1

DeliveringSynergiesbetweenRenewableEnergyandNatureConservation

MessagesforPolicyMakingupto2030andBeyond

AreportforRSPB/BirdlifeEuropebytheInstituteforEuropeanEnvironmentalPolicy

Authors:CatherineBowyer

GrahamTuckerMartinNesbitDavidBaldockAndreaIlles

KamilaPaquel

November2015

2

ExecutiveSummaryThelastdecadehasseenatransformationofelectricitysupplyinEuropeandrapidgrowthintherole played by renewable energy sources. These shifts owe much to EU climate and energypolicy;theRenewableEnergyDirective(RED)setsabindingtargetrequiringeachMemberStatetodeliveraproportionofenergyfromrenewablesby2020.Thishasprovedapowerfullevertochangepatternsofsupply.The future policy framework to determine energy demand and supply in Europe is currentlybeingdesignedindetail.Targetsandgovernancestructuresthatwilldeterminethenatureandambition of climate and energy action for 2020 to 2030 are under development,with formalproposalsanticipated in2016.Now is, therefore, the right time todevelopamore robustandfinelytunedframeworkfordeliveringenvironmentallypositiverenewableenergyinEurope.Thismustprovidegreaterconfidenceinenergydecarbonisationandofferimprovedprotectionofthewiderenvironmentatthesametime.

TheClimateChallengeHuman-inducedclimatechangeisnotonlyamajorchallengeforcurrentandfuturegenerations,but it has also been identified as the singlemost significant threat to global biodiversity. Theeffective development and deployment of renewable energy has a strong environmentalrationalebutthescaleofexpansionneeded,andtheassociatedgrid infrastructure,willhavearangeofimpactsoveraconsiderableareaofEurope.Safeguardsareneededtoensurethattheseimpacts are managed, that renewable energy is sited appropriately, that supportinginfrastructure is well conceived and that decision-making reflects long-term pathways todecarbonisation.Sustained and large-scale investment in renewable energy is essential to ensure widertransformation of the energy system. Critically, this shift in supply needs to be coupled toambitiousactiontosecurebetterdemandsidemanagementandsignificantly improvedenergyefficiency. This will curtail the need to further increase energy supply and its associatedenvironmentalimpacts.As renewable energy installations and networks are established on a larger and rapidlyexpandingscaletheir impactontheenvironmentcanonlygrow.Measurestocontainnegativeimpacts need to be established alongside incentives for investors to roll out new capacity.Lessonsfromthepastdecadeallowustoidentifythenatureoftheseimpactsmorepreciselyandto develop more effective measures to contain them. The protection of biodiversity is aparticular concern given the expanding spatial distribution and density of renewableinstallations. This report reviews experience under the Renewable Energy Directive to date,outlinessomeofthelessonsthatcanbeidentified,andsetsoutproposalsforhowtheEUpolicyframeworkforthedecadeto2030couldbestrengthened.

3

ImpactsonBiodiversityThe challenges to biodiversity protection (and other environmental media) associated withdifferent renewable energy technologies are reasonably well understood.Many are easier toaddress than the impacts of conventional energy sources. The impacts of renewable energydevelopment on biodiversity are highly dependent on scale and context in nearly every case;however, scale-impact relationships may not be linear. A certain level of habitat change orexploitation of a resource may have acceptable or manageable consequences, but as theintensityofexploitationincreasesimpactsmaychangemoreorlessproportionally(forexample,iftheimpactsaffectanincreasinglysignificantproportionofavulnerablehabitat).Fivedimensionsofbiodiversity interactionswithrenewableenergyhavebeen identified inthisreport. These are intended to help policy makers take into account and mitigate negativeimpacts,andmaximiseanygainsmoreeffectively.FiveDimensionsofRenewableEnergyInteractionwithBiodiversity

Dimensions NatureoftheInteraction

Systemicenvironmental

concerns

Renewable energy systems need to ensure the delivery of significantreal world reductions in GHG emissions, taking account of the fullsupply chain. The impact of the energy sources including biomassfeedstocks on natural resources, such as water and soil, should betakenintoaccountinenergypolicy.Impactswillnotbepurelylocal.

Scaleandcapacityconcerns

Taking account of the cumulative effects of expanding productionpathwaysandtransmissioninfrastructureaswellasindividualfacilitiesis essential. The environmental capacity to take up both specifictechnologies and extended complexes of related facilities should beexaminedandrespected.

