Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lucy Greenhill Research Fellow in Marine Planning and Renewable Energy Scottish Association for Marine Science Ocean Energy Forum, 4th April 2014
1. INTRODUCTION
2. CURRENT PRIORITIES
3. OUTSTANDING CHALLENGES
4. STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS
5. SUMMARY
We are ‘talking the talk’….
…but can we ‘walk the walk’?
Draft Plan Options for Renewable Energy in Scotland, Scottish Government, 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
Collision Risks
Mammals • Fish • Birds
Modelling Behaviour
Encounter Rate, Evasion
Device acoustic
footprints Device & background:
Prediction, measurement
& mitigation
Habitat Modification Sediment redistribution,
Burying
Wildlife Displacement Interference with
habitat use & movements
• Information gaps on impacts well known.
• Emphasis on information gathering for project consent application (EIA).
2. CURRENT PRIORITIES
• Numerous strategic initiatives
are looking at industry impacts (to birds, fish, mammals, etc.)
• Advances in scientific understanding e.g. models to predict collision risk
• “Will there be an impact?”
• “How big will the impact be?"
But why is decision
making at projects still complicated,
expensive and uncertain?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/09/5811
2. CURRENT PRIORITIES (cont.)
• Major problem is that there are no precedents – huge uncertainty.
• Results in increasingly scientifically complex modelling to make predictions in EIAs.
• Reliance on ‘expert judgement’ and subjectivity.
• This leads to challenges in consenting according to conservation policy with high requirement for certainty (e.g. Habitats Directive – “no reasonable scientific doubt.”).
3. OUTSTANDING CHALLENGES
Harbour Seal (SAMS)
Harbour Porpoise (SAMS)
European Protected Species
Consent application / EIA – very scientific, lots of investment, new information.
Legislative Framework (e.g. Habitats Regulations) – policy instruments, limited scientific input, low investment.
3. OUTSTANDING CHALLENGES (cont.)
The Consenting Process – ‘square peg, round hole’?
Need to balance investment here…
• What is an ‘acceptable’ level of environmental change?
• How will the environment change without development?
What is the baseline?
• How do we ensure “Site Integrity” / “Favourable Conservation Status”?
• How is uncertainty and expert judgement considered?
More effort is needed to address the difficult questions such as:
3. OUTSTANDING CHALLENGES (cont.)
Industry will ‘tick the box’ but they need to know what to aim at…
• We need to look forward at the problems in the decision making process.
• Consenting risks need to be considered in greater detail during strategic and sectoral planning exercises (including SEA).
• National level actions into addressing problems in consenting frameworks would take pressure off individual projects.
• Look at the potential for marine planning to balance environmental objectives and renewable energy plans.
• Might not need more spending, just spending on the right questions.
4. STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS
5. SUMMARY
• Lots of money is being spent on predicting project-specific impacts.
• This isn’t enough to make consenting more straightforward.
• What is acceptable? We need effort into defining the consenting framework to maintain investor confidence.
• Strategic approaches and marine planning will be essential and useful in managing risks from industry activities in a more cost-effective way.
Pelamis Wave Power
OpenHydro Tidal Turbine
