APPENDIX 10
Memorandum from Scottish Renewables
1. Please find enclosed our views relating
to the Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry into a new Marine
Bill.
2. Scottish Renewables is Scotland's leading
renewables trade body, representing over 180 organisations, businesses
and individuals involved in the development of renewable energy
projects in Scotland. Our membership ranges from community groups
and sole traders, up to major Scottish utilities and international
plcs. Between them they are active in the development of biomass,
hydro, solar, wave, wind and tidal energy projects. Further information
about our work and our membership can be found on our website.
3. Firstly, many thanks for providing a
chance to respond on what is a key issue for Scotland and the
growing renewable energy market. This response has been formulated
by Scottish Renewables following internal discussion within our
membership, including our expert work group on marine energy issues.
4. This memorandum is consistent with the
British Wind Energy Association's position paper[1]
on the Marine Bill, which provides a useful overview of the UK
offshore renewables industry viewpoint on the consultation.
5. Before running through the key themes
within the Marine Bill consultation document, we would like to
make a number of general comments:
(a) Scottish Renewables would like more detail
on how a proposed Marine Bill would affect the devolved administrations,
in particular the Scottish Executive.
(b) We would stress that the development
of offshore renewable energy technologies should be a key priority
for both the UK Government and Scottish Executive, reflecting
the proposed Marine Bill's key strategic objective of sustainable
development. Any resulting legislation, guidelines and/or MMO
should therefore regard renewable energy developments as a priority,
with at least equal importance as other sea uses, avoiding the
implementation of barriers, such as the precautionary principle.
(c) We believe that the bill should deliver
the following objectives:
(i) Sustainable development.
(ii) Consistency across the whole of the UK,
and between the UK Government and the devolved administrations.
(iii) A single consent delivered by the responsible
governmental department.
(iv) A flexible and adaptive system of marine
spatial planning that provides safeguards for future use of the
marine environment.
(v) A Marine Management Organisation (MMO) that
is streamlined, effective and works in an advisory capacity to
the consenting bodies.
(vi) An effective tool or body that is responsible
for gathering, processing and giving access to the data gathered
and stored.
6. The following information provides detail
on each of these key points, and answers the questions specifically
posed by the Environmental Audit Committee (shown in bold text).
7. In identifying the five main themes
has DEFRA focused on the areas most likely to help deliver an
effective and coherent Marine Bill?
(a) Scottish Renewables accepts the five
main themes as an appropriate focus for the Marine Bill.
(b) We would, however, like to underline
DEFRA's assertion that sustainable development remains the key
priority for the bill, and that the development of well-planned
renewable energy projects be regarded a vital tool in achieving
this objective, and in particular helping realise the UK Government's
strategic goals for the marine environment outlined in paragraph
4.2a-c of the consultation document.
8. Does the Consultation Paper give due
consideration to the many varied and often competing demands placed
on the marine environment and, if not, where would any new Bill
need to be strengthened to rectify this omission?
(a) Scottish Renewables welcomes the aim
to streamline the consenting procedure within a detailed and accurate
planning system. We support the outcome of providing access to
data and awareness of potential conflicts for developers at the
early stages of a project. Ideally, we would like to see an outcome
whereby sustainable development is the prime objective, meaning
developers and conservationists can work closer together to resolve
problems.
(b) Furthermore, we welcome the chance to
facilitate more "joined-up" Government, bringing the
onshore and offshore planning systems in line with one another.
This applies, not only within and between departments at UK level,
but also between UK Government and the devolved administrations.
(c) Our ultimate concern would be that the
bill could end up adding a new layer of bureaucracy, increasing
the problems in the planning system. Any slant on conservation
rather than sustainable development could restrict renewables
development through too many no-go areas. Likewise, a shift to
a radically new consenting procedure could cause future uncertainty
to an industry in its infancy, such as offshore renewables. This
would translate into delays and a lack of investment, representing
a significant risk to the industry, and subsequent risk of failing
to meet UK climate change targets.
(d) Further detail outlining our views on
the main themes is provided in the following paragraphs.
9. Consents
(a) Scottish Renewables recommends that the
consenting system be based solely around section 36 of the Electricity
Act 1989. We suggest that a single sectoral consent be provided
by the governmental department responsible for energy consents
with the MMO acting in an advisory capacity to this department.
This should be consistent with the consenting systems in the devolved
administrations. Much work has been done to make section 36 applicable
offshore including work on a statutory instrument on applications
for consent. To move away from this would risk wasting this work.
