MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS IN …

MEETINGEUROPE’SRENEWABLEENERGYTARGETS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE

SUMMARY REPORT

MEETING EUROPE’SRENEWABLE ENERGYTARGETS IN HARMONY WITH NATUREA BirdLife Europe report, with the support of the RSPB (BirdLife UK).

Participating organisations:

� BirdLife Europe� Association for Biological Research – BIOM/BirdLife

contact in Croatia� BirdWatch Ireland/BirdLife Ireland� Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds – BSPB/

BirdLife Bulgaria� Centar za zaštitu i proucavanje ptica – CZIP/BirdLife

contact in Montenegro� DOPPS/BirdLife Slovenia� Hellenic Ornithological Society – HOS/BirdLife Greece� Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli – LIPU/BirdLife Italy� Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux – LPO/BirdLife France� Natagora/BirdLife Belgium � Naturschutzbund Deutschland – NABU/BirdLife Germany� Natuurpunt/BirdLife Belgium� Romanian Ornithological Society – SOR/BirdLife Romania� Sociedad Española de Ornitología – SEO/BirdLife Spain� Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA/

BirdLife Portugal� The Polish Society for the Protection of Birds – OTOP/

BirdLife Poland� The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – RSPB/

BirdLife UK

Edited by Ivan Scrase and Benedict Gove

Contributors:

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

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

SUMMARY REPORT

2 MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE SUMMARY REPORT

Europe is seeking to position itself as a globalleader in the development and deployment ofrenewable energy technologies. Successfullydelivering against its aspirations in this area iscentral to meeting its greenhouse gas emissionstargets and doing its fair share to stabilise theglobal climate. BirdLife Europe strongly supportsthese commitments: the potentially severe impactsof climate change on biodiversity, and the knock-onimpacts for society if nature is impoverished,demand a rapid but sustainable transition to a lowcarbon economy.

Renewable energy must become the backbone ofEurope’s energy supply. Yet many renewableenergy technologies can present risks to birds andother wildlife if they are not developed sensitively.

The challenge we face is to protect nature whilstdeploying renewables at the scale and pacerequired. This report sets out how Europeangovernments can step up to this challenge andensure that we meet our 2020 renewable energytargets and our commitment to halt and reversebiodiversity decline by the same year.

BOX 1

About this report

Birdlife is a network of leading bird and wildlifeconservation organisations. Seventeen organisationsparticipated in this work, based in Germany, Spain, the UK,France, Italy, Poland, Greece, Belgium, Romania, Bulgaria,Ireland, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia and Portugal. Thisreport is the product of a year-long process that broughtthese organisations together to:

� review the scientific evidence about ecological impactsof renewables

� consider how policy frameworks support or underminebiodiversity-friendly renewables

� review the EU’s renewable energy ambitions in terms oftechnologies and locations, and

� make recommendations for European and nationalgovernments.

In addition detailed reviews were undertaken of MemberStates’ National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs)and the scientific evidence on the ecological impacts ofthe major renewable energy technologies and power lines.

Ecological enhancements are often possible within wind farms.

Global average temperatures are increasing, andclimate scientists have concluded that this warmingis “very likely” (more than 90% likelihood) due tohuman activities that have increased theconcentration of greenhouse gases in theatmospherei. Burning fossil fuels is the principalcause. Unless drastic action is taken to cutemissions, the world could experience a dangerouslevel of warming within decades. This would be a disaster for people and for wildlife.

A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birdsii

predicts that on average bird populations in Europewould need to shift 550 km north-east by the end ofthis century. A study published in Nature estimatedthat 15–37% of plants and animals will be“committed to extinction” by 2050 as a result of amid-range warming scenarioiii. Even if greenhousegas emissions were to cease tomorrow,biodiversity would still have to adapt to warmingcaused by past emissions. Moreover, biodiversity is already being driven into decline by a range offactors, particularly agriculture, fisheries andforestry practices (and other causes of habitat lossor degradation) and invasive species. This meansthe “ecosystem services” biodiversity provides tosociety, such as pollinating food crops, arediminishingiv.

