Meeting Europe's renewable energy targets in harmony with - RSPB

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This Chapter provides an evaluation of the policy frameworks in 18 European countries (within 13 Member States and two candidate Member States) in terms of their adequacy to enable a renewables revolution in harmony with nature (Section 5.1). Using this to identify common areas of strengths and weaknesses across Europe, and taking into consideration the European Commission’s areas of competence, recommendations for the EU are presented in Section 5.2. Policy recommendations for policy makers in project partners’ countries are presented in Section 5.3, with some relevant background information about renewables and conservation issues.
104 MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS IN HARMONY WITH NATURE 5.1 EVALUATION OF NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORKS BirdLife Partners were asked to evaluate how well the policy framework in their country achieved the following: ● ● ● ● ● stimulating investment in a range of renewable energy technologies protecting biodiversity and enabling it to adapt to climate change minimising overall infrastructure needs and impacts spatial planning for renewables, and minimising project impacts. Table 4 summarises the results of these expert evaluations. It presents a complex picture, with considerable variation in the perceived adequacy of policy frameworks across issues and between countries. However some broad observations can be made, and some “leaders” and “laggards” can be identified. 5.1.1 STIMULATING INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLES Leaders: Germany, UK, Spain Laggards: Poland, Montenegro, Romania In general, the results suggest this aspect is relatively well addressed by national policy frameworks. In particular onshore wind power is seen to be positively or very positively incentivised in most countries. The offshore wind power industry was also considered to be well stimulated by policy frameworks in many countries. None of the Partners considered that energy efficiency policies in their country are “very positive”. There were few negative evaluations, but doing more to promote energy efficiency was a high priority in many Partners’ recommendations (see Section 5.3), because of its value in reducing the overall need for new generation capacity and power lines. 5.1.2 BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION Leaders: Germany, Portugal, UK (England and Scotland) Laggards: Ireland, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain In general, Partners gave quite positive evaluations regarding designation of the Natura 2000 network and protection of biodiversity within Natura 2000 sites. Bulgaria, Spain and Ireland are notable exceptions. Protection of priority bird species was also seen to be quite positively promoted by national policy frameworks, except in France, Ireland, Montenegro and Spain. Again, broadly speaking, designation of conservation areas of national and local importance was relatively positively evaluated, with the exceptions of Wales, Slovenia and Ireland. However, biodiversity protection in the wider environment outside protected areas was considered an important area where national policy frameworks are inadequate. Evaluations were at best “neutral/mixed”, and “very negative” for several countries. The survey revealed climate change adaptation as another weak policy area, with many countries yet to give it serious consideration. Only France and Germany were considered to have positive policy frameworks in place to enable biodiversity to adapt to the effects of climate change.
Page 1 and 2:
MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENERGY
Page 3 and 4:
Meeting Europe’s Renewable Energy
Page 5 and 6:
CHAPTER THREE THE ECOLOGICAL SUSTAI
Page 7 and 8:
6 RUNNING HEAD LOREM ISPSUM DOLOR C
Page 9 and 10:
8 MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENER
Page 11 and 12:
10 MEETING EUROPE’S RENEWABLE ENE
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
16 RUNNING HEAD LOREM ISPSUM DOLOR
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39:
Page 42 and 43:
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND E
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55: RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND E
Page 56 and 57: RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND E
Page 58 and 59: Under the Renewable Energy Directiv
Page 60 and 61: THE ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF EU
Page 78 and 79: Harnessing the clean, renewable ene
Page 80 and 81: HOW TO ACHIEVE A EUROPEAN RENEWABLE
Page 96 and 97: BOX 27 Bird sensitivity mapping in
Page 106 and 107: TABLE 4 BirdLife Partners’ evalua
Page 108 and 109: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL AND EU
Page 130 and 131: REFERENCES 129 Daunt, F. (2006) Mar
Page 132 and 133: REFERENCES 131 Lonsdale, D., Pautas
Page 134 and 135: ENDNOTES 133 ENDNOTES i Chris Huhne
Page 136: Birdlife European and Central Asian
show all

Meeting Europe's renewable energy targets in harmony with - RSPB

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?