SitingconcernsTheparticularimpactsofatechnologyorinstallation,andthehabitatsandspeciesthataresensitivetosuchimpacts,needtobeunderstoodandthesensitivitiesreflectedinappropriatesiting.

Projectdesignconcerns

Beyond site specific considerations are design attributes includingefficiency,performance, reliability, removabilityetc. Designdecisionswill help to determine the overall balance of biodiversity benefitsduring the lifetime of an installation, and whether interventions arereversible.

Ongoingmanagementconcerns

Forstaticrenewablesourcestheongoingmanagementofasitecanbecritical for minimising pressure on biodiversity and securing anypositiveoutcomes.For biomass used as energy it is the source of feedstocks, and themany second order implications of deploying them for energy, thatdeterminenearlyalltheenvironmentalfootprint.

4

SafeguardingBiodiversityPolicy measures are required to manage these impacts on biodiversity effectively alongsideincentivestosecuretheinvestmentinenergyfromrenewables.Anumberofsuchmeasuresarealready established within EU environmental legislation including: the Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) Directive and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive; andlegislation focusedontheprotectionofbiodiversity ie theHabitatsandBirdsDirectives.Theseaddress some of the concerns set out above. However, these Directives need to be appliedeffectivelybynationalandlocalauthorities iftheyaretofulfilltheirpotentialrole inmanagingtheimpactsofnewenergyinfrastructure.Thereareopportunitiestoutilisesomemeasures,suchastheEIAandSEADirectives,morefullywithregardtorenewables.At present the effectiveness of environmental protection legislation is limited by a lack ofstrategic and spatially explicit planning for energy transformation in much of Europe. In theabsence of such clarity impacts of installations, interconnections andwider infrastructure aredifficult todetermineandefforts toestablishmoreresponsible,predictableandsecureenergyfor Europe are compromised. A more explicit spatial dimension to renewables policies is,therefore, becoming increasingly urgent. This is needed both to steer a successful strategy ofrenewables deployment (by facilitating consideration of shared grid and interconnectionrequirementsandprovidinginvestorswithgreaterpredictability)andtoensurethatbiodiversityandotherenvironmentalconcernsareaddressed.Bioenergy,accountsforalargeproportionofcurrentrenewableenergysuppliedintheEU.Theuse of biomass for energy raises environmental concerns and challenges that are different intermsoftype, impactsandscalefromotherrenewabletechnologies.Despitethisbiomass’useforenergyisnotsubjecttostatutoryorconsistentEUwidesafeguards.ItisunclearwhethertheEuropeanCommissionisplanningtoputforwardproposalstoestablishsuchsafeguardsaspartofthepolicypackagenowbeingdevelopedforlaunchin2016,buttherearestrongargumentsfordoingso.Appropriateactionwould rebalanceandalignenvironmentalandenergygoals; itwould also provide investors with greater confidence by improving clarity as to the supplysystemsthatwillbejudgedacceptableintothefuture.

DrivingForwardRenewableEnergyinEuropeKeepingtherequiredgrowthinrenewableenergyontrackto2030,inwaysthatareconsistentwith full energy system decarbonisation by 2050, demands a new vision for sustainablerenewableswithaclearEuropeandimension.TheframeworktheEUadoptsmustbedesignedto:- Respectbiodiversityandwiderenvironmentalprotectiongoals;- Recognisethespatiallyexplicitnatureofenvironmentalimpacts;and- Securegenuine,lasting,climatemitigation.EU policy for renewable energy, therefore, needs a clear, predictable and preferably bindingframeworkforMemberStateactiontoaddress:- ThescaleofthechallengeinvolvedinEurope’slong-termdecarbonisation;- Thelevelofprivatesectorinvestmentnecessary;and- Theextent towhich theenergymarketandphysical environmentgives rise to issues that

crossnationalborders.

5

The currentproposals for anEU level target, rather thannationallybinding targets,post2020createanumberofrisks.Inparticular:- Alackofclarityonthelegalconsequencesoffailingtodeliverthetarget(or,worse,clarity

that there will be no consequences), leading to less ambitious and less consistentapproachestorenewableenergydeploymentacrossMemberStates;

- Alackofcertaintyforinvestors;- Potential “free rider” behaviour by some governments relying on more ambition and

investmentelsewhereinEurope.