THE TWIN IMPERATIVES: CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 3

THE TWIN IMPERATIVES: CLIMATE CHANGEMITIGATION ANDBIODIVERSITYCONSERVATION

Rapid and large reductions in greenhouse gasemissions are a necessary part of the plan if we are to meet our goal of reversing biodiversity loss.BirdLife Europe, therefore supports the EU’s target tocut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, andis calling for this ambition to be increased to 30%.We also support the renewable energy targets in theRenewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) as theyhave become a key driver in promoting the use ofrenewable energy and cutting EU carbon emissions.But these targets must be seen alongside the EUcommitment to “halting the loss of biodiversity andthe degradation of ecosystem services...” by 2020. A stable climate and flourishing biodiversity are twinimperatives – two sides of the same coin.

The risk is that failure to plan ahead for rapidexpansion in renewables deployment, and to takeenvironmental considerations into account inplans, will endanger Europe’s most valuable sitesfor wildlife and its most vulnerable species. Thiscan already be seen in some parts of Europe; Box 2explains how failures in the Spanish regions toplan for wind development, and to apply legislationon environmental assessment of plans, has resultedin risks to Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) forimportant habitats and Special Protection Areas(SPAs) for birds. These are part of the “Natura 2000”network of Europe’s most valuable wildlife sites,protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives.


BOX 2

In December 2006, the Extremadura regional government inSpain announced that 116 requests had been received toinstall wind farms in the region. Sixteen had at least part oftheir area within an SPA, and 11 within a SAC. Furthermore,82 projects were sited within 10 km of Natura 2000 sitesdeclared for birds or bats, and thus potentially couldadversely affect the value of these sites and the integrity andcoherence of the Natura 2000 network. However, not one ofthese projects was evaluated in terms of its impact onNatura 2000 sites, and alternatives with no impact on thenetwork were not considered. Projects were proposed insites as important as the Sierra de San Pedro SPA, with thehighest density of Iberian imperial eagle in the world.

The EU strategic environmental assessment Directive(2001/42/EC) requires authorities developing plans in arange of sectors, including energy, to take environmentalconsiderations into account through a process of

assessment and consultation. In Spain only two wind energyplans have been subjected to this type of evaluation. Thefailure to carry out Strategic Environmental Assessment(SEA) of wind energy plans elsewhere has in many casesmeant that they have been prepared simply in terms of thedistribution of the wind resource, without taking intoaccount any environmental concerns. This is the case, forexample, in the autonomous community of Valencia.

Far from accelerating wind farm development, failure to carry out SEA can result in lengthy delay, as has been the case in Catalonia, where the Supreme Court ofJustice has halted the planning of wind farms in priorityzones for wind energy development because of the lack of environmental evaluation. A similar situation exists inCantabria, where complaints have been registered in thecourts because the wind energy plan was approved without being subject to SEA.

These risks are by no means inevitable, however.Europe’s climate, renewable energy andbiodiversity targets must all be met, and much canbe done to make them compatible and mutually

Aerial view of wind turbines in parched Spanish fields.

reinforcing. Meeting Europe’s Renewable EnergyTargets in Harmony with Nature explains howpolicy makers can contribute.

Failing to take the environment into account: the example of Spanishregional government planning for wind power

BirdLife Europe supports achieving and goingbeyond Europe’s 2020 renewables target, in linewith four key principles:

1 Renewables must be low carbon – Renewableenergy supply must make a significant differencein reducing greenhouse gas emissions comparedto fossil fuels, accounting for emissions from thefull life-cycle.

2 A strategic approach to deployment is needed –Positive planning frameworks are needed so that the most appropriate energy sources are

BIRDLIFE EUROPE’S SUPPORT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY 5

BIRDLIFE EUROPE’SSUPPORT FORRENEWABLE ENERGY

exploited in the most appropriate places.