(b) It is essential that the system of consents
work consistently and in a way that gives confidence to developers,
investors and the public. This system does this because it provides
simplification of the consenting process, responsibility and accountability,
and the ability to resolve conflicts. The consenting body should
be responsible for the policy governing the consent. This will
bring the offshore renewable consenting process in line with the
onshore consenting process. Moving away from this system will
mean that energy policy implementation will become fragmented.
(c) Renewable developments under section
36 will still have to undergo the Environmental Impact Assessment
process, which is laid down by EU law and will not be changed
by the Marine Bill.
10. The Marine Management Organisation
(a) Scottish Renewables recommends that the MMO
be a separate organisation that exists outside of government.
Its role should be that of data collector and collator; the creator
and holder of the marine spatial plan; a facilitator for negotiation
and conflict resolution; and an adviser in the consenting process.
This organisation should work closely with the relevant departments
and bodies in the devolved administrations, and aim to achieve
consistency across the planning systems around the whole of the
UK.
(b) The MMO must also have a clear and unambiguous
duty towards sustainable development.
(c) The MMO must allow access to the data that
it holds, providing an authoritative, reliable source of information
for developers and other stakeholders.
11. Marine Spatial Planning
(a) The Marine Spatial Plan must be consistent
with marine planning systems around the whole of the UK, and within
each of the devolved administrations, to avoid confusion and delays
to developments.
(b) Scottish Renewables suggests that, in
the creation of the Plan, the MMO uses the data to create GIS
mapping of all relevant available information within the marine
environment. This data and policy should be used to create a constraints
map. It can also be used to safeguard areas such as tidal resource
to provide for potential future development, within the remit
of sustainability.
(c) However it must be made clear that there
is not a presumption against development outside of these areas
and that there is flexibility within the plan to recognise that
constraints will differ from sector to sector and will change
with time and technology.
(d) This constraints mapping and safeguarding
for future use will have to undergo extensive conflict resolution
at the plan creation stage involving all stakeholders. The MMO
will be the facilitator of this negotiation and conflict resolution.
(e) There must be the potential to review
the Plan at regular intervals to ensure that it is taking into
account all relevant changes in the marine environment. The Plan
will be used to aid sustainable development and highlight conflicts
as and when they arise.
(f) It is essential that the Plan does not
create a prescriptive zone system that lays down strict and unchanging,
or difficult to change, areas. Nor should a system that does not
account for multiple uses and the ability for different sectors
and industries to use the same space be implemented. A system
that does not allow for stakeholder input at a plan creation stage
must also be avoided.
(g) Flexibility at all stages is key to the
Plan's success.
12. Marine Nature Conservation
(a) The ultimate importance of renewable
energy development in helping protect the marine environment through
mitigating climate change should be recognised within the Marine
Spatial Plan.
(b) A move to standardise the multitude of
different conservation sites around the UK would be useful and
easier to understand for other sea users. Marine Conservation
areas should not exclude renewable energy development. There should
be clear guidance on the issues to be taken into account when
development is being planned in conservation areas.
(c) Allocation of these sites must be done
in a clear and transparent manner so that all stakeholders have
a clear idea about why the allocation has been proposed.
(d) Marine conservation areas must not be
allocated on a purely precautionary basis due to information being
incomplete. Allocation of sites should not hinder development
already under way.
(e) The precautionary principle must be used
in conjunction with the proportionary principle to ensure that
the correct factors are considered when development is proposed.
This is essential in the marine environment where extremely accurate
data is often hard to find. By weighing up the benefits of the
development a fairer and more considered conclusion can be reached.
(f) It must be recognised that some forms
of development are less harmful than others and that in some circumstances
can benefit marine biodiversity. To preclude renewable energy
devices from areas that would benefit from the constraints they
impose on the use of that area would be nonsensical and a blow
to the potential of tackling climate change.
13. Summary
(a) Scottish Renewables agrees with the core
objective of a Marine Bill as being sustainable development and
would stress the importance of consistency of approach across
the whole of the UK. The development of offshore renewable energy
technologies should be a key priority for both the UK Government
and Scottish Executive, helping to mitigate the effects of climate
change which will have a major impact on the marine environment
and other sectors making use of our seas.
(b) In order to avoid placing barriers in
the way of such development, and to provide confidence amongst
investors and developers, we would recommend that a single consent
delivered by the responsible governmental department along with
a flexible and adaptive system of marine spatial planning that
provides safeguards for future use of the marine environment.
(c) I trust that you find the comments above
of use in helping you deal with the issue consulted upon. We have
responded to a number of issues set out in the consultation, but
also sought to widen the debate. If you would wish to meet or
get further details on our views then please do not hesitate to
get in touch.
June 2006
1 BWEA (2006), The Marine Bill: Offshore Renewables
Perspective. www.bwea.com/marine/marinebill.html Back
|
