Jump to content


Can fisheries co-exist with the UK’s awe-inspiring offshore wind proposals?


No replies to this topic

#1 Barry McCrindle

Barry McCrindle

    Skipper

  • Administrators
  • 54 posts
  • LocationAyrshire

Posted 19 January 2010 - 07:34 PM

Originally posted in www.fishnewseu.com

Quote

THE announcement on January 8th by the Prime Minister on plans for a further 32GW of offshore wind generating capacity by 2020 inspires awe at the scale of what is being embarked upon, says the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO).
Nine development zones have been announced under the Round 3 programme in the North Sea, English Channel, Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea.  The programme surpasses other drives to develop electricity generating capacity in the 1990s that saw 26GW of gas fired power stations installed, and in the 1960s and 1970s that saw 28GW of capacity coming on stream.  Proposals for the Dogger Bank, the largest of the zones with a proposed 9GW of generating capacity, represent 6 times the worldwide installed capacity of offshore wind power in 2009.
The cost similarly inspires awe, although of the eye watering kind, when the Carbon Trust estimates a development programme to deliver 29GW of capacity could require a subsidy of £60 billion or more from UK PLC, perhaps twice the cost of installing equivalent nuclear generating capacity, according to the Economist.   It is in these heady times of climate concern, the perceived environmental friendliness of wind energy, and an aversion to seeing whirligigs blotting the horizons that such a large programme of investment is being set to sea, and for which every household in the UK will pay the premium in the form of increased energy bills and taxation.
For the fishing industry, however, an extended area of sea under wind turbines threatens to eat further into valuable fishing territory beyond the existing Round 1 and 2 programmes that are still in the process of delivery and which are presently subject to developer’s expressions of interest for expansion.   Put turbines in the wrong location or ignore the real impacts to fishing and it is not just the cost to UK PLC that is at stake but also the viability of fishing businesses and the coastal communities they support.
It is with such concerns that the NFFO has already been working to influence the Round 3 programme to limit the impacts on the fishing industry and promote co-existence.  Some of the zonation announcements are, however, disappointing, which in reality have changed minimally since September 2008 when the current selection was first identified.  These pre-empted the outcome of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Round 3 and conflicted with its recommendation to generally avoid coastal waters inside 12nm.
One of these, the Bristol Channel Zone sits on top of a bass, squid and the UK’s largest ray fishery which is of vital importance to the region’s fleet, and opportunities to relocate are virtually non existent.  Despite representations made by the Federation when the zone was first identified, such decisions reflect continuing deficiencies in the early planning phases of marine infrastructure projects.  The Round 2 offshore wind farm siting process saw fisheries virtually ignored and resulted in proposals in areas of maximum sensitivity to the fishing industry such as the Westermost Rough proposal, centrally located on the largest UK lobster fishery off the East Yorkshire coast.
Dale Rodmell, Assistant Chief Executive said: “Achieving coexistence between both of our industries isn’t rocket science and well established protocols developed over the last 25 years between our industry and the Oil and Gas sector show that it is entirely achievable.  It is disappointing zonation decisions such as in the Bristol Channel risk increasing the scope for conflict between both of our industries.  Nonetheless, while it will take significant care and attention to ensure that we can reach a mutual agreement with respect to a Round 3 Bristol Channel wind farm, I don’t think it is beyond both of our capacities to do so.  It is down to a willingness to engage early and proactively and we are showing our willingness to do just that.”
In the larger zones there still remains the flexibility to site the individual installations to limit conflict between both industries.
“Whilst good spatial planning is a crucial in limiting the scope for conflict in the first place, a dialogue between the two industries is also needed to agree any appropriate fisheries mitigation measures, the application of safety zones and the management of any fisheries disruption,” Dale Rodmell concluded.
The Federation has been instrumental in devising protocols for liaison between both industries which resulted in the cross industry Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group (FLOWW) Recommendations for Fisheries Liaison guidance towards achieving a spirit of co-existence between both industries.  The key now is to see that guidance and best practice is reflected on the ground.

I always see both sides of the argument, the one that's wrong and mine.....



Reply to this topic