Despite political reservations fromnational governments, there is a role for enshrining a newsystem of governance for renewables in EU legislation post 2020 that ismore proactive thancurrently envisaged. To deliver both renewable energy deployment and environmentalprotectionwerecommendthatsuchaframeworkshouldinclude:- Target setting forMember States, agreed at a European level based on objective criteria,

ratherthandifferinglevelsofMemberStateenthusiasm:thisisneededtoensureadequatedelivery,providethegreaterconfidencethat investorsneed,avoid therisksposedby freeriderMemberStatesinthesystem,andsupportthoseMemberStateswhichhaveambitionstogofurther;

- A more coherent single EU governance framework for delivering energy targets thatrecognises the important contribution that energy efficiency and associated demandmanagementcanmaketoEUdecarbonisationobjectivesandintermsoflimitingsupply-sideinfrastructuralneeds;

- A requirement forMember States to plan for renewable energy deployment in, efficientwaysthataddressnotonlydecarbonisationbutalso:cumulativeimpactsonbiodiversityandother aspects of sustainability; land use and resource constraints associated with certaintechnologies and the supporting energy infrastructure; and the need for effectivemonitoringofthecumulativeimpactsofrenewableenergydeployment;

- A strategy to make more effective use of existing environmental legislative instruments,particularly the SEAandEIADirectives (and supporting tools suchasbiodiversitymappingandspatialplanning),inordertoensurethatriskstobiodiversityinthewiderenvironmentareidentifiedearlyandavoided;

- TheintroductionofEUlevelsustainabilitycriteriaandassociatedrequirementsthatapplytoall biomass feedstocks used for energy. These should be designed to reflect both therelevant attributes of each feedstock and the scale of biomass use for energy that isenvironmentally responsible. These criteria should enable the differentiation of themostsustainablebioenergypathwaysandprovideaframeworkforappropriatepatternsoffuturesupply.Thereareseveralissuesthatdonotarisesoprominently,ifatall,withotherformsofrenewable energy technologies. These differences should be reflected in other EUinstrumentsthatsupportrenewableenergyadoptionincludingtheEUETS.

6

Contents

1. RENEWABLEENERGYANDBIODIVERSITYPROTECTION–SYNERGIESBETWEENENVIRONMENTALGOALS.............................................................................................................................................7

2. RENEWABLEENERGYANDBIODIVERSITY......................................................................................102.1.WHATDOESITTAKETODELIVERENVIRONMENTALLYRESPONSIBLERENEWABLEENERGY?............................102.2. RENEWABLEENERGYANDBIODIVERSITYINTERACTIONS–DEFININGFIVEDIMENSIONS.................................12

3. ASSESSINGTHE2020CLIMATEANDENERGYPACKAGEPOLICY–KEYLEARNINGPOINTSFOR2030143.1. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONANDTHE2020CLIMATEANDENERGYPACKAGE–ANEEDTOFURTHER

INTEGRATECLIMATEANDENVIRONMENTGOALS....................................................................................153.2. TARGETSETTING–THEIMPACTSOFBINDINGCOMMITMENTS..................................................................153.3. STREAMLININGPERMITTINGREQUIREMENTS–POTENTIALTOLIMITENVIRONMENTALRISKANDINCREASE

INVESTORCERTAINTYREMAINSUNTAPPED............................................................................................173.4.MONITORINGANDREPORTING–ABASISFORASSESSINGDELIVERYANDPROVIDINGOVERSIGHT...................183.5. SUPPORTSCHEMES–AMISSEDOPPORTUNITYTODELIVERADDEDVALUEANDSUPPORTLONGTERM

TRANSITIONOFTHEENERGYSYSTEM....................................................................................................193.6. BIOFUELS,BIOLIQUIDSANDBIOENERGY–GOVERNANCEANDGHGACCOUNTING........................................21

4. THEROLEOFEUENVIRONMENTALLEGISLATION...........................................................................244.1. STRENGTHS–KEYADDEDVALUEFORRESPONSIBLEDEPLOYMENTOFRENEWABLEENERGY...........................254.2.WEAKNESSES–LIMITINGEFFECTIVEENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONDURINGDEVELOPMENT.........................264.3. OPPORTUNITIESFORIMPROVINGOVERSIGHT-ENSURINGENVIRONMENTALLYRESPONSIBLEDEVELOPMENT....27

