Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Country Land and Business Association

The CLA

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) represents 34,000 members who between them own and manage about half the rural land in England and Wales. This includes the low lying agricultural land (much of it highly productive) that may be required to deliver compensatory habitat in England and Wales, and the fishery assets on the Severn and its tributaries which are important to the rural economy.

Importantly, our membership owns and manages the assets that will be affected should the proposal go ahead, and we accordingly have a key stakeholder role.

However, many of our members are very small sole traders or small businesses who have no other representation and are relying on the CLA submission to protect their property rights, the sustainability of their businesses and their right to fair treatment, and to ensure that they are not forgotten or disregarded in this potentially enormous scheme.

The CLA’s members are involved in all forms of renewable energy and area are also energy consumers and depend on security of energy supply in their businesses. We share the view that climate change is one of the biggest issues facing the world in the 21st Century.

Disclosure

We share Government’s objective to properly assess the costs and benefits of capturing tidal power from the river Severn. However those respondents submitting evidence have little information on which to base their representation. There must be substantial and detailed disclosure of the scheme proposals both regarding the construction of the barrage itself but also, and perhaps more importantly the wider impacts which will be far reaching both within and beyond the Severn estuary itself.

In summary there are likely to be significant impacts across the following areas on which there must be sufficient consultation supported by full details so it can be clear as to the full impacts of such a major development. These consultation should include the impacts on:

Land use—both for construction, mitigation and compensatory habitat.

Water levels—an assessment of water levels both sides of the barrier and an assessment of how this effects current EA proposals for coastal re-alignment1 including drainage and flooding impacts on both sides of the barrier.

Agriculture and rural business—how much productive land, of what quality and where, will be lost to construction of the barrage and the extensive mitigation measures proposed.

Fisheries—the impact on fish stocks and migratory fish and the businesses that rely upon them.

Where it is relevant for us to comment CLA has provided evidence in response to the questions set out in the terms of reference which is set out below. However there is little detail provided on the current proposal so our response is not as full as it should be.

Answers to the questions set out in the terms of reference

This section addresses the specific questions posed in the terms of reference.

1. What contribution could the Cardiff-Weston Barrage make to UK energy security and climate change objectives?

The CLA does not have the expertise to comment specifically on the potential for energy generation from a Severn Barrage.

We recognise that low carbon generation of this scale may benefit the UKs energy security as well as reducing the carbon intensity of our energy supply. However, it is vital that consideration is given to the alternative renewable energy scenarios and the different options available to achieve the UK targets.

For example in the 2010 consultation it was suggested that an area of up to 64,000 ha could be required to replace habitats lost as a result of a Cardiff—Weston barrage. It should therefore be considered what the impact of using this equivalent land area for alternative energy resources (biomass, biofuel or anaerobic digestion feedstock). If this area was palnted with short rotation coppice willow, this would provide huge biodiversity benefits in its own right and deliver 1.1GW of energy, without any harm to intertidal habitat or protected salmonid and other fish species.

Moreover, renewable technologies are developing quickly, and efficiency gains and cost reductions are being achieved so there may be more cost effective alternatives which may become viable before completion of the barrage2 e.g.:

The replacement of up to 50 of the gas supplied to the UK gas grid by renewable biogas from anaerobic digestion and syngas.3

The falling costs of thin film solar photovoltaics.4

The potential for algae as a biofuel.5

The development of marine energy technologies.6

We also are concerned at the potential GHG implications of the construction volumes involved. The manufacture of concrete is a significant source of GHG,7 and the energy involved in the many millions of tonnes required will affect the carbon balance of a barrage and must be accounted for.

There are additional concerns around GHG implications from Indirect Land use Changes as a result of the provision of compensatory habitats. In a world of freely traded food supplies and rising demand, productive capacity lost in the UK will be replaced either by deforestation (with attendant GHG emissions) in tropical countries, or by intensification of production (with attendant GHG emissions) in other parts of the world.8 These second order effects of land use change were analysed and considered by Professor Gallagher in the context of his review of UK biofuels policy9 and have recently come under review in relation to EU biofuels targets.

CLA urges that the same level of work and expertise is devoted to the indirect impacts of habitat creation which will be required to mitigate the effects of the Severn proposals and how this will relate to agricultural, fishery and other rural businesses.

CLA argues that any barrage development should be subject to whole life GHG accounting, and that this should take into account both direct and indirect effects.

2. What risks and opportunities could it pose with regard to flooding in the Severn estuary, and how might any risks be mitigated?

