojointly undertake a programme of follow-up actionsleading to effective minimisation of the power-line inducedbird mortality across the European continent and beyond.

BOX 23

The Declaration on Electricity NetworkDevelopment and Nature Conservation

The Renewables Grid Initiative (RGI) is a coalition ofelectricity transmission system operators (TSOs) andgreen NGOs including BirdLife and WWF. It calls for strongpolitical leadership to ensure that the right gridinfrastructure is developed to enable rapid deployment ofrenewable energy in Europe. The RGI recognises thatinstalling thousands of kilometres of new lines in Europerequires careful planning, so that all stakeholders’concerns are properly addressed. Working with the RGI,BirdLife has begun engaging constructively with Europeantransmission system operators to find ways to accelerate

development of Europe’s grid infrastructure toaccommodate a high share of renewables, while alsoprotecting the natural environment. The RSPB and TenneT,the Dutch TSO, have led an RGI initiative to develop a jointdeclaration on grid development in line with natureconservation objectives in Europe. In this the TSOs committo taking steps to minimise overall infrastructure needs,and to avoid and minimise impacts on biodiversity. In turnthe NGOs commit to constructive working with the TSOs toenable these principles to be applied, in support for thetransition to renewable energy in Europe.


4.5 STRATEGICSPATIAL PLANNINGFOR RENEWABLESIn a highly regulated, publicly subsidised sectorsuch as energy, for the provision of services uponwhich people depend for their livelihoods andsafety, and in which rapid expansion of networkedinfrastructures is needed, many peopleunderstandably expect there to be a plan in place.Often there is, to the benefit of the public anddevelopers, who gain some certainty that thelocations they wish to develop are likely to beappropriate to the authorities. Good plans steerdevelopment so it serves the public interest anddoes so in ways that best fit the circumstances andneeds of the communities on whose behalf(and with whose participation) those planswere developed.

Plans do not have to be imposed in a “top-down”manner, and they do not have to impedeinvestment. Like anything else, planning can bedone well or badly. Done well it enables investmentbecause an open, legitimate democratic process isseen to have balanced competing interests andneeds, and therefore each proposal fordevelopment does not become a flashpoint fordebate and protest. Representative democracyneeds reinvigorating, and needs to work for people“on the ground”, whether they are alreadyinvestors in renewable energy, or could becomeinvestors, or simply are among the millions ofenergy consumers who ultimately pay.

Energy development is one area where planning is most justified given the urgency to decarboniseand the controversies infrastructure developmentbrings. Moreover, electricity provision of all kinds,and particularly from renewables, is highlygeographically specific – it has to take into accountexisting infrastructures, demanding locations andresources (eg, wind speeds). One can argue that

developers, rather than officials, are best placed tounderstand those factors and to plan investmentsaccordingly. There are many enlightened investorsand developers, but their first priority will alwaysbe to run a profitable business and make soundinvestments. They cannot be expected to weigh-upthe local benefits of one land use over another, norto consider the wider public benefits for this andfuture generations. Nor can they be expected toundertake the necessary studies and develop thenecessary vision over appropriate time andgeographic scales to ensure co-ordinated andefficient energy system development thatminimises overall infrastructure needs and related costs to society and nature.

It falls to elected representatives and publicauthorities to reconcile different stakeholdersinterests, and failing to do so can prolong conflictand thereby stall investment. This has been theexperience in Slovenia with wind powerdevelopment, for which strategic spatial planning has not been developed (Box 24).

The experience with wind energy development inSpain also illustrates the problems that can arisewhen authorities allow rapid and largely unplannedinvestment to go ahead. Unfortunately, renewableenergy development in Spain is taking place in ahighly accelerated and disorganised way. The firstfew wind farms were evaluated as individualprojects, but within a few years the avalanche ofprojects being presented forced the autonomousregions to call a halt to new projects whilst theyprepared wind energy plans. Whilst in some casesthese plans have been produced at the regionallevel, in others such as Andalusia or Castilla andLeón they have been produced for each province.


BOX 24

Investment delays due to lack of strategicplanning for wind power in Slovenia

Wind power potential in Slovenia is relatively weak. Inspite of this, the public electricity corporation launchedan ambitious wind-power investment programme in 1999.After a few years of measuring wind speeds, and withoutfurther strategic planning, the corporation identified threelocations as those likely to be most profitable: MountNanos, Mount Goli and Mount Volovja reber. All threemountains are of exceptional landscape beauty and arepart of the Natura 2000 network. All three sites aredesignated to protect griffon vultures and golden eagles –species known to be particularly susceptible to collisionwith wind turbines.

The proposed programme would have led to degradationof some of the most valuable parts of Slovenia’s naturalheritage, so provoked widespread opposition amongnature conservationists. In the case of proposed Volovjareber wind farm, where 47 turbines are proposed, anintense conflict developed. After eight years ofprocedures, and several court cases lodged by

DOPPS/BirdLife Slovenia, it is still unclear whether thewind farm will receive planning permission.

As a consequence of these conflicts, Slovenia has nowind turbines erected so far. The key obstacle is that thecountry has no national strategy or consensus on how andwhere to develop wind power. In 2006 a coalition ofconservation NGOs proposed that the Government shoulddevelop a national strategy, identifying sites for wind-power development informed by bird sensitivity mapping.Sadly, the authorities have refused this approach. However,DOPPS continues to call for strategic planning for windpower, and has managed to find funds to produce asensitivity map (see below) relating to seven highly sensitivebird species and 13 moderately sensitive ones. The mapssuggests that only 19% of total Slovenian territory is highlysensitive (red) for wind development, while additional 14% ismoderately (yellow) sensitive. In the remaining two thirds ofnational territory it is foreseen that wind farm developmentwould not harm the interests of bird conservation.

Bird sensitivity map for wind power in Slovenia.


The EU SEA (see also Section 4.5.2 below) Directive(2001/42/EC) requires authorities developing plansin a range of sectors, including energy, to takeenvironmental considerations into account througha process of assessment and consultation. In Spainonly two wind energy plans have been subjected tothis type of evaluation: the regional government ofCastilla-La Mancha conducted an SEA of its “WindEnergy Plan to 2011”, and the national Ministry forthe Environment has carried out an SEA foroffshore wind farm developments (Box 18). In eachcase the plan includes zoning, which identifiescompatibility of wind energy development withenvironmental conservation in certain areas, aswell as identifying those zones most appropriatefor development.

The failure to carry out SEA of wind energy planselsewhere has in many cases meant that they havebeen prepared simply in terms of the distributionof the wind resource, without taking into accountany environmental concerns. This is the case, forexample, in the autonomous community of

Valencia where the Wind Energy Plan was basedalmost exclusively on an evaluation of the windresource carried out by one of the leadingelectricity companies in Spain, which was clearlyinterested in installing various wind farms in theregion. The European Commission is investigatingthis plan given that the areas identified as havingpotential for wind farm development overlapwith the expansions of SPAs proposed by theregional government.

The failure to carry out SEA, far from acceleratingwind farm development, can result in lengthydelay, as has been the case in Catalonia, where theSupreme Court of Justice has halted the planningof wind farms in priority zones for wind energydevelopment because of the lack of environmentalevaluation. A similar situation exists in Cantabria,where complaints have been registered in thecourts because the wind energy plan was approvedwithout being submitted to SEA, thereby failingto comply with Directive 2001/42/EC and theAarhus Convention.

Aerial view of wind turbines inparched Spanish fields.


BOX 25

The Future of the Atlantic Marine Environmentproject and offshore renewables

Offshore wind farms are already a reality in somecountries, such as the UK, but are still new to France,Spain or Portugal. However, it is clear that the next fiveto six years will witness a rapid increase in the numberof proposals in the Atlantic, both for offshore wind farmsand wave-energy harnessing. FAMExii – is an ambitiousstrategic transnational co-operation project involvingBirdLife Partners from five countries (UK, Ireland, France,Spain and Portugal). It will engage with the offshorerenewable energy sector in order to facilitate strategicplanning and robust assessment of impacts. By facilitatingdirect communication with key energy stakeholders andlinking the scientific, conservation and private sectors,a unique open and honest discussion will be enabled. Thiswill help to ensure that key areas are protected forseabirds, while ensuring that a sustainable generationof renewable energy is facilitated.

FAME Partners have been gathering and analysinginformation on seabirds for several years now, and somealready have identified marine IBAs or contributed to thedesignation of Natura 2000 network at sea in theircountries. The FAME project will build on that informationand knowledge to generate risk maps, identify the mostsensitive areas, produce guidelines and disseminaterelevant information to enable sustainable implementationof the renewables sector in the marine environment. Theguidelines will identify negative and positive impacts ofoffshore energy deployment on seabirds in view ofdifferent project phases (installation, exploitation anddecommissioning), develop methodologies for impact

prediction and evaluation, and identify critical impactuncertainties. Mitigation measures will be selected for a range of technologies considering different projectphases. A list of recommendations for future baseline andmonitoring studies on seabirds will also be provided.

FAME will benefit from using a common methodology and will create a common GIS-based database for allcountries to identify hotspots of seabird activity andenergy production proposals. The final aim of such anassessment is two-fold. By providing access to these datato private developers, and engaging with them throughthis project, offshore energy developments will be betterplanned and better able to avoid conflict with key areasfor biodiversity. In addition, the data will helpgovernments, NGOs and developers properly assesscumulative impacts caused by offshore energydevelopments. Cumulative impacts are probably the mostdifficult threat to assess from a transnational perspective,as developments in different administrative regions willnot always be taken into account when assessingproposals. By providing comprehensive data to allstakeholders, FAME will enable impacts on biodiversityacross the whole Atlantic Area to be considered.

In the language of economics, there are publicgood and natural monopoly arguments that notonly justify strong regulation of energy industriesand various financial incentives (seen almosteverywhere), but also planned development. Theurgency of tackling climate change, whileprotecting and restoring biodiversity, only adds tothis need to steer development to locations whereit can be of most benefit and do least harm. Thisdoes not amount to state ownership of assets, orSoviet-style “indicative planning” in which officialsdecided unilaterally what should go where, howmuch and when. Rather, it is a matter of indicatingon maps those areas and locations that are mostsuitable for specific types of development, andmaking these available to developers.

Spatial planning has a long history in Europe, but isin its infancy in the marine environment. In the UKSEA and mapping of resources and constraints hasbeen used to define areas for licensing offshorewind development in the North Sea. This has beenextremely useful to developers, who have shown a very keen interest in investment. The EuropeanWind Energy Association’s EU funded projectcalled SEANERGY2020xi is developing policyrecommendations on marine spatial planning andoffshore wind power. BirdLife Partners are nowengaging in an ambitious project to enablestrategic planning for biodiversity-friendly offshoreenergy exploitation in the Atlantic (Box 25).


4.5.1 USE OF BIODIVERSITY SENSITIVITY MAPS

Land use planning of some kind exists in mostplaces. BirdLife calls for this to routinely androbustly make reference to the suitability of placesfor development of specific kinds of renewableenergy in terms of likely impacts on importantwildlife and habitats. This is one element ofmapping the constraints that are relevant insteering the development of major newinfrastructures. Other “layers” in these maps mayidentify areas that are out of bounds for militaryreasons, for example, or areas set aside for someother competing use. The important step thatneeds to be taken is the routine use of bird andbiodiversity “sensitivity maps” as part of overallplans that steer investors to appropriate locationswithin broad zones.

Developers should have easy access to mapsshowing these protected areas and importantfeatures or locations, and indicating the“vulnerability” to various types of development ofthe species and habitats found there. This will givethem a good initial indication of whether refusal ofplanning consent is likely on grounds ofenvironmental impacts, or where there may belegal issues and/or high costs for creatingcompensatory habitat should they seek to developthose locations. Wildlife sensitivity maps can alsobe used in defining zones that are most suitable for

specific types of renewable energy development.The underlying data will not normally justifyindication of exclusion zones. Rather, indication ofmore sensitive areas assists developers byalerting them that there is likely to be a need fortargeted site-specific data collection and moredetailed environmental assessments. The mapsalso assist strategic planning by indicating zoneswhere there may be greater risk that a location isfound to be unsuitable on environmental grounds.

In France every region defines wind energy zones,and receipt of subsidies depends on locatingwithin them. Wildlife sensitivity maps are alsoused in spatial planning in Scotland, Belgium andparts of Germany. In some countries, such asWales and Scotland, zoning for wind power doesnot affect subsidy levels, but location within anarea identified as suitable increases developers’chances of obtaining planning permission. Inmany European countries BirdLife Partners havedeveloped sensitivity maps, but these have yet tobe used routinely in spatial planning, such asEngland, Greece and the Netherlands. OtherBirdLife Partners are developing bird sensitivitymaps, and/or providing expert assistance tonational or regional authorities to do so.BirdWatch Ireland, for example, has recentlypiloted a sensitivity mapping approach with aview to produce a layered multi-species sensitivitymap (BirdWatch Ireland, 2010).

Netherlands national windturbine risk map for birds.

Bird sensitivity map for windpower in Belgium (Flanders).


relatief laag risico

gemiddeld risico

relatief hoog risico

Natura-2000 gebied water *

hoogste risico's *

niet geëvalueerd gebied

© 2009Doel van de Nationale windmolenrisicokaart voor vogels is het weergeven van feitelijke risico-informatie zodat windmolens op de minst schadelijke locaties voor vogels worden gepland en aangelegd.Dit kaartbeeld is gebaseerd op de SOVON telgegevens t/m 2008.Lees de toelichting en bekijk de deelkaarten voor het beoordelen van het type en de omvang van het risico van windmolens voor vogels.De totaalkaart en de deelkaarten zijn niet geschikt voor de beoordeling van concrete windmolenplannen noch van cumulatieve effecten.Daarvoor is nader onderzoek, analyse en beoordeling op locatieniveau noodzakelijk.De deelkaarten kunnen wel richting geven bij het formuleren van de concrete onderzoeksvragen.

Nationale windmolenrisicokaart voor vogels

* Conform de visie van Vogelbescherming Nederland moeten deze gebieden windmolenvrij blijven


BOX 26

10050

kilometres

0

Sensitivity ratings within tetrad:

4 high (5421)3 high (1411)2 high (1964)1 high (1573)4 medium (4109)3 medium (482)2 medium (785)1 medium (727)All low/unknown (5715)

Sensitivity ratings within tetrad:

4 high (5421)3 high (1411)2 high (1964)1 high (1573)4 medium (4109)3 medium (482)2 medium (785)1 medium (727)All low/unknown (5715)

Composite Sensitivity Map of Scotland forlocation of onshore wind farms with respect to asuite of sensitive bird species (presented here attetrad level of resolution to protect locations ofsensitive species.

Bird sensitivity mapping in the UK

RSPB Scotland/BirdLife UK and Scottish NaturalHeritage have worked together to produce aScottish “birds and wind farms” sensitivity map(Bright et al., 2006). This was based on (1)distributions of 18 species of bird that areconsidered sensitive to wind energydevelopments, (2) SPAs, and (3) other siteshosting nationally important populations ofbreeding waders and wintering waterfowl.Reviews of literature on foraging ranges,collision risk and disturbance distances wereconducted for each of the 18 species, todetermine appropriate buffering distances. Thefindings were used to create a map of Scotlandwith each 1 km square classified as “high”,“medium” or “low/unknown” sensitivity.The map is intended to identify areaswhere it is considered there is morepotential for impact of wind farms onsensitive bird species and stricterassessment of possible effects may berequired, rather than to identify ”no go” areas.

Following completion of the map, RSPBScotland wrote to Local PlanningAuthorities in Scotland inviting them torequest more detailed maps for their area, andalso provided the map to developers,consultants and other stakeholders. TheHighland Council used the sensitivity ratings,alongside other constraint layers such as cost,visibility and designated sites, when identifyingpreferred areas for wind farm development inthe Highland Renewable Energy Strategy.Scottish Natural Heritage has produced its ownlocation guidance for wind farms in Scotland,incorporating a number of different “naturalheritage sensitivities” and including the RSPBScotland/SNH birds and wind farms sensitivitymap. Following this, RSPB worked on a jointRSPB/Natural England project to create mappedand written guidance for England (Bright, et al.,2009), using a similar approach.

BOX 27

Bird sensitivity mapping in Greece

HOS/BirdLife Greece has completed a first attempt toidentify and map those sites in Greece that are moresensitive to the presence of wind farms from anornithological and biodiversity perspective. The bestavailable ornithological information was compiled andprocessed cartographically, to indicate areas that areleast suitable for wind farm development across the wholecountry. The aim is to provide the Greek administrationand stakeholders with the information needed to protectcritical habitats and the most vulnerable bird species.