5. AVISIONFORRESPONSIBLE,RENEWABLEENERGYDELIVERYTO2030...........................................295.1. THE2030FRAMEWORK–RENEWABLEENERGYANDENERGYEFFICIENCY...................................................305.2. THE2030FRAMEWORK–GHGEMISSIONREDUCTION,THEEUETSANDBEYOND......................................32

6. CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................346.1. KEYMESSAGES..................................................................................................................................346.2. ELEMENTSOFTHEEUCLIMATEANDENERGY2020PACKAGETOBERETAINEDANDIMPROVED......................366.3. ELEMENTSOFTHEEUCLIMATEANDENERGY2020PACKAGETOBEAMENDEDORREMOVED........................386.4. NEWINSTRUMENTSNEEDEDATEULEVELFORTHE2030PERIODANDBEYOND...........................................396.5. THEROLEOFMEMBERSTATESPOST2020............................................................................................41

APPENDIX1–EXAMININGBIODIVERSITYIMPACTSOFKEYRENEWABLETECHNOLOGIES

APPENDIX2–SUMMARYOFKEYEUENVIRONMENTALLEGISLATIONIMPORTANTINENABLINGENVIRONMENTALLYPOSITIVERENEWABLEENERGY

7

1. RenewableEnergyandBiodiversityProtection–SynergiesbetweenEnvironmentalGoals

‘TheultimateaimofthisConvention[UNFrameworkConventiononClimateChange]istoachievestabilisationofgreenhousegasconcentrationsintheatmosphereatalevelthatwouldpreventdangerousanthropogenicinterferencewiththeclimatesystem.Suchalevelshouldbeachievedwithinatime-framesufficienttoallowecosystemstoadaptnaturallytoclimatechange,to

ensurethatfoodproductionisnotthreatenedandtoenableeconomicdevelopmenttoproceedinasustainablemanner’Article2oftheUNFCCC–definesdangerousclimatechangeinthecontext

ofprotectingglobalecosystems1Theaimof this study is toprovidepositive input into thedebatearoundthe future rolloutofrenewableenergyinEurope.Inordertofightclimatechangeandthemajorthreatthisposestobiodiversity, to phase out the use of fossil fuels and to improve energy security, renewableenergysolutionsareessential.Thescaleofdeploymentrequiredforrenewableenergysources,however,poses itsownchallenges.Withouta clear,plannedand robustpolicy framework thepredictability of renewable energy uptake and associated carbon emission benefits arepotentially undermined. Moreover, the individual and cumulative impacts of deployment onbiodiversity and the wider environment would be addressed in a suboptimal way. Thesechallenges can bemet. The concern is that current approaches to the delivery of climate andenergy targets, and those currently proposed for the period to 2030, do not put in place themechanismsnecessarytoachievethis.Infuture,theriskofconflictbetweenrenewableenergydeploymentandenvironmentalgoalswillincreaseasrenewableenergyusecontinuestoexpand,andthedecarbonisationofenergysuppliesispursuedmoredecisively.Impactswillbeexacerbatedbythelikelihoodthateasysitesfor renewablesdevelopmentwillbe inshortersupply,asaconsequenceofhistoricexpansion.Now is the time, therefore, to develop a better, more robust framework for deliveringenvironmentallypositiverenewableenergy.Suchaframeworkcoulddeliver:

• Benefitsforclimatepolicy,byprovidingasystemthatbetterguaranteestheintegrityofemissionreductions,hencegreaterconfidenceinenergysystemdecarbonisation;

• Enhanced environmental protection through a more coherent and effectiveconsideration of environmental impacts associated with, in particular, the cumulativeimpacts of deploying renewable energy technologies and providing supporting energyinfrastructure;

• Amoretransparentapproachandsecurebasisforinvestment,reducinguncertaintyforinvestors;and

• Lower long-term costs of deployment, compared to a less planned approaches todecarbonisation,reflectedinlowerenergybills.

1TextoftheUnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange-http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf

8

Atpresent,theEURenewableEnergyDirective(RED)setstargets,differentiatedforandbindingoneachMemberState,todeliveranEUtotalof20percentofenergyfromrenewablesourcesby2020andfor10percentofenergyusedfortransporttobefromrenewablesourcesby2020ineachMemberState.TherequiredcontributionofeachMemberStatetowardsthe20percentrenewable energy target is determined taking into account national circumstances, includinghistoric deployment levels and GDP per capita. The RED also incorporates rules on thestreamlining of renewable energy deployment, monitoring and reporting requirements andcriteriaforthesustainableuseofbiofuelsandbioliquids.Thepromotionof renewableenergy is intendedtocontribute towards theoverallGreenhouseGas(GHG)emissionreductiontargetof20percent(basedon1990levels)by2020.TheREDisonepartofa‘package’ofEUmeasuresadoptedtopushforwardclimatepolicyintheEUtowards2020 that includesoverallgoals foremission reduction (deliveredvia theEUemissions tradingsystem(EUETS)andthe‘EffortSharingDecision’,whichsetsnationallevelgoalsfornonEUETSsectors),rulesaroundMemberStateuseofstateaidsandlegislationontheEUinternalmarketforelectricity2.Upto2020itiswidelyacceptedthatthebindingtargetsplacedupontheMemberStateswithinEU law are driving renewable energy deployment. In response, renewable energy use isexpanding significantly in Europe3. However, reporting by Member States suggests that thedeployment designed to drive forward andmeet the 2020 renewable energy target has beenslower than anticipated, at least in aggregate4. This is despite the relatively strict, nationallybinding requirements up to 2020 and considerable oversight provisions aimed at ensuringdelivery.For2030,theEuropeanCouncil5hascommittedtodeliver27percentofenergyinEuropefromrenewablesources,aspartofawidergoaltoreduceGHGemissionsbyatleast40percent,fromdomesticsources,by2030(basedon1990levels).TheEuropeanCouncilhasalsocommittedtoanenergyefficiencytargetaimedatdeliveringareduction inenergyuseof27percentbelowprojected levels for 2030. The European Council has, however, stated that neither therenewablesnortheenergyefficiencytargetshouldbebrokendowntoindividualtargetsthatwould be binding on eachMember State - as was the case under the RED to 2020. As yet,however,thedetailofthegovernancesystemthatwillsupportthedeliveryofthesetargetshasyettobeagreed6.

2Thispackage,itsrequirementsandimpactsareassessedindetailinsection3. 3 TheprimaryproductionofrenewableenergywithintheEU-28in2012was177.3milliontonnesofoilequivalent(toe) — a 22.3% share of total primary energy production from all sources. The quantity of renewable energyproducedwithintheEU-28increasedoverallby81.3%between2002and2012,equivalenttoanaverageincreaseof6.1%peryear. 4This is based on analysis by the European Commission onMember State progress reports (submitted in 2013)againsttheEUtargetswhencomparedtooriginalsubmissionssetoutinNationalRenewableEnergyActionPlansin2009/2010–https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/progress-reports 5 European Council Conclusions, 23/24 October 2014 -http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/145397.pdf 6 Onthe18November2015theCommissiondidpublishguidancetoMemberStatesonNationalEnergyandClimatePlans as part of the Energy Union Governance (COM(2015)572) in support of the State of the Energy UnionCommunication (COM(2015)572). However, this is only a first step to attempt to integrate energy and climate

9

Renewableenergysolutionscanbedeliveredinawaythatminimisesenvironmentalandsocialand economic costs to society if properly planned, sited and managed. This study seeks tohighlighthowEUpolicyup to2030,andanysupporting systemofgovernance, canpromoterenewable energy deployment that maximises benefits from adoption for biodiversity andclimatemitigationwhileminimisingnegatives.Itthereforeexamines:

- Thenatureofinteractionsbetweenrenewableenergyandbiodiversity;- Thelessonsfromthe2020targets,andfromtheassociatedrulesandcommitments;- The role of wider EU environmental legislation in enabling environmentally positive

renewableenergydeployment;and- How policy might be developed for the 2020 to 2030 period to provide a basis for

expansion of renewable energy, and to deliver this in an environmentally responsibleway.

planningandreportingwithfurtherlegislativeactionandformaltemplatesanticipatedin2016.MemberStatesareanticipatedtoneedtostarttheirdevelopingtheirnationalplansfor2020to2030in2016toensuretheirfinalisationwellbefore2020.