Low lying areas on both the inward and seaward side of barrages are likely to face a changed and increased flood risk. Existing drainage systems that rely on low tide to drain the collected waters (eg the seaward Somerset levels, or inward Severn Vale) will face reduced opportunities for natural drainage and existing systems will require revision.

These impose costs and risks to the rural economy locally, and in addition place additional costs on local business and householders for flood defence and management, as well as increasing GHG emissions from the energy required to pump water that previously drained by gravity.

There are other potential risks to landowners, farmers and fishery operators which we have expanded on in our response to question 5 of the terms of reference.

3. What risks and opportunities could it pose to wildlife and habitat in the Severn estuary, and how might any risks be mitigated?

Other organisations are better placed to comment on the impacts of a Severn Barrage on wildlife and habitats. Whilst it is thought that mitigation will be delivered through compensatory habitat there is no detail as to how much will be required and where it will be located. There is also no process outlined for the purchase, the engineering works required to put it into an intertidal range and ongoing management of this habitat. The CLA strongly opposes the use of the slow compulsory purchase regime as a cheap way to deliver commercial profit yielding projects.

By way of example, the acquisition of land required for the Abberton Reservoir in Essex undertaken by Essex and Suffolk water started in 2000. All in all, the process is estimated to have taken nine years. The delivery by land through compulsory acquisition for compensatory habitat is unlikely to be achieved any more quickly.

CLA urges Government to look to private sector commercial delivery of compensatory habitat, after all landowners are already in place, they are good habitat managers and know their land.

CLA urges Government to investigate and adopt alternative mechanisms for the delivery of compensatory habitat. Delivery of compensatory habitat by voluntary means will reduce the loss to UK agriculture as those coming forward will select the most appropriate land with the lowest farming potential. Moreover, their management skills will be applied to the new habitat to ensure delivery of co-product along with the habitat, such as salt marsh lamb and samphire.

The CLA opposes the compulsory acquisition of land or resources for use by profit seeking commercial operators when compensation is only paid at existing use value and there provides inadequate financial consideration.

The present Compulsory Purchase system came into being so that the state could deliver essential infrastructure. Over the last 50 years this has been further refined, but still on the same premise. Things are very different now with almost all infrastructure being delivered by commercial companies (including renewable energy infrasture). All these companies seek to use compulsory purchase to maximise their profits while delivering their projects.

The main problem is that the current Compulsory Purchase systems show only scant regard for the landowners across who’s land the scheme passes. The impact and control of the scheme is all at the behest of the delivering company, and often the argument used is that landowners are compensated for this uncertainty. The reality is, however, large schemes take many years from conception to completion which adds to uncertainty, blighting property for many years, sometimes decades. Accommodation works are often agreed but then reneged upon, compensation payments delayed or never finalized. With little penalty for the acquiring authority and the costs of appeal are so high the property owner is severely handicapped in their negotiations.

The CLA proposes that compulsory purchase should only be used as a last resort and then some additional measures be added that respect the unique position of the rural property owner who is likely to remain in position from the start of the scheme to completion, suffering the uncertainty of the proposals, the construction of the scheme and then the severance or disruption of its operation.

The CLA proposes:

Compulsory acquisition should only be a last resort when a negotiated settlement cannot be reached.

A duty of care to consider the impact on the property owner/occupier.

An additional duty of the acquirer to appoint an “independent person” to ensure fair play and resolve disputes.

A bond backed Blight Scheme to ensure property owners do not lose out as a result of the scheme

Proper statutory provision for the sale back of land surplus to requirement.

Position of landowners who do not have land compulsorily acquired

Current UK compensation law is unlikely to be able to deliver a fair outcome to those fisheries owners who lie at some distance from the Severn, but whose income and capital value will be affected by the construction of a Severn tidal scheme.

Where no land is taken, compensation law limits claims to those that can be directly linked to the action of the acquirer10. This limits compensation to losses in land value directly arising from the development.

Under nuisance law, while the effects of the development will be observable on a wide scale, it will be almost impossible to link cause and effect to the standard of proof required by a court of law to establish that a drop in average catch on a mile of river 40 miles from the barrage is directly a result of the barrage.

Thus CLA fears that, without a special scheme of compensation being put in place, the construction of barrages that bar migratory species from making their way upstream may well affect the rights of the fishery owners and lead to litigation. We assume that the Government has taken legal advice on this point, and that the human and property rights of fishery owners upstream of the proposed development will be factored into the study.

4. What lessons can be learned from the successful development of La Rance tidal barrage in France and other tidal power projects?

The CLA has no position on this question.

5. What risks and opportunities could it pose to local employment and community, and how might any risks be mitigated? In particular, what are the consequences for current ports, fishing and aggregate extraction industries in the estuary?

CLA is unable to comment on the impact on all the local industry sectors specifically mentioned in this question.

There appears to be no detail as to how the proposals would impact on the commercial viability of Bristol and Avonmouth docks and on a smaller scale but just as important any leisure use of the estuary.

However, the development of a Severn Barrage would pose substantial risk to the business activities and assets of landowners, farmers and fishery operators who would be impacted both directly and indirectly by such a scheme.

The impact on UK agriculture

More than 50% of the highest quality productive land (Grade 1 on the Soil Survey of England and Wales) lies close to or below sea level. Thus any coastal setback to meet the need for new intertidal habitat will have a grossly disproportionate effect on UK food production and the rural economy. This may be worsened by the effect of habitat creation on adjacent farmland drainage and the wider impact on the maintenance of coastal defences.

Government has recognised that food security is an increasingly important issue, particularly in the light of climate change impacts on productive capacity worldwide and rising levels of world population and consumption.

Whilst the Severn proposals may be able to make use of less valuable land for compensatory habitat, they cannot be viewed in isolation. Land use planning policy recognises that cumulative effects should properly be taken into account when looking at proposals, and in this context CLA draws attention to the various active proposals for tidal power around the coast (Solway, Morecambe bay, Thames, Wash and others) which cumulatively will certainly require a reduction in British farming output, and exacerbate the coastal set-back already under consideration in many low lying areas.

Any decision should be informed by the range of habitat creation schemes likely to be required should the UK tidal power potential be exploited by barrages, and include best estimates of a range of productive land loss which would arise. This should cover mitigation at the range of compensation that has been found adequate in other schemes (generally in the range of 2:1 to 4:1)11 and apply the same analysis as that used by Professor Gallagher in addressing the indirect land use change implications.

The impact on UK fisheries

The salmonid fisheries that would be destroyed by a Severn barrage are irreplaceable. They contribute millions to the rural economy (the Environment Agency quote the value of a single salmon at £9000). They are part of the fabric of rural life, are an important tourism resource, and generate much pleasure to those that have access to them.

CLA shares the concern of the researchers that mitigation of the effects on fisheries of the Severn tidal proposals is at best deeply uncertain, and most likely to be ineffective.

CLA argues the second order effects on the wider rural economy and the tourism industry have not yet been properly assessed. A separate study is required to build on the current state of knowledge of the value of fishing in the affected rivers.

Given the potential irreversible and catastrophic effects on irreplaceable resources, CLA argues that a full barrage across the Severn may prove to unacceptable, and thus consideration to schemes that can accommodate the passage of migratory fish should be considered.

Flood risk

The impact on flood risk management is important as the Environment Agency has plans for “managed realignment” of coastal defences in certain stretches of the Severn coastline. The revised version of the Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy is due in the Spring 2013. A barrage in the Severn could have a fundamental effect on the coastal and fluvial water levels and attendant flood risk upstream and downstream of the barrage due to its tidal nature. The effects of this would have to be factored in to the assumptions on sea level rise and “coastal squeeze” which are the basis of the EA proposals for future flood risk management in the estuary for the next 100 years. Opinion on the barrage proposals would need to be sought from the EA, local Internal Drainage Boards and of course local communities and landowners who will be affected. The question of “blight” on property as a result of the proposals would have to be addressed from the outset.

6. Would the project require support under the proposed new Contracts for Difference mechanism? If so, approximately what level of strike price would be required to make the project economically viable?

CLA does not have the expertise to respond to this question in detail. However, we think it is likely that in order for the project to be financially viable and attract sufficient private sector investment, support under the proposed Contracts for Difference would be required.

7. How does the company plan to engage and consult the community in the development of the project?

CLA is not able to comment on any plans to consult on the development; however, we believe that full and detailed consultation needs to be carried out prior to any firm proposal being submitted so that individuals and business have sufficient information to fully understand the potential impacts and raise any concerns. Currently there is simply insufficient information available.

Due to the scale of the proposals and potential impacts we feel there is a role for central government in consultation on the development to ensure that the interests of individuals are heard and protected.

8. Are the proposals in breach of EU legislation and if so how will this be addressed?

The CLA has no position on this question.

9. Are any other proposals for tidal power projects in the Severn estuary currently under consideration?

CLA is not in a position to respond to this question, but as far as we are aware there are no other tidal power projects currently under consideration in the Severn estuary.

10. What could be the wider international implications of the scheme for UK engineering and UK low-carbon industry?

The CLA has no position on this question.

November 2012