Potential Impacts of future Renewable Energy Policy on UK BiodiversityRef: CR0295

Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) as part of the Defra Horizon Scanning Programme

Date: February 2006

Submitted to:

Dr Andrew Stott

Defra

Room 1/06,

Temple Quay House

2 The Square, Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6EB

Prepared by:

Dr Jo Hossell*, Bethan Clemence*

Barry Wright*, Rob Edwards* & Zana

Juppenlatz$

*ADAS$Ecoscape Associates

ADAS Final Report

ContentsExecutive summary....................................................................................................1

Glossary.....................................................................................................................4

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................5

1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................6

2.0 Report layout and methodology......................................................................8

3.0 The impacts of renewable energy technologies on biodiversity...................12

4.0 The impact of conventional energy technologies.........................................30

5.0 Summary of energy generation impacts on biodiversity...............................37

6.0 Future developments in renewable energy technologies.............................39

7.0 Future biodiversity impacts from renewable energy technologies................51

8.0 Impact mitigation and policy interactions......................................................56

9.0 Conclusions and recommendations..............................................................69

Appendix 1 – Significance matrix.............................................................................75

Appendix 2 – Reference Source Matrix....................................................................76

Appendix 3- Future technology scales.....................................................................77

Appendix 4 - “Soft Law” biodiversity protection measures.......................................78

Appendix 5 - EU Directives......................................................................................79

Appendix 6 - Persons consulted and workshop attendees.....................................81

Appendix 7 - References..........................................................................................83

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by Defra or SEERAD.

ADAS Final Report

Executive summaryRenewable energy (RE) sources are central to the Government’s energy strategy for the next 50 years (DTI, 2003). The UK is committed under the Kyoto Protocol to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010. The UK also has a domestic commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 60% by 2050. As part of a basket of other climate change-related policies and measures, the UK’s Renewables Obligation aims to supply 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 15% by 2015 and to reach an aspirational target of 20% by 2020.

This study has reviewed the potential impacts of renewable energy sources on UK biodiversity and assessed how biodiversity in the future may be affected by a growth in these types of technology. The renewable energy technologies considered are those where the energy source may be wholly derived from non-fossil fuel sources: Onshore wind, Biomass crops (including agricultural residues, forestry residues and energy

crops), Small scale hydro (<5MW), Novel technologies (solar water heating (SWH), ground source heat pumps

(GSHP), photovoltaic (PV) and hydrogen fuel cells), Offshore wind, Marine current, and Tidal energy sources. The review has been undertaken using a risk assessment methodology to produce a series of impact matrices, with the effects summarised by Broad Habitat type to provide a comparison across the different technologies. A brief review of the impacts of conventional technologies has also been provided to set the context against which the impacts of renewable technologies may be assessed.

All the renewable energy technologies reviewed have some negative effect on the biodiversity of their locality. These effects may be slight and often temporary, such as disturbance of feeding patterns of fauna during construction operations, or they may be highly significant permanent and widespread impacts, such as loss of a habitat through flooding for small-scale hydroelectric schemes. Some technology types also have the capacity to enhance biodiversity and whilst such enhancements are generally slight and affected by the level of existing biodiversity, the changes can also be highly significant and they are usually permanent.

Of the renewable energy sources examined, novel technologies appear to present least risk to UK biodiversity, at least in terms of their operation (risks associated with materials sourcing need to be considered). Within this technology type, it is photovoltaics that provide least direct impact upon biodiversity, provided that mining, manufacturing and recycling are subject to stringent environmental requirements. But their rate of future development, even in a best-case assessment, suggests that this technology is unlikely to provide more than 10% of the renewables target by 2020 (i.e. 2% of national energy demand). Solar water heating and ground source heat pumps (GHSP) may also have indirect biodiversity benefits by reducing electricity demand (both through the provision of heat and, for GSHP, cooling).

However, biodiversity impact assessment needs also to consider the scale at which energy will be generated from each technology type, both in terms of the size of the power generation unit and the number in operation. The study considered

1

ADAS Final Report

scenarios for future levels of contribution from different renewable energy sources in order to assess possible biodiversity impacts of scaling up renewable energy output. The scenarios examined assumed major contributions from wind and biomass technologies to the 2020 target and examined cases where each of these energy sources was in turn further enhanced.

The assessment of the size and scale required for renewable sources to meet the 2020 targets demonstrated that only a small area of UK land or seabed is required for each technology considered in the scenarios. Hence, it is anticipated that the future energy generation scenarios presented could be met with minimal impacts on biodiversity, if:

(a) Renewable energy developments avoid sites of high biodiversity interest, (b) All the suggested mitigation measures for all energy sectors are

implemented and effective, and (c) Multiple sources of biomass fuel are utilised.

The issue of mitigation is critical and it highlights the need for research and post-construction monitoring at consented installations to test the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Such monitoring and assessment should be published to facilitate the spread of best practice.

The land take required for sufficient production of biomass fuels in the UK means that it is unlikely to make up more than 5-20% of the 2020 target, without having a major impact on the area of agricultural land needed, unless large quantities of fuel are imported. But the issue of scale of planting for biomass production is also important in determining the nature and, to some extent, the direction (positive or negative) of its impact on biodiversity. The provision of smaller scale plantings of biomass has a stronger positive effect on biodiversity than large-scale plantings. Small-scale Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation through biomass burning would also provide an indirect biodiversity benefit through improved energy efficiency, since heat demand in the UK currently uses around 50% of primary energy. However, the economic viability of CHP plants may depend on the extent to which the heat energy produced can be used directly.

In cases where larger areas of biomass crop are required, guidelines aimed at ensuring biodiversity within the plantations may help offset the effect of plantation scale. Currently these are best developed for short rotation coppice (SRC) plantation design, with the specific aim of increasing the biodiversity value of the crop by including features such as rides, headlands and stands of different age-class to increase habitat heterogeneity. Further guidance is needed to maximise biodiversity benefits and minimise impacts for other crop types.

The biodiversity impact of importing biomass fuel depends upon the type of fuel sourced, the country of origin and the measures in place within that country to reduce biodiversity impacts. The use of international supplies may result in considerable biodiversity impact outside of the UK, with no potential for mitigation measures to be enforced. At the very least biomass fuel should be sourced from countries where minimum acceptable standards of biodiversity protection are ensured, to avoid “exporting” negative effects of this technology. Assessment of the biodiversity impacts of biomass fuels in potential source countries would help to guide sourcing of such materials if it is necessary.

2

ADAS Final Report

Wind energy is likely to provide the largest proportion of the renewable energy target by 2020. But there remain some fundamental gaps in knowledge of the impacts on biodiversity and the effectiveness of some mitigation proposals, such as tailored turbine layouts to aid bird species’ movements. Post-construction monitoring is mostly in its infancy, with rather little UK experience on which to draw, so far, and most of that experience relates to small installations and/or small turbine size. Monitoring programmes now in place are starting to deliver results that will make an essential contribution to the knowledge base relating to impacts of wind energy generation on biodiversity, notably birds. These need to be analysed and summarised into guidelines for developers to provide an indication of best practice for effective mitigation measures. In particular, a comparison needs to be made of the impacts of different turbine sizes on biodiversity. The biodiversity impact of individual house turbines (particularly if widely used in urban areas) has not yet been assessed.

It has been suggested that the intermittency of wind power generation may be partially offset by importing electricity from Europe. However, this may only create biodiversity problems elsewhere. An assessment is needed of the biodiversity impacts of energy sources in other EU countries in order that such effects may be minimised internationally as well as in the UK.

There is considerable uncertainty about the potential impacts of marine energy generation on biodiversity. There is little evidence about the effects of the type and scale of wave and tidal technologies that are most appropriate for the UK. The effects of developing technologies, in particular, are unclear since many are still at the early experimental stages. The current understanding of impacts or potential impacts arises largely from large-scale tidal barrages, but the likely nature and scale of impacts arising from the new marine technologies are thought to be different and/or of a lower order of magnitude. It is important that potential impacts on biodiversity, as indicated in the significance matrices, are researched from an early stage and that these studies continue into the scaling-up phases of development of these technologies.

Further researchA number of areas have been identified from this assessment as requiring further research. Knowledge gaps are greatest within the marine environment for the relatively new wave and tidal technologies, particularly the developing technologies. The scale of energy production units and the number of units operating are both important aspects in determining biodiversity impacts, but there is insufficient understanding of their interaction for most renewable technologies. For onshore wind and biomass technologies, there is less known about the effects of widespread, small-scale developments than about the effects of large-scale production. Conversely for marine technologies there is a need to determine the impacts of scaling-up to large energy generation systems from the small-scale demonstration units. For novel technologies the impacts of widespread use of PV panels on the risk of bird collision needs further study.

On-going monitoring and analysis are required to assess the effectiveness of existing and evolving UK and country-level policy, land use planning and legal mechanisms to mitigate renewable energy impacts on biodiversity, with particular reference to the need for rationalising, coordinating and improving controls in the marine environment. Publication of such assessments is important to highlight and encourage best practice.

3

ADAS Final Report

4

ADAS Final Report

Glossary Acronym DescriptionAC Alternating current AMD Acid Mine DrainageAUKEA Association of UK Energy AgenciesBAP UK Biodiversity Action PlanBWEA British Wind Energy AssociationCAP Common Agricultural PolicyCATF Clean Air Task ForceCCL Climate Change LevyCEGB Central Electricity Company BoardCHP Combined Heat & PowerCO2 Carbon DioxideCOWRIE Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the EnvironmentCPA Comprehensive Performance AssessmentCRoW Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000cSAC Candidate SACsDC Direct current Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDTI Department for Trade and IndustryECA Enhanced Capital AllowancesECM European Climate MenuEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEST Energy Savings TrustESTIF European Solar Thermal Industry FederationEWEA European Wind Energy AssociationGOSE Government Office South EastGSHP Ground Source Heat PumpsGW Gigawatt (109 Watts)HECA Home Energy Conservation ActIdeA Improvement and Development AgencyIEA International Energy AgencyIEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental ManagementIPC Integrated Pollution ControlIPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and ControlkW Kilowatt (103 Watts)LAPC Local air pollution controlLASP Local Authority Support ProgrammeLDF Local Development FrameworkLIHI Low Impact Hydropower InstituteLPAs Local Planning AuthoritiesLPG Liquid Petroleum GasLSP Local Strategic PartnershipMLWM Mean Low Water MarkMLWS Mean Low Water SpringsMMSD Mining Minerals & Sustainable Development Projectm/s Metres per secondMW Megawatt (106 Watts)NEF National Energy FoundationNPPG National Planning Policy GuidanceODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Ministerodt Oven-dry Tonnes OFGEM Office of Gas and Electricity MarketsOSIR Oil Spillage Incident ReportPFA Pulverised Fuel AshPIU Performance and Innovation Unit

5

ADAS Final Report

Acronym DescriptionPPG9 Planning Policy Guidance 9: Nature ConservationPPS Planning Policy StatementPV PhotovoltaicsRCEP Royal Commission on Environmental PollutionRDP Rural Development ProgrammeRE Renewable EnergyRegenSW Renewable Energy Agency for the South WestREZ Renewable Energy ZonesRO Renewables ObligationROC Renewables Obligation CertificationROS Renewables Obligation ScotlandRPA Renewable Power AssociationSA Sustainability AppraisalSACs Special Areas of ConservationSEA Strategic Environmental AssessmentSEERAD Scottish Executive Environment & Rural Affairs DepartmentSPAs Special Protection AreasSRC Short Rotation CoppiceSSSI Site of Special Scientific InterestSWH Solar Water HeatingTANs Welsh Technical Advice NotesUKCIP UK Climate Impacts ProgrammeUKCS UK Continental ShelfUKQAA UK Quality Ash AssociationUNCLOS UN Convention on the Law of the SeaW WattsWCI World Coal InstituteWFD Water Framework Directive

AcknowledgementsThe project team is indebted to those stakeholders and steering group members who provided guidance and comment to the project during the consultation and workshop phases of this project. We are grateful to Zoë Crutchfield (JNCC), the anonymous peer reviewers, Jeff Kirby and Susan Anne Davis (both from Defra) who provided valuable comments on the initial draft of this report. Guy Anderson and Rowena Langston also contributed to early drafts of the significance matrices.

6

ADAS Final Report

1.0Introduction Renewable energy (RE) sources are central to the Government’s energy strategy for the next 50 years1. The UK is committed under the Kyoto Protocol to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010. The UK also has a domestic commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 60% by 2050. As part of a basket of other climate change related policies and measures, the UK’s Renewables Obligation aims to supply 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 15% by 2015 and to reach an aspirational target of 20% by 2020. The current level of market penetration is 3.1% in the UK 2 as a whole and 14% in Scotland. This higher level of uptake in Scotland is also reflected in the higher Scottish national target of 18% of energy from renewable sources by 2010 and the aspirational target of 40% by 2020. The EU also has a target for 12% of energy generation to be from renewable sources by 2010.

The renewable energy technologies considered in this study are those where the energy source may be wholly derived from non-fossil fuel sources (power plants generating electricity from waste are generally assumed to provide only 50% of their output from renewable sources3). Hence the work has focused on the key energy sources: Onshore wind, Offshore wind, Marine current and tidal energy sources, Biomass crops (including agricultural residues, forestry residues and energy

crops), Small scale hydro (<5MW), and Novel technologies (solar water heating, ground source heat pumps,

photovoltaic and hydrogen fuel cells).

All of these energy systems will have impacts on the immediate and wider environment during fabrication, construction, operation and decommissioning phases. Some of these impacts will be associated with biodiversity and they can be positive or negative. Many of the renewable energy developments will be sited away from human settlements in natural or semi-natural areas, where by definition the potential for perturbation to biodiversity is high. Scale, setting, point-specific effects, and dispersed effects (installation of roads, power lines etc) are all key factors affecting the nature and extent of the impact on biodiversity. There is concern that as renewable energy systems increase in scale there may be catchment level, as well as micro-level impacts, on the environment generally and biodiversity specifically. Whilst some sectors have been reviewed ( i) there has been no systematic and consistent assessment of the biodiversity impacts of all forms of renewable energy. Recent concerns have focused on the lack of due process and control associated with licensing of offshore wind sites. There may also be a lack of integration between climate change mitigation driven targets for renewable energy deployment and habitat protection, and /or local and regional planning policy.

Hence the aims of this project were to:1. Consider the positive and negative impacts of the current energy policy on

UK biodiversity, and 2. Provide a detailed assessment of the potential impact of future energy

policies on biodiversity. i For example: Review of Power Production from Renewable and Related Sources, Environment Agency, 2002. P4-097/TR, Guidelines on the environmental impacts of wind farms and small-scale hydro, Scottish Natural Heritage

7

ADAS Final Report

Under these aims the specific objectives were defined to: A. Agree the scope of work required with Defra, including the extent of indirect

impacts to be considered and the definitions of biodiversity/habitat classification system to be used,

B. Identify important drivers and mechanisms for impacts on biodiversity, C. Identify planning and environmental policy and legislative provisions that aim

to remove/modify negative impacts of different energy options,D. Review the evidence for impacts, both positive and negative, plus their likely

strengths, scale, location and timing,E. Report on the impacts, individually and collectively,F. Identify gaps in knowledge where impacts on biodiversity could be significant, G. Make recommendations for further research and policy or practical measures

to minimise and manage the projected impacts on UK biodiversity.

The work was undertaken by a consortium led by ADAS (leading the work on biomass, conventional energy and hydro-power sources), which included Acorus (onshore wind), National Energy Foundation (novel technologies), and Plymouth University (offshore wind and other marine technologies). The project was jointly funded by Defra and SEERAD, under the Defra Horizon Scanning Programme.

8

ADAS Final Report

2.0Report layout and methodology

The project undertook to review available literature and consult with key stakeholders in order to determine the impacts of renewable and (for contextual purposes) the impacts of current conventional energy sources on UK biodiversity. To provide a systematic assessment of the impacts of renewable energy technologies the information was summarised into a series of matrices. Section 2.1 explains the methodology behind the matrices.

The review focussed primarily on the impacts of renewable energy technologies on biodiversity (Section 3) in the UK. This section concludes with a summary of the cumulative effects of current renewable energy technologies on BAP Broad Habitats and a discussion on reference sources used in the matrices.

To put these effects in context, a brief review was also undertaken of the impacts of current conventional energy systems on biodiversity (Section 4). However, no risk assessment has been made of these impacts and no consideration is given to the future impacts as these technologies develop.

Section 5 provides a comparison of the two groups of energy generation technologies.

One of the aims of this work was to assess how future biodiversity may be affected by the growth of renewable energy sources. To this end, Section 6 provides a brief assessment of the development of each of the renewable energy technologies over the next 20 years. The net effect for future biodiversity (Section 7) of the increased uptake of the different technologies is then considered, based on scenarios for energy production to 2020.

The discussion of biodiversity impacts includes consideration of means to mitigate the negative effects; there is also legislation in place to support biodiversity conservation. The effectiveness of these measures and their interactions with policy is discussed in Section 8, to provide the context against which the findings of this work should be considered.

Finally the report concludes (Section 9) with recommendations on measures to mitigate damage to biodiversity and by highlighting the gaps that exist in our capacity to assess future impacts. Suggestions for further research to fill current knowledge gaps are also presented.

2.1 Matrix methodologyThe information from the impacts review has been summarised into a series of matrices to analyse the significance of any affects and to enable impacts to be compared across technologies. This has led to the development of two matrices: Significance matrix (Appendix 1) summarising the main impacts by technology,

their potential mitigation and the level of significance of any impact post mitigation,

Habitat impact matrix (Table 3) summarising the net effect of each technology on species’ groups by Biodiversity Action Plan Broad Habitat.

The approach adopted in the assessment draws on the methodologies provided by both Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact

9

ADAS Final Report

Assessment (EIA). EIA is a tool for assessing the environmental impact of a specific development proposal, for example a wind farm, and identifying mitigation measures for eliminating or reducing the impacts identified. SEA, as its name suggests, is focused on the strategic level, and is used to assess the environmental impacts of policies or plans, for example, a renewable energy policy. However, the report is not intended to be a full SEA of renewable energy options; it merely draws on the general approach of SEA. In accordance with the EIA and SEA approaches, as set out in the respective European Directives4,5, the relative importance of environmental impacts is discussed in terms of significance.

It is important to note that, at the national level being considered in this research, the identification of potential impacts can only focus on the broad impacts associated with the development of that energy option as a whole. Impacts associated with specific development proposals will vary from site to site depending on the nature of the proposed development and the baseline ecology of the receiving environment. Such impacts cannot readily be accounted for at this scale, and would instead be addressed by the EIA of each specific development.

2.2 Significance MatrixThe impacts of each energy option have been identified by means of a matrix (Appendix 1) that logically follows through the different stages of the assessment in as objective a fashion as possible. Importantly, the matrix also allows the assessment process to be transparent and open to review by other parties. Each column on the matrix represents a distinct stage in the assessment process. These are discussed under the following sub-headings:

Process Stage - Impacts may arise during different stages of the development of a particular energy source. These stages can be broadly categorised as short-term, temporary impacts that occur during construction or decommissioning, and long-term or permanent impacts occurring during the operation of that energy source.

Receptors - For an impact to be identified, there must also be an entity that the impact effects (known as a receptor). In the case of biodiversity, the two broad receptor groups considered in the assessment are species and habitats. In the context of this assessment, it is impractical to consider individual species, as it is very difficult to narrow down the analysis to the species’ level without considering a specific location, and the number of species potentially affected by future energy policy would be almost limitless. Where possible, distinction is made between different species groups (mammals, birds, invertebrates, fish, etc.). In other cases, it is only possible to identify impacts at a very broad level, such as on the habitat as a whole, or on flora or fauna in general.

Impact Description - Both EIA and SEA use scoping to focus on the most important potential impacts, whilst avoiding producing superfluous information on non-significant impacts. Scoping was carried out to identify the broad impacts associated with different stages of the development of each energy option. The data sources utilised in the scoping exercise were:

Scientific literature and papers, Environmental Statements of specific renewable energy developments, for

example, wind farms, Expert knowledge of the project team and key stakeholders.

10

ADAS Final Report

The review work involved consultation with renewable energy and biodiversity experts across a wide range of organisations (see Appendix 6 for the consultation list) and the draft matrices were discussed within a workshop as part of this consultation process. The identification of impacts focused on broad cumulative impacts that are likely to occur for each energy option. Hence site-specific impacts arising from individual energy development proposals are not accounted for in this matrix.

Scale of Impact - The ‘Scale of Impact’ column identifies whether the described impact(s) will be Local, Regional, National or International in scale. This is based on expert judgement, and any relevant monitoring information available from the scientific literature.

Ecological Effect of Impact - This identifies the life cycle stages of the receptor that will be affected by the energy option being assessed. It also provides a description of how the identified impacts will affect each receptor. This may be in terms of the impact on habitats, or in terms of the direct impact on the life cycle of different species groups.

Duration of Impact - This considers whether the impact will be temporary or permanent. If it is temporary, an indication of timescale is given.

Effect of Impact - The impact description, scale and duration are all used to form a judgement of the impact magnitude. Impact magnitude is described as being major, moderate, slight or none. The judgement on the category into which an impact falls followed the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (Table 1).

Table 1: Impact categories used for Ecological Impact Assessment

Magnitude CriteriaMajor The identified impacts are predicted to result in a change in the

integrity of a habitat or community or the ability of the species to maintain a viable population.

Moderate The identified impacts are predicted to alter key attributes of a habitat or community but without changing its overall integrity or result in changes to the local populations of the species but without threatening the viability of its population.

Slight The identified impacts will have a discernible effect but will not alter the key attributes of the habitat or community, nor change the distribution or status of the species.

Negligible No discernible impacts.

A distinction is made within the matrix between positive (no shading) and negative (grey shading) impacts. But the descriptions provided in the above table apply regardless of whether the impact is positive or negative.

Mitigation - Mitigation options are proposed for each of the impacts associated with each energy option. These are focused on measures that could address the impacts in the broadest sense. Site-specific mitigation measures accounting for local factors and specific features of individual developments cannot be accounted for in the context of this report. Where mitigation is proposed, the prospects of its success are assessed in terms of high, medium or low (the ‘Likely Success’ column on the matrix). This was based on the expert

11

ADAS Final Report

judgement and experience of the project team and information provided by the stakeholder consultations.

Significance - Significance is effectively the measure of how important each impact is considered to be. Significance depends on two factors:

The character and magnitude of the impact, The value of the receptor affected by the impact.

Significance was assessed using the categories in Table 2, which assigns a description of significance based on the impact magnitude and the value of the receptor. For the purposes of this assessment, a ‘Significant’ impact is one of ‘Moderate’ or ‘High’ significance, in accordance with this table. This is adapted from a typical table that would be used in an EIA for evaluating significance.