10

2. RenewableEnergyandBiodiversity

‘Climatechangeaddstotheglobalchallengeofbiodiversityconservation.Thereisamplescientificevidencethatclimatechangeaffectsbiodiversity.Itisthreateningindividualspeciesaswellasentireecosystems,withnegativeconsequencesforhumanwell-being.However,thelinksbetweenbiodiversityandclimatechangeflowbothways.Biodiversity,throughtheecosystemservicesitsupports,makesanimportantcontributiontobothclimatechangemitigationand

adaptation’.AhmedDjoghlafExecutiveSecretaryConventiononBiologicalDiversity7

2.1. WhatDoesitTaketoDeliverEnvironmentallyResponsibleRenewableEnergy? Anyenergysupplysystemhasenvironmentalimpacts8.Renewables,likeothersystems,needtobedevelopedinwaysthattakefullaccountofbiodiversityconcerns,aswellaswideremissionreductiongoals.Itishelpfulfirsttoconsidertherangeofrisksandissuesposedbythedifferenttechnologiesandscalesofdeployment.Before assessing consequences, it should be noted that the quality and scope of existingevidence ismixed(seeAnnex1 fordetailed informationon impacts).This is inpartduetothescientificchallengesinvolved(especiallyinthemarineenvironment),butalsobecausetherehasbeeninsufficienttimeoropportunitiestomonitorandunderstandthefullimpactsovertimeofthe newest technologies. Consequently, some studies that relate to pilot sites or initialdeployment may not be representative of potential future, large-scale commercialimplementation.Assuchtheseareoflimitedvalueinassessingtheimpactsofdeploymentonawider scale.Manystudies relate toobservationsofbiophysicaleffectsonhabitatsandspecies(suchastheprobabilityoffatalbirdorbatcollisionswithpowerlinesorwindturbines),butitisverydifficulttoassesswhethertheseriskswillresultinpopulationlevelimpactsfortheaffectedspecies. Lastly, there is little evidence on the indirect effects of energy technologies onbiodiversity, suchas thewider intensificationofgrasslandmanagement thatmight result fromagriculturally productive landbeing used for renewable energy (either in the formof biomassfeedstock,orthroughthesitingofrenewableenergyinstallations).Despitethese limitations, it ispossibletodrawsomeconclusionsontheusual impactsofmostrenewable energy technologies. To deliver environmentally responsible renewable energy thefollowingissueswillbekey:

1. Scale/impact relationships - Overall impacts are likely to be highly dependent on thescale of deployment, but scale-impact relationships may not be linear: for example, acertain level of habitat change or exploitation of a resource may have manageableconsequences, but as intensity increases impacts may not change proportionally ie. adoublingofintensitymightcausea10-foldincreaseinimpacts.

2. Spatial understanding - Renewable energy projects are often limited by spatialconstraints to certain locations based on the renewable resource they use.Moreover,

7 ReviewoftheLiteratureontheLinksbetweenbiodiversityandclimatechange,CBDTechnicalSeriesNo.42,(2009)http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-42-en.pdf 8Itshouldofcoursebenotedthatfossilfuelproductionanduseclearlycreatessignificantbiodiversityrisksandimpacts,notleastlinkedtotheircontributiontoclimateforcing;butthesearenotthefocushere.

11

they relyonadditional energyandgrid infrastructure todeliver theirpowerorheat toend-users. Available sites for grid expansion and infrastructure are also spatiallydetermined,asarethebiodiversityandmanyotherenvironmental factors.AspolicyonEU renewable energymatures, the impacts of deployment at scale will becomemoreapparent; and the importance of careful policy consideration to assess, minimise, andmanage those impacts will becomemore acute.Amore explicit spatial dimension torenewables policies at Member State level is becoming increasingly urgent, both toensure its success (by facilitating consideration of shared grid and interconnectionrequirements, for example; and to provide investorswith greater predictability), butalso tomaximise its contributionbyaddressingpotential impactsonbiodiversityandother environmental concerns. Spatial planning, and associated assessmentmethods9,are key to ensuring effective and environmentally responsible renewable energydeployment.

3. Case by case assessment - Environmental suitability should normally be carefullyconsideredonacasebycasebasis,whiletakingintoaccountpossiblecumulativeeffects.In this respect, formost renewable solutions, a key consideration is an affected site’sexistinghabitatandassociatedspeciescomposition;thus,forexample,theimpactsofasolar farm will largely depend whether it is installed on a brown field site, intensivefarmlandorasemi-naturalhabitatofhighbiodiversityvalue.

4. Applying precaution – Given the limited time series and size of assessment of impactassociated with some technologies, the precautionary principle should be applied. Forexample,itshouldbeassumedthatwherethereisgoodevidenceofsubstantialimpactson individuals, these are likely to lead to population impacts, unless reliable evidenceindicatesotherwise.

