Scottish Association for Marine Science Ocean Energy Forum, 4 th - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lucy Greenhill Research rch Fellow

• w in M

Marine ne Planni ning ng and Rene newa wable le Energy rgy Scottish Association for Marine Science Ocean Energy Forum, 4th April 2014

1.

• 1. INTRODUC

RODUCTION TION 2.

• 2. CURRENT

RENT PRIORITI RITIES ES 3.

• 3. OUTSTAN

STANDING ING CHALLENG LENGES 4.

• 4. STRATEG

TEGIC C SOLUTI UTIONS ONS 5.

• 5. SUMMARY

RY

We are ‘talking the talk’…. …but can we ‘walk the walk’?

Draft Plan Options for Renewable Energy in Scotland, Scottish Government, 2013

• 1. IN

INTRO TRODUCT UCTION ION

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. C

CURREN RENT T PRIOR ORITI TIES ES

• 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 complic

• mplicat

ated ed, expen ensiv sive e and unc ncerta tain in?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/09/5811

• 2. C

CURREN RENT T PRIOR ORITI TIES ES (cont nt.)

• 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. O

OUTST TSTANDI NDING NG CHALLENG LENGES ES

Harbour Seal (SAMS) Harbour Porpoise (SAMS) Europ

• pea

ean n Prot

• tec

ecte ted Spec ecie ies

Consent application / EIA – very scientific, lots of investment, new information. Legislative Framework (e.g. Habitats Regulations) – policy instruments, limited scientific input, low investment.

• 3. O

OUTST TSTANDI NDING NG CHALLENG LENGES ES (cont. t.) 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. O

OUTST TSTANDI NDING NG CHALLENG LENGES ES (cont. t.) 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. S

STRATE RATEGIC GIC SOLUTIO UTIONS NS

• 5. S

SUMMA MARY RY

• 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

To discuss…! Thank you for listening. Lucy.greenhill@sams.ac.uk

www.sams.ac.uk