The methodology employed is a stepwise process,applying five distinct criteria of equal importance todetermine areas of high sensitivity to wind farmdevelopment. The purpose of this approach is to produce

Bird sensitivity map for wind power in Greece. 2

� ��

Legend- Criteria Applied

��

��!� ��

��"#$��%��&� ��+��!��

��;<=��%��&� ��+��!��

�� >�� +� +�

?�=�� @�� %��F�� !�� F. eleonorae ��

@�=��

a final map product, composed from the five non-overlapping thematic criteria maps (see below). Thecriteria used were:

● IBAs and SPAs that have been identified as migration-bottlenecks

● Ramsar sites with a 3 km buffer zone around their limits● IBAs and SPAs with qualifying (trigger) species most

threatened by wind farms, and major pelican flyways● certain species of small raptors and seabirds breeding

at sites other than those covered by the criteria above,with a 2 km buffer zone around nests and colonies.


4.5.2 USE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT (SEA)

SEA provides the ideal framework for using wildlifesensitivity maps and other environmentalinformation to develop strategic plans forrenewables. It is a publicly accountable process ofidentifying and assessing alternative ways to meeta plan’s objectives, ensuring that the final planprovides for a high level of protection to theenvironment. Environmental authorities areconsulted on the scope of the SEA, to ensurerelevant alternatives, baseline information andimpacts will be addressed. Assessment ofalternatives and mitigation measures is then

undertaken, usually by expert consultants andoften in partnership with outside experts fromacademia and NGOs. Then the findings arereleased for public consultation. The consultationresponses and assessment findings are then takeninto account in deciding on the final plan. Througha process of open and rigorous assessment, the planis not only more environmentally beneficial, it shouldalso have greater public support and legitimacy.Examples from Romania and Spain (Boxes 28 and 29)illustrate the damage to Europe’s most importantprotected areas that are likely to ensue where suchplans are absent and/or do not take environmentalconsiderations into proper account through the useof SEA.

BOX 28

The need for strategic planning for wind powerdevelopment in Romania

From 2006 Romania rapidly started to develop a windenergy industry. Based on a recent analysis (June 2011)over 8400 turbines are planned or are in the environmentalassessment procedures in Romania. About half of theproposed wind turbines (4000) are planned or are alreadybuilt in the Dobrogea region – one of the richest areas forbiodiversity in Romania.

About 64% of Dobrogea is designated as Natura 2000 sitesor other protected areas by national law. It is one ofEurope’s most important bird migration areas (on amigration route known as the “Via Pontica”). It the onlywintering area in Romania for the critically endangeredred-breasted goose, and is an important area for at least20 bat species. About 30 habitats protected by the HabitatsDirective have been described in Dobrogea.

Two priority habitats (ponto-sarmantic steppe anddeciduous thickets) are likely to be directly affected byconstruction of turbines. About 300 turbines have alreadybeen built in sensitive areas in Dobrogea, some of themnear to the unique Danube Delta ecosystem affectingareas for wintering red-breasted goose (eg, Istria, Sacele),or migrating areas of geese, storks, and pelicans. Some of

the proposed wind farms in Dobrogea will affect breedingor migrating areas for raptor species (eg, Babadag, MacinMountains).

NGOs (including SOR/BirdLife Romania) have beenlobbying central and local environmental authorities overthe last three years, to put pressure on them to develop anSEA for wind energy development in Dobrogea, and toproduce a bird sensitivity map. In 2011 they became morereceptive and started to develop some documents for anational SEA. However, so far no concrete action hasbeen taken. The main problem is that baseline data aremissing: surveys are needed for birds, bats and habitats.In 2011, SOR started the necessary bird surveys to developa sensitivity map for the Dobrogea region.

One of the most important problems is that EIA studies forwind farm projects in Romania have been of very poorquality, hiding the real biodiversity situation in theproposed locations. The environmental authorities havelittle capacity to check the quality of EIAs, or to take actionto improve this situation. SOR/ BirdLife Romania is workingwith authorities to improve the quality of environmentalprocedures, and working with investors who seek its views.


BOX 29

Failing to take the environment into account:the example of Spanish regional governmentplanning for wind power

The case of the Extremadura Region in Spain provides avivid illustration of the grave deficiencies detected bySEO/BirdLife in the environmental evaluation of windfarms in Spain. In December 2006, the RegionalGovernment announced in its Official Bulletin that 116formal requests had been received to install wind farms inExtremadura (1,952 turbines totalling 3,670 MW) putting anend to the previous moratorium on wind energydevelopment in this autonomous region. The number ofprojects, their geographical distribution, and theadministrative arrangements for considering theapplications for development consent make it abundantlyclear that it was a wind energy plan in all but name, and,as such, should previously have been submitted to SEAprior to the subsequent EIA of individual projects.

The public information provisions were seriously deficient:the 116 projects were made publicly available from 13 December–2 January (over the Christmas/New Yearholiday period) in only one location (Mérida), during themornings only, with a limit of seven people allowed toinspect the documentation at any one time and without thepossibility of making any copies of the informationpresented. Furthermore, there was no additional publicitygiven to the fact that these 116 projects were available forpublic consultation, not even in the affectedmunicipalities. The regional government had detailedinformation on the projects, and their corresponding EIAs,since June 2006.

Of the 116 projects proposed, 16 had at least part of theirarea within an SPA and 11 within a SAC. Furthermore, 82projects were sited within 10 km of Natura 2000 sitesdesignated for birds or bats, and thus potentially couldadversely affect the values of these sites and the integrityand coherence of the Natura 2000 network. However, notone of these projects was evaluated in terms of its impact

on Natura 2000 sites, and alternatives with no impact onthe Natura 2000 network were not considered. Projectswere proposed in sites as important as the Sierra de SanPedro SPA, with the highest density of Iberian imperialeagle in the world. Whilst 70 of the projects wereproposed within IBAs, in not a single case was there anydetailed evaluation of possible impacts on the IBA’sornithological values.

Highly endangered species likely to be affected included:Iberian imperial eagle (12 projects in 10 x 10 km gridsquares where the species breeds); black stork (64projects); Egyptian vulture (43 projects); red kite (78projects); lesser kestrel (76 projects); and black vulture (25projects). All of these species are vulnerable to collisionwith turbine blades yet in no case was the appropriateassessment required by the EU Habitats Directive carriedout. Similar problems were encountered with endangeredbat species: not one of the 116 project evaluationsconsidered impacts on the bat fauna yet projects werelocated in grid squares hosting colonies of batsrecognised as endangered by the ExtremaduraEndangered Species Catalogue. Other seriousdeficiencies in the evaluation of these wind farms(including clear infringements of EU law) detected bySEO/BirdLife in the case of Extremadura include:

● lack of consideration of project alternatives● failure to consider cumulative effects of the projects

proposed● insufficient consultation with the nature conservation

authority● inadequate inventories of fauna with failure to identify

species especially vulnerable to wind farms orprotected or endangered species

● failure to consider the barrier effects of wind farms forbirds and bats.

If the right frameworks for sustained investmentand protecting biodiversity are in place, andnecessary development is steered towards suitablelocations, specific projects are much less likely tohave significant impacts on the naturalenvironment. However, some further steps arenecessary, especially where strategic planning is not sufficiently robust.


4.6 MINIMISINGPROJECT IMPACTSA wide range of technology-specific mitigation andenhancement measures relevant to developers aredescribed in Chapter Two above. This Sectionfocuses on “positive planning” approaches thatcan be promoted by national, regional and localpolicy makers to ensure specific projects areenvironmentally acceptable.

Planning control – the granting or refusal ofplanning consent – is a vital tool enabling electedrepresentatives to ensure that damaging proposalsare modified to make them acceptable, or do notgo ahead (see Box 30). Authorities can refusepermission on a wide range of grounds, and someproposals for renewable energy facilities arerejected because of unacceptable ecologicalimpacts at the proposed location. Environmentalassessment procedures are an essential means bywhich the authorities can be informed about likelyenvironmental impacts before they make a consentdecision. Where BirdLife considers that impactsmay be significant and that environmentalassessments have not been conducted in a robustmanner that would identify any impacts, it strivesto take action to ensure assessments are properlyconducted before a decision is taken.

Where a proposed development is likely to havesignificant impacts affecting a Natura 2000 site, itmust first satisfy a series of strict tests (asexplained in Section 4.2 above). BirdLiferecommends precautionary avoidance ofdevelopment in these areas. However, provided itis permitted in locally applicable legislation,development can go ahead where these tests aresatisfied. The strict tests are set out in Article 6(4) ofthe Habitats Directive and are intended to makesure any damage permitted to Natura 2000 sites isboth unavoidable and necessary in the genuine andoverriding public interest. They are about deciding,in the interests of wider society, where the balancelies between the public interest of conservingEurope’s biodiversity and the public interest(s)

provided by a particular plan or project.

These tests on alternative solutions and imperativereasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) underArticle 6(4) are central to ensuring that the HabitatsDirective contributes to sustainable developmentby making damage to Europe’s most importantwildlife sites a last resort. Where a plan or project isto be consented on the basis of no alternativesolutions and IROPI, Article 6(4) then requirescompensatory measures to be secured to protectthe overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.We think this will mean any damage permitted toNatura 2000 sites is fully justified only as a lastresort, having exhausted all other options toprotect the site in situ.

In many Member States the “appropriateassessment” required to satisfy the strict tests areconducted as part of an EIA. In others, these aretreated as two separate processes. EIA applies tolarge projects that are likely to have significantimpacts on the environment. Like SEA, it is apublicly accountable process, relying on rigorousscientific assessment work, transparency andpublic participation. Biodiversity impacts arecovered in EIA, but are not always accordedadequate priority, and guidelines are absent or notwell applied in many Member States. As a result,EIA’s potential to help biodiversity protection is notalways realised. Common weaknesses are:

● not all projects affecting biodiversity are subjectto impact assessment

● transparency and opportunities for publicparticipation are often inadequate

● provision of baseline information andassessments of likely impacts are often poorquality, where these are not carried out in animpartial and rigorous way

● impact assessments often concentrate on limitedcomponents of biodiversity, such as designatedsites, rather than looking at all levels/facets of


BOX 30

Planning control to stop the worst proposals:the case of Lewis wind farm in Scotland

In April 2008, Scottish Ministers announced their decisionto refuse consent for the proposal by Lewis Wind Power toconstruct a very large-scale wind farm on theinternationally protected peatlands on the Isle of Lewis inthe Outer Hebrides. This robust decision by the ScottishGovernment was warmly welcomed by the RSPB inScotland, particularly because it recognises that there isno need to destroy important natural heritage resources inorder to deliver renewable energy developments, whichare a key element in the fight against climate change.

The original proposal, launched in 2001, was to build 234turbines, 105 km of roads, 141 pylons, five rock quarriesand a range of other associated works such as cablingand sub-stations. The vast proportion of the proposal wasto be built on the Lewis Peatlands SPA designated andprotected under European law. The proposal was for oneof the biggest wind farms in Europe on one of the mostsensitive peatland sites, which has some of the highestdensities of breeding birds in the UK.

The developers carried out extensive survey work and,their environmental assessment showed that the site waseven more important than had been previouslyappreciated. With populations of golden eagles, red- andblack-throated divers, merlins, dunlins, golden plovers,greenshanks, corncrakes and migrating whooper swansfrom Iceland, it was not possible for the developers toredesign their proposal to avoid damaging impacts oneither species or habitats.

However, a revised application for 181 turbines wassubmitted in 2006. The Scottish Government consideredand rejected the application, concluding that the impactswere still so severe that they would affect the integrity ofthe designated site and that because there were manyalternative solutions to meet wind farm and electricitygeneration objectives (which were considered to be theprimary issues to be considered by Ministers), theproposal should not go ahead. In this instance,compensatory measures did not need to be considered as part of the decision-making process (because thedevelopment was being refused). However, the decisionletter did note thatthe peatlandhabitats affectedcould not be re-created elsewherein the Western Islesor in Scotland in alocation or mannerlikely to be suitablefor the largepopulations of rareand vulnerablespecies involved.

biodiversity that could be impacted (eg,ecosystems, habitats, species, genes,connectivity and ecosystem services)

● impact assessments often fail to includeeconomic information relating to changes inecosystems services

● assessments do not assess alternative proposalsin order to identify a most environmentallybeneficial option

● the “no net loss” and “mitigation hierarchy”principles are not implemented adequately, and

● monitoring and enforcement of mitigationmeasures are often inadequate.

BirdLife believes that these weaknesses should beaddressed, and that better implementation of theEU environmental assessment requirements

should play an important part in supportingdelivery of renewables and the EU’s post-2010biodiversity policy. The highest priorities arefinding ways to ensure that agreed mitigation andmonitoring measures are implemented; ensuringall Member States have adequate guidancedocuments available on good practice inenvironmental assessment; and makingassessment professionals more financiallyindependent of their clients, to remove incentivesto underestimate impacts. In many Europeancountries EIA is normally a robust and usefulprocess. Where there are deficiencies in specificcountries involved in this project, they arehighlighted among the policy recommendationsin Section 5.3 below.

Original Lewis windfarm proposed layout,superimposed to scaleon the Brussels regionto illustrate scale.


4.7 ACHIEVINGECOLOGICALENHANCEMENTSEcological “enhancements” are improvements that go beyond measures required to mitigate orcompensate for damage. These may be within oradjacent to sites where renewables are developed,adding biodiversity benefits to the facilities’ greencredentials. For example, at Whitelee in Scotlandone wind farm developer is re-establishingheathland and blanket bog over a very large area (Box 31).

Enhancements may also be made off-site.Developers often provide incentives tocommunities to make their proposals more readilyacceptable, such as paying for community facilities.Providing attractive and wildlife rich habitats isanother way to provide community benefits, and to contribute to local and national biodiversitystrategies and targets. Ideally, biodiversityenhancements, like renewables developments,should not be piecemeal but rather planned formaximum benefit. For example the RSPB Cymru(Wales) has developed a “Statement ofEnvironmental Masterplanning Principles” (SEMP).This “masterplans” one of the Welsh “strategicsearch areas” (SSAs) for wind power in terms ofbroad habitat enhancement, and spatiallyexpresses locations for “environmental communitybenefit”. The two local planning authorities are inthe process of enshrining the SEMP in theirdevelopment plans, so that it becomes a majormaterial consideration in the decision-makingprocess. The aim is that this will result inlandscape-scale habitat enhancement within the SSA.

BOX 31

Habitat enhancement at Whitelee wind farm, Scotland

Whitelee wind farm, near Glasgow in Scotland, is a goodexample of a wind farm development contributing tohabitat enhancement. This large site (5,000 ha+) is in anarea not considered particularly sensitive for birds, andRSPB Scotland/BirdLife UK had few concerns with theoriginal proposal. Mitigation measures include re-establishing 900 ha of heathland and blanket bog throughthe clearance of conifer plantations, drain blocking and thecontinued management of a mosaic habitat to benefit blackgrouse. Liaison with the developer, ScottishPowerRenewables, has been effective and RSPB Scotland isrepresented on the Habitat Management Group, whichoversees ongoing habitat management to benefit wildlife.

Because of these positive benefits for wildlife andrenewable energy generation, RSPB Scotland supportedScottishPower Renewables’ application to extend thewind farm by a further 75 turbines, giving it the capacity topower nearly 300,000 homes. The Whitelee visitor centre,which opened in 2009, now attracts over 9,000 visitors amonth, and includes an exhibition about the constructionof the wind farm and the ongoing habitat managementwork conducted on-site.


4.8 GUIDANCE ANDCAPACITY BUILDINGLegislation, regulations and good practices forbiodiversity-friendly renewables development arenot always well-understood by all partiesconcerned. Moreover, institutions often lack thenecessary capacity to ensure they are properly

applied, particularly in the newer and less wealthyEU Member States. Wherever possible BirdLife iskeen to help develop guidance documents andbuild capacity in institutions, for example, byproviding training and advice (Box 32).

BOX 32

Good Practice Wind project

RSPB Scotland and the European Wind EnergyAssociation are among the organisations involved in anambitious project called “Good Practice in Wind EnergyDevelopment” (GP Wind)xii. The project aims to promotethe deployment of appropriately located wind energydevelopment in Europe. Led by the Scottish Government,and funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme,GP Wind aims to address barriers to the development ofonshore and offshore wind generation. It will do this byidentifying and developing good practice in two key areas:community engagement and reconciling renewableenergy with wider environmental objectives. By bringingtogether renewables developers (such as ScottishPowerRenewables and Scottish and Southern Energy), regionaland local government, environmental agencies and NGOssuch as the RSPB from eight different regions of Europe toshare experiences, the project aims to facilitate thedeployment of renewable energy in support of the European2020 targets. The aims of the project are as follows:

● increase the consenting rate for on- and offshore windprojects, and reduce the processing period forapplications

● increase the efficiency of processing applications,thereby reducing process costs

● build evidence-based support for the design, planningand implementation of projects which are sensitive toenvironmental and community concerns

● assist quicker, more transparent and less costlydeployment of wind energy across Europe, contributingto the achievement of 2020 targets for renewableenergy generation

● secure endorsement of project outputs by participatingPartner administrations and commitment to adoptrelevant good practice

● secure endorsement of project outputs by otherMember States and commitment to adopt relevantgood practice.