3 Harm to birds and biodiversity must beavoided – Precautionary avoidance of harm tobiodiversity and ecosystems is essential whenlocating and designing renewable energy facilities.

4 Europe’s most important sites for wildlife mustbe protected – Where significant impacts on aNatura 2000 site (those protected under the Birdsand Habitats Directives) are likely, developmentmay only proceed under strict conditions, whichmust be robustly applied.

RENEWABLE ENERGYTECHNOLOGIES ANDECOLOGICALSUSTAINABILITYAfter a preliminary review of the risks posed by all forms of renewable energy, technologies wereclassified based on the risks they pose to wildlife.Figures on the contributions the varioustechnologies will make are colour coded in the fullreport as follows:

� Low conservation risk technologies (eg, solarthermal and heat pumps) – shades of green

� Medium conservation risk technologies (eg, windand wave power) – shades of purple/blue

� High conservation risk technologies (eg, liquidbiofuels) – shades of red

Technologies that are small-scale, involve little orno additional new infrastructure, and/or do notresult in any land use charge, are very unlikely topresent significant risks to biodiversity. This “lowrisk” category includes roof-mounted solar panels,heat pumps and electric vehicles. Energy savingmeasures, while not renewables technologies, arerelevant here since they make achievement ofrenewables targets easier. Conversely, technologiesthat result in complete changes in land use willinevitably present significant risks for the wildlifepresent, for example where valuable habitats arelost to intensive land use for energy crops or


Wave or tidal power devices that are visible from the air may be lower risk for diving birds.

through the construction of dams for hydro or tidal power. The “high risk” category refers totechnologies that present unacceptable risks inmost instances with currently availabletechnologies, such as new large hydropower damsand liquid biofuels. With adequate safeguardsand/or technical innovation some use of thesetechnologies may become possible withoutsignificant ecological risks, but BirdLife seescurrent potential as extremely limited.

Most technologies fall in to the second, “mediumrisk” category, and require sensitive deployment.This category provides much of the focus for

Meeting Europe’s Renewable Energy Targetsin Harmony with Nature. It contains a detailedreview of current scientific evidence regardingpotential ecological risks associated with wind,solar, wave and tidal stream power, andbiomass for heat and electricity. It also reviewsthe scientific evidence on the most effectiveways to avoid those risks, and even to achievebenefits for wildlife. The power lines neededto distribute and transmit renewable electricityare also considered. Table 1 summarises thetechnologies and impact/enhancement areas covered in this review.

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY 7

TABLE 1

Summary of technologies covered in the review of scientific evidence and examples of impactsand mitigation/enhancement measures covered

TECHNOLOGY

Solar PV arrays

Onshore wind power

Offshore wind power

Tidal stream and wavepower

Biomass for heat and power

Power lines

MAIN CONSERVATIONRISKS CONSIDERED

� Habitat loss� Direct impacts onbirds, mammals andinsects

� Habitat fragmentationand/or modification.

� Disturbance/displacement

� Barrier effects� Collision mortality � Habitat loss.

� Disturbance/displacement

� Collision risk� Habitat loss � Pollution.

� Collision risk� Entrapment � Disturbance/displacement

� Indirect effects.

� Pressure on existinghabitats in forests and on farm land

� Direct and indirectland-use change.

� Electrocution� Collision risk� Habitat loss.

AVOIDING AND MITIGATING RISKS

� Avoid protected areas� Retain trees and hedges � Time construction andmaintenance to avoid disturbanceof birds and bats during breedingseasons.

� Spatial planning (sensitivitymapping and location guidance)and site selection

� Modelling collision risks and estimating displacement impacts

� Improved tools and methodologies to assist pre- and post-construction monitoring andresearch

� On- or off-site ecological enhancements.