The significance of each impact is considered before and after mitigation. This gives an indication of how successful the proposed mitigation measures are likely to be in reducing the impact significance, and hence whether the mitigation measures suggested would be justified.

Table 2: Approach used to assigning significance categories based on level of impact and receptor value.

Magnitude of potential impact (Whether + or -)

Receptor Value Very High High Medium Low Negligible

Major High High Moderate Low LowModerate High High Moderate Low Very LowSlight Moderate Moderate Low Very Low Very LowNegligible Very Low Very Low None None None

The impact magnitude categories for each impact having been assigned in the Effect of Impact column of the matrix, it was also intended to attribute values to different receptors in accordance with the receptor value categories in the table. However, it became apparent that this would involve analysis of impacts to be carried out at a species level, and as already discussed, the assessment focuses on the broad level of species groups and habitat types. It was therefore assumed that for each broad habitat or species group identified, there will be at least one species or habitat that is of very high value (i.e., afforded protection under national and/or international law). In this way, the matrix significance provides an extremely cautious assessment of the impact of the RE technology on habitats and species, since even a slight impact on a very high value receptor is given moderate significance in Table 2.

12

ADAS Final Report

3.0The impacts of renewable energy technologies on biodiversity

All the renewable technologies considered here have some potential negative effects on UK biodiversity. Most of the potentially serious effects listed in the significance matrix in Appendix 1 can be classified under one of the following headings: Habitat loss or damage directly due to construction/planting of an installation/fuel

source (e.g. wind turbine on heathland, or short rotation coppice (SRC) crop on wet grassland),

Habitat alteration as a secondary consequence of construction/planting of an installation/fuel source (e.g. altered river flow below a hydro-electric installation, or a lowered water table due to a SRC crop),

Collision of animals with structures (e.g. birds with wind turbines or fish with marine current turbines),

Displacement or barrier effect of arrays of structures (e.g. to birds in relation to turbines or to fish and marine mammals in relation to marine current, wave and tidal power),

Risks associated with toxicity of materials required for production.

Most of these effects may produce highly significant impacts on the species and habitats affected even after mitigation measures are accounted for. Risks associated with toxicity of materials may be successfully mitigated against in the UK, but there may be biodiversity impacts in other countries with less stringent environmental regulations. All of these affects are also permanent in their nature.

However, some of the technologies also provide the opportunity for biodiversity benefits. This is largely through the creation of new habitats, which if carefully managed can allow for new species, and if replacing a low biodiversity environment this can enhance biodiversity in an area. Again these positive benefits are permanent.

A summary of the key effects of each technology is provided in the following sections. The full matrix is given in Appendix 1. For the marine technologies a number of the impacts are common to all technologies as they relate to construction/operations that have to be undertaken regardless of the technology used, for example laying power cable to link the structures to the land. These impacts have been indicated in a separate part of the significance matrix but are referred to in each of the relevant marine technology sections.

In identifying the impact of each technology on habitats and species (“receptors”) the work has focused only on those receptors that are judged to be of high, or very high conservation status as determined by IEEM guidelines (i.e. BAP species and habitats and those protected by EU and international agreements). Hence the post mitigation significance provides a worst-case analysis of the impact. It should be noted that receptors of lower status would also be affected, normally in similar ways. Any reduction in their viability would result in them becoming threatened and thus elevated to a higher conservation status. A ‘medium value’ species could rapidly become a ‘high value’ species if the widespread adoption of a particular option was to its disadvantage.3.1 Onshore wind farmsOnshore wind farms are typically found on coastal fringes or in the uplands. Figure 1 shows the distribution of both onshore and offshore wind farms in the UK at the

13

ADAS Final Report

end of 2004. In both cases there are potential conflicts with sensitive grassland communities and with peat bogs in upland areas. The construction and decommissioning of onshore wind farms is likely to have a temporary, short-term impact on a range of animal species, notably birds and mammals, reptiles and amphibians6. There is also concern about the impact of construction of construction roads7 on peat bogs, particularly through effects on water flow through peat. Careful siting and design of access roads and cable routes within these developments can mitigate against some of these adverse impacts of the technology but locally, significance levels can still be moderate.

14

ADAS Final Report

Figure 1: Onshore and offshore wind farms in the UK. 8

The operation of onshore wind farms can produce significant permanent, negative impacts particularly affecting birds and bats, through disruption of their daily and seasonal movements7 and from collision with turbine blades9. Such effects can be significant at a regional and international scale if migrating bird species are affected10. As with offshore turbines, some of these effects may be reduced by

15

ADAS Final Report

careful siting of the wind farms to avoid significant bird flyways and local bat populations and by tailoring turbine layouts to provide flight corridors, but more work is needed to determine the effectiveness of different layouts for different species.

3.2 BiomassThe main ecological impacts of biomass production and harvesting will depend upon the nature of the process. The systems are divided into two broad types: Biomass produced from specifically planted crops, and Biomass derived from removal of straw from arable land and brashings and

timber from existing woodland.

Currently the two most commonly planted biomass crops are shrubs in the form of short-rotation coppice (SRC) willow and grass in the form of Miscanthus. For both crops the major impacts are due to the change of the land use into the biomass crop from its current status. Habitats likely to be impacted upon by this change range from lowland grassland through arable to unimproved acidic and calcareous grassland (See Figure 2 for locations of existing biomass plants in the UK). Hence, the ecological impact of any land use change varies considerably. Conversion from arable is unlikely to significantly impact on vegetation unless there is an existing rare arable weed population on the land to be converted. But the impact on biodiversity from the conversion of grassland and arable varies with the degree of agricultural improvement of the converted land. For example, with regard to farmland birds, improved grassland with ditches and hedges may contain 1 breeding bird territory per ha, but the highest farmland bird densities can be found in arable with tall hedgerows and trees which can contain 6.5 species per 5 ha and 1.3 territories per ha11. Species of open farmland such as Skylark and Lapwing, however, could be negatively affected, though the final report on the ARBRE (Arable Bio Renewable Energy) projectii commented that such species have been commonly recorded in cut SRC.12

Similarly, conversion of improved grassland with low plant species diversity and low associated invertebrate diversity is likely to be a less significant impact than conversion of more species rich and semi-natural grassland swards. Indeed, positive biodiversity benefits can be achieved through the careful replacement of improved grassland of low species diversity with biomass crops. The results of various studies13,14,15 illustrate that biomass crops can provide habitat opportunities for new and existing plants, insect and vertebrate wildlife species on farmland in the UK. Benefits are also likely, (though research has not been undertaken to confirm it) for bat species that may feed over these areas if there are nearby roosting sites.

However, care needs to be taken on the location of SRC plantations. Whilst largely beneficial when established on intensive arable farmland, imbalances between conservation gains and losses may occur if existing scrub or woodland habitats were to be removed or if there were special interests such as nationally important populations of farmland birds (e.g. Corncrake and Corn Bunting)16.

The timing of crop harvesting can adversely impact on birds and mammals as well as terrestrial invertebrates17. Harvesting undertaken in early summer can potentially affect breeding populations and if done during winter could remove shelter and food resource. However, Miscanthus is normally harvested in February and for SRC these adverse impacts can largely be avoided by careful timing of such operations14.

ii http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/rps001.pdf

16

ADAS Final Report

There is a potential risk that managing planted crops will require the use of pesticides and herbicides. Though this is likely to be at lower levels than for the arable and improved grassland that biomass crops replace, they may still adversely impact on the biodiversity gains that this technology can potentially achieve. Biological controls and the use of different tree varieties within the same plantation can help to reduce the need for pesticide usage and hence reduce the impact15.

The planting of biomass crops can involve non-native species and cultivars. This may impact on the range and variety of animal species that would become associated with these plantings, particularly in the case of the coniferous woodland.

The harvesting of brashings from existing woodlands may have a negative impact on biodiversity, particularly in sensitive broadleaved woodlands. However, this isgenerally only a temporary effect and can be largely ameliorated by mitigation measures, such as restricting the areas from which biomass can be removed and avoiding key times of year. Harvesting during the summer can impact on breeding bird populations and should only be undertaken if there is an assurance that nests will not be destroyed during the process17. Harvesting during the winter period could potentially impact on hibernating species of reptiles and amphibians and may reduce the overwintering food resource for birds and small mammals17.

The receptors most likely to be impacted upon by these operations would be woodland birds such as Woodcock, Nightjar and Tree pipit, small mammals and invertebrate fauna, particularly those species dependent on dead wood. There would also be a significant negative impact on fungi and saprophytic Invertebrates. However the management of previously coppiced woodland for biomass may also benefit species such as Nightingale and Dormouse.3.3 Hydro-ElectricSmall-scale hydro-electric developments can destroy terrestrial habitats in the process of creating aquatic habitats in areas where they were previously absent72. In particular, sensitive upland acidic grasslands may be lost in the construction of hydro-electric plants in high rainfall areas (See Figure 3 for distribution of existing hydro-electric schemes). This is a permanent negative impact but it can be ameliorated by careful site selection to avoid existing valuable grassland communities.

However, this technology has the potential to introduce a different habitat into the local ecology. Large bodies of open water are uncommon in the uplands and producing large dams will create a novel habitat locally. But the benefit of this habitat will be dependent upon its scale, location and also on the contribution it can make to the local complex of habitats within the area. The careful management of reservoir margins may benefit wetland species such wildfowl and fish-eating predators such as Osprey.

Dam construction and operation can negatively affect aquatic species both locally and downstream, through changes in sedimentation rates and flow levels, as well as creating obstructions to migrating fish species such as Salmon18. Changing water levels may also negatively affect breeding bird species such as Black-throated Diver. However, mitigation measures may successfully reduce such impacts considerably.

17

ADAS Final Report

Figure 2: Sites of biomass power stations in the UK8

3.4 Novel technologiesThe current novel technologies comprise photovoltaic cells, solar water heat panels, hydrogen fuel-cells and ground source heat pumps. Figure 4 shows the current distribution of photovoltaic systems across the UK. The effects of the operation of

18

ADAS Final Report

these technologies and the range of habitats affected are relatively small since they are mainly sited in urban areas. The Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2001)19

concluded that PV installations produce no emissions in operations and the cells and components on the market are made of materials that can be disposed of without harm to the environment. A project funded by the Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment20 also concluded there are no major hazards from the environmental point of view from the solar cell technologies. However, the widespread use of photovoltaic cells and solar water panels on buildings may have an impact by causing reflections affecting the movement and behaviour of birds, but such effects are unconfirmed and have not been researched. The use of ground source heat pumps may cause leakage into groundwater of salts and chemicals21. As shown by the summary matrix, this could adversely impact on a wide range of sensitive habitats. However, sufficient regulatory provision should mitigate against this impact.3.5 Common marine technology impactsThe installation and use of all forms of marine renewable energy source can have common impacts associated with their construction and the need to lay power cables to link them to the terrestrial electricity grid22. These impacts affect both marine and estuarine ecosystems. Negative effects may result from the construction of marine energy structures through the loss of sea floor habitat in extraction of materials to create structure bases, in the placement of installations themselves, in spoil disposal from such operations23 and in noise disturbance during construction24. The introduction of foreign materials and pollution from paints and lubricants may also have a negative effect on the vegetation and fauna of the habitat, but such impacts can be reduced through use of best practise guidelines.

These impacts affect sandbank habitats and marine benthos such as Sabellaria and marine mammals. Even a single installation could have significant effects if a large proportion of a species’ population or habitat area were to be affected. Cumulative impacts may also be detrimental through the widespread development even of different marine energy sources.

In laying power links, negative impacts can affect marine sediment habitats and benthos. Marine mammals and fish can be disturbed by electromagnetic fields and induced fields that occur through the transmission of power through these cables 25. The adoption of best practice for cable protection and deep burial to minimise penetration to surrounding sediment and water may mitigate these effects to some extent. There is also the need to take into account results of other ongoing research such as that under the auspices of Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE).

There are also some common benefits to biodiversity from most marine technologies. The presence of such structures requires the establishment of a safety zone to avoid collision from marine craft. These exclusion zones provide areas of low human disturbance from ships and, in particular, they are “low take” areas for fishing, which can provide a positive benefit for fish and the species that feed on them26.

19

ADAS Final Report

Figure 3: Large and small scale hydro-electric schemes in the UK 8

20

ADAS Final Report

Figure 4: Photovoltaic and wave and tidal power sites in the UK8

3.6 Offshore wind farmsDepending on location, the major impacts on wildlife can result from the physical presence of offshore wind turbines affecting migration of birds and their use of a

21

ADAS Final Report

habitat (e.g. divers, gannets, swans, geese, seaducks such as common scoter), in particular27, The sound and vibration during operation can also affect marine mammals and fish28. The other main impact is through the collision by birds with the turbines27. The significance of these impacts is strongly dependent on the siting of the offshore wind farms in relation to known migratory flightpaths of sensitive species. (Figure 1 shows the site of existing offshore wind farms in the UK and Figure 5 shows the areas of preferred wind farm development in relation to water depth.) Careful design of wind farm layouts may offer one possible solution to this problem. Larger wind farms have larger spacing between turbines, but may occur in much larger clusters. Within large turbine farms, allowing wider spacing between clusters within the wind farm to provide "corridors" in alignment with main flight routes, such as between feeding and roosting areas may reduce impacts. However, further research is needed to test such designs. 3.7 Wave PowerWave technologies impact on both marine and estuarine flora and fauna, with the nature of the impacts depending partly on the type of installation (see Figure 3 for current installation locations). Land based systems can affect shoreline vegetation, mainly rocky shore habitats and their supporting species, through land take for the installation and habitat squeeze27. These impacts may be reduced significantly by siting installations within existing man-made structures such as seawalls and harbours.

Offshore wave systems have similar impacts to offshore wind turbines, through a reduction of habitat area and changes in sedimentation rates as a result of attachment of structures to the sea floor. Disruption of marine mammal and fish species movements and migrations29 and the effect of collision with the structure may also be significant for this technology, but as with wind turbines the negative effects could possibly be reduced by the inclusion of safe corridors in the design. However, as with wind turbines the effectiveness of such measures needs further research and further work is also needed to understand the movements of different species and their use of different areas.

3.8 Tidal and Current Power As with wave power technologies there are a number of forms that this energy system can take and each has a number of different negative impacts on biodiversity. Most of the impacts affect the flow rate within estuaries and the level of tidal surges30. These in turn affect the accretion and erosion, particularly of saltmarsh and intertidal gravel, sand and mud habitats. This could affect the overall resource for this habitat and, whilst avoidance of sensitive sites is important, modelling of tidal range post-installation is also important in recognising the least damaging design options.

As a consequence of the alteration of flow patterns within estuaries there may be adverse impacts on the marine invertebrates using the inlets and mud flats and this may impact upon the availability and quantity of food for overwintering and migrating bird species31. The installation and operation of these technologies may also have an adverse impact on the movement and migration of fish and marine mammals.

There are also suggestions that the presence of tidal barrages may have positive benefits for coastal defence32, but the biodiversity benefits of this aspect are as yet unclear.

22

ADAS Final Report

Figure 5: Preferred locations for future wind farm developments33

23

ADAS Final Report

3.9 Summary of impacts by habitat type and species groupThe limitations of attempting to account for impacts on individual species are discussed in earlier sections. However, it is possible to make predictions of the impacts of renewable energy sources on habitat types, as certain energy options are more likely to occur in certain locations than others. For example, on-shore wind energy will tend to occur in upland or coastal areas, tidal energy in estuaries and wave energy at coastal or marine location.

To identify those habitats most likely to be affected by a growth in energy generation from renewable sources, an impact matrix was produced indicating which BAP Broad Habitats are likely to be impacted by each renewable energy type. BAP Priority Habitats associated with each Broad Habitat are also indicated in brackets where relevant (see Table 3). The coloured symbols against each energy option in the matrix identify those habitats, and the species groups within them, most likely to be affected by that option. The symbols are assigned on the basis of the receptors and post mitigation significance identified in the Significance Matrix (Appendix 1).

The grassland BAP habitats could be affected by all of the terrestrial renewable energy technologies, though biomass may provide some benefits to biodiversity where such habitats are currently intensively managed. Bogs and Fens are less affected by the use of renewable power sources, whilst rivers and streams and standing open water habitats may be affected by both marine technologies in estuarine areas and hydro-electric schemes further up the catchment

Hydro-electric technologies have the capacity to affect the greatest range of terrestrial and freshwater habitats since their location is largely independent of existing land use. The impact of this technology type is also indiscriminate in terms of species types affected, since it largely results in complete destruction of the affected habitat. However, by their nature small scale hydro-electric schemes affect only limited areas and hence their impact is generally localised, though obstruction to fish migration can have national level impacts.

Biomass production can also impact on biodiversity over a range of existing habitat types, with only wetland, urban and thin soil habitats excluded from potential use. But it can also be beneficial for species in several of the more intensively managed habitat types such as arable and lowland grassland.

Novel technologies appear to present least risk to habitats and species groups. Although the table shows that they can negatively affect most of the terrestrial habitats, the impact is restricted to one or two species groups, which may incur a slight impact (following mitigation measures) from the introduction of the technology.

For the marine technologies the full range of marine habitats may be negatively affected by each technology, with wave energy potentially providing disruption to the widest range of species groups. However, this technology also has the greatest potential to provide benefits to biodiversity through the creation of new habitats.

24

ADAS Final Report

Table 3: Impacts of renewable energy technologies summarised by BAP Broad Habitat

Energy TechnologyBiomass On-shore

WindOff-shore Wind

Hydro- electric

Tidal Wave Novel Technologies

Terrestrial/ urban/ freshwater habitatsBroadleaved, mixed and yew woodland (includes Lowland beech and yew woodland, Upland mixed ashwoods, Upland oakwood and Wet woodland)

Coniferous woodland (includes Native pine woods)

Arable and horticulture (includes Cereal field margins)

Bogs(includes Blanket bog and Lowland raised bog)

25

ADAS Final Report

Energy TechnologyBiomass On-shore

WindOff-shore Wind

Hydro- electric

Tidal Wave Novel Technologies

Boundary and linear features (includes Ancient and species rich hedgerows)

Dwarf shrub heath

Bracken

26

ADAS Final Report

Energy TechnologyBiomass On-shore

WindOff-shore Wind

Hydro- electric

Tidal Wave Novel Technologies

Built up areas and gardens Fen, marsh and swamp (includes Aquifer fed naturally fluctuating water bodies, Reedbeds and Fens)

Improved grassland

Neutral grassland

Calcareous grassland (includes Lowland calcareous grassland and Upland calcareous grassland)

27

ADAS Final Report

Energy TechnologyBiomass On-shore

WindOff-shore Wind

Hydro- electric

Tidal Wave Novel Technologies

Acid grassland (includes Lowland dry acid grassland)

Inland rock (includes Limestone pavement)

Montane habitats

Rivers and streams (includes Chalk Rivers)

Standing open water and canals (includes Eutrophic standing water, Mesotrophic lakes and Saline lagoons)

28

ADAS Final Report

Energy TechnologyBiomass On-shore

WindOff-shore Wind

Hydro- electric

Tidal Wave Novel Technologies

Urban Marine/estuarine habitats

Continental shelf slope Inshore sublittoral rock Inshore sublittoral sediment (includes Sublittoral sand and gravel)

Littoral rock ELittoral sediment (includes Mudflats)

Oceanic seas

29

ADAS Final Report

Energy TechnologyBiomass On-shore

WindOff-shore Wind

Hydro- electric

Tidal Wave Novel Technologies

Offshore shelf rock Offshore shelf sediment Supralittoral rock (includes Maritime cliffs and slopes)

Supralittoral sediment (includes Coastal saltmarsh, Coastal vegetated shingle, Coastal sand dunes and Machair)

Key:Red = significant negative impact predicted post-mitigationGreen (or lower cell, where present) = significant positive impact predicted post-mitigation

 = Flora:  = Terrestrial/freshwater mammals:  = Birds:  = Terrestrial invertebrates:

 = Amphibians:  = Reptiles:  = Bats:  = Fungi:  = Freshwater invertebrates:  = Fish (Marine or freshwater):  = Marine invertebrates:  = Marine mammals:

30

ADAS Final Report

4.0The impact of conventional energy technologiesIn reviewing the impact of conventional technologies, the work has considered the effects of existing energy plants but given no consideration to how new technological improvements may alter these impacts in the future. The conventional technologies considered are fossil fuel (oil, coal and gas fired), and nuclear power stations. References were not easily accessible, with many being ‘grey literature’. In the UK, some reports are around 20 years old (reflecting the period of expansion in the power industry). These reports, particularly those by the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) are particularly difficult to locate. Most papers are concerned with the marine environment, particularly with the effects of water use and discharge, with few paying attention to terrestrial biodiversity.

In 2002, coal accounted for 32% of UK electricity generation, only slightly behind gas which provided 38% of electricity and nuclear, which provided 23%. Coal burn in power stations increased by approximately 3 million tonnes in 2002 such that some 55% of UK coal demand in that year was from the electricity sector34.

A number of impacts are common to all conventional power stations and may also affect some of the renewable technologies.4.1 Construction issuesPower plants and related industries are frequently placed close to water and often reclaim wetland and other marginal habitat, which may be a valuable biodiversity resource. The construction of plants may lead to disturbance of sediments within the marine environment with potential effects on sensitive fisheries or breeding grounds. There may also be impacts from travel to and from the site and from dust generated during construction. There is direct impact through the destruction to and altering of habitats, due to construction, building of infrastructure, activities such as quarrying and gravel extraction and the claiming of land for waste dumps. The construction of large water storage bodies and chains of cascades can disturb the natural habitats of terrestrial ecosystems, at the same time creating conditions for the development of aquatic and water-loving species.