The main outputs of the project will include a goodpractice guide and “how to” toolkit, which can be adaptedfor use across Europe. Through active engagement withstakeholders including BirdLife International, the GP Windproject Partners identified 16 thematic case studies whichcover the key environmental and community engagementissues. These case studies include; impacts on speciesand habitats, carbon accounting, landscape and visualimpacts issues, cumulative impact issues, communityconcerns and community benefits, public perceptionissues and socio-economic impacts. The case studies willform the basis of the good practice guide and will highlightexamples of good practice and lessons learned.

The “how to” toolkit will provide specific information,models and tools which can be adapted for use acrossEurope. The project website will include a database ofinformation, case study reports, good practice andexpertise, and will be maintained beyond the life of theproject. At completion of the project an internationaldissemination event and nine regional disseminationevents will be held in order to publicise the findings.


RECOMMENDATIONSFOR NATIONAL AND EU POLICYMAKERS

CHAPTER 5

This Chapter provides an evaluation ofthe policy frameworks in 18 Europeancountries (within 13 Member States andtwo candidate Member States) in termsof their adequacy to enable a renewablesrevolution in harmony with nature(Section 5.1). Using this to identifycommon areas of strengths andweaknesses across Europe, and takinginto consideration the EuropeanCommission’s areas of competence,recommendations for the EU arepresented in Section 5.2. Policyrecommendations for policy makers inproject partners’ countries are presentedin Section 5.3, with some relevantbackground information aboutrenewables and conservation issues.


5.1 EVALUATION OFNATIONAL POLICYFRAMEWORKSBirdLife Partners were asked to evaluate how wellthe policy framework in their country achieved thefollowing:

● stimulating investment in a range of renewableenergy technologies

● protecting biodiversity and enabling it to adaptto climate change

● minimising overall infrastructure needs andimpacts

● spatial planning for renewables, and● minimising project impacts.

Table 4 summarises the results of these expertevaluations. It presents a complex picture, withconsiderable variation in the perceived adequacy ofpolicy frameworks across issues and betweencountries. However some broad observations canbe made, and some “leaders” and “laggards” canbe identified.

5.1.1 STIMULATING INVESTMENT INRENEWABLES

Leaders: Germany, UK, Spain Laggards: Poland, Montenegro, Romania

In general, the results suggest this aspect isrelatively well addressed by national policyframeworks. In particular onshore wind power isseen to be positively or very positively incentivisedin most countries. The offshore wind powerindustry was also considered to be well stimulatedby policy frameworks in many countries. None ofthe Partners considered that energy efficiencypolicies in their country are “very positive”. Therewere few negative evaluations, but doing more topromote energy efficiency was a high priority in

many Partners’ recommendations (see Section 5.3),because of its value in reducing the overall need fornew generation capacity and power lines.

5.1.2 BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION

Leaders: Germany, Portugal, UK (Englandand Scotland)Laggards: Ireland, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain

In general, Partners gave quite positive evaluationsregarding designation of the Natura 2000 networkand protection of biodiversity within Natura 2000sites. Bulgaria, Spain and Ireland are notableexceptions. Protection of priority bird species wasalso seen to be quite positively promoted bynational policy frameworks, except in France,Ireland, Montenegro and Spain. Again, broadlyspeaking, designation of conservation areas ofnational and local importance was relativelypositively evaluated, with the exceptions of Wales,Slovenia and Ireland. However, biodiversityprotection in the wider environment outsideprotected areas was considered an important areawhere national policy frameworks are inadequate.Evaluations were at best “neutral/mixed”, and“very negative” for several countries. The surveyrevealed climate change adaptation as anotherweak policy area, with many countries yet to give it serious consideration. Only France and Germanywere considered to have positive policyframeworks in place to enable biodiversity to adapt to the effects of climate change.

TABLE 4

BirdLife Partners’ evaluations of how positively their government promotesmeeting renewables targets in harmony with nature

STIMULATING INVESTMENT

Energy efficiency

Onshore wind power

Solar power

Biomass heat and power

Offshore wind power

Tidal stream and wave energy

BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION

Natura 2000 sites

National/local protected areas

Priority bird species

Outside designated areas

Climate change adaptation

MINIMISING OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

Energy system planning

Decentralised energy

Undergrounding power lines

Repowering

SPATIAL PLANNING

National-level

Regional/ local level

Use of bird sensitivity maps

Use of SEA

Habitats Directive tests

MINIMISING PROJECT IMPACTS

Planning control

EIA mitigation and monitoring

Guidance and training

C C C C C D C E C B C B C C C D B

C B C B A A B A C B A C A C B B B

B B D D A B B D D D C C B C B C B C

C

C C B B B D B D E D C D C B A B B B

B - C B C B B A - E

E

B E C C A A B B

B

B D C B B C C D D B B B C E B B B C

C C B B A C C E B B C B D D B C C D

D

C B C D B C C D D B B C B E C C C C

D D D D D E D E E C C D D E C D C E

B C D D D D E D C C C C E E D D D C

B C D C B B C E C D B D C E B B C B

C D D B C D E E E E C B D D E D C B

C - C D C C D - C C - - A C E C - C

C E D E C C E E C E D C C C E E D B

B D B A C D D C E D D E D E E E C B

C C E B C D D E - E D E D D E E B C

B D D B C E E C D D C D C E C - B D

B E D C B D C C E C C E C C B B B A

C E E B C D E D C D B D D E B D C D

D B E B B E D E D D C D E D B C B D

C E C C - C E B - C C - C C C A A A

A

C E B B B D C C - C D D D D B C B D

D E C B B E E E E D C D C C B D C E

BELG

IUM

: W

ALL’I

A

BULG

ARIA

CROA

TIA

FRAN

CE

GERM

ANY

GREE

CE

ITAL

Y

IREL

AND

MON

TEN

EGRO

POLA

ND

PORT

UGAL

ROM

ANIA

SLOV

ENIA

SPAI

N

UK: E

NGL

AND

UK: N

. IRE

LAN

D

UK: S

COTL

AND

UK: W

ALES

VERY POSITIVE

POSITIVE

NEUTRAL/MIXED

NEGATIVE

VERY NEGATIVE

NO EVALUATION/NOT RELEVANT

BC

-


5.1.3 MINIMISING OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

Leaders: Germany, Belgium (Wallonia)Laggards: Ireland, Italy, UK (England), Spain

Very few countries were considered by Partners tohave positive policies in place for energy systemplanning. Italy and Slovenia were considered tohave very negative frameworks in this respect.Policies to encourage decentralised energy, whichshould reduce the need for large renewable energyinstallations and new power lines, were seen to bepositive in many countries, but very negative inothers such as Spain and Ireland. Undergroundingpower lines was seen to be used in a positive wayin France, Romania and Wales. Many Partnerscommented that undergrounding is often not thebest solution for birds, and therefore they wouldnot wish to suggest that failure to promote itfurther is “negative”. Others, such as Italy,Montenegro and Poland considered currentpolicies to be very negative. Repowering existingrenewables facilities was not an issue in manycountries, or was seen to be generally adequatelyaddressed by policy frameworks. Slovenia (hydro)and Scotland (wind) were seen to have a positivepolicy approach to repowering.

5.1.4 SPATIAL PLANNING

Leaders: UK (Scotland), Belgium (Wallonia), FranceLaggards: Bulgaria, Italy, Romania, Spain, Poland,UK (England, N. Ireland), Greece, Montenegro

National level spatial planning for renewableenergy is an area in which many BirdLife Partnersconsider current policy frameworks are negative orvery negative. Many commented that therenewables industries are well subsidised by publicfunds, but that governments were doing too little tosteer development towards suitable locations in thepublic interest. “Very negative” assessments weremade by Partners in Bulgaria, France, Italy, Ireland,Poland, England and Northern Ireland. In somecountries this is seen to be ameliorated byrelatively positive regional and/or local planning,such as France and Ireland. In general, however,regional and local planning frameworks forrenewables are an area of weakness across muchof Europe in the opinion of BirdLife Partners. Use ofbird sensitivity maps and SEA depends on therebeing an adequate planning system in place at

national or sub-national levels. Use of sensitivitymaps was seen to be positive in France andScotland, and neutral or mixed in several othercountries including Wallonia, Bulgaria, Germany,Spain and Wales. Half of the Partners surveyed feltuse of sensitivity maps was a negative or verynegative element of their countries’ policyframeworks, usually because no maps areavailable. Use of SEA is another area of policyweakness across Europe, with only France andScotland seen to have a positive framework.Application of the “Habitats Directives tests”,which only permit development in Natura 2000sites under strict conditions, was seen to bepositive or very positive in many countries(Wallonia, Croatia, France, Germany, England,Scotland). It was considered negative in manysouthern European countries and very negativein Bulgaria.

5.1.5 MINIMISING PROJECT IMPACTS

Leaders: UK (England, Scotland), France, GermanyLaggards: Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Ireland,Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain

BirdLife Partners considered that planning controlis one of the more positive elements of the policyframework in many countries. Only five of the 18Partners found this to be a negative or verynegative aspect. Most Partners felt that the mostdamaging project proposals are usually refusedplanning consent in their country. However, therewas a less positive overall evaluation of policiesrelating to post-project follow-up, ie, ensuring thatmitigation measures agreed at the EIA stage areactually implemented, and impacts monitored.Only France, Portugal and England felt this aspectwas a positive element of their policy frameworks.Finally, the adequacy of guidance and training isvery mixed across Partners’ countries.

5.1.6 COMMON STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSESACROSS EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

In general, the most positive aspects of the policyframeworks are stimulating investment inrenewables, designation and protection of areas ofEuropean, national and local importance forbiodiversity and their protection, and use ofplanning control to refuse consent to the mostdamaging proposals. Areas where policy

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL AND EU POLICY MAKERS 107

frameworks are seen by many Partners to benegative or very negative are: protection ofbiodiversity outside designated areas; climatechange adaptation policies; national energy systemplanning; national-level spatial planning forrenewables; use of bird sensitivity maps and SEA;and enforcement of mitigation and monitoringmeasures agreed in EIAs.

Under subsidiarity rules, many of the policychanges required to enable renewablesdeployment in harmony with nature can only bemade at the level of Member States. For example,

changes to spatial planning frameworks andpolicies shaping national energy mixes are notEuropean Commission competences, and areaddressed below in Section 5.3. There are,nevertheless, very important roles for the EUinstitutions in ensuring that European biodiversityand renewable energy targets are mutuallycompatible and even reinforcing. Where specificEuropean binding targets or legislation are notpossible, the European Commission can still haveconsiderable influence through facilitating andsupporting best practice across Europe.

5.2 POLICYRECOMMENDATIONSFOR THE EUROPEANUNION1 Adopt binding 2030 targets for renewable energy. Beyond 2020 the renewable energy industries faceuncertainty in Europe. While the Energy Roadmap2050 will provide indications of how the EuropeanCommission envisages the EU energy mix evolvingto 2030 and 2050, the lack of binding targets forrenewables beyond 2020 will begin to undermineinvestor confidence in the next few years. BirdLiferecommends that binding targets for renewablesas a share of energy consumption should beestablished for 2030 as a matter of urgency. Thesetargets will need to be backed by a level ofcommitment and vision that will sustaininvestment and public/NGO support.

2 Assess 2050 energy pathways.Post-2020 plans for renewables must be built on ananalysis of the level of investment in various

technologies that is both necessary and respectsecological limits. The European Commission and/orEuropean Environment Agency should lead onassessing the impacts of different 2050 energypathways on the European and global environmentto identify the most sustainable and cost-effectiveway forward.

3 Adopt binding energy efficiency targets.Europe needs ambitious binding targets to saveenergy in every Member State. The Commissionmust ensure that there are adequate mechanismsto ensure targets are met (such as an obligation onelectricity suppliers to reduce domestic electricitydemand through investments in customers’homes), and strong sanctions for non-compliance.


4 Make biodiversity protection a high priority inenergy infrastructure plans.Enabling rapid development of an integratedEuropean electricity transmission network that canaccommodate a high share of renewable electricityis a key challenge. While the EuropeanCommission does not have powers overtransmission system development within MemberStates, it does concerning projects that arenecessary for European electricity marketintegration. BirdLife Europe calls on DG Energy toprioritise renewables and nature protection in theimplementation of its Energy InfrastructurePackage. In particular, the regulatory and financingmechanisms must enable the right infrastructure tobe put in place for timely and efficient developmentof Europe’s renewable energy resources. It falls toEuropean institutions to take the geography ofEurope’s energy and biodiversity resources intoproper consideration in shaping Europe’s futureelectricity systems.

5 Increase R&D funding for biodiversity-friendly renewables.EU R&D funding should be increased for specifictechnologies with potential to make significantcontributions to renewable energy supplies withlow ecological impacts and high publicacceptability. Key technologies with potential forhigh carbon savings and low biodiversity impactsinclude micro-renewables, floating offshore windturbines, wave power and tidal stream power.

6 Improve implementation of the Birds andHabitats Directives.While the designation and protection of Europe’smost important sites for biodiversity under theBirds and Habitats Directives is one of the EU’sgreatest achievements, the potential of thoseDirectives to fully contribute to achieving Europe’s2020 biodiversity target will require further action.It is essential that the European Court of Justicetakes firm action where Member States fail toimplement fully the provisions of the Directives. Inparticular, many Member States are failing toprotect species and habitats in the widercountryside outside the Natura 2000 network. Thiswill require better policy implementation in a rangeof sectors. In part it requires better application ofthe provisions in the Birds and Habitats Directivesapplying to the wider countryside. It also requirescontinued and expanded financing of agri-environment schemes. Specifically theCommission should:

● Develop up-to-date guidance on “appropriateassessment” for all renewables sectors, and inparticular for the appropriate assessment ofplans. Increase commitment to enforcementaction on infringements of the rules ondevelopment in Natura 2000 areas.

● Develop targeted information campaigns thatraise awareness of the seriousness and value of Natura 2000 designation, in particular itsimportance for climate change adaptation, andthat explain/demonstrate that businesses canthrive within Natura 2000 areas.

● Improve Member States’ understanding of EUlaws on development in Natura 2000 areas.Ensure developments are not automaticallyrefused consent if they cause no harm (andare also permitted in national legislation),or contribute to the conservation objectivesof the designated area, such as sustainableagriculture and forestry practices and sustainablebiomass schemes.

7 Enable better strategic spatial planning forrenewables and for climate change adaptation.The European Commission should provide R&Dfunding for EU-wide biodiversity sensitivitymapping for a range of major renewablestechnologies, following an agreed commonmethodology. Guidance and capacity building willthen be needed to enable Member States and sub-national authorities to apply the maps in strategicplanning for renewables. The Commission shouldalso develop a European strategy to enablebiodiversity to adapt to climate change, and requirethe development of national adaptation strategiesand their integration with other sectoral policies.Maintaining or extending current agri-environmentpayments under the Common Agricultural Policywill be essential to better enable biodiversity toadapt to climate change.

8 Improve implementation of the SEA Directive.The SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) has the potential tobecome a powerful tool to enable environmentallysensitive spatial planning for renewable energy andassociated infrastructure. Under the Directive, SEA is only required for a limited set of plans andprogrammes that authorities at the Member Statelevel are “required” to produce. BirdLiferecommends that the European Commission, inrecognition of the value of SEA, should voluntarilyextend its scope to include EU-wide infrastructureand spending plans. In any future review of theSEA Directive, steps should be taken to ensure that


alternatives are studied in SEAs as a means toidentify plans that give a high level of protection tothe environment, rather than as a formality. Stepsare also needed to strengthen assessment ofcumulative and transboundary impacts in SEA.This is particularly important to enable sensitivedevelopment of offshore renewable energy. Therequirements for public participation andassessment of alternatives should also be extendedto national policies, where these set the frameworkfor future SEAs and EIAs. There is also a need toclarify how alternatives should be defined in SEA.

9 Improve implementation of the EIA Directive.The EIA Directive is another key tool for ensuringEurope’s renewable energy targets are compatiblewith its biodiversity targets. However, steps need tobe taken to ensure it works as intended. There arethree key areas of weakness: a lack of objectivity inthe preparation of Environmental Statementswhere consultants put the interests of securingfuture business over those of scientific rigour; lackof capacity in environmental and planningauthorities to scrutinise EIA reports; and failure of

national authorities to ensure impacts aremonitored and agreed mitigation measures areimplemented. In each case steps can and must betaken at the European level to address theseweaknesses. Specifically the Commission should:

● Require EIAs for all sectors including renewablesto set out a clear and specific plan forimplementing mitigation and monitoringmeasures, and for reporting on measurableoutcomes that can be verified by competentauthorities.

● Explore how to build capacity in some MemberState authorities to scrutinise environmentalassessments and ensure that agreed mitigation,compensation and monitoring provisions areimplemented.