� Spatial planning and site selection.� Baseline surveys and targeted pre-construction studies

� Remote sensing techniques.

� None recommended due to earlystage of development of wave andtidal technologies.

� Location guidance� Good practice guidelines� Sustainability standards and certification

� Avoid using biomass from sources where sustainability cannot be guaranteed.

� Avoid sensitive locations� Retrofitting “killer poles”� Underground cables.

ACHIEVING BENEFITSFOR WILDLIFE

� Manage vegetationaround/beneath panelsfor wildlife

� Use some revenues to support on-siteconservation.

� Positive landmanagement changes

� Create wildlife areas on- or off-site as part of community-benefitpackages.

� Reef effects� No-take zones� Contributions to marineecological data.

� None recommended due to early stage ofdevelopment of wave and tidal technologies.

� Manage neglectedforests for biodiversitygains and sustainablebiomass production

� Grow patches of wildlife-friendly energy crops,planned to improvehabitat connectivity.

� Manage land beneathpylons as biodiversity“stepping stones”

� Provide ecologicalenhancements to affected communities.


FIGURE 1

THE ECOLOGICALSUSTAINABILITY OFEUROPE’S 2020RENEWABLES PLANS

pumps, as well as renewable electricity consumedin electric vehicles. These technologies,represented in shades of green in Figure 1, arewin-wins for the environment and the climate. Inaddition, the NREAPs identify additional energysavings measures that reduce total energyconsumption in 2020 by 10% relative to “businessas usual” scenarios. Energy savings are a very lowrisk means to make the renewables targets easierto achieve.

Significant differences in ambition to save energyand use low-risk technologies were found betweenMember States, some of which can only beexplained by political will, rather than suitabilityof individual technologies. For example, Polandand Belgium intend to make significant use of solarthermal energy for space heating, while other

We analysed the EU Member States’ NREAPs togenerate a clear picture of ambition across Europefor different renewable energy technologies. TheNREAPs present Member State plans for eachtechnology in terms of the role they will play in2020 (additional to 2005). Over two thirds of theadditional renewable energy consumed in 2020 willbe provided by “medium conservation risktechnologies”, represented in shades of blue/purplein Figure 1. These include wind, biomass, tidal andwave power. This heavy dependence on suchtechnologies clearly demonstrates the need forproactive policy intervention to ensure ecologicalimpacts are minimised.

Twelve per cent of the increase in renewableenergy will be provided by “low conservation risktechnologies”, including solar thermal and heat

!"""#

$$"""#%"""#

%&"""#

$$"""#

'"""#

%"""#

$&"""#

()"""#

$"""#

("""#

$"""#

%"""# %*"""#

!"#$%&+,-./#012/3.-#

42.0#56357#

8-290/:9#;21:9-27#</,3#/2=2>.?-27#

@=71,/2#>:=A#

@B71,/2#>:=A#

+,-./#51,0,;,-0.:9#

C,=92=0/.02A#7,-./#5,>2/#

D:,3.77#<,/#2-290/:9:0E#

D:,3.77#<,/#12.F=G#

H2,012/3.-#<,/#2-290/:9:0E#

H2,012/3.-#<,/#12.F=G#

I:A.-J#>.;2#K#,92.=#2=2/GE#

4EA/,#

L:M6:A#?:,<62-7#

$"""#

%*"""#%"""#

!"#$%&

!"""#

$$"""#%"""#

!"#$%&+,-./#012/3.-#

7#0#563542.

