Wind & solar energy and nature conservation
Climate change and the degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity cannot be solved in isolation. Land and marine ecosystems play a crucial role in the climate system, capturing roughly half of carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activities (UNEP, 2009). Protecting biodiversity preserves ecosystem services that are important for regulating the climate and helping us to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, increasing the share of energy we generate from renewable sources eases pressure on ecosystems by slowing climate change. Thus, efforts to address climate change and protect natural ecosystems can – and need to – benefit each other.
However, conflicts can also arise between renewable energy and nature conservation policy. For example, important habitats may be lost, or fragmented by, wind farm and solar park developments, and bird and bat collisions with wind turbines are widely documented. This Future Brief focuses on how land-based ecosystems are affected by wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) development, and how win-win solutions which maximise both conservation and climate benefits may be developed.
We cannot tackle biodiversity loss without addressing climate change. The shift from fossil fuels to renewable energies, like wind and solar, is necessary to avoid climate change spiralling out of control. However, it is equally impossible to tackle climate change without maintaining and restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services. Careful strategic-level planning combined with project-by-project assessment will help harmonise efforts towards meeting renewable energy and nature conservation and restoration goals, including by minimising energy installations’ negative impacts on biodiversity and habitats.
EU policy context
In 2008, EU Member States agreed on a Climate Change and Energy Package with three clear targets for 2020: to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%1; to cut energy consumption by 20%2; and to increase the share of energy consumption derived from renewable sources to 20% (EC, 2011). With respect to the third target, Directive 2009/28/EC later set mandatory targets for individual countries. Targets ranged from 10% of energy from renewables for Malta to 40% for Sweden. In January 2014, a new overall target of at least 27% was proposed for 2030, along with a framework of national plans for meeting the collective target3 (EC, 2014).
Meanwhile, as a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the EU is committed to achieving the Strategic Plan and Aichi Targets4, which include reducing the loss of natural habitats, preventing extinctions of threatened species and protecting important ecosystem services5, such as water cycling, pollination and carbon storage. The Birds and Habitats Directives form the cornerstones of EU nature conservation policy and establish the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The network, which is comprised of over 27 000 sites, stretches across all 28 countries and covers over 18% of the EU’s total land area as well as significant marine areas6.
The Natura 2000 model of conservation is designed to enable sustainable development – protected areas do not exclude people and infrastructure. However, economic and social activities must be consistent with the conservation objectives of the sites. Following an appropriate assessment, if it is determined that a plan or project will affect the integrity of the site this development may only be permitted for “reasons of overriding public interest”, when there is an “absence of alternative solutions” and where measures are taken to compensate for the damaging effects of the project. Several EU Guidance documents deal with development under the Habitats Directives and with wind farms and Natura 2000. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6 for an explanation of assessment procedures7 for projects affecting Natura 2000 sites (EC, 2011). Outside of the Natura 2000 network, the presence of species of “community interest” listed under the Birds and Habitats Directives means that projects which risk damaging their breeding sites or significantly disturbing them also need to comply with EU law.
1. Challenges and opportunities
Meeting renewable energy targets whilst protecting biodiversity presents both challenges and opportunities at national, regional and local levels. Some countries are already making good progress in meeting these two goals, including Germany, which is a leader in onshore wind and solar energy (BirdLife Europe, 2011). The German Solar Industry Association, in conjunction with the German Society for Nature Conservation, has drawn up criteria to guide nature-friendly solar development (Peschel, 2010). Meanwhile, other countries are making less progress in developing renewable energy infrastructure. For instance, investment in solar development is not currently considered profitable in Poland due to a lack of economic incentives (Sliz-Szkliniarz, 2013).
In the short term, increasing renewable energy production will reduce carbon emissions, but the long-term effects of converting large areas of habitat to achieve this reduction are not well understood (Katzner, 2013). Methods for modelling energy scenarios over the long term do not provide enough spatial detail to analyse local impacts (Krewitt et al., 2005).
One crude measure of the potential habitat impacts of energy generation is given by estimating the land area required to generate a given amount of electricity. Most studies suggest solar and wind energy are more space-intensive than traditional electricity sources. For example, one study finds that solar power requires 37km2 to generate a terawatt-hour per year, while wind energy needs 72km2. In comparison, coal power needs 10km2 to produce this amount of energy and nuclear power needs just 2km2 (McDonald, 2009). However, these figures are dependent on the specific site used and do not take account of other direct or indirect environmental impacts that could also occur in future, such as extraction of coal and uranium, waste storage, nuclear catastrophe or area of potential hazard. Carefully siting energy infrastructure (for example installing solar panels on already existing buildings and sealed land) can minimise its impacts on valuable habitats and could even provide opportunities for regeneration and combined use, for instance, with agriculture.
A further challenge is the upgrading and expansion of national power grids to cope with renewable energy development. This adds to the land ‘footprint’ of renewable energy production and its impact on ecosystems – which is also a consideration with conventional energy production. As is the case with energy plants themselves, engaging early on in the planning process with local communities, transparent decision-making and managing expectations will be key to the success of these projects (Schneider & Bätjer, 2013).
2. Renewable energy impacts and solutions
Wind turbines and ground-mounted solar panels pose medium-level risks to nature, according to BirdLife Europe (2011). The bird and bat deaths caused by wind turbines are widely known. Other important impacts of energy infrastructure include habitat loss and habitat fragmentation, which may cause changes in the behaviour of animals. As in other situations where habitats are disturbed by human activities, behavioural changes may include avoidance of an area, as well as changes to movement patterns, foraging and breeding. Some species may be permanently displaced by an energy development, while others may return after the initial construction phase. Every project is different, owing to the particular nature of the habitat. Impacts therefore need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, as well as at the strategic level (Hernandez, et al., 2014a; EC, 2011).
The effects on nature of power transmission lines are the same for renewable energy as they are for those caused by traditional methods of electricity generation and include bird collisions and electrocution. In most cases, it is considered preferable to site energy facilities near to existing transmission lines to minimise disruption to wildlife (Cameron et al., 2012). On the other hand, wide transmission corridors for power lines have been known to increase biodiversity by opening up new habitats (Hernandez et al., 2014a). Good site selection, through mapping and strategic and environmental impact assessment (see Section 3), emerges as the potential industry best practice, whereas inappropriate siting can lead to valuable species and habitats being disturbed or lost altogether.
Customer comments
No comments were found for Wind & solar energy and nature conservation. Be the first to comment!