● Ensure environmental assessment reports arescientifically robust, for example, by requiringindependent selection of consultants to carry outstudies from a pool of approved professionals.

5.3 POLICYRECOMMENDATIONSFOR PROJECTPARTNERS’ COUNTRIESFor each project Partner’s country or MemberState, this Section presents some backgroundinformation about conservation and renewablesdevelopment, a chart showing which renewablestechnologies are expected to supply additionalenergy by 2020, and some policyrecommendations specific to that country.


FIGURE 16

5.3.1BELGIUM (WALLONIA)

Two BirdLife Partners operate in Belgium –Natuurpunt in Flanders and Natagora in Wallonia.The Flanders region is the wealthier and moredensely populated part of Belgium. Wind powerdevelopments have faced strong opposition onvisual amenity (“landscape”) grounds at manylocations in Flanders, and the RegionalGovernment applies strict location criteria. This hasresulted in intense competition among developersfor available sites for wind power development,which has driven up their costs. Bird sensitivitymaps are used by the Flanders authorities indecisions on planning consent, but not in strategicspatial planning for wind power or otherrenewables (ie, they are not used to define zoneswhere development is considered moreappropriate). Consent processes are often lengthy,with a high refusal rate.

Wallonia is less densely populated, andconsequently wind developers did not initially facesuch strong opposition on grounds of visualamenity. More recently, however, wind powerprojects have begun to face strong localopposition, with many now receiving a negativedecision from regional administrative authorities.

However, the current political majority has strongambitions in terms of wind power development,and the initial negative decision from theAdministration is frequently over-ruled by theGovernment leading to consent. Very recently,the Government has announced that a positivemap of areas for wind power will be developed,on the basis of wind resources and localconstraints. A bird sensitivity map is also beingdeveloped by Natagora.

Belgium’s target is to increase its share ofrenewable energy to 13%, from 2.2% in 2005. In2020 it will consume 4747 ktoe more renewableenergy than in 2005. As Figure 16 illustrates, 70%of this increase will be based on technologiesrequiring sensitive deployment – mainly biomass(for heat and electricity) and wind power. Theremaining 30% is roughly evenly split betweenliquid biofuels and technologies with lowconservation risks (mainly solar thermal and heatpumps). However, the contribution of wind poweris set to increase relative to the NREAP figures: in2011 the Wallonia regional Government introduceda new target to meet half its 2020 renewableelectricity consumption using onshore wind.

Natagora – BirdLife Belgium makes the followingkey recommendations for the Wallonia regionalGovernment:

1 Maintain subsidy levels for solar power, and the current emphasis on rooftop installations.

2 Publish a clear, stable spatial framework for

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !� ��"�#��

$��%�� "��

� ��

& ��%�� "��

'� ��! ��(�

'� ��! ��)�*�

+� ��! ��(�

+� ��! ��)�*�

,�%��-�"� ��.� ��*(�

�(%� �/ "��

0�1��%�#� !��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

$��%��

� ��

& ��

� ��

��

�#��"�� !��

��"$��%��

��

��"�%�� & ��

��

'� ��!��

��

��

'� ��!

+� ��!

+� ��!

,�%��-�"

�/%��(

0�1��%�#� !��

��

��

��

��

��(�'� ��!

��)�*�'� ��!

��(��!!

��)�*��!!

*(��.� �� ,�%��-�"

��" �/

0�1��%�#� !��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Belgium in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv


development of onshore wind power.3 Delay further promotion of the biomass heat

and power sector until research trials andexperience have better identified how to sourcebiomass sustainably.

4 Deliver against Wallonia’s ambitious targets forcreation of protected areas, including for largeforest reserves with natural ecosystemfunctioning.

5 To compensate for impacts of grid expansion toaccommodate renewables, continue toencourage grid operators to identify sections ofpower lines that create risks for birds and toadd mitigation devices.

6 Promote undergrounding of power lines inNatura 2000 areas where this is compatible withconservation objectives.

7 Investigate the potential to repower wind farmsand promote this if it can significantly increaseoutput.

8 Fund the development of bird sensitivity mapsand ensure they are used in regional and localspatial planning for renewables.

9 Review experience so far in dealing withrenewable energy planning applications, andissue guidance on good practice for developersand planning authorities.

5.3.2BULGARIA

The “Via Pontica”, one of the two most importantmigratory flyways for birds in Europe, passesthrough the Kaliakra region on the Black Sea coastin Bulgaria. Kaliakra contains one of the lastremnants of the unique steppe habitats in the EUand some of the largest coastal cliffs. Thousands ofbirds travelling from Europe to Africa and theMiddle East – including the white stork and pallidharrier – stop at Kaliakra to roost or forage. Theglobally threatened red-breasted gooseoverwinters at the site. BirdLife is very concernedabout uncontrolled development in this region fortourism and wind power.

Bulgaria plans to increase its renewable energyshare from 9.4% in 2005 to 16% in 2020. In 2020852 ktoe more energy from renewables will be

consumed than in 2005. Almost half of this increase(424 ktoe) will come from use of biomass for heatand electricity. Bulgaria is also planning significantgrowth in its onshore wind power industry, and tohave sufficient additional capacity installed by 2020to provide 194 ktoe of renewable energy. Bulgariaalso has ambitious energy efficiency plans, andaims to keep total energy consumptionapproximately constant to 2020.

BSPB – BirdLife Bulgaria recommends the followingkey policy changes:

1 Develop policies and implementation plans toachieve the ambitious energy efficiency target.

2 Ensure development of the onshore windindustry, under the new rules introduced inspring 2011, is orderly and sustained.

3 Prioritise, and increase incentives for,installation of solar PV on roofs, in urban areas,and on land with low biodiversity value.

4 Extend current work on sensitivity of birds towind farm development to address other speciesand other forms of renewable energy.

5 Develop a national spatial plan for renewablesusing SEA and sensitivity maps for birds andother biodiversity, and for all forms of renewableenergy. Ensure all regions and local authoritiesdevelop spatial planning for renewables.

6 Develop and implement management plans forall Natura 2000 areas as a matter of urgency.Commit to not using biomass produced inNatura 2000 areas except where this is specifiedin management plans for the conservation ofthese areas.

7 Ensure robust application of “appropriateassessment” procedures for developments inNatura 2000 areas by making assessmentexperts more independent of the developer, andrequiring employment of different assessmentprofessionals if work is repeatedly inadequate.

8 Change legislation to allow authorities to refuseconsent for the most damaging proposals, orwhere EIAs are clearly inaccurate or inadequate.Improve the working of the “expert councils”who vote on planning consents, to make themmore independent from investors’ interests.

9 Prevent use of “ecological assessment of plansand projects” (SEA) for major developments thatshould be subject to more detailed EIA. MakeSEA and EIA consultants independent of theirclients by making payments indirect. Introduce a “three strikes” rule whereby inadequateassessment reports can be returned to the same


FIGURE 17

assessment experts for improvement only onceor twice, but not more.

10 Update existing guidance on EIA proceduresand on wind farm development, and developsimilar guidance for other renewable sectors ingood time before the industries take off.Introduce a rolling programme of training inhow to apply such guidance, for developers,assessment experts and competent authorities.

5.3.3 CROATIA

Croatia is a candidate EU Member Sate, and assuch is not yet required to have an NREAP.However, a national energy plan drawn up in 2010sets a target of 20% renewable energy by 2020.Croatia has three large hydropower dams on theriver Drava in the north of the country. The stateenergy agency wants to build more hydropowerdams in other parts of the country which are stillquite natural and important for biodiversity. Fivewind farms are in operation in Croatia, and thesector is expanding rapidly, mainly in the coastalregions. BIOM (BirdLife’s contact in Croatia) reportsthat golden eagles were displaced by one of theearliest wind farms. There is very high potentialfor solar PV, but current subsidies appear to be

too low to stimulate investment. The 21 county governments set regional planningpolicies with land use zoning. However, zoningappears to be very flexible in the face of pressurefrom developers, and bird sensitivity maps are notyet available.

BIOM makes the following key policyrecommendations:

1 Update national energy plans to reflect the needto save energy and move away from fossil fuels.

2 Develop a national spatial plan for renewables,indicating zones that are most suitable fordifferent technologies. Support the necessarysurveys and mapping work to indicate todevelopers where their EIA surveys are likely toreveal major issues for wind powerdevelopment.

3 Make grid connection quicker and easier forwind power developers and small-scalerenewable electricity suppliers.

4 Increase subsidies for solar power, and theemphasis placed on solar power in nationalrenewable energy targets, and increasesubsidies.

5 In the biomass heat and power sector, prioritiseuse of agricultural by-products and only exploitforest resources where this is compatible withbiodiversity protection.

6 Increase capacity in the 21 counties to protectareas designated for inclusion in the Natura2000 network. Develop an informationcampaign so that developers understand that

��

��

��

� ��

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !"�#��

$!��"�!%�

$&��"�!%�

��

'�!�!��%��"��

(�� )�

(�� *!+�

,�� )�

,�� *!+�

-�%��.�"��/��!�!�+)�

�)%��

0�1��%�#��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�#��"!��

�"�!%�$!��

�"�!%��$&

��

��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

��

��"%��'�!�!

��)�(��

��*!+�(��

��)�,��

��*!+�,��

+)��/��!�!��-�%��.�"

��%��)

0�1��%�#��

��

��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Bulgaria in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv, ix


FIGURE 18

Natura 2000 areas are not “no go” areas andunder what circumstances development isacceptable. Ensure early experience in“appropriate assessment” takes a robustapproach, eg, by ensuring assessment expertsare independent of developers’ interests.

7 Study the costs and benefits of undergroundingpower lines in Croatia (depending on terrain/habitat types and use by vulnerable species) andraise awareness among government departments,the state energy company and developers.

8 Introduce a system of objective environmentalcost-benefit analysis to identify opportunities toincrease renewable energy output through re-powering and to remove installations that areunprofitable and/or most damaging forbiodiversity.

9 Ensure European funding bodies do not supporthighly damaging major projects.

10 The State Institute for Nature Protection shouldlead on the development of a suite of up-to-dateguidance and best practice documents on SEA,EIA and biodiversity-friendly renewablesdevelopment, in partnership with governmentministries and stakeholders.

5.3.4 FRANCE

France has a strong regional planning system. The July 2010 “Grenelle II” law requires regionalplanning for renewables contributions towards thenational targets. Most regions have bird and batsensitivity maps and these are used by the regionaloffices of the Ministry of Ecology to produce spatialplans for renewable energy development.Opposition to wind power on landscape grounds,and to solar PV on high grade agricultural land, haspushed developers to more remote areas. Thisincreases pressure on areas with high biodiversityvalue, and increases electricity transmission losses.Natura 2000 areas are generally well protected, butLPO has objected to one very large solar farmproposed in a Natura 2000 site in the South of Francebecause it could lead to loss of raptor habitat.

France intends to increase its share of renewableenergy from 10.3% in 2005 to 23% in 2020. This willrequire capacity to provide an additional 20 Mtoe ofrenewable energy. Figure 18 shows whichtechnologies are expected to provide this energy.Seventy per cent of the energy is expected to comefrom medium risk technologies that requiresensitive development. Biomass will be used toprovide an additional 7.3 Mtoe of heat energy.France also has ambitious plans for expansion ofonshore wind, and for offshore wind developmentin the Atlantic.

LPO – BirdLife France makes the following policyrecommendations:

1 Ensure that financial incentives and the energypolicy framework become stable, to give more

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��

"�� #�

"$�� #�

� ��

% ��#��

&� �� '�

&� �� (�)�

*� �� '�

*� �� (�)�

+�#��,� ��-� ��)'�

�'#� �

.�/��#�!� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

"��

�� "$

� ��

� ��

��

�!��

�� #�"��

�� #��

��

��

��

% ��

��

��

��

��

�

&� ��

&� ��

*� ��

*� ��

+�#��,�

#��'

.�/��#�!� ��

��

��

��

�� #�� % ��

��'��

��(�)��

��'�*� ��

��(�)�*� ��

)'��-� ��+�#��,�

�#�

.�/��#�!� ��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in France in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv


confidence to investors and more certainty forall stakeholders.

2 Assess the available sustainable resource ofbiomass from French sources, givencompeting land uses and conservation goals.

3 Plan for a more decentralised energy systemthat makes greater use of low-risktechnologies and reduces transmission losses,by increasing incentives for solar thermal,micro-wind and smaller wind farms supplyinglocal users.

4 Develop a national spatial plan for renewablesusing SEA. Strategic planning of electricitygeneration should take into account the costsand potential ecological impacts of new powerline development.

5 Develop a standardised methodology forintegrating bird/bat sensitivity maps intoregional plans.

6 Fund ecological surveys of the French marinearea, and use the results and SEA to develop a strategic plan identifying further zones foroffshore wind development. Make ecologicaldata collection in offshore SPAs and SACsmore detailed.

7 Make strong links between the RegionalScheme for Ecological Coherence and theRegional Scheme for Climate, Air and Energyin designating and protecting sites, and inregional/ local spatial planning for renewables.

8 Make climate adaptation a more explicit andcentral element of the Regional Scheme forEcological Coherence. To ensure “green” and“blue” corridors are effective, the programmesmust be well funded: industry should contribute,

FIGURE 19

to offset fragmentation and loss of habitatsacross France estimated at 80,000 ha per year.

9 Develop environmental criteria for repoweringof hydro facilities, and guidance onenvironmental assessments for biomass andoffshore renewables.

10 Develop good practice guidance on SEAmethodologies, and improve capacity inregional authorities to control the quality of “appropriate assessments” and EIAs, inparticular for cumulative impacts.

5.3.5 GERMANY

Germany is a world-leading nation in renewablesdevelopment, particularly solar PV and wind poweronshore. The move to larger wind turbines makesrepowering of older wind farms in the north of thecountry worthwhile, and it is becoming economicto use less windy sites in the centre and south ofthe country. NABU (BirdLife Germany) workstogether with project developers to encouragemanagement of the land under solar or wind farmsfor the benefit of biodiversity. Bird sensitivity mapsare used in spatial planning in some Germanregions. Data is less well developed for bats, whichcould be put at risk by the increasing developmentof wind farms in forested areas.

��01��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��"�

!#��"�

��

$��"��

%��&�

%��'�(�

)��&�

)��'�(�

*�"��+��,��(&�

�&"��

-�.��"� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

!��

��!#

��

��

��

� ��

��"�!��

��"��

��

��

��

��$��

��

��

%��

%��

)��

)��

*�"��+��

��"��&

-�.��"� ��

��

��

��

��"��$��

��&�%��

��'�(�%��

��&��

��'�(��

(&��,��*�"��+��

��

-�.��"� ��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Germany in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv, ix


Under the Renewable Energy Directive, Germany iscommitted to increasing its share of energy fromrenewables from 5.8% in 2005 to 18% in 2020, butintends to go beyond this, bringing the share to19.6%. This equals an increase in annual renewableenergy consumption of almost 24 Mtoe. Figure 19shows that Germany plans to use a balanced mixof all the major renewables technologies to achievethis increase. The contribution of 3449 ktoe ofenergy from solar PV is particularly ambitious.Biomass for electricity is needed in part to balancegeneration from intermittent renewables such aswind and solar. With the 2011 decision to phase outnuclear power, Germany’s renewables ambitionsare likely to be stepped up beyond those reportedin the NREAP.

NABU – BirdLife Germany makes the following keypolicy recommendations:

1 Define programmes to improve the efficiency ofspecific appliances and heating/coolingsystems, targeted to maximise carbon savings.This should be funded through revenues fromthe European ETS, and should start withelectrical appliances/systems like circulatingpumps.

2 Vary the feed-in tariffs for onshore wind toencourage a better geographical spread of windand solar power developments acrossGermany. Maintain the current policy of onlyallowing large solar arrays to be built in zonesdefined by municipalities with publicparticipation, and only where EIA is carried out.

3 Examine the national and regional limits tosustainable use of biomass for energy, givenother land use priorities and other end-uses.Encourage usage of a broader variety ofbiomass sources including organic residues,liquid manure and energy crops fromsustainable cropping systems.

4 Push the European Commission to removeharmful subsidies in the forestry and agriculturesectors (eg, for woody biomass) and to movefunds into subsidies that make these sectorsmore supportive of biodiversity.

5 Support more research into minimising noiseimpacts on marine mammals and fish duringinstallation of offshore wind turbines, anddevelop standards for “best availabletechnology”.

6 Move away from planning of individual powerlines to a more integrated national planningapproach based on SEA and that proves the

need for specific infrastructures and evaluatesuse of innovative technologies. Raise the ratioregulating justifiable costs of undergrounding,to increase the proportion of new undergroundpower lines.

7 Maintain the current situation wherebymunicipalities have decision rights ondeveloping decentralised energy, and promotethis as good practice across the EU.

8 Zones for renewable energy developmentdefined by local authorities should always beco-ordinated by regional planning authorities,to avoid the designation of small, fragmentedzones at the edges of local planning areas.