.?-27#>2=2,3#/21:9-27#</8-290/:9#;

2#>:=A#@=71,/

2#>:=A#71,/@B

$"""#

()"""#

("""#

$"""#

%"""#

%&"""#

$$"""#

'"""#

$&"""#

"#

.:9#,-0;,+,-./#51,0

2/#>2A#7,-./#5,0.0/C,=92=

,/#2-290/:9:0E#D:,3.77#<

,/#12.F=G#D:,3.77#<

,/#2-290/:9:0E#H2,012/3.-#<#<,/#2-290/:9:0E#

,/#12.F=G#H2,012/3.-#<#<,/#12.F=G#

GE#2#K#,92.=#2=2/;.I:A.-J#>

,#A/4E

L:M6:A#?:,<62-7#

Additional renewableenergy consumption in2020 compared to 2005, bytechnology [ktoe]v andecological risk group.

additional 7,000 ktoe in 2020 using domesticrooftops the EU would require an additional19.4 million 4-kW photovoltaic home systems.Again for illustration, the target for “concentratedsolar power” (CSP, using mirrors) would requireapproximately 170 50-MW plants, while the waveand tidal targets would require an additional 5,300 1-MW tidal/wave turbinesviii.

Germany accounts for just under half of allEurope’s additional solar PV energy to 2020. Othersouthern European nations make up most of theremainder, but the UK, Belgium and Netherlandsalso see that PV has potential in northern Europe.CSP is important in Spain’s NREAP, and featuresin the plans of five other countries in southernEurope.

Germany and Spain appear set to consolidate their positions as leaders in further deployment ofonshore wind. In other countries such as Romaniaand Bulgaria the onshore wind industry is justgetting started. Offshore wind ambitions areconcentrated in the North Sea, but France andSpain also plan to exploit wind energy in theAtlantic, and a small contribution is expected in the Mediterranean.

The UK is by far the most ambitious nation in terms of developing tidal, wave and ocean energyaccording to the NREAPs, though five othercountries see potential for these technologies todeliver significant quantities of electricity by 2020.BirdLife considers that with directed innovationfunding and sensitive deployment, wave and tidalstream technologies are potentially significant andecologically acceptable technologies. However,large tidal power “barrages” are likely to presentvery significant ecological risks through loss ofintertidal habitats.

Hydropower makes only a small additionalcontribution in 2020 according to the NREAPs.While much of this will involve repowering existingfacilities or small installations, there is a risk thatlarge dams will be built on some of Europe’s lastremaining ecologically rich rivers. Liquid biofuelsfeature in every NREAP, reflecting the mandatoryrequirement to meet 10% of transport fuel needsusing biofuels, hydrogen or renewable electricity.This is expected to be delivered largely throughliquid biofuels.

THE ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF EUROPE’S 2020 RENEWABLES PLANS 9

northern European countries with similar weatherdo not consider it in their NREAPs. Similarly, heatpumps are seen to have great potential in the UK,France and Italy and 13 other EU Member States,while others have not stated an intention to makesignificantly greater use of this technology. BirdLifebelieves that Member States should review thepotential for these technologies and maximise their deployment.

Nineteen per cent of the increase in renewableenergy will be provided by “high-risktechnologies”, represented in shades of red inFigure 1. Additional hydropower provides a littleover 1%, partly accounted for by “repowering”existing facilities. The remaining 18% of theincrease in consumption is attributed to liquidbiofuels. While repowering hydro facilities andwind farms can be achieved with low ecologicalrisks, and can even benefit the environment, newhydro and liquid biofuels are identified here astechnologies that carry high ecological risks.BirdLife recommends that further expansion of useof these technologies should be reviewed and anyshortfall in meeting the 2020 renewables targetshould be made up using less risky technologyand/or more ambitious energy savings.

Onshore wind power is expected to contribute24,000 ktoe more energy to Europe’s mix in 2020than in 2005. This is the largest additionalcontribution to renewable electricity consumptionin 2020. Offshore wind also makes a significantadditional contribution in 2020, of 11,000 ktoe. Toillustrate what this could mean “on the ground”, thiswould require installation of approximately 59,0002-MW onshore wind turbines and 6,600 8-MWoffshore wind turbines. These would occupy surfaceareas of approximately 11,800 km2 onshore and5,300 km2 offshorevi. These areas are relevant toecological influences such as avoidance by birdsand fishing exclusion zones, but the actual footprintsof the turbines would, of course, be far smaller.

