Executive summary. Research aims and methods: The review of Environmental Statements (ESs) sought to determine the socio-economic content of EU member state offshore wind farms (OWFs). This was part of a project funded by the European Offshore Windfarm Development Centre research programme (EOWDC). It parallels a similar study of ESs for UK OWFs. The aim of the EOWDC project is multifaceted: explore methods used to predict socio-economic impacts of OWFs, to enhance understanding of OWF socio-economic impacts (SEI), highlight best practice in how to maximize local benefits and compare predicted impacts with actual impacts. This report includes two elements. The first explores the extent of coverage of socio-economic impacts (SEI) in Environmental Statements (ESs) for recent large OWF projects across a range of European countries. The second element reviews the legislation and policy behind OWFs for EU member state countries to determine how different approaches impact on the socio-economic content of ESs and methodology employed. The review concentrated on OWFs of c50MW and over undertaken from 2010 onwards. The review included 13 projects, in five countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and ES review of socio-economic impacts content—Non-UK EU countries Ireland), ranging in size from 50MW to 752MW. Researchers translated relevant chapters in the ESs were ESs into English using an online translation tool. There was an assessment of ES chapters against a 9-point template covering the research aims, including to: document the extent to which SEI are covered in the ESs, identify the relative coverage of social, economic and other impacts (e.g. cumulative), and identify the relative coverage of SEI in the various stages of the OWF lifecycle. The research also seeks to identify trends over time and to explain variations in ES consideration of impacts (e.g. more coverage for larger projects; any variations according to distance from shore). There is also a consideration of evolving approaches to methodology, mitigation, enhancement and monitoring, and to overall good practice. Brief summary of findings: Overall, the depth and focus on socio-economic impacts covered in the EU ESs appears less than that observed in the UK examples. All ESs contained greater coverage of economic impacts than social impacts. The key economic topics considered were tourism (onshore and offshore); commercial fishing, shipping; traffic, plus employment to varying degrees. There was little use of quantitative methods, such as input-output analysis. The coverage of social impacts in the ESs was minimal. Recreation was one focus, along with changes in ferry trip duration and noise levels. As observed with the UK ES reviews there was a lack of depth with respect to impact of projects based on: community demographics, wellbeing, and cohesion. Methodology used was a combination of use of existing data, academic papers and reports from previous wind farm projects; consultation with stakeholders was highlighted in Denmark. The focus of the ESs was on the impacts related to the construction and ‘operation and maintenance’ phases. Decommissioning was largely unaddressed or anticipated to be the same as the construction stage. A major consideration in the EU analysis is whether the ES includes the onshore element of the project. This was not easy to determine in all the ESs reviewed nor from looking at country policy. The Belgian ESs did not include an onshore element; and stood out as lacking in socio-economic detail. In general, for the ESs studies, there does appear to be greater focus on onshore socio-economic impacts for nearshore windfarms (distinct from offshore). There was a lack of final plan information regarding construction port base(s) and cable landing points/ports; these sometimes hindered the depth at which impacts could be analysed. Typical mitigations for economic impacts included timing of work to avoid the tourist season; financial compensation (fishing and agricultural) and turbine placement to allow fishing boats and recreational boats access; plus restricted working hours during construction and traffic management. There was little or no monitoring for socio-economic impacts. All EU counties have a legal requirement to create marine spatial plans (MSP) which may include renewable energy plans and can be subject to SEA. The content of EIAs carried out at project level do vary in content and this may be attributable to the strategic context and process leading up to their production. Belgium is a good example where a royal decree has determined and considered the impacts prior to setting the locations of the windfarms in their EEZ. Typically, the UK covered socio-economic topics in more detail than those reviewed for the other EU States. This may be a function of the more all-encompassing integrated approach of EIA topics in the UK, and the perceived importance of such projects to economically problematic coastal areas.
Permanent link to this resource: https://doi.org/10.24384/q8t3-8k88
Welch, KellieGlasson, JohnDurning, Bridget
School of the Built Environment
Year of publication: 2020Date of RADAR deposit: 2021-08-06