9 Set up and operate regional “pools” for data on the presence of sensitive species, using datacollected by developers and NGOs, and makethis available to all parties involved in theplanning process.

10 Where sensitivity maps are available, requiretheir use in defining renewable energy zonesand in planning control.

5.3.6 GREECE

Greece is committed to increasing its share ofrenewable energy from 6.9% (2005) to 18% in 2020.Over the period 2005 to 2020, annual renewableenergy consumption will increase by 3.3 Mtoe.Onshore wind power will provide 39% of thisadditional energy (1278 ktoe). HOS (BirdLife Greece)has developed sensitivity maps for onshore wind,but these are not yet used in spatial planning. Marineecological surveys are urgently needed ahead ofdevelopment of the Greek offshore wind industry.

HOS – BirdLife Greece makes the following policyrecommendations:

1 Endorse the available bird sensitivity maps asan interim measure, and fund development ofimproved maps at the national scale, to informspatial planning and investor decision making.

2 Revise and update the national spatial plan forrenewables, using high-quality SEA, to reflectrecent major increases in targets and theinadequacy of the earlier SEA.


FIGURE 20

3 Develop spatial plans for renewables at theregional level, using resource assessments, bird sensitivity maps and SEA.

4 Increase incentives for investment in small wind farms serving small communities andislands – the current emphasis is all on very large wind farms.

5 Develop new guidelines on ornithologicalassessment requirements for wind powerdevelopment in SPAs.

6 Maintain the current policy allowing solar farmsto be developed on agricultural land, and gofurther to discourage use of high nature valueland. Reduce bureaucratic hurdles for solardevelopers, particularly for small-scaleinstallations (without compromising onstandards and EIA requirements).

7 Speed up identification of marine IBAs anddesignation of marine SPAs. The currentstrategy for offshore wind does not take intoaccount ecological sensitivities and protectedareas – it should be developed using SEA andstrategic “appropriate assessment” to protectmarine wildlife and to give more certainty todevelopers on appropriate development zones.

8 Bring together and integrate/optimise sectoralenergy strategies in an open, accountableprocess informed by SEA and sensitivitymapping.

9 Re-work existing budgets for power linedevelopment to enable undergrounding wherelines cross major bird migration paths, and tomitigate risks in the existing networks.

10 Prioritise re-powering rather than developmentof new hydro and micro-hydro schemes. Assessthe need for the current very high number ofsmall scale hydro plants.

5.3.7 IRELAND

In its NREAP, Ireland is committed to increasingits share of renewables in total energyconsumption from 3.1% (2005) to 16% in 2020.This requires an additional 1.9 Mtoe of renewableenergy. As Figure 21 illustrates wind power willaccount for the largest technological share of thisincreased consumption. Ireland is developing anoffshore wind industry, but the NREAP does notprovide details.

BirdWatch Ireland – BirdLife Ireland makes thefollowing policy recommendations:

1 Increase incentives for and uptake of thedomestic energy efficiency retrofit scheme anddecentralised renewables.

2 Streamline licensing procedures for griddevelopment needed for growth in renewableelectricity capacity.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ! �"��! ��#��$�%��

&��$!�'�

&(��$!�'�

��"��! �

)�� '��$��

*!��#�� ! !�+�

*!��#��,�-�

.��#�� ! !�+�

.��#��,�-�

/!'��0�$�"��1�� -+�

�+'��

2!3�!'�%!�#��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

��

�� ! �"

&��

��&(

��

��

��

��

�%��$��! ��#�� ! �"

��$!�'�&��

��$!�'��

�! ��"��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

)��

��

*!��#

*!��#

.��#

.��#

/!'��0�$

��'��+

2!3�!'�%!�#��

��

��

��

��$�'��)��

�� ! !�+��#�

��,�-�� #�

�� ! !�+�.��#

��,�-�.��#

-+��1�� "�/!'��0�$

��

2!3�!'�%!�#��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Greece in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv, ix


FIGURE 21

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Ireland in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv

3 Use SEA to examine the least damaging energymixes and spatial configurations for an onshorerenewables strategic plan. In particular, developa strategic spatial plan for onshore wind powerdevelopment.

4 Extend support (currently only for new-build) tolarge scale PV arrays and for use on existingbuildings.

5 Expedite completion of spatial planning foroffshore wind, using high quality SEA. Supportbiodiversity survey work and expeditecompletion of the SPA network (onshore andoffshore) and SAC network (offshore).

6 Revise the “Grid 25 Plan” to take account ofprotected areas. Develop criteria for use ofundergrounding in sensitive areas and integratethese into the Grid 25 plan.

7 Require regional and local spatial planning forrenewables, and provide guidelines for doing so.

8 Provide support for development of sensitivitymaps and commit to their use by a specifieddate eg, 2015.

9 Develop national guidance on application ofappropriate assessment for various kinds ofrenewables infrastructure.

10 Improve consistency in planning controlpolicies among competent authorities (localauthorities and agencies).

5.3.8 ITALY

Italy has taken a different approach to protectedareas and wind power development to other EUcountries. Rather than use sensitivity maps andspatial planning, it has adopted a decree thatprohibits wind power development in Natura 2000areas. This goes beyond the requirements of theBirds and Habitats Directives, which allowdevelopment under certain conditions designed to ensure conservation objectives are notundermined. This decree is seen as necessarypartly because the wind industry has beensomewhat chaotic, unplanned and even corrupt.Subsidies have been available for simply installingturbines, and some in Sicily were found not to beconnected into the grid.

In its NREAP, Italy is committed to increasing itsshare of renewables from 5.2% to 17% (2005–20).This requires an increase in renewable energyconsumption of almost 15 Mtoe. Figure 22 providesthe technological makeup of this increase. Over50% is derived from biomass to be used for heat,electricity or liquid biofuels. Italy also plans tomake very significant use of heat pumps and solarthermal technology for space heating. In commonwith Greece, Italy plans to develop some offshore

��

��

��

��

��

� � ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"#�$��

%�"&��#��

��

'�"�"��&��#��

(��!��)�

(��!��*"+�

,��!��)�

,��!��*"+�

-�&��.�#� �/��"�"�+)�

�)&��0�#��

1�2��&�$��!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�$��#"��!��

��#%�"&��

��

&��'�"�"

��

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��#&��'�"�"

��)(��!!�

��*"+�(��!!�

��)�,��!

��*"+�,��!

+)��/��"�"� �-�&��.�#

��#��0&��)

1�2��&�$��!��

��


FIGURE 22

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Italy in 2020compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv

wind power in the Mediterranean. It will also makeuse of CSP, and already has a facility in operationin Sicily.

LIPU – BirdLife Italy makes the following policyrecommendations:

1 Improve incentives and mechanisms to increasedomestic and industrial energy efficiency andimprove public transport. Provide incentives tothe construction industry to replace inefficient1930–50s housing in suburban areas withenergy efficient housing.

2 Introduce incentives to replace inefficient woodfires used for heating in southern Italy withefficient wood fuel stoves and/or other micro-renewables (rooftop solar PV and solar thermal).

3 Harmonise wind power incentives (and push forthis also at the EU-level) so developers areattracted to the best locations rather than bysubsidy levels.

4 Maintain the existing decree excluding windpower from SPAs. Some older, badly sited windfarms should be relocated. Use sensitivitymapping plus full application of “appropriateassessment” to enable some renewablesdevelopment in SACs, limited to small scaledevelopments only.

5 Maintain a stable support regime for solarpower that favours honest investors who needa reliable income stream. (Instability favoursvery rich investors who can move quickly andcope with losses of revenue eg, organisedcrime groups investing to launder money).

Provide stronger incentives for PV developmentin urban areas (on buildings, in particularcommercial buildings such as warehouses) thanfor development on farm land.

6 Assess the sustainable level of biomass use forenergy in Italy and plan how to exploit it at thenational level. Prioritise agricultural wastes andmanagement of existing forests currently inpoor condition for biodiversity (eg, in theApennines). Do not import biomass fromcountries where the sustainability of sourcing isuncertain. (South America is currently a majorsource of imported wood fuel).

7 Develop a national energy infrastructure planthat takes into account biodiversity protection,including measures to minimise infrastructureneeds (energy efficiency, smart grids, electricitystorage).

8 Develop national, regional and local spatialplanning for renewables. Use sensitivitymapping and SEA to plan renewablesdeployment outside Natura 2000 sites.

9 Make wider use of undergrounding power lineswhere this will be environmentally beneficial.Use the opportunity when upgrading powerlines to develop a smarter grid system.

10 Promote repowering of existing hydro facilitiesrather than development of the last remainingnatural rivers in the Alps. Identify at nationallevel the most beneficial sites in terms ofelectricity system management and ecologicalimpacts for converting some hydro facilities topumped-storage.

��2�

�/�2�

��

��/�

��/��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��"�

!#��"�

��

$��"��

%��&�

%��'�(�

)��&�

)��'�(�

*�"��+��,��(&�

�&"��

-�.��"� ��

��

��

��

��

��/�

��

��

� ��

��"�!��

��"��!#

��

��

��

��

��/�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��"��$��

��&�%��

��'�(�%��

��&�)��

��'�(�)��

(&��,��*�"��+��

��"��&

-�.��"� ��

��

��


5.3.9MONTENEGRO

Montenegro is a candidate EU Member State, anddoes not have an NREAP. Two large hydro damsbuilt 40–50 years ago supply approximately 80% of Montenegro’s electricity. A State Strategy forEnergy Development to 2025 identifies wind andhydro as priorities. The Strategy suggests locationsfor development of the wind industry, many ofwhich are IBAs or potential IBAs. This reflects theproblem that spatial planning for energydevelopment has not been informed by SEA, andbird sensitivity maps are not yet available. Solar PVis not yet supported in Montenegro, despite itspotential in this sunny country.

CZIP – BirdLife’s contact in Montenegro make thefollowing policy recommendations:

1 Turn good intentions on energy efficiency intoactions – introduce subsidies to encourageinvestment in households and industry.

2 Maintain financial support for the onshore windsector, but go further to ensure ecologicallysensitive development.

3 Make use of Montenegro’s good solar resources– introduce subsidies to attract investmentin solar power, favouring rooftop installations.Favour solar for power and heat rather thanbiomass until there has been a thoroughassessment of potentially sustainablebiomass resources.

4 Designate and protect areas in the preliminarylist of future Natura 2000 areas as nationallyprotected areas as soon as possible. IntroduceEU requirements for areas in the list.

5 Use SEA to revise the national energyinfrastructure plan to 2020, taking into accountecological sensitivities.

6 Introduce financial incentives for decentralisedrenewables, particularly for rooftop solar powerand solar thermal heating.

7 Define a policy on power lines and protectedareas, prioritising avoidance first andundergrounding where this is feasible andenvironmentally acceptable.

8 Ensure new power lines for re-poweredhydro facilities and other renewables do

not harm biodiversity.9 Revise national spatial planning for renewable

energy using SEA to minimise impacts onbiodiversity, and introduce a system of regionalspatial planning for renewables using SEA.

10 Prepare national and regional bird sensitivitymaps and require their use in spatial planningfor renewable energy.

5.3.10 POLAND

Poland will increase its share of renewable energyfrom 7.2% in 2005 to 15% in 2020. This requiresadditional capacity to provide 10.2 Mtoe ofrenewable energy. As Figure 23 illustrates, Poland’srenewable energy plans are strongly dependent onbiomass for heat and electricity. Onshore wind anda small offshore contribution are also planned.However renewable electricity expansion ishampered by the need to renovate Poland’selectricity transmission system.

OTOP – BirdLife Poland makes the following policyrecommendations:

1 Widen financial support for energy efficiencymeasures to private owners and raise publicawareness of the need for, and benefits of,energy efficiency.

2 Give developers a clear indication of areas thatare suitable for wind farm development, withreference to wind speeds, grid connections andecological sensitivities.

3 Take urgent steps to modernise the electricitygrid to make it possible for the grid operator toconnect renewable electricity, and enforce therequirement to connect new suppliers. Clarifythe legal position on who should pay for gridconnections, ensuring this does not penalisesmall producers. Build on existing trials ofmitigation measures (diverters andundergrounding) on power lines and preparea national strategy to make existing and newpower lines bird-safe.

4 Introduce support for solar PV, in addition tocurrent support for solar thermal. Providefinancial support to the regions to promote


FIGURE 23

small-scale renewables, and require all regionsto actively promote their use.

5 Conduct an assessment of the sustainablebiomass resource in Poland, and provide mapsand/or guidelines on sustainable exploitation ofthe resource. Enforce regulations on the airquality impacts of biomass burning, to preventmixing of industrial waste into biomass fuelsand combustion in older facilities withoutadequate emissions controls.

6 Implement the draft law regarding artificial“islands” to enable offshore wind development.Designate marine SPAs urgently and developmarine spatial planning for offshore wind.

7 Develop guidelines on repowering of hydrofacilities, including on achieving/maintaininggood ecological status of water bodies. Changethe national Act on EIA to require EIA for watermanagement works.

8 Amend the Polish Act on EIA to make it clearerwhere EIA is required (with infrastructure-specific thresholds), and to clarify that“appropriate assessment” under Article 6 of theHabitats Directive is required for any project,irrespective of size or infrastructure type, whereit is likely to adversely affect a Natura 2000 area.

9 Support development of nation-wide birdsensitivity maps, and their use in spatialplanning and environmental assessment ofplans and projects.

10 Develop a national spatial plan for energyusing SEA, including for modernisation ofthe electricity grid, so that renewables targetscan be achieved while protecting the natural

environment and minimising electricitytransmission losses. Implement existingrequirements for regional and localspatial planning.

5.3.11PORTUGAL

Wind farms in Portugal have so far usually beensmall, and outside of IBAs. However, there aremany wind farms in the south-west coastal area,which is a very important area for birds duringmigrations periods. Portugal has a very steepcontinental shelf, which limits potential for offshorewind power. However, this may change if floatingturbines become commercially available. Portugalhas a significant wave power resource, but therehave been delays in getting a test centre for wavetechnologies up and running. Portugal also hasambitious plans to develop hydropower andpumped storage. Significant grid development,including interconnectors with Spain, is needed toenable renewable electricity development.

Portugal is committed to increasing renewableenergy consumption from 20.5% (2005) to 31% in2020. The high share in 2005 was largely accountedfor by use of biomass for space heating. The

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�"��

# ��!� $�

#%��!� $�

��

&� �� $��!��

'��(�

'��) *�

+��(�

+��) *�

,�$��-�!��.�� *(�

�($��

/�0��$�"��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

# ��

��#%

��

��

��

��

��

�"��!� ��

��!� $�# ��

��!� $��

��

��

��

�� &� ��

�� '��

'��

+��

+��

,�$��-�!

$��(

/�0��$�"��

��

��

��

��

��!�$��&� ��

��(�'��

��) *�'��

��(��

��) *��

*(��.�� ,�$��-�!

��$�

/�0��$�"��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Poland in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv, ix


FIGURE 24

NREAP suggests this use of biomass will actuallybe reduced slightly, and greater use will be made ofsolar and geothermal heat. An additional 2.8 Mtoeof renewable energy is required.

SPEA – BirdLife Portugal makes the followingpolicy recommendations:

1 Evaluate progress on the 2008 implementationplan, and target funding and programmes wherethe greatest carbon savings can be made withthe lowest wildlife impacts eg, energy savings.

2 Increase support and incentives for solar heatand solar power on homes and public facilities(schools, hospitals, sports facilities, etc).

3 Develop a spatial plan for offshore renewablesthat excludes the most sensitive areas, indialogue with SPEA and using survey data andguidance from the FAME project (available late2012). Move ahead urgently with designation ofthe three marine SPAs for which preparatorywork is already complete.

4 Get the wave energy pilot zone functioning withadequate monitoring and biodiversityassessments. Continue/expand testing offloating turbines, and include biodiversitycriteria in technical evaluations/specifications.

5 Continue identifying power lines that aredangerous for birds and introduce mitigationmeasures and monitoring. Achieve firstundergrounding of power lines in Portugal inthe most critical areas.

6 Prioritise repowering of existing hydro, wherethis is compatible with Water Framework

Directive requirements on ecological status,rather than new hydro.

7 Support national bird sensitivity mapping (and/or use existing designations and data), and use this and SEA to develop a nationalspatial plan for all renewables.

8 Develop guidelines on regional and local spatialplanning for renewables, and require suchplanning to implement the national spatial plan.

9 Continue using EIA screening as an effectivetool to prevent the worst projects comingforward, but give more weight to biodiversityand reducing carbon emissions when decidingon national interests.

10 Update guidelines on wind power developmentand the natural environment, and extend toother renewables eg, solar PV. Improvecoverage of cumulative impacts assessmentand monitoring in guidelines. Raise awareness,and increase capacity to apply the guidelinesand to carry out monitoring.