Biomass for heat is the biggest contributingtechnology to meeting the 2020 target overall.Again, simply to illustrate the scale of thisambition, if this were all to be met using woodfuelvii an additional annual consumption ofapproximately 88 million oven dry tonnes (odt)would be required. In addition, meeting thebiomass for electricity target using wood fuelwould require an additional 194 million odt ofwood in 2020. For reference, total wood biomassproduction across the EU each year for allpurposes is approximately 500 million odt. To meet the target for solar PV to provide an


HOW TO ACHIEVE A RENEWABLESREVOLUTION INHARMONY WITHNATUREThe report identifies eight areas where policy makers must help to enable a renewablesrevolution in harmony with nature. Action in these areas would support investment, minimiseecological impacts and also improve the publicacceptability of investment plans and specific projects.

1 COMMIT POLITICALLY AND FINANCIALLY. The major obstacle to renewables investment inthe coming decade is likely to be difficultyaccessing adequate finance at a reasonable cost.Investor confidence falls, and the cost of venturecapital rises, where incentives and policyframeworks are unstable. Certainty needs to beoffered both in terms of commitment to renewable

energy at a political and a practical level. Thismeans that:

i) Europe should urgently set binding targets forrenewables as a share of energy consumption in 2030.

ii) Member States should ensure suitable locationsare identified for the major renewablestechnologies.

iii) Stable incentive frameworks are needed, to giveinvestors and all stakeholders more confidencethat sufficient renewables will be delivered.

iv) R&D budgets for lower cost and biodiversity-friendly renewables need to be increased by an order of magnitude.

Maps showing where birds are more sensitive to renewable energydevelopment are valuable to planners and developersix.

2 MINIMISE OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. High level strategic planning and energy-systemoptimisation will reduce the overall amount of newresources, capacity and infrastructures required.This reduces impacts and keeps costs to consumersand industry down.

3 INTRODUCE STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNINGFOR RENEWABLES. Renewable energy investments are oftencontroversial, with supporters and opponents bothhaving legitimate opinions. Planning is the processthrough which these concerns are reconciled in thepublic interest, both within and between EUMember States (eg, in offshore areas). Goodplanning, based on transparency and publicparticipation, ensures suitable locations areidentified for various land uses, and improves thepublic acceptability of investments. Maps indicatingwhere the most sensitive habitats and species arelocated are a valuable planning tool for identifyingbroad zones where renewables development ismost appropriate. SEA provides an ideal structuredframework for environmentally sensitive planning.

4 ENSURE ALL STAKEHOLDERS ARE ENGAGEDAND WORKING TOGETHER. At every stage in developing and implementingpolicies and plans for renewables, policy makers,public institutions, developers, conservationorganisations and other stakeholders can benefitfrom working together to find mutually beneficialsolutions and to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

5 ENSURE PROJECT IMPACTS ARE MINIMISED. Renewables developers routinely take steps to avoidand minimise the impacts of their projects, throughuse of tools such as Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA). Policy makers can help byensuring the legislative and institutional frameworksin every Member State are adequate to ensureenvironmental assessments are carried out to

HOW TO ACHIEVE A RENEWABLES REVOLUTION IN HARMONY WITH NATURE 11

a high and scientifically rigorous standard, andthat agreed mitigation measures are alwaysimplemented and monitored for effectiveness. And of course, unacceptably damaging proposalsshould be rejected in the planning system.

6 DELIVER ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS. Ecological “enhancements” are improvements that go beyond measures required to mitigate or compensate for damage. Developers oftenprovide incentives to communities to make theirproposals more readily acceptable, such aspaying for community facilities. Providingattractive and wildlife-rich habitats is another way to provide community benefits, and tocontribute to local and national biodiversitystrategies and targets.