Construction and generation of power stations (including new transmission lines) can result in the destruction or alteration of habitats - including breeding areas (nesting and spawning), nursery, feeding, resting and wintering areas, wetlands or other areas of seasonally high concentrations of important species. Seasonal or daily migratory patterns can be disrupted as a result from partial or complete blockage of migratory routes by structures, discharge plumes, entrapment in water intakes, environmental alterations or human activities (e.g. transportation)35.4.2 Coal extractionLarge-scale coal mining requires large amounts of land to be disturbed and causes associated problems such as soil erosion, dust pollution and impact on biodiversity. Surface mining can result in total clearance of vegetation and topsoil. The process can also entail extraction of water, and its disposal on land or through water systems can lead to soil erosion, sedimentation and alteration of flow in watercourses. This can in turn affect spawning grounds of fish and the habitats of bottom-dwelling aquatic species. Acid waste water from working or abandoned mine sites is often a major source of pollution. The runoff dissolves heavy metals into ground and surface waters and can disrupt growth and reproduction of aquatic plants and animals36. However, according to a Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development report, mining can also create habitats and increase certain aspects of biodiversity through disturbance37. For example, rare species of bats surviving

31

ADAS Final Report

because old mine tunnels replace habitats destroyed by other human activities. Another example is part of the Cornish peninsula flora, which owes its presence to mining37. Overall, however, the ability of ecosystems to provide biological benefits has often been significantly impaired by mining and mineral processing. 4.3 Oil and gas extraction Drilling and extraction for oil and gas carry acute and chronic hazards that can lead to long-term harm to plant and animal communities38. Onshore, at the exploration stage, there are particular risks for plant habitats and wildlife as exploration often involves moving heavy equipment and building infrastructure in relatively untouched environments. In all cases there is a risk of spillage and leakage from the point of extraction to refineries and to the sites of consumption. The 1999 Oil Spillage Report illustrates this risk, suggesting that approximately 32 million gallons of oil spilled worldwide into marine and inland environments as a result of 257 transport incidents that year39.

However, studies suggest that the effects of exploration have a greater impact (long-term) than large oil spills. The impact of drilling structure, discharge cuttings, artificial islands and pipelines all impact on coastal habitats40. Furthermore, noise and physical disturbances affect bird and mammal populations41. Much exploration takes place outside of the UK, and hence more vulnerable species such as turtles, and more fragile ecosystems (e.g. Arctic ecosystems) are at risk.

Impacts of power station operation relate largely to the need and use of water for cooling within the operation. The principal environmental concern relates to the loss of fish and the resulting damage to the local ecosystems. Impacts are caused by impingement (the collision of organisms with the filter screens protecting the water intakes) and entrainment of organisms drawn into the water extraction system with the flow of water. Direct-cooled power stations also discharge large volumes of heated water. The resulting thermal pollution can affect common shrimp and lobster larvae42 amongst other marine species. Alteration of flow regimes and associated physical variables (e.g. sediments) can also result in a shift in species composition43.

Such problems are likely to be particularly marked in small lakes or estuaries, and in coastal regions where direct-cooled power plants are concentrated. In particular, power stations are often sited in estuarine nursery areas or on migratory routes (e.g. for sprat). The seventeen power stations in the southern North Sea are estimated to kill sole and herring equivalent to about half of the British commercial landings for the region44. It is estimated that over 100 different species of fish are killed (either in the egg, larval or adult stages) during cooling water extraction. The commonest species caught are sprat, whiting, flounder and sand goby. However, there is insufficient information to determine if cooling water intakes are having a direct effect on inshore fish abundance45.

Meshes used to protect water intakes typically have fine screens with a mesh size of about 1 cm, which will retain most adult fish and crustaceans. Fish kills are typically in the hundreds of thousands to millions per year, while shrimps and prawns are impinged in millions of individuals per year. From an operational viewpoint, impingement can be sufficient to cause screen blockage, damage to filtration equipment and a disruption in the water supply. There have also been cases of blockage by starfish, seaweed and bryozoans46.

Wedgewire screens can be placed at intakes to prevent impingement mortality. These can be highly effective if properly designed. However, they have not been

32

ADAS Final Report

used on the largest intakes and are unsuitable for marine and estuarine environments where bio-fouling is a problem. Sound deterrent systems for fish have also been used, but are rarely sufficiently effective. The most effective way of managing impingement is to reduce the volume of water pumped, and if necessary to arrange partial or complete shutdowns at times of the year when large numbers of fish and other marine species are regularly impinged47.

Entrained organisms such as larvae of common shrimp and lobster, and adult copepods pass through the condenser circuits and are discharged back to the environment. However, during passage through the cooling system, the entrained organisms suffer sudden changes in pressure and temperature and may suffer mechanical damage (e.g. copepods and lobster larvae respectively). It is now widely recognised that the entrainment of fish eggs and larvae can be an important impact on ecosystems by destroying primary producers and prey for juvenile fish. They can also result in the release of large numbers of dead planktonic organisms with discharge water, resulting in enhanced energy input into the decomposer system48.

As with impingement mortality, such impacts may be reduced to some extent by constraints on pumping, or the imposition of seasonal outages. However, the reduction of entrainment at direct-cooled power stations must overcome considerable difficulties, and has yet to be fully demonstrated at large volume intakes. In general, the scale of both entrainment and impingement impacts is influenced mostly by plant size, though location is also an important factor for entrainment49. Evaporative cooling towers extract much less water than once-through cooling systems and so have a lower impingement and entrainment mortality50.

Measures to reduce bio-fouling themselves have an impact on biodiversity. Compounds such as chlorine and bromine are frequently injected into cooling water systems to prevent fouling. This can be damaging to various species such as molluscs, shrimp larvae and adult copepods51.

There are many underwater structures involved with power generation and water abstraction, which can affect the aquatic environment; effects can be negative or positive. Bridges and pontoons can alter flow dynamics, leading to changes in erosion and deposition, but can also enhance the range of available habitats and shelters for aquatic species.

Weirs and sluices cause significant and long-lasting changes to the dynamics of waterways, leading to increased siltation upstream, and greater scour and erosion downstream, as well as forming a physical barrier to migratory species such as salmon, shad and lamprey. These issues may need to be addressed with the provision of fish ladders or passes to allow migration.

Acid rain and dry deposition have also been linked to coal fired power stations and attributed to the decline in health of natural and managed woodlands52 in both the UK and Northern Europe. Flue gas desulphurisation schemes have been proven to reduce between 90 and 95% of sulphur dioxide emissions from power stations53, which will be of some benefit to local air quality and hence, local ecology. However, such systems are often retro-fitted in order to comply with European legislation. Therefore, there may be short-term impacts on local ecology through noise and disturbance during the construction phase, with an added risk of run-off from

33

ADAS Final Report

suspended solids during heavy rainfall events54. Longer-term, there may be the risk of spillages or leakages of chemicals, oils and fuels used during construction and operation.

Flue gas desulphurisation schemes, using seawater and river water washing methods, can result in the discharge of low pH water with elevated nitrate, phosphate and heavy metal levels. The effects of these discharges on aquatic flora and fauna need careful monitoring and analysis, and there are also the additional impacts of water abstraction as previously outlined.

Disposal of large quantities of pulverised fuel ash (PFA), otherwise known as fly ash, which is produced as a bi-product of coal combustion, can be a major problem for power stations, since it is bulky and has little intrinsic value55. However, it has been used for many years for a wide range of construction applications and such usage can be beneficial, since it replaces other natural resources (thereby potentially lessening disruption to existing habitats and ecosystems). There are also some indications that fly ash heaps have conservation potential. Studies have illustrated the establishment of sand dune flora on such wastes56, the establishment of orchid woods57,58 and successional changes in vegetation and soil development, as PFA is replaced by woodland59,60. However, its use has declined with its categorisation as a waste material61 leaving around 3,000,000 tonnes of PFA stockpiled (based on annual production) 62.

Coal mining results in the production of large quantities of spoil, which must be carefully managed to prevent contaminated run-off that may affect surface/ground water quality. Mine wastes include the solid waste from the mine, refuse from coal washing and preparation, and the sludge from treating acid mine drainage63. Acid mine drainage (AMD) is one particularly severe problem that can arise, whereby a reaction between water and sulphur-bearing materials can create acid runoff which dissolves heavy metals such as copper, lead and mercury into ground and surface water. One potential effect of AMD on biodiversity is the impact of water contamination upon the disrupted growth and reproduction of aquatic plants and animals64. Some metals bio-accumulate in the aquatic food chain and benthic organisms can be smothered by iron that settles65.

Fossil fuel power stations also generate greenhouse gases as a waste product, which are contributing to climate change. Around one-third of UK emissions come from the energy supply industry itself66. Section 8.1 provides more information on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity.4.4 Nuclear power stationsOver 95% of radioactive material produced in the UK arises from the nuclear power industry67. At the end of May 2003, 13 nuclear power stations were operational in the UK. The main activities in the UK are reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, waste management, defuelling and decommissioning. Nuclear power stations do not start formal decommissioning until all the fuel has been removed from site.4.4.1 General impactsThe biodiversity impacts of nuclear power in general result from power plant construction and operations, radioactive discharge into marine environment, waste disposal of radioactive material into terrestrial environment, aerial discharges and from nuclear accident.

34

ADAS Final Report

4.4.2 Operations A number of the impacts of operations are similar to those of fossil fuel stations due to the use a discharge of water for cooling. Marine monitoring in the UK currently focuses on the following: molluscs (mussels, winkles, limpets, scallops, cockles, whelk), fish, crustaceans (crabs, lobster, nephrops, shrimp), and seaweed (Fucus vesiculosus, Porphyra umbilicalis).

In relation to terrestrial species/habitats, there is less information. The main impacts will be through aerial discharges of radioactive effluents, the fallout of which, will affect all habitats to some extent. There is extensive monitoring of milk production in the farming areas around some nuclear plants (at Sellafield this extends up to 4km from site). There is also extensive monitoring of grass, soils and fluvial water sources, wild and cultivated fruit and vegetables, which could impact on pathways to local biodiversity68.

Chronic and acute exposure to radiation doses from radioactive waste may result in, reproductive damage, behavioural change, larvae/juvenile survival and, in more extreme cases, DNA damage and genetic mutation. There might be a threshold level of exposure below which biological response does not occur but many studies reviewed only report on problems in response to high doses of radiation.

There have been numerous studies on the impact of Chernobyl in 1986. However, it must be considered that the nature of any nuclear accident and its subsequent impact on the environment will be unique. In an earlier accident in 1979 at the Three Mile Island reactor, USA, the containment building surrounding the reactor prevented the release of all but trace amounts of radioactive gases. The Chernobyl reactor lacked the containment feature. Following the explosions, an intense graphite fire burned for 10 days. Under those conditions, large releases of radioactive materials took place. Experimental studies and reviews of the Chernobyl exclusion zones indicate possible impacts of DNA damage, genetic mutations, reproductive damage and larval/juvenile survival.4.5 Large-scale HydroFor the purposes of this report, large-scale hydropower by stations providing a >5MW is classified as conventional energy. This definition excludes stations within hydro schemes where the individual station has a capacity of less than 5MW. The reason for this distinction is that the principal effects of such energy sources on biodiversity are related to the scale of an individual station. It should be noted though that for the purposes of the Renewables Obligation Certification large-scale hydro only qualifies as a renewable energy source if it was commissioned after 1st April 2002.

Hydro-electric power contributes 1.8% of the UK’s electricity69, with most of the stations located in the Scottish Highlands. Hydro-electric is a proven technology; it is efficient with the most modern plants having energy conversion efficiencies of up to 90%.

At the end of May 2003, there were 54 hydro power stations operational in the UK that can be classified as ‘large-scale’ and 3 pumped storage systems70. The total capacity in 2003 of existing large-scale hydroelectric sites was 1,531 MW, with the pumped storage stations adding another 2,487MW. All are located in upland areas in either Scotland or Wales, with the exception of one station in Northumberland. Many use natural water bodies (e.g. lochs and upland lakes), although there are a number of artificial reservoirs.

35

ADAS Final Report

4.5.1 ImpactsHydro-electric power is generally suited to upland areas. With much of the British uplands located in National Parks or protected areas, upland waters are often of very high amenity and conservation value. Whilst it is a relatively ‘green’ source of electricity generation with respect to atmospheric emissions, consideration needs to be given to the fact that upland regions are home to many unique, and often fragile, ecosystems. Dams built on natural bodies of water can produce significant adverse impacts on fish, wildlife and other resources71, whilst the slightest change to a fragile habitat could endanger marginal native species.

Typically, uplands are characterised by naturally acidic geology and nutrient poor soils, but with a good range of biodiversity. Upland areas often coincide with areas designated as National Parks, but they can also be classified according to different ecological types (derived from lakes, rivers or wetlands), thus leading to the designation of SSSIs and similar conservation areas. Biodiversity ‘cold spots’ are also a common feature of uplands, due to higher altitudes and exposure to harsh climatic conditions, however restricted or unique biodiversity is a naturally distinctive feature and recognised by SSSI classification72.

There are three major habitat types associated with uplands: (1) oligotrophic standing waters, (2) dystrophic lakes and ponds and (3) blanket bogs. Lake habitats can be further divided into oligotrophic-mesotrophic standing waters or naturally dystrophic lakes and ponds according to SAC criteria.

Upland areas are emerging as key definitive habitats under UK implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). There is also scope to use upland sites as unimpacted ‘reference’ sites for the WFD, as by their nature, they are remote from human activity.4.5.2 ConstructionThe main impacts on terrestrial habitats are likely to be experienced during the construction of reservoirs/dams, power stations and the associated infrastructure. Impacts of construction are usually a result of the laying of pipelines, the creation of access tracks and compounds. These can result in a loss of habitat, erosion (normally in upland areas), changes to drainage patterns and disturbance to habitats (normally in remote areas)73. Land taken up by buildings and roads would displace any habitats existing there. However, the extent of such displacement may be quite small and can be of a temporary nature, as the majority of the power plant infrastructure is underground.

The noise and activity during construction may cause disturbance to local species, but it is unclear how permanent this may be once construction has ceased. At many hydropower stations, the only lasting infrastructure that may cause disturbance are any external power housing and maintenance roads (which often double up as tourist routes in summer).4.5.3 OperationA number of general impacts can be attributed to hydropower schemes, most of which pose problems for aquatic habitats rather than terrestrial. General impacts result from the effects on river flows, water quality and fish passage, and a large majority of literature expresses concern for hydropower infrastructure impacts on migratory fish species.

The damming of rivers can change the ecology of the region e.g. water is colder downstream, water levels are often higher or lower than the rivers natural state

36

ADAS Final Report

which effects riparian vegetation and sedimentation. However, where lakes are natural as is the case at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog, some impacts may not be experienced74.

Changes to the flow below abstraction points has impacts on sensitive species e.g. salmon, pearl mussel. The key ecological considerations are migratory fish. One method to combat this is the use of freshets, by which generation can be ceased during key migratory times and can mimic natural fluctuations of flow73.

Weirs can result in a loss of habitat behind the weir due to localised flooding, in addition to the impacts from flow variations. There is also an issue of pollution during construction73. Weirs may restrict downstream movements, disrupting natural distribution patterns and the 'restocking' of depleted 'downstream' populations from more robust 'upstream' populations.

Mitigation techniques to combat the effects of hydro schemes do consider the impacts on land as well as the river. Any new hydro scheme will involve ecological surveys, environmental management plans and construction method statements. In addition to this, a number of techniques are employed to reduce any impacts, such as fish screens, compensation flow and freshets. The impacts of construction can be addressed through minimising pipeline and track length/width, avoiding shallow soils, using existing tracks. The timing of construction, careful replacement of soils and use of native species in re-seeding can help in minimising disturbance to surrounding habitats. Where possible, ecologically sensitive areas are avoided.

One of many examples of the implementation of mitigation measures is within the Affric/Beauly hydropower scheme in Scotland75. The waters of the Affric/Beauly Scheme are recognised as being important for salmon and compensation water is released down all the main salmon rivers, the flow of which is kept above agreed levels. Borland fish lifts have been installed at Kilmorack, Aigas and Beannacharan, the one at Aigas being open to visitors during the summer months. Culligran Falls have also been made easier for fish to pass. In order to conserve the outstanding scenic beauty of the area, the level of Loch Benevean is not allowed to vary greatly and the level of Loch Affric remains largely unaffected by the hydroelectric developments.

37

ADAS Final Report

5.0Summary of energy generation impacts on biodiversityThe impact of both conventional and renewable energy sources is dependent upon siting; any power station sited in a vulnerable habitat is likely to cause extensive damage during both its construction and operational phases. The construction of any energy source type can result in biodiversity impacts, but the land area required for some renewable sources is considerably larger than that for conventional power sources of the same capacity.

For conventional energy sources, the impacts are reasonably similar across all power stations of a technology type, since generally power stations are sited in similar locations, close to water sources. But for renewable energy technologies the impacts are highly site and species specific. Aspects of location and scale of the energy development, together with the species and habitats present will determine the likely scale of impacts. Hence, appropriate site selection is a key mitigation measure to avoid the potentially most deleterious impacts on biodiversity.

There are some positive effects associated with the different renewable and (to a lesser extent) conventional technologies. These relate largely to the provision of new habitats, such as short-rotation coppice woodland in biomass production, especially where these replace biodiversity poor habitats such as intensively managed cereals or grassland.

The production of greenhouse gases as part of conventional energy production is of particular concern because of the potential effects of climate change upon UK biodiversity. Whilst biomass energy sources also produce carbon dioxide during energy generation, the amount emitted is balanced by absorption of the gas during the growth of the biomass crop. Greenhouse gases are also produced in the transportation of fuels to power stations (both in biomass energy and conventional sources). Hence the sourcing of such fuels is also an issue (see section 7.2.2.1 for a discussion on sourcing of biomass fuels).

It is important to note that it is easier to identify the effects of conventional energy on biodiversity than to predict the effects of renewable energy technologies. Both the significance matrices and the analysis of the literature have highlighted the lack of knowledge of the impacts of renewable technologies on the marine environment. This relates both to a lack of information on the detail and understanding of the operation of marine ecosystems and to a lack of information on the biodiversity impacts of some of the technology types (particularly marine current, tidal and wave power). The effects of the use of forest residues and wood fuel sourced from outside of the UK are also not clear. The following section highlights the information sources used for the literature review in this project. These are detailed in the reference source matrix in Appendix 2, which shows also the geographical area covered by each source and its relevance to this study.5.1 Information sourcesInformation sources accessed and their relevance for UK biodiversity impacts differed by energy technology. For conventional technologies (fossil fuels and nuclear) references were not easily accessible, with many being ‘grey literature’. In the UK, some reports are around 20 years old (reflecting the period of expansion in the power industry). These reports, particularly those by Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) are particularly difficult to locate. Most papers were concerned with the marine environment, particularly with the effects of water use

38

ADAS Final Report

and discharge, with few paying attention to terrestrial biodiversity. Of the information used, the majority were derived from web-based sources.

Reflecting the recent growth of onshore wind technologies, information on the biodiversity impact for these systems is generally of high relevance to this study. However, whilst there is some data available from observation/monitoring of impacts, there is still a lot of information only available from expert opinion and review work. This information reflects a body of work specifically targeted at the impacts on biodiversity – primarily birds, but mammals and fragile ecosystems are also considered. The information was very relevant to the UK, and was complemented by European information and some from North America. Similarly, for biomass energy, there has been a substantial amount of work carried out on the impacts of energy crops on UK habitats and ecosystems, the majority of which was based on observation and monitoring of sites. Information was derived from journal articles or commissioned reports, and was generally of high relevance to this study. However, for forest biomass and co-firing and the more technical aspects (e.g. fuel conversion efficiency), most of the information found derived from personal communication and expert opinion, with little published work detailing impacts on biodiversity.

Information for the marine technologies derived from a mixture of published papers, web sites and personal communication, with some specifically assessing UK sites, others from outside the UK. Predominantly expert opinion or observation/monitoring, this information was very generic in terms of impacts (i.e. fish, birds, benthic communities). This also appears to be the case with hydropower, where practically all the information was derived from web-based resources. This information was often based on observation/monitoring, but often only outlined generic environmental impacts. Where information could be found on specific sites, there was slightly more information on species level impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial. With a restricted amount of UK information (perhaps reflecting the smaller scale of this technology in this country), a lot of information used was from outside of the UK. However, hydropower production occurs on a much bigger scale in Europe and North America, and so the impacts highlighted may not be wholly relevant to the UK situation.

For novel technologies, the information consisted of a mixture of expert opinion, review and observation/monitoring. This information (derived largely from published reports and journals) was generally focused on the technical issues surrounding novel technologies (reflecting the relative newness of the industry) and the impacts on biodiversity were often inferred rather than being based on modelled or observed evidence.

39

ADAS Final Report

6.0Future developments in renewable energy technologies The development of renewable energy resources in the UK is being encouraged both by tax breaks for renewable generation under the Climate Change Levy (CCL) and by the Renewables Obligation (RO) in England and Wales and the Renewable Obligation Scotland (ROS). The RO and ROS require electricity suppliers to increase their proportion of supplies from RE sources by 3% per year from 2002/3, to 10.4% by 2010. Suppliers not reaching this target are required to pay a penalty charge per unit shortfall. The CCL is an energy tax on business consumption of electricity, coal, natural gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG). Electricity from renewable sources is exempt from this tax.

The key policy drivers for UK renewable electricity generation are the RO and ROS schemes and their key feature, as far as the development of RE technologies is concerned, is that they encourage the least-cost renewable technology. At present, and for the short-term future, the least-cost technology is wind power, with onshore being cheaper than offshore. Dedicated biomass burning power stations have similar capital costs to wind but, of course, require ongoing fuel costs. Most other potentially large-scale technologies are at an early stage in their development. Generation from municipal solid waste, landfill gas and sewage gas are already cost effective under the RO but are limited in their potential scope. Landfill is being phased out under the Landfill Directive. Even considering the investment that is underway into the development of wave and tidal technologies iii, to 2010 (and most probably beyond that) the main renewable generation sources will be onshore and offshore wind.

The technical reviews in the following sections aim to show the state of development within each of the renewable energy technologies and the way the technologies may develop over the next 20 years. For all energy source types the scale of development is likely to be critical to their impact upon biodiversity. For onshore wind and biomass power sources there is also the potential for the size of power units to vary greatly, from locally based systems to large-scale power sources. The potential for such developments has also been considered.6.1 Onshore WindWind turbines produce electricity by using the natural power of the wind to drive a generator. The wind is a clean and sustainable source of energy, it does not create pollution and it will never run out. Wind energy technology is developing quickly, turbines are becoming cheaper and more powerful, bringing down the cost of renewably generated electricity. Europe is the world leader in wind energy, with more installed capacity than any other region of the world. Over the past decade, global installed capacity has increased from 2,500 megawatts (MW) in 1992 to just over 40,000 MW at the end of 2003, at an annual growth rate of near 30%. Almost three quarters of this capacity has been installed in Europe. This growth trend is expected to continue.