5.3.12ROMANIA

Romania intends to increase its share ofrenewables in total energy consumption from17.8% (2005) to 31% in 2020. As Figure 25

�0��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�#�$��

%"��#�"&�

%'��#�"&�

��

("��"��&��#��

)��!��*�

)��!��+",�

-��!��*�

-��!��+",�

.�&��/�#� ��0��"��"��,*�

�*&��

1�2��&�$�!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�$��#�"��!��

��#�"&�%"��

��#�"&��%'

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��#�&��("��"

��*�)��!!

��+",�)�� !!

��*�-��!

��+",�-��!

,*��0��"��"�� .�&��/�#

�&��*

1�2��&�$�!��

��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Portugal in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv


FIGURE 25

illustrates the additional 870 ktoe of energy will beprovided by three main sources: hydro, biomassfor electricity and onshore wind. Romania alreadyuses hydro to produce around 30% of its electricity,and intends to increase this by about 20%. Incontrast the wind and biomass industries will benewly established. Romania also plans for asignificant new solar PV capacity.

New wind development is concentrated in theDobrogea region, near the Black Sea. Almost twothirds of this large, ecologically important region isdesignated as Natura 2000. This includes someagricultural areas, where wind power developmentcould be safely developed. However, developmentin the region has been quite chaotic so far. Thereare collision risks for lesser spotted eagles,displacement risks for red-breasted geese andbreeding raptors, and potential creation of barriereffects for birds going to the Danube Delta forfeeding and resting. Appropriate assessment underthe Habitats Directive has only been implementedsince June 2010 and even now the authorities donot have the necessary skills and data to makerobust assessments.

SOR – BirdLife Romania has been in discussionswith the Ministry of Environment for two yearsabout making a spatial plan using SEA for winddevelopment in the Dobrogea region. Work isexpected to begin soon, but faces severalobstacles. Funds for multiple ecological surveysare needed; and these data will need to beinterpreted to produce bird sensitivity maps.

The biggest problem for ensuring ecologicallysensitive renewables development is a lack ofcapacity in the Ministry of Environment.

SOR – BirdLife Romania makes the following policyrecommendations:

1 Increase support for solar power, energy savingand micro-renewables to a similar level to thatavailable for wind power.

2 Develop a clear strategy for the biomass sectoravoiding damage to protected areas.

3 Carry out biodiversity surveys to identifysuitable areas for offshore wind in theBlack Sea.

4 Carry out a national level strategic “appropriateassessment” for energy infrastructuredevelopment, to ensure integrity of the Natura2000 network is respected.

5 Complete national sensitivity mapping instages, starting with regions where developmentis concentrated and is affecting Natura 2000areas ie, the Dobrogea and Moldova regions.

6 Ensure full implementation of the 2010 nationalspatial plan for renewable energy and develop asystem of regional spatial planning forrenewable energy, starting with areas wheredevelopment is concentrated.

7 Ensure use of suitably qualified specialists tocarry out EIA work, and improve publicparticipation in planning procedures.

8 Increase capacity in the Ministry ofEnvironment to complete and protect theNatura 2000 network.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !"��

#��!��$�

#%��!��$�

��

&��$��!��

'�� (�

'�� )�*�

+�� (�

+�� )�*�

,�$�-�!��.��*(�

�($��

/�0��$�"��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

"��!��

��!��$�#��

��!��$��#%

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!�$��&��

��(�'��

��)�*�'��

��(+��

��)�*�+��

*(��.��,�$�-�!

��$��(

/�0��$�"��

��

��

��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Romania in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv


FIGURE 26

9 Increase capacity and scientific expertise inlocal and regional authorities to scrutinise“appropriate assessments” through recruitmentand training. Where capacity is lacking, theMinistry of Environment should scrutiniseproposals (rather than local authorities) andNGO advice should be used.

10 Improve capacity in environmental authoritiesto require mitigation measures and to carry outmonitoring and enforcement. The Ministry ofEnvironment should work with NGOs todevelop clearer guidance and a trainingprogramme for environmental authorities.

5.3.13 SLOVENIA

Slovenia intends to raise it share of renewableenergy from 16% in 2005 to 25% in 2020, requiringan additional 330 ktoe of renewable energy. AsFigure 26 illustrates, roughly one quarter of theincrease will be in hydropower, and roughlyanother quarter from technologies with lowecological risks (solar thermal, heat pumps andrenewables used in electric cars). The remaining161 ktoe of energy will come from medium risktechnologies as identified in Chapter Three.Biomass for heating and electricity are important

sources in this heavily forested country. Solar PVand onshore wind also make small contributionsto 2020 targets.

Slovenia has a strong tradition of spatial planning,but this is not yet being used effectively to promote biodiversity-friendly renewables. Thereare national-level plans, such as the nationalEnergy Plan to 2030, and also “community plans”for 200 communities. Permission for largerenewables developments depends on inclusion in spatial plans.

DOPPS is produced sensitivity maps for windenergy for all of Slovenia, and these will be in thepublic domain by 2012. Large scale winddevelopment has been on hold pending the resultof one controversial proposal. In 2001 a Slovenianelectricity distribution company decided to build ina mountain IBA/SPA (Snežnik-Pivka) that isimportant for griffon vultures and golden eagles.Environmental consent and a construction licencewere initially given, but DOPPS BirdLife Sloveniatook legal action because the EIA was inadequate.

One third of Slovenia’s electricity is from hydro,and older facilities are being systematicallyre-powered to improve their electricity output.There are also many proposals for new hydroschemes, often in Natura 2000 areas eg, on theMura river at the border with Austria. This has beenvery controversial with nature NGOs. A firstSlovenian pumped storage hydropower plant wasfinished in 2010, and a second one is planned.

�1�

�0�

2�

�0�

11�

�1�

1��21�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��"�

!��#$�

%��"�

%��#$�

&��'��(��$"�

�"��

)�*��

��

++�

��

,+�

-.�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

+,�

/�

,.�

,0�

+�

��

��

��

��

��

��"�!��

��#$!��

��"�%��

��#$�%��

$"��(��&��'��

��"

)�*��

��

��

��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Slovenia in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv


DOPPS BirdLife Slovenia makes the followingpolicy recommendations:

1 Revise the central goals in the National EnergyPlan to 2030 to focus on climate andenvironmental protection, rather than onexpanding output (using fossil fuels andnuclear) to meet domestic and export demand.In addition, Slovenia needs an ambitious goalto reduce energy use (eg, by 15% by 2030 and30% by 2050).

2 Continue progress towards a framework that willenable investment in wind power in acceptablelocations. Identify further areas for developmentof renewables outside Natura 2000 sites.

3 Further stimulate investment in solar power onroofs, in urban areas, and in other locationswith low ecological sensitivity, by banding thefeed-in tariffs.

4 Build public support for biomass energy byshifting financial support away from using foodcrops (eg, maize for biogas production) towardssustainable, domestic wood and agricultural by-products.

5 Give more priority to undergrounding wherethis is necessary to overcome public oppositionto power lines needed for renewables andpumped storage, and/or to protect priorityspecies and habitats.

6 Introduce regional spatial planning forrenewables, to overcome current problems withlack of resources/capacity and highlyfragmented planning at the local level. Use birdsensitivity maps in spatial planning at nationaland regional levels, in planning control, and toband feed-in tariffs.

7 Support further sensitivity mapping to includeother (non-bird) taxa and (non-wind) renewables.

8 Build on positive experience in using SEA indeveloping the National Energy Plan to removethe most damaging plan alternatives. Requireeffective consideration of alternatives in local(or new regional) spatial planning. Continueimproving enforcement of planning controlregulations.

9 Implement existing law requiring accreditationof EIA consultants, including removal ofaccreditation where malpractice is found,including concealing information that showsrisks of significant impacts.

10 Produce new guidance on EIA and a trainingprogramme to improve understanding of EIAamong government and planning officials. TheEnvironment Agency (or National Institute for

Nature Conservation) must develop capacity toensure mitigation measures are implementedeffectively.

5.3.14 SPAIN

Spain has seen very rapid development of itsonshore wind and solar industries. In terms ofgrowth in these sectors, Spain is among theleading EU Member States. In most Spanishregions, development has been very poorlyplanned. In particular, recent rapid anduncontrolled growth (with little use of SEA), andsome poorly sited early wind farms have causedsignificant ecological impacts, and lasting andunnecessary damage to the industry’s reputationamong conservation organisations.

Spain intends to increase the share of renewablesin its energy consumption from 8.7% (2005) to 20%in 2020, requiring over 14 Mtoe of additionalrenewable energy. Onshore wind will provide foran additional 4.3 Mtoe of renewable energyconsumption in 2020 (compared to 2005). Amongthe other technologies identified as “medium risk”,biomass for heat, concentrated solar power andsolar PV also make large contributions. Offshorewind and biomass electricity are also important inSpain’s NREAP.

SEO – BirdLife Spain makes the following policyrecommendations:

1 Introduce a new Renewable Energy Act thatprovides a clear framework for development ofall forms of renewable energy industries in themedium- and long-term, based on a robustgeographical analysis of potential andconstraints and with the goal of minimisingoverall impacts of new infrastructure.

2 Undertake sectoral analyses to find out wherethe greatest energy savings can be achieved, as a starting point for coherent and properlymonitored energy efficiency programmes.Investigate innovative incentive schemes forenergy saving, as alternatives to providing up-front subsidies.


FIGURE 27

3 Ensure current high investment in wind powerand power lines is not jeopardised by legalproblems that may arise from failure to followrequirements on environmental assessment inregional planning. The national electricitycompany should signal to developers that ittakes designated areas and SEA very seriouslyand therefore may be unable to connect uprenewable energy developments in these areas.

4 Redress the current imbalance towards largeand rural solar PV installations, to favoursmaller and urban installations. Increaseincentives for distributed energy, and make iteasier and cheaper for households to getconsent for small scale renewables.

5 Provide a clearer strategy for biomass energybased on a realistic assessment of sustainablelong-term feedstock sourcing, taking intoaccount the importance of maintainingenvironmental standards required for continuedForest Stewardship Council certification oftimber operations.

6 Fast-track designation of offshore marineprotected areas and raise awareness amongdevelopers of the designation process and itssignificance, to reduce risks to offshore windpower investors. Assess Spain’s wave energyresource and develop a clear strategy to guidedevelopment of the industry. Increase fundingfor R&D in wave technology.

7 Investigate repowering opportunities tomaintain overall output while removing thosefacilities that are in the worst locations in termsof impacts on biodiversity (principally wind

farms and power lines). Remove barriers torepowering such as uncertainty about the needfor a new EIA process.

8 Spatial Planning should remain a regionalcompetence, but more clarity is needed onoverall national ambitions in each sector.National and regional governments shouldwork with renewables industries to developgood practice guidance on the development ofregional and local spatial plans using SEA, andcommit to refusing/withholding investmentwhere such plans are not in place.

9 National Government should produce guidanceon the need for cross-border co-operationbetween regions on identifying ecologicalsensitivities and on the requirements and goodpractice in EIA and “appropriate assessment”.

10 The Environment Ministry should push forreforms to the EIA regulations and Directive toprevent “salami slicing” of projects ie, dividinglarge projects that require stricter assessmentinto a series of smaller projects. Regionalgovernments and the energy sector should traintheir staff in good practice in EIA for renewableenergy projects.

�+1�

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�"�#��

$!��"�!%�

$&��"�!%�

��

'�!��!��%��"��

(�� )�

(�� *!+�

,�� )�

,�� *!+�

-�%��.�"��/��!��!��+)�

�)%��

0�1��%�#��

��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

�#��"�!��

��"�!%�$!��

��"�!%��$&

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��"�%��'�!��!

��)(��

��*!+�(��

��)�,��

��*!+�,��

+)��/��!��!��-�%��.�"

��%��)

0�1��%�#��

��

��

Additional renewable energyconsumption in Spain in 2020compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]iv


FIGURE 28

5.3.15 THE UNITED KINGDON

In the UK’s NREAP, the national Governmentcommitted the UK to increasing its share ofrenewable energy from 1.3% in 2005 to 15% in2020, requiring almost 19 Mtoe of additionalrenewable energy. At the time this was verycontroversial, as many commentators felt this wasan unachievable level of ambition from such a lowstarting percentage. However, the UK has largewind and wave power resources, and investment inthe wind sector, particularly in Scotland andoffshore in the North Sea, has been rapid.Moreover, the devolved Governments in Scotlandand Wales have announced even more ambitiousplans for renewables deployment. Strong politicalwill to stimulate investment, plus use of strategicplanning approaches that guide wind powerdevelopers towards favourable locations, havebeen important features of wind power investmentoffshore and in Scotland.

As Figure 28 illustrates, the NREAP foresees asignificant role for solar thermal energy by 2020,and expects the “wave/tidal/ocean” sector to becontributing 340 ktoe by 2020. This may be an over-estimate, as it is now unlikely that the significanttidal energy resource in the west of England/southWales region will be exploited by this date.

Offshore wind power is expected to make a verysignificant contribution to the UK’s renewablestargets. Biomass for heat and electricity areexpected to grow into large sectors, raisingconcerns about the sustainability of feedstocksimported from around the world.

The RSPB – BirdLife UK makes the following policyrecommendation for the UK as a whole:

1 Give greater emphasis to energy saving andefficiency, particularly in industry, energygeneration and in existing buildings

2 Link banding of support for renewable energyto sustainability, and increase support availablefor marine renewables in England, Wales andNorthern Ireland to match Scotland.

3 Develop national and local level spatialframeworks for growth of all renewablesindustries, with reference to energy resources(eg, wind speeds), grid development andminimising environmental impacts.

4 Work with other North Sea nations to ensure co-ordinated and ecologically sensitivedevelopment of offshore wind power andassociated onshore power lines.

5 Do not allow development that would damagedesignated wildlife sites, or protected species.

6 Set up a forum with developers and NGOs tofind ways to improve the public acceptability ofnew wind power developments and necessarypower lines, learning from successful practicesacross the UK and EU.

7 Do not allow controversial large biomasselectricity schemes and unsustainable biomass

2��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�� !�"� ��

#�� !��$�

#%�� !��$�

��

&�� $��! ��

'�� (�

'�� )�*�

+ �� (�

+ �� )�*�

,�$��-�!�� .�� *(�

�($��

/�0��$�"��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�"� ��! � ��

�!��$�#��

�!��$��#%

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��! $��&��

�� (�'��

�� )�*�'��

�� (�+ ��

�� )�*�+ ��

*(� �.�� ,�$��-�!

��$��(

/�0��$�"��

� ��

Additional renewableenergy consumption in theUK in 2020 compared to2005, by technology [ktoe]iv


imports to undermine the credibility of thebioenergy sector and the wider renewablesindustry.

8 Do not allow investment in fossil fuel electricitygeneration capacity to lock the UK into futurecarbon emissions that would jeopardise futurecarbon budgets.

9 Fast-track data gathering and sharing on marinebiodiversity and designation of offshore SPAsand SACs, so that investors can be given aclearer steer towards low-risk locations fordevelopment.

10 Ensure resources are in place across the UK topay for post-construction monitoring, andensure that adequate enforcement measuresare in place, rather than relying on third partiessuch as the RSPB to do this work.

The RSPB makes the following policyrecommendations specific to the four UK countries:

England1 Promote the use of available bird sensitivity

maps and written guidance in spatial planningfor renewables in England to identify favourableareas for development.

2 Require local authorities to develop spatialplans for renewables deployment, and toidentify how they will contribute to UKrenewable energy targets in their Local Plans.

3 Create mechanisms for local authorities to co-operate towards co-ordinated and timelydelivery of renewables and power lines inappropriate locations.

Northern Ireland1 Support development of bird sensitivity

maps and targeted habitat restoration forNorthern Ireland.

2 Develop a spatial plan for all renewables on- and offshore in Northern Ireland, and includespatial planning for renewables in LocalDevelopment Plans.

3 Invest in energy efficiency and minimisation of energy use across all sectors including newbuilt development and transport.

Scotland1 Do not support major projects that will increase

energy use such as new fossil fuel plants andmajor roads proposals.

2 Scottish Government and local authorities mustensure energy projects are in line with existingnational policy favouring small scale and use of

co-produced heat. Develop detailed guidanceand training for local planning authorities onapplication of Scottish Planning Policyprovisions on decentralised energy.

3 The SEA for wave and tidal should be carriedout and completed to encourage thesustainable development of marine energy. The“Saltire Prize” awarded for output of energyfrom wave or tidal power should rewarddesigns with minimal environmental impacts.

Wales1 Major investment in R&D is needed to harness

Wales’ significant wave and tidal energy in anenvironmentally acceptable way.

2 Clarify the Welsh Government’s position onrepowering wind farms, as it is preferable inenvironmental terms to creating new sites.