7 GUIDANCE AND CAPACITY BUILDING. Legislation, regulation and good practice forbiodiversity-friendly renewables development are not always well-understood by all partiesconcerned. Moreover, institutions often lack thenecessary capacity to ensure they are properlyapplied, particularly in the newer and lesswealthy EU Member States. Big gains can bemade for quite small investments here, andBirdLife Partners are keen to help.

8 PROTECT BIODIVERSITY. Renewables will help limit climate change, buthealthy ecosystems and protected habitats will beessential to enable society and nature to survivethe warming that we are already experiencingand cannot avoid. In particular, the Natura 2000network of internationally important sites forbiodiversity needs robust protection, while alsoaccommodating economic activities that presentno significant conservation risks or thatcontribute to conservation goals.

When poorly sited, large solar arrays can cause habitat lossfor various species.

Collision with wind turbine blades is a risk for certain bird species.


In developing Meeting Europe’s Renewable EnergyTargets in Harmony with Nature, the projectPartners evaluated how well the policy frameworkin their country achieved the following:

� stimulating investment in a range of renewableenergy technologies

� protecting biodiversity and enabling it to adaptto climate change

� minimising overall infrastructure needs andimpacts

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

In general the most positive aspects of the policyframeworks are: stimulating investment inrenewables; designation and protection of areasof European, national and local importance forbiodiversity; and the use of planning control torefuse consent to the most damaging proposals.Areas where policy frameworks are performingless well are: protection of biodiversity outsidedesignated areas; national energy system planning;national-level spatial planning for renewables; useof bird sensitivity maps and SEA; and enforcementof mitigation and monitoring measures agreed atthe project consent stage of planning.

The project Partners then suggested policyrecommendations for their country and/or theEuropean Commission. Given the principle ofsubsidiarity, many of the policy changes requiredto better enable a renewables deployment inharmony with nature can only be made at the levelof Member States, for example, changes to spatialplanning frameworks and policies shaping national energy mixes. National-level policyrecommendations are given in the main report.

In summary, the recommendations for theEuropean Commission are:

1 COMMIT TO LONG-TERM SUPPORT FORRENEWABLE ENERGY.

� Push for ambitious binding targets and effectivemechanisms to save energy across Europe.

� Adopt binding targets for renewable energy as ashare of total energy consumption across Europefor 2030, backed by a level of commitment andvision that will sustain investment and public/NGO support.

� Build post-2020 plans for renewables on ananalysis of the level of investment in varioustechnologies that is both necessary and respectsecological limits.

2 PUT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AT THEHEART OF ENERGY POLICY.

� Ensure biodiversity protection is a high priorityin European energy infrastructure plans througha co-ordinated approach that minimises totalinfrastructure requirements and makes newand existing power lines safe for birds andother wildlife.

� Develop clear guidelines to achieve these aims,for application in Member States and where EUfinance is provided.

3 ESTABLISH A POSITIVE PLANNINGFRAMEWORK.

� Promote transparent, effective and inclusiveplanning procedures, wherever possible usingbird sensitivity maps, to ensure ecologicallysensitive planning takes place and allstakeholders are effectively informed andinvolved from the outset.

RECOMMENDATIONSFOR NATIONAL ANDEU POLICY MAKERS

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL AND EU POLICY MAKERS 13

� Develop up-to-date guidance on “appropriateassessment” (under Article 6 in the HabitatsDirective) for all renewables sectors, and inparticular for the appropriate assessment ofplans. Increase commitment to enforcementaction on infringements of the rules ondevelopment in Natura 2000 areas.

� Improve Member States’ understanding of EUlaws on development in Natura 2000 areas.Ensure developments are not automaticallyrefused consent if they cause no harm (and arealso permitted in national legislation), orcontribute to the conservation objectives of thedesignated area, such as sustainableagriculture and forestry practices andsustainable biomass schemes.

� Require environmental impact assessments forall sectors, including renewables, to set out aclear and specific plan for implementingmitigation and monitoring measures, and forreporting on measurable outcomes that can beverified by competent authorities.