Wind energy has numerous advantages; it is widely distributed as more countries have sizeable wind power potential than have large resources of hydro-power or fossil fuel reserves. It is also ideal for generating electricity at a local level; European wind schemes are typically clusters of around 10 - 40 turbines, providing enough electricity for 4,000 to 16,000 households. Some countries such as Denmark and Germany also have a high proportion of single turbines.

iii E.g. Carbon Trust

40

ADAS Final Report

In the UK at present there are more than 90 operating wind farm sites. These consist of a total of more than 1100 turbines with a capacity of over 880 MW. Wind power produced 1,286GWh of electricity in 2003 (the total UK electricity production was 395,886GWh). Therefore, wind power accounted for 0.32% of production in 2003. The two biggest onshore wind farms in terms of capacity in the UK are Crystal Rig (20 turbines) in the Borders and Carno (56 turbines) in Powys. Between them, they have an installed capacity of 83.6MW. This is the equivalent of a small fossil-fuel power station. Assuming all the generation from these two wind farms replaces the same amount of fossil fuel generation, their operation will save about 30,000 tonnes of carbon (110,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide) per year.

As with nearly all forms of electricity generation, wind power can have an impact on the environment. Poorly sited wind farms can pose problems for birds and bats in the form of disturbance, habitat loss or damage, and collision. By their nature, wind farms have to be sited in areas with a good wind resource and this is often in upland and coastal areas that are highly valued for their landscape quality. Proposed wind farms are often opposed on grounds of their impact on landscape. Noise is often a cause of concern for local residents close to a proposed wind farm development.

6.1.1 Wind Turbine DesignThere are many different turbine designs, with plenty of scope for innovation and technological development. The dominant wind turbine design is the up-wind, three bladed, stall controlled, constant-speed machine. Maximum efficiency may normally be expected at wind speeds between 10–15 m/s. Commercial turbines range in capacity from a few hundred kilowatts to over 2.5 MW. The crucial parameters are the diameter of the rotor blades (the longer the blades, the larger the area 'swept' by the rotor and the greater the energy output) and the height of the hub (since wind speed increases logarithmically with height). The trend is towards larger machines as they can produce electricity at a lower price; the first 3MW machines are already being installed.

Small-scale wind energy applications range from individual battery charging units to those providing power to homes or businesses. They are particularly suitable for remote off-grid locations where conventional methods of supply are expensive or impractical.

Most small wind turbines generate direct current (DC) electricity. Off-grid systems require battery storage and an inverter to convert DC electricity to AC (alternating current - mains electricity). A controller is also required to ensure the batteries are not over or under-charged and can divert power to another useful source (e.g. space and/or water heaters) when the battery is fully charged. It is common to combine this system with a diesel generator for use during periods of low wind speeds. This gives greater efficiency and flexibility than a diesel-only system, as the generator can be used at optimum load for a short period to charge the batteries, rather than by constant direct use of the diesel generator at varying loads. For off-grid systems, the size of the battery bank determines the time appliances can be run if there is no wind. The size of the inverter installed determines the number of appliances that can be run at the same time from the stored electricity.

Systems can also be installed where there is a grid-connection. A special inverter and controller converts DC to AC at a quality and standard that is acceptable to the grid. No battery storage is required. Any unused or excess electricity can be exported to the grid and sold to the local electricity supply company. Turbines vary

41

ADAS Final Report

in size; typical sizes (or ratings) are 0.6kW - 8kW and above, with a cut-in (starting) wind speed of around 2.5-4m/s, and a rated (optimum) wind speed between 10-12m/s. Smaller applications include small turbines, usually less than 100W that will charge 12V or 24V batteries. The uses include low voltage household lighting, remote weather stations, electric fencing, or in caravans or boats.

Systems for households or businesses can cost between £5,000-£25,000, including turbine, mast, inverters, storage (if required) and installation; depending on the size and type of system installed. A 6kW system can provide 12,000-15,000 kWh per year depending on site and location.

There are a number of companies producing small wind turbines of less than 20kW. The total rated capacity of commercially installed turbines in the UK may be over 1MW.

The most important factor affecting performance of wind turbines is the windiness of the site. The power available from the wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed. Therefore, a doubling of the wind speed gives eight times the power output from the turbine. All other factors being equal, a turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 5 m/s will produce nearly twice as much power as a turbine at a location where the wind averages 4 m/s.

Another key factor is the availability of the equipment. This is the capability to operate when the wind is available - an indication of the turbine's reliability. This is typically over 98% for modern machines. Also critical to performance is turbine arrangement. Turbines in wind farms must be carefully arranged to gain the maximum energy from the wind - this means that they should shelter each other as little as possible from the prevailing wind.

Turbines are rated to a certain capacity. The size of the wind turbine determines the total amount of energy generated each year. However this output is only achieved for the short time that wind speed is at its optimum level. As a rough guide, a good wind site will produce an average output of 30% of the rated capacity of the turbine. This figure is known as the load, or the capacity, factor. In 2003, the load factor for onshore wind turbines was 24.1%76. Capacity values may increase further in the future, as the technology develops to allow turbines to operate at lower and higher wind speeds.

6.1.2 The future of wind energy The DTI has recently estimated that 3,000 to 5,000 turbines will be needed to supply the 7 or 8% of generation that will be met by wind, assuming large turbines of between 2MW and 3MW. Such turbines would probably have rotor diameters of up to about 80m and hub heights of about 100m. This is about 3 to 5 times the number of turbines that are currently operational (but will also include offshore turbines).

The area covered by 3000 or 5000 turbines would be about 750 or 1,250 square kilometres (75,000 or 125,000 hectares), respectively, or between 0.3 and 0.5% of the UK land area, if all placed on land77, which is unlikely. Most of this area is, however, not “lost”. Nearly all of it could be used for agriculture or another purpose.

Wind power is not a constant method of producing electricity, as turbines do not generate electricity when there is no wind, though when the turbines are running they can displace fossil fuel generation. However, intermittent and fluctuating

42

ADAS Final Report

electricity from wind generation does not pose problems for the UK electricity system at low levels of supply and certainly does not require any significant changes to the supply system. Indeed, being generally “nearer to demand” than conventional power stations, it offers potential benefits in reduced transmission losses.

Although locally intermittent and fluctuating, over the UK as a whole, variation in supply generally tends to cancel out, although there are clearly occasional days when the entire UK and its offshore waters are becalmed. Such events can, however, be forecast with a reasonable degree of certainty but if the proportion of wind power in the UK were to near 20% then it might well pose difficulties for the UK distribution system as it stands. However, it could be accommodated by a combination of energy storage, more interconnections to mainland Europe to allow imports of renewable energy sources, greater use of demand management or by using a mix of renewable energy sources (including non-intermittent renewables (e.g. biomass), together with some of the more efficient fossil fuel technologies. The most likely solution is a combination of all four measures.

6.1.3 Costs of wind energy Electricity generation from wind is the nearest to-market (i.e. the cheapest) of the renewable sources for electricity generation. Like many renewable technologies, the main costs associated with the technology are those of construction, because fuel costs are zero and maintenance costs are low. It is not yet fully competitive with existing energy sources (largely fossil fuel generation), but costs are coming down and are likely to continue to do so.

According to extensive research conducted for the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) for the 2001 Energy Review to inform the 2003 Energy White Paper, the current cost of onshore and offshore wind power is 2.5-3.0p/kWh and 5-6p/kWh respectively, expected to fall to 1.5-2.5p/kWh and 2-3p/kWh respectively by 2020. Recent Government analysis conducted for the Innovation Review put these figures somewhat higher, at 3-4p/kWh for onshore wind now, falling to 2.5-3.00p/kWh by 2020; and 6-7.5p/kWh for offshore wind now, falling to 3-4.5p/kWh by 2020.

These numbers compare with about 6p/kWh for nuclear power, expected (by the nuclear industry) to fall to about 3-4p/kWh by 2020; with about 2p/kWh for efficient combined cycle gas turbines, with little reduction forecast; about 7p/kWh for biomass, falling to 2.5-4p/kWh; and about 40-70p/kWh for solar PV, falling to 10-16p/kWh. However, what is not clear from these costings is the extent to which different aspects of power systems are included in the calculations (e.g. do the costings for nuclear energy include full costs for storage of waste and decommissioning)

6.2 Biomass Energy CropsCurrently, biomass fuels providing electricity and heat are small scale and operate only on very local levels. However, there is a theoretical potential for fuel chains to be developed, using more advanced technologies. Current opinion points to four primary chains78, each of which could be based on more than one conversion technology, including smaller scale combined heat and power (CHP): Short Rotation Coppice (SRC), mainly willow, through both combustion and

gasification, Miscanthus and straw, currently through combustion, but possible gasification in

the future,

43

ADAS Final Report

The organic fraction of municipal solid waste, through gasification, anaerobic digestion and combustion,

Sewage sludge, through gasification, anaerobic digestion and combustion.

Project ARBRE was the first commercial example of a biomass fuel chain contribution to renewable energy and involved a sustainable electricity generator that used renewable fuel from forest residues and new willow coppices. The combined cycle plant was built at Eggborough, North Yorkshire and was completed in 2001-2. The site created 20 local jobs and was expected to export 8MW to the local grid. It received a lot of local community support. However, the sale of the founding company forced the closure of Project ARBRE, although the wood fuel is currently being utilised with coal at a co-fired plant nearby79.

Forest biomass currently derives from conventional forestry and is predominantly used for co-firing. There are currently 16 co-fired plants in the UK 80, many of which use forest biomass. However, there is no control over where forest biomass is derived from, with many smaller renewable projects/companies, as well as generating plants, potentially importing from overseas (e.g. Scandinavia). Forestry Commission statistics suggest that softwood use in the UK is not at a maximum, whilst sawlog prices are dropping81,82.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants using biomass are currently providing around 100 MW to the electricity grid. However, energy crops are only currently grown on around 5000 acres in the UK, providing around 5 MW of electricity. They are entitled to numerous grants and ROCs83. Other biomass plants operate using poultry manure (e.g. the plant in Thetford, which generates around 30MW) and straw (e.g. plant in Ely which generates around 36MW). 6.2.1 The future of biomass energyBiomass growth (as a whole) by 2010 is estimated to be about 30MW. In the future the aim should be to make better use of the biomass already available rather than growing new crops – this will increase the ecological value to the countryside83. The expansion of biofuels and energy crops in general is currently very much dependent on government policy and initiatives. For example, nationwide schemes such as the Bio-Energy Infrastructure Scheme and the Energy Crops Scheme (England) are in place to help develop and provide grants for biomass producers. Meanwhile, the Renewables Obligation Order 2002 places an obligation on all licensed electricity suppliers in England and Wales to source a growing percentage of total sales from eligible renewable sources84.

The Renewables Innovation Review85, undertaken to identify key targets and innovation processes for renewables, as well as the barriers to development, recognises that technology and market options are needed to maximise biomass benefits. The review proposes that biomass could be a material resource by 2020, assuming successful technological development and the removal of market barriers. To this end, it suggests that such success could develop biomass as a key energy sector, potentially meeting between 15 and 20% of the UK electricity demand. Technological advances (e.g. gasification) underpin this development, and may have added benefits of improved carbon savings (compared to conventional technologies such as combustion).

Currently, biomass heat from forests are an available resource, but with very limited uptake. The DTI review suggests that through exploiting this resource, there could be a locally wide-scale usage in the future with the establishment of fuel chains and

44

ADAS Final Report

up to 1mtCO2/yr savings. One particular growth area is the harvesting of forest residues (side branches, ‘brash’ & tops). This is a practice that is not currently widespread in the UK, but may be revisited86. In many countries (e.g. Scandinavia, Germany, France and North America) woods pellets, made from wood wastes arising from either the lumber industry or packaging, are widely used. As this industry is relatively undeveloped in the UK, electricity generators do have the option of importing wood pellets. The Government's recent decision to extend the eligibility of co-firing under the Renewables Obligation to 2011 increases the prospect of significant amounts being imported into the UK87.

Currently in the UK, woodland certification under the UK Forestry Standard is mandatory for all Forestry Commission approved planting/felling, and there is potential to extend this to agricultural and planning approved forestry. Additionally, the more rigorous voluntary UK Woodland Assurance Standard is internationally compliant against the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) requirements; this would allow UK forest biomass to be FSC certified. However, an increase in imports could mean reduced control over standards/certification and therefore potential for greater harm to habitats outside of the UK.

The development of forest biomass however, needs to take account of the infrastructure available for processing timber. The present sawmill industry is based on a few large plants that are set up for specific tree species, such as Sitka Spruce. Furthermore, these plants are not generally located close to forests, thus creating transport and infrastructure requirements. It is questionable whether these plants would contribute to good management of native woodlands, or for the processing of non-timber products. Further issues, such as competition from imports of cheaper forest products (e.g. olive pips, Scandinavian timber) and adverse environmental impacts from harvesting residues, suggest that wide-scale exploitation of UK forest biomass may be limited for some time to come. One additional issue is that of co-firing, which is due to be phased out by 2011. As there is currently no control over biomass imports for co-firing, there is no guarantee of support for sustainable forestry in the UK. This raises questions concerning the state of the forest biomass industry once co-firing stops88.

Similarly, with energy crops, currently the development is slow with uneconomic yields and advanced technologies in their early stages. It may be possible for this sector to develop towards wide-scale planting, which will provide clarity on yields and costs85. The scale of production appears very much dependent on the type of energy crop available. For example, a recent report cites willow and Miscanthus-based fuel chains as having the most potential to provide significant electricity at the utility scale, with the potential to reach as much as 8.8% (willow) and 11.8% (Miscanthus) of the 2020 renewables total78. However, the scale of production is very much dependent upon the rate at which plants can be built, the choice of technology and being able to plant over a large scale. Issues surrounding transportation and infrastructure, as well as prices and costs, will further impact upon production levels.

October 2004 saw the launch of a new Biomass Study Task Force, which aimed to help the Government and industry develop biomass energy in support of renewable targets and sustainable objectives. The study planed to look at supply chains, technical issues, planning restrictions and environmental factors89. The outcome of this study was intended to boost the production and consumption of biomass-based fuels. Additionally, the government has launched a new £3.5 million, nationwide

45

ADAS Final Report

Bio-Energy Infrastructure Scheme that will offer grants to help harvest, store, process, and supply biomass for energy production89. Together, these may increase the scale of biomass development over the next few years. However, these measures will focus on a smaller, potentially regional scale, over the next few years through mechanisms such as the capital grants scheme, research and development into crop breeding/husbandry, and equipment grants. 6.3 Small-scale HydroSmall-scale is defined as a hydro energy plant producing less than 5 MW of electricity. A further distinction is made in the use of the term “micro” for systems providing less than 100kW. Useful power may be produced from anything upwards of a small stream; the likely range is from a few hundred watts (possibly for use with batteries) for domestic schemes, to a minimum of 25 kW for commercial schemes. The power available depends on the volume of water flowing, the flow rate, the height through which the water falls (the head). Maximum conversion efficiencies can be up to 80% but 50% is a more reasonable expectation.

If the small-scale hydro-electric power from all the streams and rivers in the UK could be tapped it would be possible to produce 10,000GWh (1GWh = 1,000,000kWh) per year90. As a rule, the capital cost per kW of installed capacity falls in proportion to the size of the scheme, varying from around £1,000 to £3,000. Hence, the economic potential is somewhat lower with estimates ranging from 500GWh to 2,000GWh per year. At present, only a fraction of this is being exploited, with just 18 commercial small-scale hydro systems in operation in the UK with a capacity of 43MW91. This figure includes stations that form part of larger hydro schemes, whose total scheme capacity is greater than 5MW.

6.4 Novel TechnologiesThe potential for solar thermal technologies (SWH, PVs and GSHP) to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is significant, particularly as heat energy is currently the main source of CO2 emissions. However the main focus of current Government policy is on electricity generated from wind, PV and combined heat and power from biomass.

6.4.1 Photovoltaics (PV)The main concern people have with PV is “does it produce more energy than is used in its manufacture?” This varies according to the type of PV, how efficiently it is produced and where it is located (which will affect the output). However all the references to PV reviewed for this research have shown that there is a positive energy payback92,93,94,95,96. Siemens summary analysis of their ‘ First Solar CdTe Manufacturing Model at 20 MW/year’ predicts that the energy payback (heat, electricity and water) will be less than three months for energy added during the manufacturing process97. However, with current production, it may be more realistic to quote a more typical figure of 2 to 4 years. As the modules have a productive life of 20 years or more, the energy payback is very positive. Current installation is 4.1 MW (IEA, 2004) (3,300MWh/y) and is expected to rise to around 500,000 MWh/y by 202598.

There are two PV manufacturing plants in the UK, both of which have opened in 2004: Sharp Corporation in Wrexham, North Wales and BP/Romag in Durham. The Sharp factory assembles monocrystalline and polycrystalline solar modules. The annual production for 2004 was predicted to be 20MW and it is planned to double the capacity in order to meet the expansion of the demand for photovoltaics in Europe99.

46

ADAS Final Report

PV may be economically viable after 2020100 leading to a greater market share of electricity production. Building integrated PV has the economic potential of 0.5 TWh/y, technical potential of 266 TWh/y and a practicable potential of 37 TWh/y101. PV is one of the top five renewable energy technologies with the greatest potential in the UK. The cost in 2025 is expected to be around 7.0p/kWh with wind between 2.5 and 3.0p/kWh. PV is currently around 70p/kWh. The cost of PV has fallen around 50 fold since the mid 1970’s. The reduction is due to a market growth of around 20% a year for PV.

6.4.2 Fuel CellsFuel cells enable hydrogen and oxygen fuel to be converted to electricity. The process is potentially more efficient than burning them in a heat engine102. Fuel cells are effectively batteries as they store hydrogen. Hydrogen and oxygen (or air) are pumped in to the fuel cell and DC electricity is the product. There is much interest in hydrogen, as storage of energy is a problem with all forms of energy generation.

The only by-product of fuel cells is water and they are quiet in operation. There is some waste heat but less than that produced by conventional combustion processes. Installed capacity is currently around10 MW/yr using hydrogen from gas103 and is expected to rise to 100 MW/yr using hydrogen from gas103. But fuel cells are only considered to be a renewable energy source if the hydrogen has been created using electricity from PV or wind.

6.4.3 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)Ground source heat pumps collect heat from the ground and raise the temperature to a useful level for space and water heating. In the UK, the constant ‘ground source heat’ temperature is typically between 11ºC and 13ºC all year round. For every kWh of electricity used to power the system, 2.5-4 kWh of heat are produced. The first ground source heat pump system was installed in the UK over 50 years ago, and this type of heating is used in hundreds of thousands of applications across the USA and Europe. Industrial use is widespread: only in the domestic sector in the UK is it perceived as being a relatively new concept.

A ground source heat pump system comprises three basic elements; a ground loop, the heat pump and a heat distribution system. The ground loop is a pipe buried underground in either a horizontal trench or in a vertical borehole. Horizontal trenches are dug between 1 and 2 metres below ground level, and although using more land than a borehole they are usually cheaper. Boreholes are drilled to between 15 and 100 metres depth and benefit from higher ground temperatures than trenches.

A heat exchanger extracts heat from the water/anti-freeze mixture in the ground loop and transfers it to a refrigerant in the heat pump. The refrigerant evaporates to a gaseous state and is passed through a compressor. The compressor increases the pressure on the gas, which raises its temperature to between 40ºC and 55ºC, depending upon the application. This heated refrigerant gas is then passed through a condenser where the heat is transferred to the heat distribution system. As the refrigerant gas cools, the refrigerant gas expands and condenses, and is returned to the start of the heat pump cycle. The third basic element of a ground source heat system, the heat distribution system, can be either low temperature wet radiators or, preferably, wet underfloor heating. It may also include domestic hot water storage.

47

ADAS Final Report

Although usually used for heating in domestic applications in the UK, the heat pump can also be used for cooling by including an additional ’reversing valve’. This reverses the direction of the water/anti-freeze fluid, thereby also reversing the direction of the heat transfer, taking it away from the house and into the ground.

The market for GSHP is very new in the UK with only a few hundred installations across the country. However, the potential is huge for both heating and cooling. In Sweden there are some 80,000 installations. Estimated installed heating capacity is around 2 MW in the UK, equivalent to 4400 MWh/y and is expected to rise to 5000 MW, equivalent to 11 million MWh/y. There are also large numbers of GSHP applications in North America. As with other renewable energy technologies, energy savings through life cycle analysis is likely to become a deciding factor in determining the number of GSHPs that are installed. 6.4.4 Solar Water Heating (SWH)Solar water heating is not a new technology: systems were commercially produced around the 1900’s in America where the industry flourished for over 50 years until fossil fuels became so cheap they out competed solar collectors. The solar water heating market was revived in Europe in the 1970’s when western countries sought alternatives to oil. The technology is now well proven and sophisticated. With selective coatings, solar water heating collectors can harness energy from not just the visible light spectrum but also ultraviolet and near infrared wavelengths. The systems will collect heat from sunlight and from a diffused (cloudy) sky. In northern Europe around 50 to 70% of annual domestic hot water demand can be met by a typical, well-installed system.

Domestic systems available in the UK range from unglazed collectors for swimming pools to flat plate collectors and evacuated tubes for domestic hot water. The orientation and angle of inclination are important considerations in harvesting the maximum solar gain; south facing at 30 to 40 degrees is ideal however, facing SSW or SSE will only reduce the energy yield by 4 or 5%.

The technology used to meet all or part of a building’s hot water needs through solar heat is well proven and sophisticated. A solar water heating system will typically produce up to 1350 kWh a year. This is a considerable saving on fossil fuels and associated carbon dioxide and also a useful tool for meeting Kyoto targets as a typical house will save between 250kg and 1 tonne of CO2 a year. Whilst the solar water heating market thrives in many European countries, Britain has a track record of being relatively slow to adopt the benefits of solar water heating.

Savings on fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions are clear objectives of Government aims to fulfil carbon dioxide reduction commitments. The UK Government has provided incentives by lowering the VAT (purchase tax) for installed solar systems in line with energy efficiency products, from 17.5% to 5%. Solar has also been added to the list of equipment that qualifies for Enhanced Capital Allowances. An average system may save between £30 and £150 a year. Space heating is technically feasible but usually uneconomic in the UK.

Some companies are now designing antifreeze out of their collectors, particularly the Dutch drainback method, which incorporates specially graded pipes in the collector, allowing untreated water to simply drain back into the cylinder under gravity when the pump stops. This not only allows frost protection, but also permits integral thermostatic control of domestic hot water.

48

ADAS Final Report

There is currently a small, established market for active solar systems in the UK, with fairly steady sales since the mid-1980s. UK production, however, has been increasing since 1989, reflecting the importance of the export market; the European market, for instance, has been growing during the 1990s. There are some indications that costs and prices of systems are falling. This will increase the economic attractiveness of systems and the range of attractive applications.

A typical system involves a solar panel on a house roof of 3 to 4m2, if it is a flat plate collector or 2m2, if it is an evacuated tube system. The current market is around 208,420 m2 (77,674 MWh/yr)104 and is expected to rise to about 10 million m2 (4 million MWh/y) by 2020105.