3 Extend coverage of sensitivity maps to all ofWales and to non-bird species. Further detailedwork is needed to map ecological sensitivitieswithin SSAs for wind power development, withsome “no go” areas needed for the mostvulnerable species eg, nesting honey buzzards.Require biodiversity “master planning” forwind power development in SSAs.


Arcos J.M., Bécares J., Rodríquez B. & Ruiz A.(2009) Important areas for the conservation ofseabirds in Spain. SEO/BirdLife, Madrid.

Arnett, E.B., Brown, W.K., Erickson, W.P.,Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Jain,A., Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R.,Nicholson, C.P., O'Connell, T.J., Piorkowski,M.D. & Tankersley, R.D. (2008) Patterns ofbat fatalities at wind energy facilities inNorth America. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 72: 61–78.

Baer, P. & Mastrandrea, M. (2006) Highstakes: designing emissions pathways toreduce the risk of dangerous climatechange. Institute for Public Policy Research, London, UK.

Ballasus, H. & Sossinka, R. (1997) Theimpact of power lines on field selection andgrazing intensity of wintering White-fronted-and Bean Geese Anser albifrons, A. fabalis.Journal Für Ornithologie, 138: 215–28.

Band, W., Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P.(2007) Developing field and analyticalmethods to assess avian collision risk atwind farms. In M. De Lucas, G.F.E. Janss &M. Ferrer (eds.), Birds and Wind Farms: RiskAssessment and Mitigation, pp. 259–75.Quercus, Madrid, Spain.

Barton, J.R. & Pretty, J. (2010) What is thebest dose of nature and green exercise forimproving mental health? A multi-studyanalysis. Environmental Science andTechnology, 44: 3947–55.

Bellamy, P.E., Croxton, P.J., Heard, M.S.,Hinsley, S.A., Hulmes, L., Hulmes, S., Nuttall,P., Pywell, R.F. & Rothery, P. (2009) Theimpact of growing miscanthus for biomasson farmland bird populations. Biomass &Bioenergy, 33: 191–9.

BERR & DEFRA (2008) Review of cablingtechniques and environmental effectsapplicable to the offshore wind farm industry– Technical report. Department for BusinessEnterprise and Regulatory Reform andDepartment for Environment Food and RuralAffairs, London, UK.

REFERENCES

Beurskens, L.W.M., & Hekkenberg, M. (2011)Renewable Energy Projections as Pubishedin the National Renewable Energy ActionPlans of the European Member States,Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands(ECN), petten, The Netherlands.http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/e10069.pdf [accessed 10-10-11].

BirdLife International (2004) Birds in theEuropean Union: a status assessment.BirdLife International, Wageningen, TheNetherlands.http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/birds_in_europe/birds_in%20_the_eu.pdf[accessed 04-10-11]

BirdWatch Ireland (2010) Piloting sensitivitymapping for Irish birds: Phase 1 WhooperSwan, Cygnus cygnus. A project partlyfunded by the Department of EnvironmentHeritage and Local Government through theIrish Environmental Network. BirdWatchIreland, Dublin, Ireland.

Bowyer, C. (2011). Anticipated indirect landuse change associated with expanded useof biofuels and bioliquids in the EU – ananalysis of the National Renewable EnergyAction Plans.http://www.ieep.eu/assets/786/Analysis_of_ILUC_Based_on_the_National_Renewable_Energy_Action_Plans.pdf [accessed 04-10-11].

Bright, J., Langston, R.H.W & Anthony, S.(2009) Mapped and written guidance inrelation to birds and onshore wind energydevelopment in England. RSPB researchreport no. 35, RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Bright, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R.,Gardner, S. & Pearce-Higgins, J. (2008) Mapof bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland:A tool to aid planning and conservation.Biological Conservation, 141, 2342–56.

Bright, J.A., Langston, R.H.W., Bullman, R.,Evans, R.J., Gardner, S., Pearce-Higgins, J &Wilson, E. (2006) Bird sensitivity map toprovide locational guidance for onshore windfarms in Scotland. RSPB research report no.20, RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Britt, C., Bullard, M., Hickman, G., Johnson,P., King, J., Nicholson, F., Nixon, P. & Smith,N. (2002) Bioenergy crops andbioremediation – A review. ADAS report for DEFRA, ADAS,Woverhampton, UK.

Castro, J.J., Santiago, J.A. & Santana-Ortega, A.T. (2001) A general theory on fishaggregation to floating objects: Analternative to the meeting point hypothesis.Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 11:255–77.

Chum, H., Faaij, A., Moreira, J., Berndes, G.,Dhamija, P., Dong, H., Gabrielle, B., GossEng, A., Lucht, W., Mapako, M., MaseraCerutti, O., McIntyre, T., Minowa, T. &Pingoud, K., (2011) Bioenergy. In Edenhofer,O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth,K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T.,Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlömer, S. &von Stechow, C. (eds) IPCC Special Reporton Renewable Energy Sources and ClimateChange Mitigation. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Clark, N.A. (2006) Tidal barrages and birds.Ibis, 148: 152–7.

Croezen, H. J., Bergsma, G. C., Otten, M. B.J. & van Valkengoed, M.P.J. (2010) Biofuels:indirect land use change and climateimpact. Delft, The Netherlands.http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Biofuels_indirect_land_use_change_and_climate_impact_CE_Del.pdf [accessed 04-10-11].

Cunningham, M.D., Bishop, J.D., Watola, G.,McKay, H.V. & Sage, R.B. (2006) The effecton flora and fauna of converting grasslandto short rotation coppice. The GameConservancy Trust/The Central ScienceLaboratory report for DTI, Crown Copyright,UK. Available at:http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30621.pdf[accessed 11-08-11].

REFERENCES 129

Daunt, F. (2006) Marine birds of the northand west of Scotland and the Northern andWestern Isles. CEH Banchory, Banchory,Scotland.

Defra (2006) Growing short rotation coppice:Best practice guidelines for applicants toDefra’s Energy Crops Scheme. (June 2002).Available at:http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/short-rotation-coppice_tcm6-4262.pdf[accessed 11-08-11].

Desholm, M. & Kahlert, J. (2005) Aviancollision risk at an offshore wind farm.Biology Letters, 1: 296–8.

Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. &Whittingham, M.J. (2008) Minimal effects ofwind turbines on the distribution ofwintering farmland birds. Journal of AppliedEcology, 45: 1689–94.

Diaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F.S. & Tilman,D. (2006) Biodiversity loss threatens humanwell-being. Plos Biology, 4: 1300–5.

Donald, P.F., Sanderson, F.J., Burfield, I.J.,Bierman, S.M., Gregory, R.D. & Waliczky, Z.(2007) International conservation policydelivers benefits for birds in Europe.Science, 317: 810–13

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2006)Assessing the impacts of wind farms onbirds. Ibis, 148: 29–42.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2008)Collisioneffects of wind-power generatorsand other obstacles on birds. Ann. N.Y.Acad. Sci. 1134: 233–66.

Eggleton, J. & Thomas, K.V. (2004) A reviewof factors affecting the release andbioavailability of contaminants duringsediment disturbance events. EnvironmentInternational, 30: 973–80.

ECF [European Climate Foundation] (2010)ECF Roadmap 2050 Technical analysisexecutive summary.http://roadmap2050.eu/attachments/files/Volume1_Executive Summary.pdf [accessed04-10-11].

EEA [European Environment Agency] (2006)How much bio-energy can Europe producewithout harming the environment? EEAReport, No 7/2006, ISSN 1725–9177.European Environment Agency,Copenhagen, Denmark.

EEA (2009) Europe’s onshore and offshorewind energy potential. An assessment ofenvironmental and economic constraints.European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,Denmark.

EREC (2010) Re-thinking 2050 – A 100%renewable energy vision for the EuropeanUnion. European Renewable Energy Council,Brussels, Belgium.http://www.rethinking2050.eu/fileadmin/documents/ReThinking2050_full_version_final.pdf [accessed 10-10-11].

EREC (2011a) Mapping renewable energypathways towards 2020. EU Roadmap.European Renewable Energy Council,Brussels, Belgium.http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Documents/Publications/EREC-roadmap-V4_final.pdf [accessed 04-10-11].

EREC (2011b) 45% by 2030 - Towards a trulysustainable energy system in the EU.European Renewable Energy Council,Brussels, Belgium.http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Documents/Publications/45pctBy2030_ERECReport.pdf [accessed 10-10-11].

Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D. & Young, D.P.(2005) A Summary and Comparison of BirdMortality from Anthropogenic Causes withan Emphasis on Collisions. GeneralTechnical Report PSW-GTR-191, USDAForest Service, Cheyenne, USA.

Everaert, J. & Stienen, E.W.M. (2007) Impactof wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge(Belgium). Biodiversity and Conservation,16: 3345–59.

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. &Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and thebiofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867):1235–8.

Ferris, R., Peace, A.J. & Newton, A.C. (2000)Macrofungal communities of lowland Scotspine (Pinus sylvestris (L.)) and Norwayspruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten.) plantationsin England: Relationships with site factorsand stand structure. Forest Ecology andManagement, 131: 255–67.

Forestry Commission (2007) Woodfuelstrategy England.http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fce-woodfuel-strategy.pdf/$FILE/fce-woodfuel-strategy.pdf [accessed 18-07-11].

Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J.,Christensen, T.K. & Petersen, I.K. (2006)Information needs to support environmentalimpact assessment of the effects ofEuropean marine offshore wind farms onbirds. Ibis, 148: 129–44.

Fraenkel, P.L. (2006) Tidal Current EnergyTechnologies. Ibis, 148: 145–151.

Fuller, R.J., Smith, K.W., Grice, P.V., Currie,F.A. & Quine, C.P. (2007) Habitat change andwoodland birds in Britain: Implications formanagement and future research. Ibis, 149:261–8.

Garrido, J.R. & Fernandez-Cruz, M. (2003)Effects of power lines on a White StorkCiconia ciconia population in central Spain.Ardeola, 50: 191–200.

Garthe, S. & Hüppop, O. (2004) Scalingpossible adverse effects of marine windfarms on seabirds: Developing and applyinga vulnerability index. Journal of AppliedEcology, 41: 724–34.

German Renewable Energies Agency (2010)Solar parks – opportunities for biodiversity.Renews Special Issue 45, December 2010.http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/uploads/media/45_RenewsSpezial_Biodiv-in-Solarparks_ENGL_01.pdf[accessed 04-10-11].

Gibbs, H.K., Johnston, M., Foley, J.A.,Holloway, T., Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. &Zaks, D. (2008). Carbon payback times forcrop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics:the effects of changing yield andtechnology. Environmental ResearchLetters, 3: 034001 (10 pp.).

Gill, A.B. (2005) Offshore renewable energy:ecological implications of generatingelectricity in the coastal zone. Journal ofApplied Ecology, 42: 605–15.

Gill, J.A., Norris, K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2001)Why behavioural responses may not reflectthe population consequences of humandisturbance. Biological Conservation, 97:265–8.

Gove, B. & Bradbury, R.B. (2010) Potentialimpacts on birds of land-use change tosupply growing UK biomass demand. BOUConference Proceedings – Climate Changeand Birds, http://www.bouproc.net/[accessed 11-08-11].

Gove, B., Flower, K.A. & Bradbury, R.B.(2010) A review of environmentalconsequences of biomass production forUK energy consumption. RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Gordon, J., Thompson, D., Gillespie, D.,Lonergan, M., Calderan, S., Jaffey, B. & Todd,V. (2007) Assessment of the potential foracoustic deterrents to mitigate the impact onmarine mammals of underwater noise arisingfrom the construction of offshore windfarms.Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (projectreference DETER-01-07). Sea MammalResearch Unit, U. St. Andrews, Scotland.


Grecian, W.J., Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop,S., Godley, B.J., Witt, M.J. & Votier, S.C. (2010)Potential impacts of wave-powered marinerenewable energy installations on marinebirds. Ibis, 152: 683–97.

Haas, D., Nipkow, M., Fiedler, G., Schneider,R., Haas, W. & Schürenberg, B. (2005)Protecting birds on powerlines. Conventionon the Conservation of European Wildlifeand Habitats (Bern Convention). Nature andEnvironment, No. 140, Council of EuropePublishing.

Hall, L.S. & Richards, G.C. (1962) Notes onTadarida australis (Chiroptera: molossidae).Australian Mammology, 1: 46.

Hammond, P. S., Berggren, P., Benke, H.,Borchers, D.L., Collet, A., Heide-Jørgensen,M.P., Heimlich, S., Hiby, A.R., Leopold, M.F. &Øien, N. (2002) Abundance of harbourporpoise and other cetaceans in the NorthSea and adjacent waters. Journal of AppliedEcology, 39: 361–76.

Hammond, P.S., Gordon, J.C.D., Grellier, K.,Hall, A.J., Northridge, S.P., Thompson, D. &Harwood, J. (2003). Background informationon marine mammals relevant to Strategicenvironmental Assessments 2 and 3. Report by the Sea Mammal Research Unit for the DTI. Sea Mammal ResearchUnit, U. St. Andrews, Scotland.

Hardcastle, P. (2006) A review of thepotential impacts of short rotation forestry.LTS International, Penicuik, UK.

Hastings, M.C. & Popper, A.N. (2005) Effectsof sound on fish. California Department ofTransportation, Jones and Stokes,Sacramento, USA.

Helle, P. & Fuller, R.J. (1988) Migrantpasserine birds in European forestsuccessions in relation to vegetation heightand geographical postion. Journal of AnimalEcology, 57: 565–79.

Hewitt J. (2011) Flows of biomass to andfrom the EU. An analysis of data and trends.FERN, Brussels, Belgium.http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/Biomass%20imports%20to%20the%20EU%20final.pdf [accessed 5-10-11].

Horváth, G., Blahó, M., Egri, Á., Kriska, G.,Seres, I. & Robertson, B. (2010) Reducingthe maladaptive attractiveness of solarpanels to polarotactic insects. ConservationBiology, 24: 1644–53.

Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. & Jeromin, H.(2006) Impacts on biodiversity of exploitationof renewable energy sources: the exampleof birds and bats – facts, gaps inknowledge, demands for further research,and ornithological guidelines for thedevelopment of renewable energyexploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU,Bergenhusen, Germany.

Humphrey, J.W., Davey, S., Peace, A.J.,Ferris, R. & Harding, K. (2002) Lichens andbryophyte communities of planted and semi-natural forests in Britain: the influence ofsite type, stand structure and deadwood.Biological Conservation, 107: 165–80.

Humphrey, J.W., Newton, A.C., Peace, A.J.& Holden, E. (2000) The importance ofconifer plantations in northern Britain as ahabitat for native fungi. BiologicalConservation, 96: 241–52.

Huntley, B., Green, R.E., Collingham, Y.C.,Willis, S.G. (2008) A Climatic Atlas ofEuropean Breeding Birds. Lynx Editions,Barcelona, Spain.

Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick,A.C., Grecian, W.J., Hodgson, D.J., Mills, C.,Sheehan, E., Votier, S.C., Witt, M.J. &Godley, B.J. (2009) Marine renewableenergy: Potential benefits to biodiversity?An urgent call for research. Journal ofApplied Ecology, 46: 1145–53.

IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physicalscience basis, Intergovernmental panel onClimate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.

Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Diamond, M.(2010) Avian collisions with power lines: Aglobal review of causes and mitigation witha South African perspective. BirdConservation International, 20: 263–78.

Jonsell, M., Hansson, J. & Wedmo, L. (2007)Diversity of saproxylic beetle species inlogging residues in Sweden – Comparisonsbetween tree species and diameters.Biological Conservation 138: 89–99.

Kappes, H., Catalano, C. & Topp, W. (2007)Coarse woody debris ameliorates chemicaland biotic soil parameters of acidifiedbroad-leaved forests. Applied Soil Ecology36: 190–98.

Kowallik, C. & Borbach-Jaene, J. (2001)Windräder als Vogelscheuchen? – Über denEinfluss der Windkraftnutzung inGänserastgebieten an der nordwest-deutschen Küste. Vogelkundliche Berichteaus Niedersachsen, 33: 97–102.

Kruckenberg, H. & Jaene, J. (1999) ZumEinfluss eines Windparks auf die Verteilungweidender Bläßgänse im Rheiderland(Landkreis Leer, Niedersachsen). [The effectof a group of wind turbines on a staging areaof white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons)].Natur und Landschaft, 74: 420–7.

Langhamer, O., Haikonen, K. & Sundberg, J.(2010) Wave power – Sustainable energy orenvironmentally costly? A review withspecial emphasis on linear wave energyconverters. Renewable & SustainableEnergy Reviews, 14: 1329–35.

Langston, R.H.W. (2010) Offshore wind farmsand birds: Round 3 zones, extensions toRound 1 & Round 2 sites & ScottishTerritorial Waters. RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. (2003)Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of theeffects of windfarms on birds, and guidanceon environmental assessment criteria andsite selection issues. Report written byBirdLife International on behalf of the BernConvention, RSPB/BirdLife, Sandy, UK.