� Where required, build capacity in MemberState authorities to scrutinise environmentalassessments and ensure that agreed

mitigation, compensation and monitoringprovisions are implemented.

� Ensure environmental assessment reports are scientifically robust, for example, byrequiring independent selection of consultantsto carry out studies from a pool of approvedprofessionals.

� Clarify how alternatives should be defined inSEA eg, following the “mitigation hierarchy”(ie, alternatives should look first to avoidimpacts, then to minimise and mitigate,and lastly to compensate).

4 TARGET R&D AT FACILITATINGSUSTAINABLE ENERGY.

� Increase R&D funding for key technologieswith potential for high-carbon savings andlow-biodiversity impacts, including micro-renewables, floating offshore wind turbines,wave power and tidal stream power.

� Provide R&D funding for EU-wide biodiversitysensitivity mapping for a range of majorrenewables technologies, following an agreedcommon methodology.

Expansion of renewable energy will require new power lines to be built: these can be a hazard for birds.


i Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf[accessed 20-10-11]

ii Huntley, B., Green, R.E., Collingham, Y.C. & Willis, S.G. (2008) A ClimaticAtlas of European Breeding Birds. Lynx Editions, Barcelona, Spain.

iii Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J.,Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., Siqueira, M.F.D., Grainger, A. & Hannah, L.(2004). Extinction risk from climate change, Nature 427 (6970): 145–8

iv Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being:Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, USA.http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf [accessed 20-10-11]

v Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent (ktoe). Calculations based on data inBeurskens, L.W.M. & Hekkenberg, M. (2011) Renewable Energy Projectionsas Published in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans of theEuropean Member States, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands(ECN), Petten, The Netherlands. For gross final consumption values the“total before aviation reduction” was taken. BirdLife makes no guarantee forcompleteness or correctness of data: mistakes might have occurred due tocopying of wrong numbers, typing mistakes, misinterpretation or mistakesof our sources.

vi Using a conversion factor of 11,630 GWh/Mtoe, facility run times of 8,760hours per year, load factors of 27.1% for onshore wind turbines and 27.6%for offshore wind turbines (Digest of UK Energy Statistics, Department ofEnergy and Climate Change, London) and surface areas based on EEA (2009)Europe’s onshore and offshore wind energy potential. An assessment ofenvironmental and economic constraints, European Environment Agency,Copenhagen, Denmark, (p.10).

vii To calculate demand for biomass in oven dried tonnes (odt), a conversionfactor of 6,000 odt/MW was used for electricity, and 18 GJ/odt (at 41.9GJ/toe) to calculate the demand for biomass for heat.

viii Using a conversion factor of 11,630 GWh/Mtoe, facility run times of 8,760hours per year, capacity factors of 12% for photovoltaic 31% for solar power,57.6% for biomass electricity, 27% for tidal/ wave turbines and 34.8% forhydropower.

ix Map for Flanders Region of Belgium. Details and searchable interactive mapavailable at http://geo-vlaanderen.agiv.be/geo-vlaanderen/vogelatlas

ENDNOTES

IMAGES: wind turbine with planted hardwood trees by Niall Benvie; Spanish wind turbines andsolar panels on farmland by Roger Tidman; Polarmis tied at quayside by Laurie Campbell; commonor Eurasian crane and electricity cables by Nick Upton.

GRAPH: Sandra Pape

MAP: bird sensitivity in Belgium by © Agentschap voor Geografische Informatie Vlaanderen –Geovlaanderen – Vogelatlas.

BirdLife Europe, Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67 (2nd Floor), B-1060Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2280 08 30

This publication is part-financedby the European Union

This report was produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB),registered charity England and Wales no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654. 272-0009-11-12

http://europe.birdlife.orgwww.rspb.org.uk/climate

Birdlife Europeanand Central AsianPartnership with:

Documents

MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS IN …