6.5 Marine TechnologiesAt the end of the 1990’s offshore renewables were seen as the technology of tomorrow but in the last 3 years they have been classed as a new and rapidly developing industry. The gradual decline of oil and gas in North West Europe has forced suppliers to reassess their potential market and diversify. This has enhanced the development of marine (offshore) renewables and thus progressed the marine renewables industry.

Government support has increased through the provision of policy to create market pull and financial grants to push academic and industrial research and development projects. This has enabled even greater development of the industry, although its three technology sectors (wind, wave and tidal) are experiencing different individual rates of development.

The UK Government originally planned to have joint wind and oil and gas SEAs but this idea has been shelved during SEA5 (which was produced only for oil and gas) as no plan or programme had then been developed for renewable energy technologies. Instead, the DTI is collecting data to allow an SEA for marine renewables to be completed in the future once the UK government has developed a programme for offshore renewables. However this process is not assessing the environmental impacts of offshore wind. Therefore, any further rounds of offshore wind leases will still need to complete an SEA first. 6.5.1 Offshore Wind PowerThe development of the offshore wind sector has been the most rapid of the marine energy technologies, as the technology itself has not required such a major design process as wave or tidal. Rather it has required an adaptation of the existing onshore systems.

Since 2001, 33 offshore wind farm sites have been granted a lease (subject to environmental impact assessment and consents from the appropriate authorities) by the UK’s Crown Estate Commission (the land owner of much of the seabed within UK Territorial Waters). The 33 sites were made available through two ‘tendering’ rounds;

Round 1 – 18 proposed wind farm projects each consisting of no more than 30 wind turbines with a minimum generation capacity of 2MW each. Sites were limited to a maximum 10km2,

Round 2 – 15 proposed wind farm projects within “strategic” areas, NW England (Liverpool Bay), the Greater Wash and the Greater Thames.

Of the 33 wind farm projects106;

49

ADAS Final Report

Three are operational, Two are under construction and due for completion at the end of 2005, Three more have submitted application for consent, and Up to six other Round 2 projects could enter the consent process before the end

of 2005.

The wind energy associations such as BWEA and EWEA are confident that the sector is building momentum, although the rate of construction is perhaps not as fast as initially anticipated.

Wind farm installations could be constructed around the majority of the UK coast however; there are limits to the capabilities of the technology. The systems are presently restricted to water depths less than 50m due to physical constraints. Before the Energy Act, 2004, which provides for the declaration of Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) out to the 200nm limit of the UK’s jurisdiction, sites were not permitted outside the 12nm (UK Territorial Waters) limit. However, Round 2 anticipated the development of deeper water structures and the “strategic” areas covered by the tendering round, extended beyond the Territorial Waters limit where a number of leases were awarded.

6.5.2 Wave and Tidal PowerThese technology sectors can be discussed in parallel, as they are at a similar stage in their overall development. As yet, neither has reached commercial maturity but installations are expected to achieve such status within the next 6-8 years107.

Tidal currents are one of most potentially productive forms of renewable energy, especially around the UK. They are predictable and less weather-dependent than wind, solar or wave energy systems. They are still intermittent but this can be engineered to a minimum and intermittency is typically far less than for wind. Like hydroelectric generation, tidal generation comes in a number of forms: Tidal barrages – harness energy from the rise and/or fall of the tide through a

barrage or dam, usually in a estuary, Tidal lagoons – creation of an impoundment structure in a shallow sea area that

produces energy with the ebb and flow of the tide, and Tidal stream – underwater turbines produce energy from tidal currents, no

artificial impoundment is required.

Like tidal, there is no shortage of potential solutions on offer in terms of harnessing the energy from waves but few installations have been built and those that have are primarily demonstrators. There are three main types of wave technology, although there are others: Electricity generated from the bobbing or pitching action of a floating object. The

object can be mounted to a floating raft or to a device fixed on the ocean floor. Electricity generated from wave driven oscillation of water in a column or

chamber. The oscillating water column (OWC) drives air into and out of the top of the column or chamber via an air turbine. The OWC principle can be applied to shoreline, near-shore and offshore wave energy systems.

A tapered channel has also been used to concentrate sea waves, driving them into an elevated reservoir. Water flow out of this reservoir is used to generate electricity, using standard hydropower technologies. This type of system can be shore-based or free-floating.

50

ADAS Final Report

Within the Energy White Paper the Government stated its commitment to support the industry in the development of prototype technologies in the Western Isles and Devon. In line with this they are supporting the Scottish Executive and others with the establishment of the European Marine Energy Centre in Stromness, the Orkney Islands.

The renewable energy agency for the South West, RegenSW, has recently commissioned a feasibility study for the potential installation of a wave energy test facility off the north Cornish coast108. This facility will be the next progressive step for developers of wave energy systems who have deployed and successfully tested a full-scale prototype. They will be able to deploy up to 5 energy systems to test device interaction in an array both with each other and the surrounding environment. It must be noted that this test centre is still at the concept stage.

Due to the relative infancy of wave and tidal technology development, it is very difficult to forecast the rate of the sector growth over the next 25 years. As yet only one wave energy system has been connected to the National Grid in the UK. It is providing power, although not at a commercially viable level.

The DTI commissioned an “Atlas of the UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources”109, which spatially quantifies the potential marine renewable energy resources (offshore wind, wave and tidal)iv. The Atlas has maps (both hardcopy and interactive GIS database) illustrating areas within the UK Continental Shelf that have viable marine renewable resources:

Wave Resource – Areas that can be identified from the DTI’s Marine Renewable Energy Atlas as having suitable resource are south west England (Isles of Scilly, north and south Cornwall), southwest Wales (Pembrokeshire), north and west of Scotland (Shetland, Orkney and Western Isles) and east of Scotland (North Sea).

Tidal Resource - It is perhaps easier to identify areas lacking suitable resource for the deployment of tidal generation systems. West and east Scotland, west Wales and northeast England appear to have low tidal energy. Those areas that have higher energy tidal resource generally occur near headlands (Anglesey, Pembrokeshire), estuaries (the Severn) and between land masses (the Shetland Isles, the Pentland Firth between Orkney and the Scottish mainland).

Swansea Bay has been identified as a potential location for a tidal lagoon. If the project goes ahead, it has been suggested that a total area of approximately 5km2

(predominantly in water depth of 1-5 metres at mean low water springs) will be impounded.

iv http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_atlaspages.htm

51

ADAS Final Report

7.0Future biodiversity impacts from renewable energy technologiesBased on the findings of the information review of current impacts of renewable energy on biodiversity a future scale matrix (Appendix 3) has been developed to show the effect of “scaling up” selected technologies to the levels required to meet the UK renewable energy targets to 2020.

Scenarios of future levels of output from the different renewable energy technologies have been considered. These scenarios110 were generated by Oxera as part of the Renewables Innovation Review85. They provide a range of potential contributions from each RE technology derived from models that project energy generation based on assumptions about future new build rates, atmospheric emissions, technology prices and UK employment.

They start from the baseline assumption that that 9.8% of energy will be supplied by renewable resources by 2010 and 15.14% by 2015, but that the 20% target by 2020 will not be reached110, which is the model assessment based on existing trends. Further scenarios have then been considered based on the introduction of different policy measures. These provide, for wind and biomass, the possibility of the full 20% target being derived from each technology alone. The impact assessment for deriving a low (5%), medium (10%) and high (20%) proportion of the renewable energy target from each of the technologies is presented in the future coverage matrix. For novel technologies a best-case scenario has been considered to examine the scale of installation that would possible by 2020 for PV, SWH and GSHP. All assessments assume that all appropriate mitigation options are adopted and effective. In the absence of effective mitigation the net effect would be highly dependent on site, species and scale and type of renewable energy development.7.1 Scaling up the impacts - AssumptionsIn the future scale matrix (Appendix 3), it has been necessary to make several assumptions in attempting to assess the likely scale of occupancy of UK land or sea area, as a precursor to assessing the impacts of the different proportional contributions from each energy technology. It has not been possible to provide detailed information about the scaled-up impacts arising from the different scenarios because impacts are so site and species specific and the precise locations and scale of future energy developments are not known.

It has not been possible to quantify impacts for wave, marine current or tidal power systems. These technologies are at the development stage; whilst there are several small-scale prototypes, mostly operating as single units, there is generally little information about their potential impacts on biodiversity, or the likely future size of arrays. These energy sources are some years from commercial viability and hence from holding much in the way of market share, and they are likely to provide only a very low proportion of the renewable energy output in the timescale under consideration in this report. Similarly, much of the information presented in the significance and habitat summary matrices is based on expert judgement and an understanding of some of the processes and resulting impacts common to other activities in the marine environment. The principle value of this approach is in identifying, at an early stage, the need to investigate potential impacts on biodiversity associated with these marine technologies and to provide some direction as to the most likely aspects that merit study.7.1.1 Wind Energy For onshore wind, turbines of 2MW have been assumed, whilst for offshore wind, turbines of 3MW and 4MW have been assumed. Clearly, in the 20 year time period

52

ADAS Final Report

under consideration, it is likely that turbine size will increase further, for example 5MW turbines are probably not far from commercial reality. If larger turbines than those assumed are installed, there will be a requirement for fewer turbines for a given energy output, but at increased spacing between turbines (of the order of 1 turbine per km2). These changes in turbine specification are likely to lead to differences in impact, which may be either greater or lesser than those for the assumed turbine sizes. Offshore, the present technical constraints necessitate water depths not greater than 30mv, whilst for onshore it is assumed that the observed patterns of siting will continue, i.e., principally on upland moorland and lowland agricultural land including coastal districts.

In estimating the potential area needed for wind farms onshore and offshore to meet the various percentage contributions represented in the different scenarios, the relative areas of apparently suitable habitat have been used. This approach specifically considers the likely impacts on biodiversity. There are other factors such as existing land use, other developments and offshore navigation that also influence the locations of wind farms, but it has not been possible to consider these fully in this assessment. The main purpose of the exercise is to determine whether the anticipated levels of each energy source can, in theory, be accommodated without detrimental impacts upon biodiversity.7.1.2 Biomass Energy For biomass technologies, the average land take is estimated as 670ha of biomass crop (SRC or grass energy crop) required per MW of generating capacity. This figure relates specifically to SRC111, and assumes an average annual yield of 10 odt per hectare. This figure is likely to be similar for grass energy crops, as the average yield of dry matter per year is within the same order of magnitude (figures from experimental Miscanthus plots suggest typical annual yields of 10-20 odt per hectare112). The estimate of land take used here should be viewed as an average, representing a potentially wide range of values. As accurate quantitative assessment of biodiversity effects of biomass crop development is not possible due to unknown future plantation site selection, the uncertainty in this land take figure is not of great concern here.

The theoretical availability of land for biomass crops is based on the area of agricultural land within the UK (185,000 km2, Agricultural and Horticultural Census data, available on DEFRA web-site). RCEP (2004)113 estimate that biomass crops are most likely to be planted on medium to poor quality agricultural land (Agricultural Land Classes 3 and 4 in England and Wales, and equivalents elsewhere in the UK), avoiding both very poor quality land (Land class 5 in England and Wales) and high quality land most likely reserved for higher value crops (Land classes 1 and 2 in England and Wales).

Two alternative scenarios are presented for the spatial arrangement of biomass crop plantations. One is based on the assumption that all power plant facilities will be in the form of large (30MW) power stations, and the second based on development of small (1MW) power stations, more typical of small-scale CHP developments (capacities taken from RCEP, 2004113)7.1.3 Novel technologiesCurrent predictions of development and build rates of ‘novel’ renewable technologies do not envisage a significant contribution from these technologies to

v However, Talisman are already planning to install two demonstrator turbines in the Moray Firth in 40m’s water depth by 2006 For further information see europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/.../doc/2004_06_02_bonn_mac_askill.pdf

53

ADAS Final Report

UK electricity supply by 202070. However, if these rates were increased, for example by favourable policy, financial and planning instruments, their contribution could be much greater. A best-case estimate of the maximum development level of these technologies by 2020 has been assumed as illustrated in Table 4. These values have been used to estimate the number of properties/commercial installations that would be necessary to achieve this level of energy provision (Appendix 3).

Table 4: The development of PV, SWH, GSHP and Fuel cell installations between 2003 and 2020

Technology

2003 2020

No. of installations

Installed area (m2)

Installed capacity

(GW)Output (GWh)

No. of installations

Installed area (m2)

Installed capacity

(GW)Output (GWh)

Solar PV 1,250 50,000 0.005 4 1,000,000 25,000,000 2 1,600 SWH 55,000 208,725 0.139 104 3,000,000 11,250,000 8 5,625

GSHP 1,200 0.005 11 2,000,000 10 21,900 Fuel Cells 1 0.001 2 50,000 1 2,190

7.2 Scaled impacts7.2.1 Wind Energy There has been a surge in the development of wind technology and in the numbers of applications coming forward, combining to produce proposals for larger wind farms, comprising larger turbines. However, offshore the industry is very young. It is envisaged that most of the target for energy generation from wind will be met by large arrays of large turbines. But small-scale wind also has an important contribution to make, via individual or small clusters of turbines, notably for remote settlements for which the technology could provide electricity close to where it is required rather than incurring losses in transmission. Individual roof-mounted turbines are being developed for the domestic market.

The area of most relevant land types in GB, based on the existing distribution of wind farms, totals 160,000km2 114. Generation of 5% of UK electricity supply from onshore wind would require c.0.6% (885 km2) of this total area. Generation of 20% supply from onshore wind would require c.2% (3250km2) of this total area. If the area of SSSIs, 229 km2, is taken as an indication of the size of the area providing a high biodiversity interest, it suggests that the availability of suitable sites for renewable energy generation should not be limiting in terms of minimising the impacts on biodiversity. The actual land-take for turbine bases, access roads and associated infrastructure is a small proportion of the total area occupied by a wind farm.

For offshore wind farms the maximum seabed take that has been calculated would be for 20% supply from 4MW turbines sited outside of territorial waters. This would require 14% of the available seabed at between 5 and 30 m depth. The equivalent figure for turbines of this size within territorial waters is 8%. A smaller proportion would be required for 3MW turbines (9 and 5 % respectively).

Whilst representing a very small proportion of the GB land area or area of seabed, impacts on biodiversity relate to location rather than simplistic total area. Furthermore, impacts may apply at different spatial scales. Collision risk for birds and bats is dependent largely on the rotor swept area and so extends to considerably more than the footprint occupied by the turbines. If displacement exclusion applies to the whole wind farm then the impact is over the total area

54

ADAS Final Report

occupied and not just that occupied by the turbine bases. Impacts on hydrology or sediment transport may also have far-reaching consequences beyond the footprint of the development.7.2.2 BiomassThe land area most likely to be used for biomass crops is roughly 90,000 km2

(extrapolating from Countryside Survey 2000 and DEFRA Agricultural Census data). It is assumed that no new land take is required for the use of forestry wood and straw as biomass fuel, as the areas already exist. The amount of forestry and straw biomass available is estimated at 12.5 odt per year by 2020 (50% of available wood from forestry and 32% of available straw113). At these rates of availability, the use of wood from forestry and straw alone could provide up to 2.2% of total UK electricity generation demand.

The large areas required for biomass crops make it clear that some scenarios, as illustrated in Appendix 3, are unrealistic in terms of required land take (red text), or will have, at least, very major impact on farming land use change (orange text). If biomass crops alone are developed, it is unlikely that more than 5-10% of total UK electricity demand could be met by biomass sources, this itself entailing huge scale land use change on farmland. However, using a greater proportion of existing forestry and straw biomass may increase this figure to 15-20%.

In terms of impacts on biodiversity, the poorer agricultural land classes are also those likely to retain most biodiversity value on agricultural land (e.g. wet grasslands, or nutrient poor calcareous grassland). Wholesale conversion of these habitats to biomass crops may have overall negative effects on biodiversity, compared to the conversion of intensively managed more productive farmland with limited biodiversity value. If the development of biomass crops is likely to result in land use change on farmland that has greatest current biodiversity value, then it is likely to be advantageous to maximise the use of existing biomass fuel sources (forestry co-products, timber and straw) in situations where their use has relatively little effect on biodiversity. Knowledge of the effect on biodiversity of wood removal from forestry systems is, however, currently poor and further research is required.7.2.2.1 Influence of plantation scaleCurrent economic drivers may encourage the development of woody and grass biomass crops on farmland to supply large power stations. The economics of scale and high transportation costs of harvested biomass material are likely to lead to the development of biomass crops in concentrated areas of limited radius around power station facilities. Indeed, the current UK Energy Crops (grant funding) Scheme specifies that crops should be grown as close as possible to the end user, usually within 25 miles.

There is considerable evidence that loss of farmland habitat heterogeneity, on a range of scales from the within-crop vegetation structure to the landscape scale, through the economically and technologically driven processes of agricultural ‘intensification’, has been detrimental to biodiversity115,116. The biodiversity benefits of increased landscape and habitat heterogeneity are typically at odds with economic benefits of landscape and habitat simplification, through the economies of scale. The same principles will apply to biomass crops. Large monoculture areas are likely to provide poorer biodiversity resource than smaller blocks within a mosaic of other farming types but greater economies of scale for production purposes. Large-scale SRC plantations, established to supply the ARBRE power station, held lower densities of breeding birds than smaller (pre-commercial) plantations117. In addition, the edges and field boundaries of large-scale SRC plantations hold higher

55

ADAS Final Report

densities of butterflies, other invertebrates and birds in the breeding season than plantation centres117.

Where large plantations are developed, blocks can be broken up by the inclusion of margins and rides in the plantation design and the use of several crop varieties with each plantation. British Biogen111 provides guidance on maintaining vegetation heterogeneity within SRC plantations. Further crop variation could be introduced by the combination of different biomass crop types (e.g. SRC and Miscanthus) within one land holding.

An alternative (or complementary approach) to large biomass-powered generating stations is the development of a larger number of smaller scale CHP installations, capable of using a variety of fuel types from the local landscape. Small scale CHP installations have the benefits of (i) reduced fuel transport costs (as lower fuel requirements per development mean that fuel can be sourced closer to the end user), (ii) maximised energy efficiency from the use of heat generated during the combustion process (and therefore greater economic viability); good quality CHP has the benefit of much greater efficiency (70% or more) than electricity generators using energy crops (30-35%)66, and (iii) biodiversity benefits from the development of smaller scale biomass crop plantations within the farmland landscape113. Another potential benefit of CHP plants is the greater opportunity to use low volumes of dispersed fuel stocks, such as woody material from local council land management work (termed ‘municipal arisings’).

7.2.3 Novel TechnologiesThe only novel technologies directly capable of producing electricity are PV and fuel cells. The best estimate of the maximum capacity by 2020 is around 2GW for PV and 1GW for fuel cells, around 10% of the total renewable energy contribution required by 2020. This is unlikely to affect the level of development required from wind and biomass technologies. However, if heat produced by GSHP and SWH can significantly reduce the demand for electricity-generated heat, these technologies may also reduce the total generating capacity required from other renewables to meet the 2020 target. As about 50% of all primary energy consumption in the UK is used to generate heat for buildings and water (the figures breakdown to 82% for domestic use and 64% in commercial use)118, the potential contributions of GSHP and SWH are large, and they could possibly reduce the risks of biodiversity conflicts associated with increased wind and biomass power developments.

56

ADAS Final Report

8.0Impact mitigation and policy interactionsIn light of the analysis of biodiversity impacts from renewable energy sources, this discussion considers how such impacts may be reduced or exacerbated by other factors.

The policy on increasing renewable energy sources is largely driven by the concerns about climate change. Hence there is a need also to examine briefly how climate change may itself impact upon biodiversity. This is not an attempt to “trade off” one cause of impacts against the other, since some level of climate change is inevitable even if all greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilised at current levels119. Rather it is important to consider climate change as another driver that may affect the siting and impact of renewable energy sources upon biodiversity.

Given the uncertainty about the exact locations of future renewable energy applications, the availability of policy, planning and legislative measures to protect vulnerable habitats and species is crucial to reducing the impacts of both conventional and renewable energy technologies on biodiversity. The discussion also considers the issue of future energy demand and how energy efficiency measures may be used both to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and allow renewable developments to reach their targets. 8.1 Climate change impacts on biodiversityThere are two strands to the research in the UK of the effects of climate change on biodiversity; one focusing on the effects on species distributions and using this as surrogate for assessing effects on habitats, and the second monitoring trends in species distribution and phenology. Quantitative modelling assessments include projections of changes in the “climate space” of terrestrial plants and animals120,121. The overall impacts on species distributions are mixed with predicted reductions in the ranges of some species (e.g. wood cranesbill, beech) but increases in others (Spanish catchfly, sea purslane) (Figure 6). Some species such as the Nuthatch show an extension in their northern limits by the 2020s but then a contraction in their southern limits by the 2050s. Even for perceived vulnerable habitats such as montane122, the dominant species appear to maintain some climate space, but rarities such as the mountain ringlet butterfly may lose suitable climate areas under the 2050s High scenario121.

57

ADAS Final Report

Figure 6: The distribution of climate space for Spanish Catchfly and Nuthatch under the UKCIP98 scenarios121

The main caveat on species future distributions is the availability of suitable habitat to allow dispersal as climate changes. Holman and Loveland (2001)120 have highlighted a loss of coastal grazing marsh in response to coastal flooding, whereas the SPECIES modelling within the same project suggested that individual species within the habitat might actually benefit from the changes to the climatic conditions through a potential increase in their suitable climate space.

At a global scale there is concern that climate change may result in the extinction of a large number of species123. However, little work has yet been done to relate changes in species distribution to habitat quality. Harrison et al, (2001)121 and MONARCH 2 have included statistical regression based assessments of wading bird densities in estuaries but these have suggested that climate change will not greatly affect population densities on the estuaries studied. Biodiversity studies do not seem to address the impact of climate change on populations or the links between observed phenological changes and species/habitat health.

Observations of species’ phenology suggest that some responses to climate change are already being observed (e.g. Crick and Sparks, 1999124). There is also some indication of a shift in distribution of species ranges, particularly of mobile species such as butterflies (e.g. Parmesan, 1999125) and birds (e.g. Rehfisch and Austin, 1999126). However, species are expected to respond “individualistically” to climate change127 so predicting the net response upon habitats and communities is problematic. However, it is likely that conservation directives, legislation and policy will need to be adjusted to take account of climate change impacts128. There is also a need to facilitate the adjustment of species and habitats to climate change through ensuring that existing protected habitats are robust and by attempting to reduce the fragmentation of habitats. Whilst there are strong safeguards in place to restrict damage to protected species and habitats, climate change means that there is also a need to examine the requirement for new protected areas in the future.

58

ADAS Final Report

The UK marine environment has been less well studied in relation to climate change impacts but this omission is currently being addressed by the MarClim (Marine biodiversity and climate change) project, which is deriving both baseline monitoring data and models of species populations. The project aims to focus on a robust set of temperature sensitive, readily observed intertidal climate indicator species. Already the analysis has indicated a strong spatial and temporal trend in population distribution, density and structure of species such as barnacles. Extensions of species’ ranges have been observed, with many extending their range beyond historical limits129. General increases in the abundance of a variety of marine biota (including invasive species) have also been recorded130. Such changes have been related to warmer sea temperatures and allowed several indicator species (e.g. Osilinus lineatus or toothed topshell) to be proposed.

8.2 Policy, Planning & Legislative Mechanisms Many, but not all, of the potential impacts of renewable energy sources on biodiversity can be mitigated by avoiding sensitive sites. The impacts of renewable energy technologies on UK biodiversity, in common with other land use and development, may be constrained by a wide range of policy, planning and legal provisions. Some of these mechanisms, such as Environmental Impact Assessment requirements131, were in force when conventional power supply projects were initiated, while others have emerged recently or are currently emerging, such as the Directive on Liability for Environmental Damage132.

However, the existence of policy, planning and legislative measures intended to mitigate biodiversity damage does not in itself ensure biodiversity protection. Such mechanisms do not operate in isolation and their effectiveness in mitigating biodiversity impacts depends upon the nature of the proposals and the level of understanding of the systems they impact and the prevailing political, social and economic context (including public acceptance) in which potentially damaging activity takes place, which in turn influences the interpretation of policy and legal provisions by decision-makers133. Crucially, the effectiveness of policy and regulatory mitigation also depends on political commitment and effective surveillance and enforcement. Surveillance and enforcement present particular problems in the marine environment partly because of the scale of the environment combined with the limited resources made available for policing. Ineffective application and enforcement of domestic and EU environmental legislation, and in particular biodiversity protection measures, has long been recognised as a problem in the UK134 and within the EU more widely135.

Policy and law constantly evolve in response to changing priorities and knowledge. Such policy and legislative changes will be necessary to respond to future knowledge and experience of the biodiversity impacts of renewable energy, many of which are currently unknown or uncertain. In relation to the protection of the marine environment, in particular, there is recognition of the need to address issues raised by the complexity and multiplicity of regulations and agencies involved, and to reinforce the efficacy of policy and regulation to control impacts from pressures on marine biodiversity136,137,138.

The impacts on biodiversity of renewable energy systems cannot be considered in isolation from the cumulative effect that may result when combined with other land and marine use and development activities. Hence the impacts of renewable energy cannot be minimised solely through ‘biodiversity’ policy and legal measures; a wide range of other sectoral and cross-sectoral policy and legal provisions e.g.

59

ADAS Final Report

land use planning, water policy, agriculture policy, etc, must be applied to support the control of biodiversity impacts. In the marine environment, the individual and combined impacts of many activities, such as the fishing industry, remain to a large extent uncontrolled in practical terms. However, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are designed to assess such combined effects and, given sufficient political commitment, they should be of significance in attempting to limit the totality of biodiversity impacts, particularly of renewable technologies.

8.2.1 International Commitments Many policy and legal mechanisms with the potential to control impacts originate from the UK’s international commitments, including those resulting from membership of the EU. However, devolution within the UK of certain policy and law making fields to the country level can result in different implementation mechanisms (because of limits of space will not be described in detail here). In principle, substantive differences in the effect of such provisions should not be significant, as the UK has committed itself to ensure that its obligations under international treaties and EU law are met. However, the inadequate transposition (and enforcement) of international and EU law by the UK and others remains a recognised weakness. Further detailed analysis of the operation of the UK and country-level mechanisms would be needed to assess their effectiveness in the control of future renewable energy impacts.

The key international treaties are briefly described in Appendix 4 and include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR), the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

These treaty provisions have limited legal reinforcement in international law and depend largely on the unwillingness of the signatories to be subject to the opprobrium of the international community for failure to meet the obligations they have undertaken. In contrast, the commitments made under EU law are enforceable through the EU’s compliance procedures, including hearings in the European Court of Justice and associated sanctions for non-compliance. However, the very long timescales involved in implementing such proceedings and the difficulties of securing subsequent compliance are recognised as weakening the effectiveness of EU legislation.

8.2.2 EU Policy & LawThe EU’s commitment to halting the continuing decline of biodiversity by 2010 is reflected in both UK conservation and non-conservation policy areas and the mechanisms outlined in Appendix 5 are intended to assist its achievement. They include the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Water Framework Directive.

The effectiveness of such mechanisms in mitigating biodiversity damage varies between individual sites and is affected by the interpretation put on the legal provisions and previous case law decisions. The effectiveness of legal provisions is also strongly influenced by the level of political commitment applied to their implementation.

60

ADAS Final Report

8.2.3 Emerging EU Policy & Regulation 8.2.3.1 Common Agricultural PolicyThe current latest round of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms are likely to facilitate the cultivation of energy crops as the decoupled subsidy allows farmers more freedom to cultivate crops as dictated by the market, rather than those which command the highest subsidy. In addition the reform includes a new subsidy of €45 per hectare for energy crops (EC No1782/2003). However, the cross compliance requirements associated with the new Single Payment should prevent the cultivation of semi-natural habitats or large areas of permanent pasture. The requirement to set aside land remains under the new subsidy regime and will remain the most attractive area for cultivation of energy biomass crops. Set-aside provides benefits to wildlife, particularly in the most intensive arable areas139. An increase in the area of set-aside cultivated for non-food crops would have a negative impact on biodiversity particularly species such as ground nesting birds. Agri-environment schemes could provide a mechanism to off set negative impacts but this is likely to require the design and incorporation of new measures into existing schemes where funding is already stretched. At present, agri-environment schemes are also entirely voluntary.

8.2.3.2 Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control (IPPC)140 (1996)The Directive applies to a range of industrial installations and must be fully implemented by 2007, at which time it will fully replace the current systems of Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) and separate local air pollution control (LAPC). It will be implemented by Regulations141 in England and Wales and separate Regulations in Scotland142 and Northern Ireland143. Emissions to air, water and land, in addition to other effects, will all be considered when applications for permits to operate a relevant process are made and conditions may be imposed on permitted activities based on ‘best available techniques’ (BAT).

8.2.3.3 Environmental Liability Directive144 2004 The Directive is to be transposed into UK law by 2006 and is intended to prevent and remedy environmental damage. It introduces liability for damage to biodiversity within the Natura 2000 network and other protected sites and species that can be determined by the UK and requires restoration of damage. European Protected Species will be covered by this directive and member states may also include their nationally protected species should they choose to do so. 8.2.3.4 Soil Resource Protection Awareness is growing of the need to protect soil ecosystem services, including their role in primary production, water resource management, biodiversity conservation, and in ameliorating climate change through CO2 absorption. A thematic Strategy for Soils is being developed under the EU’s 6 th Environmental Action Plan and a draft Directive on soil monitoring is anticipated; Defra has produced a Soil Action Plan for England 2003 and the Environment Agency produced “State of Soils in England & Wales”. Further development in this field is underway, including Defra’s work linked to CAP reform initiatives. On agricultural land, cross compliance requirements include a number of measures designed to avoid inappropriate cultivation, or management, of vulnerable soils. 8.2.4 UK Context: Environment & Planning Policy & Legislation The land use planning system plays the central role in determining whether/where/how much and what type/form of renewables are allowed in terrestrial areas, as a result of both its land use planning and its development

61

ADAS Final Report

control functions. However, management arrangements are generally divided for coastal areas above and below the mean low water mark (MLWM).

Above MLWM local authorities have powers to control development145 and land use plans apply. Below MLWM statutory controls are mainly sector-based, e.g. fisheries, oil and gas and aggregate extraction. In common with marine areas, coastal areas have been recognised as lacking coordinated policy and regulation146, and such weaknesses will need to be addressed in order to mitigate potential impacts of renewable energy on biodiversity147,148. A group of Marine Habitat Regulations is currently being developed to address some of these shortcomings149

and calls have been made for, inter alia, the creation of a planning system to control impacts on the marine environment and for a Marine Act to clarify the legislation99.

On land, renewable energy projects that come within the definition of ‘development’ are subject to the anticipatory and discretionary development control system administered by planning authorities. Development is widely defined and may include both physical development and changes of land use. Planning permission is required150 on the basis of preventing environmental harm and balancing the rights of individuals against competing economic, social, political and environmental factors.

A wide range of primary and secondary legislation and ‘soft law’ exists to support biodiversity protection both within and outside the planning system. Key primary legislation includes the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 and Town & Country Planning Acts. Key secondary legislation includes the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and the family of Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, including EIA for Use of Uncultivated Land Regulations 2002. ‘Soft law’ includes Codes of Practice e.g. Good Practice Guide on Planning and Renewable Energy, PPG9 Nature Conservation and Scottish and Welsh equivalents and Codes of Good Practice on Water, Soil & Air etc.

A hierarchy of statutory and non-statutory protection exists for species and habitats in the UKvi and it would be reasonable to expect that such mechanisms should assist in mitigating the impacts of renewable energy projects. However, policies and law are only as effective as their enforcement and political, economic and social priorities also influence the effectiveness of policy and legal protection. Applications have been made for renewable energy projects in protected and sensitive areasvii. The recent Planning Policy Statement 22 on Renewable Energyviii, for example, directs that decisions regarding the acceptability of renewable energy projects should be based on criteria designed to remove or minimise impacts, but that applications should not be rejected exclusively on the basis of an area’s designated status.

vi SPA; SAC; pSPA; cSAC; Ramsar; SSSI; National Nature Reserve; National Park; Local Nature Reserve; Marine Nature Reserve; Areas of Special Protection (AoSP) applied from high water mark to 3nm from baseline of the territorial sea; non-statutory local authority wildlife sites.

vii E.g. Eight 2 MW wind turbines have been permitted on appeal within the Forest of Bowland AONB; they replace ten smaller turbines Planning, 5 Nov 2004; application made for 26 turbines near Brookland on Romney Marsh, Kent which are considered may harm protected wildlife areas and species, Planning Resource 15 October 2004.viii www.PlanningResource.co.uk

62

ADAS Final Report

It may be expected that pressures for renewable energy development may in future be greatest in areas recognised as being subject to the lowest levels of legal protection and scrutiny, since they provide the prospect of faster processing of applications and fewer objections. Although for marine renewables much marine policy as well as consenting processes are already in place, the marine environment is particularly vulnerable to such pressures as a result of the currently complex but not comprehensive, system of marine policy and designated/protected marine sites, the lack of ready public scrutiny and difficulties in effective surveillance and enforcement at sea, compounded by the lack of understanding of the nature and extent of impacts on the marine environment. Greater pressures may also be expected in terrestrial areas without statutory protection. Thorough SEA and EIA of renewable technology proposals, in combination with other land use and development controls, will be needed to ensure that the ecological capital of such unprotected areas, upon which ultimately protected sites and species also depend, is not fatally eroded.

The UK planning system has been undergoing reformix. Differences exist at country level but common themes, which may influence the assessment and mitigation of the impacts of renewable energy proposals, have been adopted including the introduction of: A sustainable development obligation on planning bodiesx, A regional tier of planning and replacement of County Structure Plans, A spatial planning approach to land use with national spatial plans in Scotlandxi,

Walesxii and Regional Spatial Strategies in England and Northern Irelandxiii, and SEA and Sustainability Appraisal requirements for land use plans and

programmes.

SEA, Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and EIA are the mechanisms that should be used to assess and minimise potential impacts of renewable energy plans, programmes and projects. Sustainability Appraisal requires assessment of social and economic, as well as the environmental, effects of plans and programmes.

The development of regional strategies for renewable energy development has been identified as being necessary to guide renewable energy development away from sensitive locations and to take account of the potential cumulative impacts through SEA151. Such an approach is being adopted in Wales where seven strategic areas have been identified as suitable for wind farm development, taking wildlife and other constraints into account152. An SEA has been proposed to support a survey of Scotland’s coastline to identify potential renewable energy locations153

and a Strategic Energy Framework has been developed for Northern Ireland154.

ix Including Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; a Planning Bill for Scotland is anticipated in 2005x E.g. Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 s.39 introduces statutory obligation to contribute to achieving sustainable development, applies to England & Walesxi National Spatial Plan for Scotland http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/planning/npf04-00.asp xii Welsh Assembly (2004) People, Places, Futures - The Wales Spatial Plan, http://www.wales.gov.uk/themesspatialplan/content/spatial-plan-e.htmxiiiDepartment for Regional Development (2000) Shaping our future. http://www.drdni.gov.uk/DRDwww_Strategies/current.asp?id=str16

63

ADAS Final Report

Planning policy guidance issued by central governmentxiv plays an important role in directing planning authorities decisions and current guidancexv clearly directs LPAs to seek to support renewable energy projects. Such developments are, however, intended to be consistent with other protective policies and law such as policies on coastal planningxvi.

Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) set out the Government's national policies for different aspects of land use planning in England and Scottish National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPGs) and Welsh Technical Advice Notes (TANs) perform equivalent functions in Scotland and Wales. For example, PPS22 sets out policies in relation to renewable energy. The policies set out in the statement need to be taken into account by regional planning bodies in the preparation of regional spatial strategies and by local planning authorities in the preparation of local development documents. PPS22 sets out a number of key principles to guide the planning system in respect of renewable energy developments. There are eight key principles in total, these include:

Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.

Regional spatial strategies and local development documents should contain policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources. Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should recognise the full range of renewable energy sources, their differing characteristics, locational requirements and the potential for exploiting them subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.

The public response to renewable energy projects is a major factor in determining the achievement of renewable energy objectives. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) and others have consequently highlighted the need for planning process to be open, transparent, flexible and inclusive if the potential of renewable energy is to be realised155. 8.2.5 Summary of formal mitigation measuresA wide range of policy, planning and legal tools exist or are being developed which may be used to assist mitigating potential biodiversity damage from renewable energy systems, of which EIA and SEA are key mechanisms. However, the effectiveness of such tools will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, as their effectiveness will depend on how they are applied and interpreted in individual situations. This, in turn, will depend on a complex mix of the following interacting factors: The level of political commitment and public support applied to the biodiversity

issues affected, The economic and social priorities prevalent in the area affected, The extent of understanding of the potential impacts that may arise from

renewable energy systems, including their cumulative impact when combined with similar activities and with completely different activities that may affect the biodiversity resources concerned, and

xiv English Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) being replaced by Planning Policy Statements (PPS), Welsh Technical Advice Notes (TANs), Scottish National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)xv Including England Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewable Energyxvi E.g. in England Planning Policy Guidance 20 Coastal Planning; in Wales Technical Advise Note 14 Coastal Planning

64

ADAS Final Report

The level of resources committed to monitoring, surveillance and enforcement.

Policy and legislation does not in general aim to prevent development or activities in sensitive areas per se and instead generally aims to protect such areas from damage, with variable success. Current renewable energy policy indicates that designation as a sensitive area, while a major consideration, in itself will not be sufficient grounds for automatic rejection of renewable energy schemes and that decisions in such areas will need to be based on assessment of the anticipated extent of potential impacts. Such assessments are inevitably limited in effectively predicting impacts as a result of the limits of knowledge and understanding of the ecosystems concerned and of impact interactions.

8.3 Energy efficiency and reducing energy demandUK demand for primary energy is projected to grow by around 0.7-0.8%/yr to 2010156. The targets set for the development of renewable energy sources take account of such a growth in demand. However, an alternative and/or complementary approach to achieving this target would be through reducing energy demand. The interaction of government policies to increase the supply from renewable energy sources with those aimed at energy efficiency has largely not been explored.

Energy demand can potentially be lessened through reducing usage via energy efficiency measures. Improving energy efficiency is now a key issue within several Government policies (climate change, energy and sustainable development) and there is a wide range of organisations targeting this issue, from community schemes through to independent advice organisations.

8.3.1 Central GovernmentThe recently published five-year plan, ‘Delivering the Essentials of Life’, aims to encourage long-term policy-making, with one of the key aims to promote strategies which boost energy efficiency157). The plan confirms the government’s commitment to energy efficiency and sets out a number of new initiatives and additional funding. These include continuing the Community Energy Programme; undertaking a high level Energy Efficiency Innovation Review; developing a new approach to climate change communications; improving social housing; and advising and supporting individuals, businesses and the public sector through the Energy Savings Trust and the Carbon Trust. Table 5 details additional measures that underpin the government’s sustainable energy remit.

Table 5: Government plans and initiatives focussed on energy efficiency158.

Plan/Initiative DescriptionEnergy Efficiency: The Government’s Plan for Action.

A delivery plan for energy efficiency goals to 2010 and beyond.

Home Energy Efficiency Scheme

Now marketed as Warm Front, this is the Government’s main grant-funded programme for tackling fuel poverty. The scheme was launched in June 2000 and provides packages of insulation and heating measures depending upon the needs of the householder and the construction of the property.

Fuel Poverty Strategy Published in November 2001, the Strategy sets out the framework for delivery of the Government's overall goal of seeking an end to the problem of fuel poverty, with the first target being to reach those most vulnerable to cold-related

65

ADAS Final Report

Plan/Initiative Descriptionill health by 2010.

Sustainable Buildings Initiative Following the Better Buildings Summit, 2003, a Sustainable Buildings Task Group was established, consisting of key stakeholders and industry experts. The task group recommends specific improvements in the quality and environmental performance of buildings. These were made through the Better Buildings-Better Lives report, with the task group reconvening in 2005 to take stock of progress.

Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002-05

Electricity and gas suppliers are required to achieve targets for the promotion or improvements in domestic energy efficiency.

Climate Change Levy and Energy Efficiency Agreements

The Levy came into force on 1st April 2001 and applies to energy used in the non-domestic sector. The aim of the levy is to encourage industry, commerce and the public sector to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Combined Heat and Power Strategy to 2010

As outlined in the Energy White Paper, CHP is an important element in the Government’s energy policy. The Government’s belief that CHP has an important role to play in meeting the White Paper aims is evident in its new target to achieve at least 10,000 Mw of installed Good Quality CHP capacity by 2010.

Community Energy Programme 2002 saw the initiation of this £50 million programme, providing funding for schemes that will provide carbon savings, alleviate fuel poverty and reduce fuel costs. This funding was extended in early 2004 by at least another £6 million.

DTI Sustainable Energy Policy Network

A network of policy units across government departments, devolved administrations, regulators and key delivery organisations that are jointly responsible for delivering the White Paper.

8.3.2 Regional and Local GovernmentMany of the energy efficiency schemes/strategies outlined above are implemented at a regional and/or local government level. Regional and local authorities have the ability to implement energy efficiency initiatives through a range of channels from strategic planning, spatial planning, planning application approval (based on energy efficiency criteria), community plans, involvement of local businesses, and within the local authority buildings, housing stock and vehicle fleets themselves. At a strategic level, there are a number of indicators, tools and statutory requirements that can direct a Local Authority’s path to achieving energy efficiency targets.

8.3.2.1 Performance indicatorsA key method of appraisal for local authorities is the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) process. This is a particularly important scoring process, whose assessments provide the basis for better local decision making, inform relations between central and local government, and give local people a clear understanding of how well their council is serving them159.

The CPA process is ongoing, with the last round in 2005 having undergone significant reform. One key change to the CPA criteria is the inclusion of ‘key lines of enquiry’, one of which is Sustainable Communities. Under Sustainable Communities, green transport plans and energy efficiency targets may be criteria for appraisal for which local authorities will have to be able to provide measurable figures.

66

ADAS Final Report

A further method of identifying high-achievers is through the Beacon Council Scheme. The Beacon Council Scheme was set up to disseminate best practice in service delivery across local government. Beacon status is granted to those authorities that can demonstrate a clear vision, excellent services and a willingness to innovate within a specific theme160. There are now plans within the government’s recently published energy efficiency action plan161 to include energy efficiency as a theme within the next round of the Beacon Council Scheme, therefore placing energy efficiency as a priority Local Authority performance measure.

8.3.2.2 Statutory RequirementsStatutory requirements, such as the Home Energy Conservation Act (1995), require all local authorities to identify and implement practicable and cost-effective measures likely to result in a significant improvement in the energy efficiency of all residential accommodation in their area162. Local Authorities also have power over the implementation of the CCL and promotion of mitigation measures such as enhanced capital allowances (ECAs). ECAs enable local businesses to claim 100% first-year capital allowances on their spending on qualifying plant and machinery if they meet targets for energy conservation, emissions reduction and water conservation.

8.3.2.3 Other tools/schemesAt a national level, organisations such as the Energy Savings Trust (EST) and Carbon Trust are actively developing support programmes specifically for Local Authorities. The EST Local Authority Support Programme (LASP) began in 2000 with the aim of developing capacity, understanding and corporate commitment within Local Authorities with respect to energy efficiency and sustainable energy usage. EST assists local authorities in delivering their HECA and other energy responsibilities through initiatives such as LASP.

Similarly, the Carbon Trust is developing the Local Authority Carbon Management Programme, whereby the Carbon Trust provides councils with technical and change management support and guidance to help them realise carbon emissions savings. The primary focus of the work is to reduce emissions under the control of the local authority such as buildings, vehicle fleets, street-lighting and landfill sites. Practical support is also provided, for example, identifying carbon saving opportunities or developing an emissions reduction implementation plan163.

At a European level, there are also useful tools for Local Authorities. The European Climate Menu (ECM)xvii, for example, is a climate policy tool for Local Authorities, which acknowledges the importance and responsibility of local and regional authorities in achieving climate targets. With the help of ECM, local authorities can contribute considerably to achieving the EU Kyoto climate targets for CO2 emission reductions. Another example is the web-based ManagEnergyxviii, which promotes co-operation between local and regional energy actors in Europe through workshops and online events on energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable transport.8.3.2.4 PlanningEnergy efficiency can also be implemented through the planning system and building regulations. At a national level, planning policy has the ability to direct the

xvii www.climatemenu.orgxviii www.managenergy.net

67

ADAS Final Report

targets of Regional and Local Government. Planning Policy Statements (PPS) set out the Government's national policies for different aspects of land use planning in England

The most recent Planning Policy Statement, PPS22 provides detailed planning guidance on renewable energy schemes, stressing the need for planning authorities to be more pro-active and positive about green energy projects and policies. The policies set out in this statement will need to be taken into account by regional planning bodies in the preparation of regional spatial strategies, and by local planning authorities in the preparation of local development documents164.