Larsen, J.K. & Guillemette, M. (2007) Effectsof wind turbines on flight behaviour ofwintering common eiders: implications forhabitat use and collision risk. Journal ofApplied Ecology, 44: 516–22.

Larsen, J.K. & Madsen, J. (2000) Effects ofwind turbines and other physical elements onfield utilization by pink-footed geese (Anserbrachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective.Landscape Ecology, 15: 755–64.

Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F. & Naugle, D.E. (1999)Effects of wind turbines on upland nestingbirds in Conservation Reserve Programgrasslands. Wilson Bulletin, 111: 100–4.

Lekuona, J.M. & Ursúa, C. (2007) Avianmortality in wind power plants of Navarra(Northern Spain). In de Lucas, M., Janss,G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and WindFarms Risk Assessment and Mitigationpp.177–92. Quercus, Madrid, Spain.

Lindeboom, H.J., Kouwenhoven, H.J.,Bergman, M.J.N., Bouma, S., Brasseur, S.,Daan, R., Fijn, R.C., de Haan, D., Dirksen, S.,van Hal, R., Hille Ris Lambers, R., terHofstede, R., Krijgsveld, K.L., Leopold, M. &Scheidat, M. (2011) Short-term ecologicaleffects of an offshore wind farm in theDutch coastal zone; a compilation.Environmental Research Letters, 6: 035101.

REFERENCES 131

Lonsdale, D., Pautasso, M. & Holdenrieder,O. (2008) Wood-decaying fungi in the forest:Conservation needs and managementoptions. European Journal of ForestResearch, 127: 1–22.

Maclean M.D & Wilson R. J. (2011) Recentecological responses to climate changesupport predictions of high extinction risk.Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences. Published online, doi:10.1073/pnas.1017352108

Madsen, J. & Boertmann, D. (2008) Animalbehavioral adaptation to changinglandscapes: spring-staging geese habituateto wind farms. Landscape Ecology, 23: 1007–11.

Masden, E.A., Fox, A.D., Furness, R.W.,Bullman, R. & Haydon, D.T. (2010) Cumulativeimpact assessments and bird/wind farminteractions: Developing a conceptualframework. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review, 30, 1–7.

McCrary, M.D., McKernan, R.L., Schreiber,R.W., Wagner, W.D. & Sciarrotta, T.C. (1986)Avian mortality at a solar energy power plant.Journal of Field Ornithology, 57: 135–41.

McClusky, A., Langston, R.H.W.L., et al.(unpubl.) Impact of offshore renewables onmarine birds. RSPB research report(unpublished at time of going to press), The Lodge, Sandy, Beds.

Meinshausen M (2005) What does a 2oC target mean for greenhouse gasconcentrations? A brief analysis based onmulti emission pathways and severalclimate sensitivity uncertainty estimates, in Schellnhuber, H. & Cramer, W., et al. (eds.)Avoiding dangerous climate changepp. 265–80. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)Ecosystems and human well-being:Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, USA.http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

Mueller-Blenkle, C., McGregor, P.K., Gill,A.B., Andersson, M.H., Metcalfe, J., Bendall,V., Sigray, P., Wood, D.T. & Thomsen, F. (2010)Effects of pile-driving noise on thebehaviour of marine fish. COWRIE Report:Fish 06–08, Lowestoft, UK.

NABU/BirdLife Germany (2005) Kriterien fürnaturverträgliche Photovoltaik-Freiflächenanlagen.http://www.nabu.de/themen/energie/erneuerbareenergien/solarenergie/04300.html[accessed 04-10-11].

NE [Natural England] (2009) Bats and SingleLarge Wind Turbines. Natural EnglandTechnical Information Note TIN059, UK.

Nehls, G., Betke, K., Eckelmann, S. & Ros, M.(2007) Assessment and costs of potentialengineering solutions for the mitigation ofthe impacts of underwater noise arisingfrom the construction of offshorewindfarms. BioConsult SH [on behalf ofCOWRIE Ltd], Husum, Germany.

North Energy (2011) Lifecycle assessment ofrefined vegetable oil and biodiesel fromjatropha grown in Dakatcha woodlands ofKenya. A report commissioned by NatureKenya, ActionAid, RSPB and BirdLifeInternational. Summary athttp://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/biofuels2011_tcm9-275952.pdf [accessed 10-10-11].

Paltto, H., Norden, B. & Gotmark, F. (2008)Partial cutting as a conservation alternativefor oak (Quercus spp.) forest – Response ofbryophytes and lichens on dead wood. Forestecology and Management, 256: 536–47.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A. & Langston, R.H.W. (in review) Greaterimpacts of wind farms on bird populationsduring construction than subsequentoperation: Results of a multisite and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L.H.,Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman,R. (2009) The distribution of breeding birdsaround upland wind farms. Journal ofApplied Ecology, 46: 1323–31.

Pedersen, M.B. & Poulsen, E. (1991) Impactof a 90m/2MW wind turbine on birds. Avian responses to theimplementation of the Tjareborg WindTurbine at the Danish Wadden Sea. Dankse Viltundersogelser, Denmark.

Petersen, I.K. & Fox, A.D. (2008) Changes inbird habitat utilisation around the Horns Rev1 offshore wind farm, with particularemphasis on Common Scoter. NationalEnvironmental Research Institute, Denmark.

Pimm, S. L., Raven, P., Peterson, A.,Şekercioǧlu, Ç.H. & Ehrlich, P. (2006) Humanimpacts on the rates of recent, present andfuture bird extinctions. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences103(29):10941–46.

Robertson, B.A., Doran, P.J., Loomis, E.R.,Robertson, J.R. & Schemske, D.W. (2011a)Avian use of perennial biomass feedstocksas post-breeding and migratory stopoverhabitat. PLoS ONE, 6: e16941.

Robertson, B.A., Doran, P.J., Loomis, L.R.,Robertson, J.R. & Schemske, D.W. (2011b)Perennial biomass feedstocks enhanceavian diversity. Global Change BiologyBioenergy, 3: 235–46.

Rollan, A., Real, J., Bosch, R., Tinto, A. &Hernandez-Matias, A. (2010) Modelling therisk of collision with power lines in Bonelli'sEagle Hieraaetus fasciatus and itsconservation implications. BirdConservation International, 20: 279–94.

Rowe, R.L., Street, N.R. & Taylor, G. (2009)Identifying potential environmental impactsof large-scale deployment of dedicatedbioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable &Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13: 260–79.

RSPB (2011) Bioenergy: a burning issue. The Royal Society for the Protection ofBirds, Sandy, UK.http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Bioenergy_a_burning_issue_1_tcm9-288702.pdf[accessed 04-10-11].

Sage, R., Cunningham, M. & Boatman, N.(2006) Birds in willow short-rotation coppicecompared to other arable crops in centralEngland and a review of bird census datafrom energy crops in the UK. Ibis, 148: 184–97.

Sage, R., Cunningham, M., Haughton, A.J.,Mallott, M.D., Bohan, D.A., Riche, A. & Karp,A. (2010) The environmental impacts ofbiomass crops: Use by birds of miscanthusin summer and winter in southwesternEngland. Ibis, 152: 487–99.

Sage, R.B & Robertson P.A. (1994) Wildlife andgame potential of short rotation coppice in theUK. Biomass and Bioenergy 6: 41–8.

Schaub, M. & Pradel, R. (2004) Assessingthe relative importance of different sourcesof mortality from recoveries of markedanimals. Ecology, 85: 930–8.


SDC [Sustainable Development Commission](2007) Turning the Tide. Tidal Power in theUK, 2007, p. 143. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=607[accessed 5-10-11].

Semere, T. & Slater, F.M. (2005) The effectsof energy grass plantations on biodiversity.DTI, London, UK.

Semere, T. & Slater, F.M. (2007a) Ground flora,small mammal and bird species diversity inmiscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) andreed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea)fields. Biomass & Bioenergy, 31: 20–9.

Semere, T. & Slater, F.M. (2007b)Invertebrate populations in miscanthus(Miscanthus x giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields.Biomass & Bioenergy, 31: 30–9.

Sergio, F., Marchesi, L., Pedrini, P., Ferrer, M.& Penteriani, V. (2004) Electrocution altersthe distribution and density of a toppredator, the eagle owl Bubo bubo. Journalof Applied Ecology, 41: 836–45.

Silva, J.P., Santos, M., Queirós, L., Leitão, D.,Moreira, F., Pinto, M., Leqoc, M. & Cabral,J.A. (2010) Estimating the influence ofoverhead transmission power lines andlandscape context on the density of littlebustard Tetrax tetrax breeding populations.Ecological Modelling, 221: 1954–63.

Skov, H., Piper, W. & Leonhard, S.B. (2008)Horns Rev II Offshore Wind FarmMonitoring of Resting Waterbirds: BaselineStudies 2007–08. Final report byOrbicon/DHI/BIOLA/Marine Observers toDONG Energy A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Smallwood, K.S. & Karas, B. (2009) Avianand bat fatality rates at old-generation andrepowered wind turbines in California.Journal of Wildlife Management, 73: 1062–71.

Smeets, E.M.W., Lewandowski, I.M. & Faaij,A.P.C. (2009) The economical andenvironmental performance of miscanthusand switchgrass production and supplychains in a European setting. Renewable &Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13: 1230–45.

SNH [Scottish Natural Heritage] (2005)Guidance: Survey methods for use inassessing the impacts of onshorewindfarms on bird communities. ScottishNatural Heritage. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. (2005)Systematic Review No. 4: Effects of WindTurbines on Bird Abundance. Review report.Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation,University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Strod, T., Izhaki, I., Arad, Z. & Katzir, G. (2008)Prey detection by great cormorant(Phalacrocorax carbosinensis) in clear andin turbid water. Journal of ExperimentalBiology, 211: 866–72.

Tasker, M.L., Camphuysen, C.J., Cooper, J.,Garthe, S., Montevecchi, W.A. & Blaber,S.J.M. (2000) The impacts of fishing onmarine birds. Ices Journal of MarineScience, 57: 531–47.

TEEB (2009) The economics of ecosystemsand biodiversity. TEEB for policy makers.Summary: responding to the value of nature.http://www.teebweb.org/ForPolicymakers/tabid/1019/Default.aspx _accessed 04-10-11].

Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E.,Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J., Collingham,Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., Siqueira, M.F.D.,Grainger, A. & Hannah, L. (2004). Extinctionrisk from climate change. Nature, 427(6970):145–8.

Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R. & Piper, W. (2006) Effects of offshore windfarm noise on marine mammals and fish.Biola (on behalf of COWRIE Ltd), Hamburg,Germany.

Wear, D. N. & Greis J. G. (2002) SouthernForest Resource Assessment. TechnicalReport. SRS-53. US Dept. Of Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern Research Station,Asheville, NC.http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4833[accessed 10-10-11].

Wiese, F.K., Montevecchi, W.A., Davoren,G.K., Huettmann, F., Diamond, A.W. & Linke,J. (2001) Seabirds at risk around offshore oilplatforms in the North-west Atlantic. MarinePollution Bulletin, 42: 1285–90.

Wilson, B., Batty, R.S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C.(2006) Collision risks between marinerenewable energy devices and mammals,fish and diving birds. Report to the ScottishExecutive, Scottish Association for MarineScience, Oban, UK.

Woods, J., Tipper, R., Brown, G., Diaz-Chavez, R., Lovell, J. & De Groot, P. (2006) Evaluating the Sustainability of Co-firing in the UK. Themba Technology and ECCM, London, UK.

Zanchi, G., Pena, N. & Bird, N. (2010). Theupfront carbon debt of bioenergy. JoanneumResearch.http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Bioenergy_Joanneum_Research.pdf [accessed 04-10-11].

ENDNOTES 133

ENDNOTESi Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate

Change. ‘The Geopolitics of climate change’. Speech toFuture Maritime Operations Conference at the Royal UnitedServices Institute, London 7 July 2011,http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/chsp_geopol/chsp_geopol.aspx [accessed 10-10-11].

ii José Manuel Barroso, President of the EuropeanCommission in Wellbeing through wildlife in the EU.http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Wellbeing_EU_final_version_2mb.pdf [accessed 10-10-11].

iii See RSPB briefing on the implication of the Eastern Scheldt(Oosterschelde) for the Severn Estuary.http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/RSPBbriefEasterScheldtreportfinal_tcm9-240984.pdf [accessed 10-10-11].

iv Calculations based on National Renewable Energy ActionPlan data presented in Beurskens and Hekkenberg (2011).For gross final consumption values the “total before aviationreduction” was taken. Totals do not always include alltechnologies given in NREAPs. Where national NREAPsshow additional use of a technology totalling less than 1% ofthe EU increase, these are grouped as “other”. BirdLifemakes no guarantee for completeness or correctness ofdata: mistakes might have occurred due to copying of wrongnumbers, typing mistakes, misinterpretation or mistakes ofour sources.

v Using a conversion factor of 11,630 GWh/Mtoe, facility runtimes of 8,760 hours per year, capacity factors of 12% for PV,31% for concentrated solar power, 57.6% for biomasselectricity, 27% for tidal/wave turbines and 34.8% forhydropower. To calculate demand for biomass in oven driedtonnes (odt), a conversion factor of 6,000 odt/MW was usedfor electricity, and 18 GJ/odt (41.9 GJ/toe) to calculate thedemand for biomass for heat.

vi Using a conversion factor of 11,630 GWh/Mtoe, facility runtimes of 8,760 hours per year, load factors of 27.1% foronshore wind turbines and 27.6% for offshore wind turbines(Digest of UK Energy Statistics, Department of Energy andClimate Change, London) and surface areas based on EEA(2009, p. 10).

vii DG Energy Countries Factsheet,http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/doc/2011-2009-country-factsheets.pdf [accessed 10-10-11].

viii Finland, the Netherlands and Slovenia are excluded, as theydid not provide a reference scenario to be compared to theadditional energy efficiency scenario.

ix For some countries and specific technologies, specialcalculations were necessary. For “solar thermal” and“geothermal for heating” for Bulgaria and Poland, and for“electric vehicles from renewables” for Greece, a minimumvalue based on the 2010 targets compared to 2020 wascalculated as data for 2005 was not available. Data for “liquidbiofuels” was incomplete for Germany, Greece, theNetherlands and Poland.

x Budapest Declaration on bird protection and power linesadopted by the Conference “Power lines and bird mortality inEurope” (Budapest, Hungary, 13 April, 2011) ,http://www.mme.hu/termeszetvedelem/budapest-conference-13-04-2011/1429.html [accessed 10-10-11].

xi SEANERGY 2020 web site: http://www.seanergy2020.eu/[accessed 10-10-11].

xii FAME Project web site: http://www.fameproject.eu/en/[accessed 10-10-11]. The FAME project is co-funded by theAtlantic Area Programme of the EC European RegionalDevelopment Fund, http://atlanticarea.ccdr-n.pt/, [accessed20-10-11].


IMAGES: organic hay meadow, common or eurasian crane,electricity cables and pink footed geese by Nick Upton; aerialview of the ocean, offshore wind turbines, Copenhagen and aerialview of Europe by iStockphoto.com; solar panels at SandwellValley by Andy Hay; Dakatcha woodlands by Nature Kenya;oilseed rape harvesting, drilling rig and offshore wind turbines byErnie Janes; solar panels on farmland, houbara bustard,Montagu’s harrier, Spanish wind turbines by Roger Tidman; griffonvulture by Gordon Langsbury; wind turbine with planted hardwoodtrees by Niall Benvie (rspb-images.com); Polarmis tied at quaysideby Laurie Campbell; great spotted woodpecker by Steve Round;crane grus grus by Chris Knights; mowing using a modified “pistebasher” by Lars Lachman; biomass fuel briquettes by PiotrMarczakiewicz; Biebrza Valley wetlands by Dariusz Gatkowski;Italian wind farm site by Claudio Celada.

GRAPHS: Sandra Pape

MAPS: Additional solar power, additional onshore and offshorewind power, additional biomass heat and power by SergioBoggio; Natura 2000 and wind potential by EEA (2008); birdsensitivity in France by LPO Pays de la Loire and CETE del’Ouest; bird sensitivity in Slovenia by Tomaž Jančar/ DOPPS;bird sensitivity in Belgium by © Agentschap voor GeografischeInformatie Vlaanderen – Geovlaanderen – Vogelatlas; birdsensitivity in the Netherlands by SOVON VogelonderzoekNederland/Altenburg & Wymenga © 2009; bird sensitivity inScotland by the RSPB (Bright et al., 2006); bird sensitivity inGreece by Thanos Kastritis/HOS (BirdLife Greece); Lewis windfarm on Brussels by RSPB Scotland.

BirdLife Europe, Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67 (2nd Floor), B-1060Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2280 08 30

This publication is part-financedby the European Union

This report was produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB),registered charity England and Wales no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654. 272-0010-11-12

http://europe.birdlife.orgwww.rspb.org.uk/climate

Birdlife Europeanand Central AsianPartnership with: