Policy News

Thursday 27 August 2009

The Renewable Energy Association (REA) has criticised mooted proposals that could see developers offset the potential environmental effect of renewable energy projects by purchasing 'conservation credits'.

A paper on biodiversity offsets published in July suggested that Defra was looking at conservation 'banks', a concept similar to the carbon emissions trading mechanism where companies would be able to offset the impact of their projects by purchasing 'credits', which contribute to local environmental programmes.

If run like similar systems in Australia and the US, as a condition of planning approval, developers would have to purchase an appropriate number and type of credits from 'banks', which would then guarantee the development or creation of an environmental scheme.

Wind companies like Vestas, whose boss Ditlev Engel cited the difficulty of securing planning permission at district council level as one of the reasons his company closed down their plant on the Isle of Wight, might then reap the benefits of faster, and more successful, planning procedures.

However, Gaynor Hartnell, chief policy officer of the REA, told newenergyfocus.com that she could not envisage such a scheme working successfully for UK wind developers in particular.

She said: "The main impact of a wind farm is visual. Windmills are not invisible. People either like the look of them or they do not. They barely have a "footprint" in terms of habitat space lost, which could be compensated for by wildlife habitat creation elsewhere. Compensating for a visual impact in this way would be muddled thinking in the extreme."

Fears

Ms Hartnell said that this idea would be more applicable to other types of renewable projects, such as a hydro scheme that floods a valley, for example, but that this type of offsetting was already common in Section 106 planning obligations.

The government is keen to increase renewable schemes to meet its target of 20% of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020, but Ms Hartnell said she remained unconvinced that offsetting was the way to do this.

"Even if the objective is to get more renewables applications through there are better ways of doing it", she said.

Misgivings 

Ecologists have also expressed grave misgivings about conservation banks. Speaking to NewEnergyFocus.com, one ecologist who did not wished to be named said: "It's well meaning but seems to be the wrong mechanism."

He explained that he was concerned that developers could simply write a cheque and forget about any further consequences and that the credit system could be open to trading and ultimately, corruption.

He added, "When you consider that half of all local authorities don't have a professional ecologist to advise them, it just seems impracticable."