At a regional level, a number of strategies and plans may hold importance for energy efficiency. Regional Planning Guidance has the primary purpose of providing a regional framework for the preparation of local authority development plans. The other purpose of this guidance is to provide the spatial framework for other strategies and programmes. One of the themes for regional planning guidance is energy efficiency and renewable energy, whereby Regional government can set targets for emissions reduction and renewable electricity generation. For example, the recently revised Regional Planning Guidance in the South East (RPG9) for energy efficiency and renewable energy sets targets for regional and local planning authorities and developers to reduce CO2 emissions and provide 16% of the region’s electricity from renewables by 2026165.

At a local government level, a number of planning actions, from strategic through to building regulations and planning applications, have the ability to implement energy efficiency measures and targets. Strategic planning takes place through local strategic partnerships (LSPs) and Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), which interpret and support the aims of their regional spatial strategies.

At a ground level, the Energy Performance of Buildings has undergone a lengthy review process and the government have now published proposals for changes to Part L of the Building regulations, which deal with energy efficiency. There is now a significant general change from previous regulations through the recognition of the need to improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings through changes such as requiring replacement glazing and boilers to meet the same requirements as for new buildings. For new dwellings, changes include higher standards of insulation, the inclusion of a ‘carbon index’ method to demonstrate compliance, certification of heating and hot water systems to show that they have been correctly installed and commissioned.

The aim of the proposals is to reduce carbon dioxide emission from buildings by up to 25%, and the planning applications process, dealt with by local authorities, will undoubtedly need to take into account whether or not the target will be met.

8.3.2.5 Other bodiesA number of organisations external to the government now exist, with the key aim of facilitating the delivery of energy efficiency targets at all levels. For example, the Energy Savings Trust was set up by the Government in 1992 following the Rio Summit. It is funded by UK Government and the private sector. The organisation provides advice for individual homeowners, housing stock, housing trade, individual car owners, fleet companies and transport trade, as well as local authorities. There are a number of tools available for the implementation of energy efficiency measure,

68

ADAS Final Report

three examples being the Best Practice in Housing publication, guidance for small wind energy installations, and guidance for community heating.

The Carbon Trust is also an independent company funded by Government. Its role is to help the UK move to a low carbon economy by helping business and the public sector reduce carbon emissions now and capture the commercial opportunities of low carbon technologies. The Carbon Trust is focused on reducing carbon emissions in the short and medium term through energy efficiency and carbon management, and in the medium and long-term through investment in low carbon technologies166.

On a smaller scale, there are local energy efficiency advice centres, web-based energy efficiency advicexix and the National Energy Foundation (NEF) hosts the Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme, the UK’s only independent award recognising reductions in energy use. All of these are supported via the Association xix www.adviceguide.org.uk1 DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO2 DTI (2004), Renewables Innovation Review. HMSO3 OFGEM, (2002) Information Note 2: Energy From Waste Generating Stations4 Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC.5 SEA Directive is 2001/42/EC6 Scottish and Southern Energy Plc, (2003) Hadyard Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement The Non Technical Summary. www.scottish-southern.com7 Environmental Sustainable Systems, (2004) Cumulative effects of wind turbines http://ds.dial.pipex.com/paul.ess/main.html9 David Wilcock / Ceiriog Valley Action Group (2002) The Threat to Birds http://www.cvag.campaign.btinternet.co.uk10 Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) SNH Policy Statement 02/02: Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Respect of the Natural Heritage http://www.snh.org.uk11 Arnold, G.W., (1983). The influence of ditch and hedgerow structure, length of hedgerow and area of woodland and garden on bird numbers on farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology. 20, 731-750.12 Sage, R.B. and Robertson, P.A., 1996. Factors affecting songbird communities using new short rotation coppice habitats in spring. Bird Study, 43, 201-213.13 English Nature (2003) Memorandum submitted by English Nature to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvfru/929/929we20.htm14 Semere & Slater, (2004) The effects of energy grass plantations on biodiversity - 2nd annual inSterim report Cardiff University15 Murray & Best (2003) Short-term bird response to harvesting switchgrass for biomass in Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 67 (3): p611-62116 Sage, R.B., (2000). The Ecology of Short-Rotation Coppice Crops: Wildlife and Pest Management. PhD Thesis, University of Hertfordshire. pp134.17 Coates and Say (1999) Ecological assessment of Short Rotation Coppice, ETSU, B/W5/00216/REP/118 Department of Natural Resources, (2004) Michigan. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_27415-80298--,00.html19 Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2001) Impact on the Environment of Solar and Wind Energy Installations. 10th January, 200120 Alsema, E. and Nieuwlaar, E. (1997) Environmental Aspects of Solar Cell Technology. Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Panels. Netherlands Agency for Energy and Environment.21 Nickel Institute (2004) Human Health and the Environment. http://www.nickelinstitute.org/index.cfm/ci_id/10/la_id/1.htm Accessed 14th June 200422 DTI, 2002. Future Offshore - A Strategic Framework for the Offshore Wind Industry23Seascape energy, (2002) www.seascape-energy.co.uk/env_statement.html accessed July 2004

69

ADAS Final Report

of UK Energy Agencies (AUKEA), which was established to promote and support the activities of independent energy agencies within the United Kingdom in their work of developing the more sustainable production and use of energy167.8.3.3 Reducing emissions v reducing demandIt is evident that energy efficiency is now well established within government policies and through external organisations, in an attempt to reduce CO2. In theory, the success of these energy efficiency measures should also equate to a reduction in energy demand. A review of these activities fails to elicit any mention of energy efficiency being used to mitigate rising demand, and their effects on demand are not quantified. It is important to recognise that reduced energy demand can reduce carbon emissions without any negative affects on biodiversity. Hence the role of increased energy efficiency and demand reduction should be considered fully and

24 Ball, I (2002) Turning the Tide: Power from the sea and protection for nature, A report by Marine and Coastal Environment Group (MACE), Cardiff University to WWF-UK and the Wildlife Trusts http://www.tidalelectric.com/WWFturningthetide.pdf25 University of Liverpool and Econnect Ltd (2003) A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by offshore windfarm cables, COWRIE-EMF-01-200226 ABPmer, (2005) Potential nature conservation and landscape impacts of marine renewable energy developments in Welsh territorial waters. CCW policy research report no 04/8.27 The Wildlife Trusts (2004), Marine Renewable Energy Briefing Paper 28 Metoc ltd (2000) An Assessment of the environmental effects of offshore wind farms.29 Wave Dragon (2004) http://www.wavedragon.net/library/technical_reports/the_wave_dragon_reality.pdf Accessed November 23rd 200430 Robert Gordon University, (2002) A Scoping Study for an environmental impact field experiment in tidal current energy31 Gordon, DC, (1994) Intertidal Ecology and potential power impacts, Bay of Fundy, Canada. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 51 17-2332 Foresight Marine Panel (2003)The potential for ‘Wet’ renewables to aid coastal protection. A report on the Bridgewater Bay situation. 34 DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO35 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (2004). Www.nrc.gov/reading-rm-doc-collections/reg-guides/environmental-siting/active/04-007/04-007r2b.htm. Accessed 17/07/04.36 WCI, (2001) Sustainable Entrepreneurship. The way forward for the coal industry. Prepared for the UNEP Programme. WCI, London: 53pp37 MMSD, (2002) Breaking New Ground. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development. The Report of the MMSD Project. Earthscan 450pp38 Epstein, P.R., and Selber, J., (eds.) (2002). Oil. A life cycle analysis of its health and environmental impacts. CHGE, Harvard, Boston: pp7339 OSIR, (1999). Oil Spill Intelligence Report. Arlington, MA40 Epstein, P.R., and Selber, J., (eds.) (2002). Oil. A life cycle analysis of its health and environmental impacts. CHGE, Harvard, Boston: pp7341 Boesch, D.F., and Rabalais, N.N., (1987). Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Science, New York.42 Bamber, R.N., and Seaby, M.H. (2004). The effects of power station entrainment passage on three species of marine planktonic crustacean, Acartia tonsa, Crangon crangon and Homarus gammarus. Marine Environmental Research, 57, 281-294.43 Henderson P.A. and Seaby R.M., (2000), Technical Evaluation of US Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Cooling Water Intake Regulations for New Facilities, Pisces Conservation Ltd44 Henderson P.A., (2004), Power Station Effects. http://www.powerstationeffects.co.uk. Accessed 17/07/04.45 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit46 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit47 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit48 Henderson P.A. and Seaby R.M., (2000), ,op cit

70

ADAS Final Report

opportunities for increased energy efficiency should be pursued as thoroughly as opportunities for renewable energy generation.

49 Kelso, J.R.M. & Milburn, G.S. (1979) Entrainment and impingement of fish by power plans in the great lakes which use the once-through cooling process. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 5, 182-194.50 Henderson P.A. and Seaby R.M., (2000),op cit51 Bamber, R.N., and Seaby, M.H. (2004) op cit.52House of Commons, Environment Committee (1984) Acid rain: fourth report from the Environment Committee: volume I: http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/imgall/ref21920_1_1.html Accessed 19/12/0453 International Power (Rugeley), (2002). Rugeley Power Station Proposed Flue Gas Desulphurisation Plant. Non-technical Summary of Environmental Statement. http://www.ipplc.com/ipplc/investors/findata/reports/rugeleyflue/rugeleyflue.pdf. Accessed 10/01/05.54 International Power (Rugeley), (2002). Op cit55 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit56 Shaw, P.J.A., (1995). Establishment of sand dune flora on power station wastes. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 3 148-149.57 Shaw, P.J.A., (1994) Orchid woods and floating islands – the ecology of fly ash. British Wildlife 5, 149-157.58 Shaw, P.J.A.,(1998). Morphometric analyses of mixed Dactlyorhiza colonies (Orchidaceae) on industrial waste sites in England. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 128, 385-401.59 Shaw P.J.A, (1992). Successional changes in vegetation and soil development on unamended fly ash (PFA) in southern England. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29 728-736.60 Shaw, P.J.A, (2003). Nature reserves, orchids and fly ash: the dynamics of Dactylorhiza colonies during ecological succession. In The Ecology of Urban Environments: Proceedings of a conference, Sheffield 6/12/2003.61 UKQAA, (2002). The production and applications for Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA). http://www.ukqaa.org.uk/Environment/Production%20and%20Applications%20January%202003.pdf. Accessed 11/01/0562 UKQAA, (2002).op cit63 CATF, (2001). Cradle to Grave. The Environmental Impact from Coal. Clean Air Task Force, Boston: pp 11.64 WCI, 2004. Coal and the Environment. http://www.wci-coal.com/web/list.php?menu_id=4.8.2. Accessed 10/01/0565 CATF, (2001). Op cit67 OFGEN, (2003). OFGEN’s approach to environmental impact assessments. Paper for JWGEE (03) 02.68BNFL, (2002). Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment in the UK. Annual Report 2002.)69 DTI, 2004. http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/hydroelectic-qu.html. Accessed 17/07/0470 DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO71 LIHI (2004). http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/mission.html. Accessed 26/07/0472 CCW, (2004). The Future of Britain’s Upland Waters. Presentation for “Why do we care about upland waters?” Conference, 21st April 2004, U.C.L.

71

ADAS Final Report

9.0Conclusions and recommendations9.1 Recommendations to reduce biodiversity impacts All the renewable energy technologies reviewed have some negative effect on the biodiversity of their locality. Such effects range from slight and often temporary effects, such as disturbance of feeding patterns during construction operations, to highly significant impacts with permanent and widespread effects, such as loss of a habitat through flooding for small-scale hydro-electric schemes. But some technology types also have the capacity to enhance biodiversity and whilst such improvements are generally slight and may be limited by the existing biodiversity level, they can also be highly significant and are usually permanent.

73 RWE Innogy, (2004). Ecological Considerations for hydro schemes. Presentation by RWE Innogy to the IEEM Conference “Renewable Energy: Is it ecologically friendly?”, 18th May 2004.74 First Hydro (2004). http://www.fhc.co.uk. Accessed 17/07/04 75 Scottish & Southern, 2004. http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/pftg/.76 DTI, (2004) Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.77 British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), (2004) www.bwea.com, accessed 24/12/0478 E4Tech, (2003) Biomass for Heat and Power in the UK: A techno-economic assessment of long term potential. Final Report to DTI: 97pp79 MacDonald, A., (2004) “Biomass Energy”. Presentation at IEEM Conference, ‘Renewable Energy: Is it ecologically friendly’? The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 18th May 2004.80 RPA, (2004) Map of biomass generating stations in the UK. http://www.r-p-a.org.uk/article_flat.fcm?articleid=9. Accessed 12/01/0581 Forestry Commission (2004) British Timber Statistics 2003. 26 August 2004. Economics & Statistics, FC, Edinburgh.82 Forestry Commission (2004) Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index – 27 May 2004. Economics & Statistics, FC, Edinburgh.83ERC, (2004) “Renewables – the big picture”. Presentation at IEEM Conference, Renewable Energy: Is it ecologically friendly? The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 18th May 2004.84 Defra, (2005) Energy: Biomass Study Task Force. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/energy/biomass-taskforce/. Accessed 12/01/05.85 DTI (2004), Renewables Innovation Review. HMSO86 Heaton, R. 2005, ADAS pers comm87 Science and Technology Committee, 2004. Renewable Energy: Practicalities. 4th report of session 2003-2004. Volume 1:Report. House of Lords, London: pp12988 Power UK, 2002. Co-firing rule change set to threaten other green projects. Power UK, 106 13-17.89 Defra, (2005) Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/energy/infrastructure.htm. Accessed 12/01/05.90 Eco Centre, (2004) http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/hydro-power.html Accessed July 200491 DTI, (2004) Power Stations in the United Kingdom. HMSO.92 Bossert, R., Tool, C., Roosmalen, J., Wentink, C., de Vaan, M. (2000) Thin Film Solar Cells. Technology Evaluation and Perspectives. The Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment. Reference 146.150-010.193 ; Alsema, E. (1999) Energy Requirements and CO2 Mitigation Potential of PV Systems. Photovoltaics and the Environment. Workshop Proceedings, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Report No. BNL 5255794 Dones, R. and Frischnecht, R. (1997) Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Systems: Results of Swiss Studies on Energy Chains. Environmental Aspects of PV Power Systems. Utrecht University Report No. 97072. 95 Kato, K., Murata, A. and Sakuta, K. (1997) Energy Payback Time and Life-Cycle CO2

Emission of Residential PV Power System with Silicon PV Module. Environmental Aspects of PV Power Systems. Utrecht University Report No. 97072

72

ADAS Final Report

From the literature review it is clear that novel technologies appear to present least risk to UK biodiversity, at least in terms of their operation (risks associated with materials sourcing need to be considered). Within this technology type, it is photovoltaics that provide least impact upon biodiversity, provided that mining, manufacturing and recycling are subject to stringent environmental requirements. But their rate of future development, even in a best-case assessment, suggests that this technology is unlikely to provide more than 10% of the renewables target by 2020 (i.e. 2% of national energy demand). There are also indirect biodiversity benefits from solar water heating and ground source heat pumps (GSHP) since they also contribute to reducing electricity demand (both through the provision of heat and, for GSHP, cooling).

But the effects of any power source are partly dependent upon the size of the unit and the number of units in operation. The assessment of the size and scale required for renewable sources to meet the 2020 targets demonstrated that only a small area of UK land or seabed is required for each technology considered in the scenarios. Hence, it is anticipated that the future energy generation scenarios presented could be met with minimal impacts on biodiversity, if:

(a) Renewable energy developments avoid sites of high biodiversity interest, (b) All the suggested mitigation measures for all energy sectors are

implemented and effective, and (c) For biomass systems, multiple sources of fuel are utilised.

The point relating to mitigation is important and highlights the need for research and post-construction monitoring at consented installations to test the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Such monitoring should be summarised and published to facilitate the spread of best practice. Clearly, other constraints apply to the location of renewable energy development, including technical ones, which will reduce the

96 Palz, W. and Zibetta, H. (1991) Energy Pay-back Time of Photovoltaic Modules. International Journal of Solar Energy. Volume 10. Nos 3-4. pp211-216.97 U.S. Department of Energy Photovoltaics Program (2004) Photovoltaic Thin Film Manufacturing Cost Reduction. http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1167. Accessed 30th December, 2004.98 Chapman, J. and Gross, R. (2001) Technical and economic potential of renewable energy generating technologies: Potential and cost reductions in 2020, Working paper for UK Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (now Strategy Unit)99 Solar Century (2004) News Release - 06 July 2004 UK’s first solar PV plant gets switched on. http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/news/newsitem.jsp?newsid=388 Accessed 14th July 2004100 DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO101 Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2001) Renewable Energy – Further note. http://www.strategy.gov.uk/output/Page4274.asp Accessed 19th July 2004102 Boyle, G. (2004) Renewable Energy. Power for a Sustainable Future. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press and The Open University103 DTI (2003) A Fuel Cell Vision for the UK – the first steps. Taking the White Paper forward. http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/technologies/FuelCellVision.pdf Accessed June 16th 2004104 ESTIF (2003) Sun in Action II. A Solar Thermal Strategy for Europe. Volume 2. The Solar Thermal Sector Country by Country 21 National Reports. April 2003. European Solar Thermal Industry Federation. Brussels105 Solar Trade Association (2004) Discussion with Chief Executive. June 15th 2004. 106 British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) (2005)http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/offshore.asp accessed September 2005107 DTI (2004), Renewables Innovation Review. Op cit

73

ADAS Final Report

actual area available for renewables. Reconciliation of potentially conflicting demands could be most effectively addressed by strategic spatial planning.

For biomass, the land take required for sufficient production of biomass fuels in the UK means that it is unlikely to make up more than 5-20% of the 2020 target, without having a major impact on the area of agricultural land required, unless large quantities of fuel are imported. But the issue of scale of planting for biomass production is also important in determining the nature and, to some extent, the direction of its impact (positive or negative) on biodiversity. The provision of smaller scale plantings of biomass has a stronger positive effect on biodiversity than large-scale plantings supplying larger power stations. Smaller combined heat and power (CHP) based biomass power stations also have the added indirect biodiversity benefit of reducing energy demand, since electricity for heating currently makes up around 50% of primary energy generation. However, the economic viability of CHP plants may depend on the extent to which the heat energy produced can be used directly.

In cases where larger areas of biomass crop are required, guidelines aimed at enhancing biodiversity within the plantations may help offset the effect of plantation scale. Currently these are best developed for SRC plantation design, with the specific aim of increasing the biodiversity value of the crop by including features such as rides, headlands and stands of different age-class to increase habitat heterogeneity168. Further guidance is needed to maximise biodiversity benefits and minimise impacts for other crop types.

The biodiversity impact of importing biomass fuel would depend upon the type of fuel sourced, the country of origin and the mitigation measures in place within that country to reduce biodiversity impacts. The use of international supplies may result in considerable biodiversity impact outside of the UK, with no potential for mitigation measures to be enforced. At the very least biomass fuel should be sourced from countries where minimum acceptable standards of biodiversity protection are ensured, to avoid “exporting” negative effects of this technology. Assessment of the biodiversity impacts of biomass fuels in potential source countries would help to guide sourcing of such materials if it is necessary.

However, a better solution would be the increased production and use of existing biomass sources in the UK. The increased funding announced under the PIU report for encouraging the development of infrastructure linking growers and energy providers and encouraging development of near market biomass power sources, needs also to link such development to best practice guidelines to ensure minimal impact on biodiversity.

The type of land used for biomass production is critical to reducing the biodiversity impacts. Biomass production on more productive land has the potential to provide a positive impact by providing more diverse habitats and a wider range of food sources. Agricultural policy, particularly with regard to the use of set aside, will have a significant effect on the impact of biomass crops on biodiversity. The Government should seek to ensure biomass crops are not eligible for use on set-aside or to encourage the replacement of lost overwinter stubbles with another seed source, e.g. wild bird cover crops, and a summer nesting/foraging resource, e.g. unsprayed grass field margins.

74

ADAS Final Report

Wind energy is likely to provide the largest proportion of the renewable energy target by 2020. But, there remain some fundamental gaps in knowledge of the impacts on biodiversity (e.g. are there long-term impacts as a result of displacement?) and the effectiveness of some mitigation proposals, such as tailored turbine layouts to aid species movements. Post-construction monitoring is mostly in its infancy with rather little UK experience on which to draw, so far, and most of that experience relates to small installations and/or small turbine size. Those monitoring programmes in place now, are starting to deliver results that will make an essential contribution to the knowledge base relating to impacts of wind energy generation on biodiversity, notably birds. These need to be summarised into guidelines for developers to provide an indication best practice in effective mitigation measures. In particular, a comparison needs to be made of the impacts of different turbine sizes on biodiversity. The biodiversity impact of individual house turbines (particularly if widely used in urban areas) has not yet been assessed.

It has been suggested that the intermittency of wind power generation may be partially offset by importing electricity from Europe. However, this may only create biodiversity problems elsewhere. Other countries providing cheap sources of electricity (e.g. recent E.U. accession states and countries outside the EU) are less likely to have measures in place to safeguard biodiversity interests against energy production than wealthier North-West European states. An assessment is needed of the biodiversity impacts of energy sources in other EU countries in order that such effects may be minimised internationally as well as in the UK.

There are also uncertainties about the effects of marine technologies on biodiversity. Little is known about the impacts of wave and tidal technologies, particularly the developing technologies, which are still at the early experimental stages. It is important that potential impacts on biodiversity, as indicated in the significance matrices, are researched from an early stage and that research continues into the scaling-up phases of development of these technologies. Current understanding of impacts or potential impacts arises largely from large-scale tidal barrages; the likely nature and scale of impacts arising from the new marine technologies are thought to be different and/or of a lower order of magnitude.

It should be noted that an alternative/complementary way of minimising biodiversity impacts, whilst achieving the renewable energy target, is to reduce electricity demand. There is a need for coherent policy combinations that link incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency to biodiversity protection.

9.2 Further researchA number of areas have been identified from this assessment as requiring further research.9.2.1 Biomass energyFurther information on the impacts of biomass production needs to evaluate the biodiversity value of novel biomass crops relative to the land-use types that they replace. This requires adequately replicated before/after and control/experiment studies on crops that are managed in a commercially representative way. Lack of available area of crops such as Miscanthus and switchgrass currently prevents such studies. The productivity of ground-nesting bird species in rapidly-growing grass biomass crops also should be examined in order to determine whether these crops allow successful breeding to fledging.

75

ADAS Final Report

There is also a need to examine the effects of large-scale removal of forestry co-products on woodland ecosystems, especially on saprophytic and invertebrate communities, and their dependants. Can leaving a proportion of woody material prevent negative biodiversity effects? What economic impact would this have?

Whilst this review has considered the impact of biomass on biodiversity within the habitats producing the material, the wider scale impacts of biomass crops on the hydrology on surrounding land and watercourses also needs investigation.9.2.2 Onshore and Offshore wind energyMost of the research requirements for wind turbines relate to their effects on birds in terms of both presenting a barrier to movements (on and off shore) and to collision risk (particularly offshore). The studies need to consider whether effects are long or short term and how they affect flight behaviour. The effects of lighting, and the effectiveness of shielding, intermittent light and light of different intensity, consistent with the needs for navigation and air safety, offshore and onshore also need further investigation.

In particular offshore, there is a need for greater understanding of bird movements, temporal variations, regular and local movements including foraging flights, migratory sea crossings including those by nocturnal migrants. The use of radar, radio-tracking and the further development of other remote techniques will be an important aspect of such research. In this respect, the review of application of remote technologies already in use, commissioned by COWRIE, will provide important leads. These techniques also have application onshore where further targeted research would be useful.

Onshore, research is needed into impacts on peat hydrology and stability in particular, including the further development of construction techniques suitable for long-term infrastructure.

Mitigation measures in the form of increasing the visibility of rotating blades to improve avoidance by birds and bats, by day and by night, and in conditions of poor visibility, onshore and offshore are also needed.

9.2.3 Novel technologiesThe low level of uptake of these technologies means that the effects of scaling up their usage are relatively unknown. Hence, further work is needed to examine the widespread use of PV panels on the risk of bird collision. Further strategic level research should also consider the scope for using renewables to produce the hydrogen or fuel for fuels cells (without which their environmental benefits are largely local).

The main biodiversity effects of novel systems are through the risk of pollution from chemicals used within them either during operation or on decommissioning. To this end further work is still needed on: The environmental impact on soil organisms of anti-freeze in SWH and GSHP

systems, The scope for recycling and or reusing Photovoltaics, The scope for alternative materials for the production of Photovoltaics.9.2.4 Marine TechnologiesMarine systems are naturally dynamic and the development and field-testing of suitable computer models is likely to play an important role in understanding the impacts of these technologies on biodiversity. Research in place, including under

76

ADAS Final Report

the auspices of COWRIE for offshore wind, is investigating issues such as the effects of noise and vibration and of electro-magnetic fields. The outcome of such research may indicate the need for further work, notably in respect of new marine technologies.

Aspects of marine renewable technologies in general that require research include:

Sediment transport, erosion and deposition regimes and the impacts of the different technologies. (Defra is undertaking research at Scroby Sands in relation to offshore wind),

Impacts on wave and tidal regimes of extracting energy.

If/when marine renewable technologies prove themselves; it is likely that there will be a rapid deployment of installations over the next 10 to 15 years. It would be useful to identify hotspot areas for development and thus the potential impact scenarios for such developments. If this work were conducted early enough, mitigation measures could be tested and activated sooner.9.2.5 Policy and legislative measuresDefra has recently published guidance on the implication of the EC Wild Birds and Habitat Directive for developers undertaking offshore wind farms.169 But guidelines are also needed for environmental protection in other renewable (marine and terrestrial) and conventional energy technologies and for each of the devolved administrations – the significance matrices produced within this project and the high level impact assessment undertaken for marine RE sources in Welsh territorial waters24 could provide the starting point for identifying the impacts. As with the Defra publication, such guidance would illustrate the hierarchy of measures/standards that need to be met and make comparisons against the existing polices and legislation in place at a country level.

On-going monitoring and analysis has been highlighted as an area where further work is needed to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures. In particular, such assessments should examine: The effectiveness of the existing and evolving UK and country-level policy, land

use planning and legal mechanisms to mitigate RE impacts on biodiversity, with particular reference to the need for rationalising, coordinating and improving controls in the marine environment,

The extent to which the application of these existing and evolving land use planning and legal mechanisms support or conflict with the UK’s international and national biodiversity commitments (including the Convention on Biological Diversity and internationally protected species, the Habitats and Birds Directives and Natura 2000 network, Ramsar sites, Biodiversity Habitat and Species Action Plans, etc.). Particular attention needs to be given to the surveillance and enforcement of legal requirements,

The effectiveness of EIA, ‘appropriate assessment’ and SEA in accurately predicting impacts of RE on biodiversity; particular attention needs to be given to impacts on the less understood environments, including the marine environment and soil biodiversity, and to cumulative, synergistic and indirect impacts in all environments,

The implementation and the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed within EIA, ‘appropriate assessment’ and SEA. Particular attention needs to be given to impacts on the less understood environments including the marine environment and soil biodiversity and to effects from multiple technologies within different habitats, and

77

ADAS Final Report

The influence of RE biomass policy, CAP reform and new agri-environment schemes on the take-up of biomass cropping.

Publication of such assessments would also help to highlight and encourage best practice.9.2.6 General issuesThe effects on biodiversity of the different scales of operation of each of the renewable technologies needs further examination; less is known about the effects of widespread small-scale biomass or wind turbine operations, than about the large-scale systems. Similarly current, tidal and wave energy technology impacts are only apparent from small-scale systems. As indicated by the difference between the impacts of small and large-scale hydro-power sources, the size of the energy generation systems could be critical to the resulting biodiversity impact.9.3 ConclusionTo date strenuous efforts have been made, with considerable success, to avoid the development of renewable energy sources at the most sensitive locations for nature conservation and biodiversity. This has contributed to the low incidence of recorded problems for biodiversity in the UK, although there have been problems at some installations internationally170, which indicates the continued need for a duty of care in the consenting process. Site and species specific impacts are such that it makes it extremely difficult to predict the effects of scale under the different energy generation scenarios. However the assessments of land-take needed for the different future scenarios suggest that onshore and offshore wind technologies, and to a lesser extent biomass, could provide a significant proportion of the renewable energy generation target without a negative effect on biodiversity, provided sensitive locations are avoided and mitigation measures are rigorously followed. Novel technologies should also be encouraged due to their low biodiversity impact and their potential (in the case of SWH and GSHP systems) to reduce energy demand.

Legislative and policy measures are available to mitigate and remove many of the biodiversity impacts identified in this review. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms in achieving biodiversity protection depends on their effective implementation, which in turn depends on the level of political commitment and availability of adequate resources. Crucial among these measures is to ensure that areas of greatest sensitivity are appropriately assessed to avoid damage. Yet, there are still considerable unknowns especially in the distribution and functioning of many habitats and species. Since the “precautionary principle” is a fundamental basis for EU conservation policy, this should be applied in the development of RE sources, particularly in the marine environment and other situations where knowledge of impacts is scarce. In addition there is a lack of consideration of the cumulative impacts of different pressures on biodiversity . For example, The Natura 2000 Network is made up of a suite of SPA sites across Europe but there is no attempt to consider how the spatial pattern of renewable energy resources is affecting the integrity of this network.

78

ADAS Final Report

Appendix 1 – Significance matrixSee SignificanceMatrix.xls

79

ADAS Final Report

Appendix 2 – Reference Source MatrixSee Refmatrix.xls

80

ADAS Final Report

Appendix 3- Future technology scalesSee FutureScaleMatrix.xls

108 Regen SW (2004). 'Wave Hub' Project: Progress on the Feasibility Study – December 2004. Regen SW Briefing, December 2004.109 ABPmer (2004) Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources: a Technical Report. http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_atlastechnicalreport.htm110 Oxera (2004). Results of Renewables Market Modelling. Report to DTI.111 British Biogen (2000). Short Rotation Coppice for Energy Production: good practice guidelines. Available from www.britishbiogen.co.uka112 Price L, Bullard M, Lyons H, Anthony S & Nixon P. (2004) Identifying the yield potential of Miscanthus x giganteus: an assessment of the spatial and temporal variability of M-x giganteus biomass productivity across England and WalesBiomass & Bioenergy 26: 3-13113 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) Biomass as a renewable energy source. Available from www.rcep.org.uk114 Barr, C.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Clarke, R.T., Firbank, L.G., Gillespie, M.K., Howard, D.C., Petit, S., Smart, S.M., Stuart, R.C. & Watkins, J.W., 2003. Methodology of Countryside Survey 2000 Module 1: Survey of Broad Habitats and Landscape Features. Report by CEH to Defra, Contract No. CR0212. www.cs2000.org.uk115 Benton TG, Vickery JA & Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 18:182-188.116 Weibull AC, Ostman O & Granqvist A (2003) Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:1335-1355.117 Cunningham, MD, Bishop, JD, McKay. (2004) ARBRE monitoring – Ecology of short rotation coppice. DTI project report URN 04/961.118 DTI (2002) Energy Consumption in the UK, HMSO http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_consumption/ecuk.pdf119 Met Office/DETR (1999). Climate change and its impacts: Stabilisation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Meteorological Office, Bracknell. 28.120Holman, I and Loveland, P (2002). Regional climate change impact and response studies in East Anglia and North West England (RegIS). cc0337, Final report to MAFF, Soil survey and Land Research Centre, Cranfield.121 Harrison, PA, Berry, PM and Dawson, TP (2001). Climate Change and Nature Conservation in Britain and Ireland: Modelling natural resource responses to climate change (the MONARCH project). UKCIP, Oxford.122 Hossell, JE, Briggs, B and Hepburn, I (2000). Climate Change and UK Nature Conservation: A review of the impact of climate change on UK species and habitat conservation policy. Final report to DETR, Contract No CR0223, ADAS, Wolverhampton. 200.123Thomas, C.D. et al., (2004), Extinction risk from climate change, Nature, (427),p 145-148124 Crick, H and Sparks, TH (1999). "Climate change related to egg-laying trends." Nature 399(3): 423-424.

81

ADAS Final Report

Appendix 4 - “Soft Law” biodiversity protection measuresConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) UNECE Convention The CBD’s objectives include the conservation of species and habitats within national jurisdiction and the application of national strategies, plans and programmes for biodiversity conservation, together with the integration of biodiversity into sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, plans and programmes. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan 1994, Local BAPS and Species and Habitat Plans, including for coastal and marine habitats, have their origins in the CBD. The CBD is implemented in UK by the CRoW Act 2000 and Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which include statutory duties on Government departments to conserve biodiversity.

125 Parmesan, C (1999). "Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming." Nature 399: 579-583.126 Rehfisch, MM and Austin, GE (1999). "Ringed Plovers go east." BTO News 223: 14-15.127 Huntley, B (1991). "How plants respond to climate change: Migration rates, individualism and the consequences for plant communities." Annals of Botany 67: 15-22.128 Hossell, JE, Ellis, N, Harley, M and Hepburn, IR (2003). "Climate change and nature conservation: Implications for policy and practice in Britain and Ireland." Journal for Nature Conservation 11: 67-73.129 Herbert, RJH, Hawkins, SJ, Sheader, M and Southward, AJ (2003) Range extension and reproduction of the barnacle Balanus perforatus in the eastern English Channel. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 83 73-82130 Mieszkowska, N. Kendall, MA, Hawkins, SJ, Leaper, R. Williamson, P, Hardman-Mountford, NJ and Southward, AJ (in press). Changes in the range of some common rocky shore species. A response to climate change? Hydrobiologica.131 Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment: 85/337/EEC and Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC132 Directive 2004/35/EC133 ‘Minister issues warning about planning delays for energy schemes’: Report of speech by Patricia Hewitt Trade & Industry Secretary regarding Government’s intention to use its decision-making powers to ensure key energy infrastructure projects, including wind farms and power-lines, proceed www.planningportal.gov.uk 1.12.04 134 Modernising Environmental Justice, Centre for Law and the Environment, Professor Richard Macrory & Michael Woods, 11 June 2003, University College London135 IMPEL: (2003) Better Legislation, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/impel136 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) ‘Turning the Tide’ Review of Marine Nature Conservation, 137 RMNC (2004) Review of Marine Nature Conservation. RMNC Working Group report to Government, July 2004, Defra; 138 Boyes, S. et al (2003) Deficiencies in the Current Legislation relevant to Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment, Report to JNCC, Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of Hull139 Hodge, I.D., Renwick, A.W., McNally, S., Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Rush, C., (2001) An Economic Evaluation of Set-Aside Centre for Rural Economics Research; Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge. Report to DEFRA (July 2001)140 96/61/EC141 Pollution Prevention & Control (England & Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.1973); 142 Pollution Prevention & Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.323);143 Pollution Prevention & Control (N. Ireland) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.46)144 Directive 2004/35/EC145 Town & Country Planning Act 1990146 Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (2003) Regulatory Responsibilities & Enforcement mechanisms relevant to Marine Nature Conservation, Report to JNCC: University of Hull147 Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (2003) Regulatory Responsibilities & Enforcement mechanisms relevant to Marine Nature Conservation, Report to JNCC: University of Hull148 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) op cit149 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) op cit

82

ADAS Final Report

Ramsar Convention (1971, in force 1975)The Convention provides a framework for national action and international co-operation, especially via site designation to: afford protection to wetlands of international importance; stem encroachment on and loss of wetlands and contribute to sustainable development. It is implemented in the UK via the planning systems and SSSIs and sites are afforded the same protection in UK law as European Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) & Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or pSACs and cSACs.

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982) UNCLOS establishes the UK’s sovereignty over its territorial seas and the marine living resources within it and allows, inter alia, the adoption of legal provisions for the preservation of the environment, including the prevention, reduction and control of pollution171.

Convention for Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (1992) (OSPAR) Annex V of the OSPAR Convention entered force in August 2000 and requires signatories to take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and biological diversity of the maritime area and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected.

Bern Convention (1979 in force 1982) The Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife & Natural Habitats aims to conserve wild flora and fauna in their natural habitats, particularly endangered species and especially when conservation requires the co-operation of several states. Signatories are to take measures to protect habitats and species listed in

150 S.57 (1) Town & Country Planning Act 1990151 Planning Resource www.PlanningResource.co.uk 18 June 2004 152 National Assembly for Wales (2003) Draft Technical Advise Note 8: Renewable Energy153 Planning Resource www.PlanningResource.co.uk30 November 2004154 Strategic Energy Framework, www.PlanningResource.co.uk, 1.12.04155 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) ‘Biomass as a Renewable Resource’, Planning Resource, www.PlanningResource.co.uk accessed 1.12.04156 DTI, 2000. Energy Projections for the UK. Energy Paper 68. TSO, London: pp 87157 Defra (2004) Delivering the Essentials of Life. Defra’s Five Year Strategy. HMSO, 91pp158 Defra (2004). Sustainable Energy. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/index.htm. Accessed 10/01/05159 Defra, (2004) Comprehensive Performance Assessments. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/cpa/minstat021212. Accessed 14/12/04.160 IdeA, (2004) Beacon Councils. http://www.idea.gov.uk/beacons/?id=about). Accessed 10/01/05161 Defra (2004) Energy Efficiency: The Government’s Plan for Action. HMSO London 122pp162 Defra (2004) Energy Efficiency: The Government’s Plan for Action. op cit163 Carbon Trust, (2004). The Local Authority Carbon Management Programme.http://www.thecarbontrust.co.uk/carbontrust/reduce_emissions/rcen1_1_2.html. Accessed 10/01/05.164 ODPM, (2004)http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_030334.hcsp)165GOSE, (2004). RPG9-Regional Planning Guidance. http://www.go-se.gov.uk/rpg9review/about.html. Accessed 10/01/05. 166 Carbon Trust, (2004). What is the Carbon Trust? http://www.thecarbontrust.co.uk/carbontrust/about/about5_1.html). Accessed 10/01/05.

83

ADAS Final Report

the Convention’s 3 Appendices, corresponding to their ecological, scientific and cultural requirements

Bonn Convention (1979 into force 1983) The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals aims to conserve terrestrial, marine & avian migratory species and their habitats, by providing strict protection for endangered migratory species listed in Appendix 1 of Convention throughout their range.

168 British Biogen (2000). Op cit169 Defra 2005 Nature conservation guidance on offshore wind farm development. A guidance note on the implications of the EC Wild Birds and Habitats Directives for developers undertaking offshore windfarm developments, Defra. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/windfarms/windfarmguidance.pdf170 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. (2003). Wind farms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. A report by BirdLife International, commissioned by the Standing Committee for the Bern Convention171 Boyes. S. et al, (2003) Summary of Current Legislation Relevant to Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment in the UK, Report to JNCC, Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of Hull, 11 July 2003

84

ADAS Final Report

Appendix 5 - EU DirectivesEU Habitats Directive172 (1992) The Directive requires the UK, inter alia, to implement a strict system of protection for listed species and to achieve their Favourable Conservation status; to establish sites for natural habitats listed in Annex I and sites containing habitats of species listed in Annex II; to monitor the conservation status of all habitats and species, including aquatic ecosystems; to endeavour to effectively manage landscape features of importance to wildlife within their land-use, planning and development plans. The Natura 2000 network incorporates Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs). ‘Appropriate’ assessment is required for any plan or project (PP), which alone or in combination with other PPs, inside or outside the site, is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of an SPA/SAC. Such impacts may, for example, include interference with bird flyways by a wind farm. However defining what is a significant effect is difficult.

A high degree of confidence is required that ‘no impact’ will occur and the ‘precautionary principle’ must be applied; alternatives must be considered and adopted if feasible and mitigation may, in some circumstances be able to reduce or remove impacts. Cumulative impacts must be considered e.g. the total bird strike from a proposed wind farm should be assessed in addition to bird strike from other wind farms in the area. If an alternative scheme would prevent damage to the integrity of the site the development affecting the site’s integrity should not proceed. Developments are only supposed to proceed if the integrity of the site will not be affected, unless ‘overriding reasons of public interest’ are demonstrated. If such reasons are established and the development proceeds despite damage to the site’s integrity, compensatory measures are required to protect the overall coherence of N2000.

The Directive’s requirements are intended to be implemented in the UK by the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 (which need to be amended to properly transpose the Directive), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside & Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 and the land use planning system. Following a legal challenge in 1999 it has now been confirmed that SACs and SPAs may be designated in the marine environment to the limit of the UK’s jurisdiction, the 200 nautical mile limit (Boyes et al, 2003a), previously it had been restricted to the Territorial Waters limit (12nm).

EU Birds Directive173 (1979) The Directive, inter alia, requires measures including the creation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), to maintain a sufficient diversity of habitats for all European bird species. Special measures are required to conserve habitats of rare and vulnerable species and all species listed in Birds Directive Annex 1 (i.e. regularly occurring migratory species). Special measures include designation of SPAs and protection from deterioration, and re-establishment of the necessary diversity and extent of habitat. In the marine environment the designation process for both SPA and SACs is not as far advanced as on land and this causes difficulties with providing consents for marine renewables, which would tend to avoid such sensitive areas. The Commission is currently reviewing the effectiveness of the Directive’s implementation.

172 92/43/EEC173 79/409/EEC

85

ADAS Final Report

9.3.1.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive174 The Directive aims to provide a high level of protection of the environment and to integrate environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes, with a view to promoting sustainable development. SEA is implemented in the UK by (country-specific) Regulations. SEA requires systematic evaluation of the environmental consequences of plans and programmes and significantly, it requires monitoring of direct, indirect, cumulative impacts of plans and programmes, as well as alternative, all of which offer potential for the recognition and correction of biodiversity damage from both renewable and conventional energy technologies. SEA is required for plans and programmes which come within the Regulations for land use planning, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications and tourism or are likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive175 The Directive is implemented in the UK by a range of EIA Regulations associated with different sectors. Significant environmental effects of certain public and private projects must be assessed by EIA and means identified to mitigate damage and to enhance environmental quality and ecosystem functions. Preparation of environmental statements should be collaborative and involve local planning authorities, statutory, non-statutory consultees and the public. Criticism has been levelled at the continued variable quality of EIAs and the resulting limits of their capacity to assess and mitigate negative impacts. In view of the uncertain or unknown impacts of some renewable technologies the absence of a monitoring requirement within projects submitted to EIA remains a major weakness of EIA.

Water Framework Directive176 (WFD) (2000) The WFDxx aims to: prevent further deterioration and protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems; to promote sustainable water consumption based on the long-term protection of available water resources; to achieve “good ecological status” of surface waters and “good” status” of groundwater by 2015 through river basin planning, management and monitoring.

xx Implemented in England & Wales by Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No 3242); in Scotland by Water Environment & Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003; in Northern Ireland Water Environment (Framework) Directive Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (SR 2003 No. 544 174 2001/42/EC 175 Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment: 85/337/EEC and Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC176 2000/60EC

86

ADAS Final Report

Appendix 6 - Persons consulted and workshop attendeesStakeholders consulted

Name OrganisationAmy Dunkley Bat Conservation Trust (BCT)Jessa Battersby JNCCCatriona Carlin English NatureChris Laughton MD of Very Efficient Heating CompanyDr Robin Curtis Technical Manager of GeoScienceRoger Hitchin BRERod Hacker Director of PV-UKDerek Taylor Independent renewable energy consultantKate Rumbold Woking Borough CouncilSteven Glaser ECSERoger Covey English NatureMelissa Moore Marine Conservation SocietySarah Wood Countryside Council for WalesDr Miles Hoskin MER ConsultantsDr Ross Coleman University of PlymouthZoë Crutchfield JNCCStacey Fair CEFASLisa Browning The Wildlife Trusts

Workshop attendeesName OrganisationLouise Vall DefraSally Archer DulasZoë Crutchfield JNCCRufus Sage GCTIan Bainbridge SEERADSarah Webster Defra (Chairperson)Fiona Lock DefraRohit Talwar DefraMike Brook DTIMelissa Moore Marine Conservation SocietyJeff Kirby Defra (Defra Project Manager)Richard Keating Countryside AgencyJulia Knights DefraDavid Howard CEHAndrew Riche RothamstedAlison Haughton RothamstedRowena Langston RSPBGuy Anderson RSPBMartin Fodor EAProject TeamChristine Ballard NEFPeter Edwards AcorusBethan Clemence ADASJo Hossell ADAS (Project Manager)Nicola Harper OreconZana Juppenlatz Ecoscape Associates

87

ADAS Final Report

Comments on draft matricesName OrganisationIan Shield, David Bohan and Angela Karp

Rothamsted

Melissa Moore Marine Conservation SocietySarah Wood Countryside Council for WalesAdrian Judd and Stacey Faire

CEFAS

Jeff Kirby and Susan Anne Davis

Defra

Zoë Crutchfield JNCCRichard Keating Community Renewables Initiative

88

ADAS Final Report

Appendix 7 - References

8 Renewable Power Association, (2005) http://www.r-p-a.org.uk/article_flat.fcm?articleid=16 . Accessed 10/01/05.33 DTI, (2005) http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/ Accessed 28/9/0566121 (2001), Working Paper on Environmental Costs and Risks, http://www.strategy.gov.uk/files/pdf/PIUg.pdf, accessed 10/1/05167 AUKEA, (2004). The Association of UK Energy Agencies. http://www.natenergy.org.uk/aukea. Accessed 10/01/05

89