5. Bioenergy,aquestionoffeedstocks-Incontrasttootherformsofrenewableenergy,forbioenergy the typeof feedstockused, the locationandnatureof feedstockproductionwill dominate the associated environmental impacts and can vary both spatially andtemporallyoverthelifetimeofanenergyfacilityorinstallation.

6. Grid expansion, the reality - The variability of some renewable electricity generationoptions – particularly wind and solar PV generation – creates challenges both forfacilitatinginvestment,andformanagingtheenvironmentalimpactsofthatinvestment.AstheCommission’sEnergyUnioncommunicationnotes,integrationofsignificantlevelsofrenewablecapacitymeansthat“electricitygridsmust…evolvesignificantly”;andthedevelopment of more flexible demand side management will become increasinglyimportant. The need for expanded grid development, potentially into remote areas, tosupport additional renewable energy use and transfer creates its own, equallygeographically specific challenges. Just as the impacts of renewable installationsthemselvesneedtobeassessed,bearinginmindwidersustainabilityobjectivesandtheimpact on thenatural environment, so toowill the grid investment necessary tomakethempossible10.

9 seesection4fordetailsofEIAandSEAandotherrelatedmeasures 10 TheRenewableGridInitiativewassetuptoattempttoaddressquestionsaroundtheintegrationofrenewableenergyintothegridandover-comingconcernsregardingassociatedexpansioningridinfrastructureandbringingactorstogetherwithanemphasisonstrategicandparticipatoryplanningtorealisenewgridinfrastructure-http://renewables-grid.eu

12

2.2. RenewableEnergyandBiodiversityInteractions–DefiningFiveDimensions The environmental footprint of renewables has a number of aspects, some of which aredifferentfromthoseoffossilfuelsandsomeofwhichapplymorecriticallytocertainrenewableenergysourcesthanothers.Itistoosimplistictotreatallcurrent(andindeedfuture)renewablesinthesameway–sometailoringofpolicyisrequired.Thereisalsoanopportunitytocalibratesupport more finely to the performance of technologies, encouraging best practice andinnovation.Thereareessentiallyfivedimensionsofrenewableenergy/biodiversityinteractionthatcanbeidentified, offering a starting point for tailoring of policy requirements, developing bettergovernanceandprovidingcertaintyforindustryactorsupto2030.Thenatureandsignificanceofsome of these issues – and the challenges of tackling them through public policy whileaccelerating the deployment of renewables – has become much more apparent in the lastdecade.Insomecasestheissuesarecentraltotheshapeandviabilityoftheindustry.Failingtoadequatelyrecogniseandaddressanyoftheseaspectscanleadnotonlytoavoidableimpactsonthenatural environment, but also touncertainty, delay indeployment andanunderminingofpublicconfidencethatlimitsEurope’sabilitytotransitionawayfromafossil-basedenergysector.EUrulescanprovideclarityanda levelplayingfieldfor investmentandoperationacrosstheinternalmarket.Moreover EUwide ruleswill be key to an energy supply futurewheremoreconnectivityisexpected.Theycanalsoprovidethestructurearoundwhichperformanceintermsof renewable energy delivery and the quality of that renewable energy can be monitored.Clearly, however, there are issues, such as decisions on preferred energy solutions or on theappropriateuseofland,thataretheresponsibilityofnationalandlocaldecisionmakers;arigidsetofEUrulesonthespecificlocationofprojectswouldnotbeacceptableandisnotenvisaged.Weproposethefollowingfivedimensionsofrenewableenergyandbiodiversitythatshouldbeconsidered at both EU and Member State levels, and addressed to deliver environmentallyresponsiblerenewableenergy.

13

FiveDimensionsofRenewableEnergyandBiodiversityInteraction Dimension NatureoftheInteraction Exampleofchallenges

Systemicenvironmental

concerns

Development of renewable energy sources shouldalwaysdeliverrealworldGHGemissionreductionsthatcontribute to preventing dangerous climate change.Theimpactoftheenergysourcesonnaturalresources,suchaswaterandsoil,shouldbetakenintoaccountinenergypolicy.

Limitations to accounting standards andsustainability frameworks have led to biomassbeing used for energy and transport fuels in awaythatdeliverslimitedGHGbenefits

Scaleandcapacityconcerns(ecologicalcapacity)

Critically, the scaling up of renewable energydeployment (and particular technologies) entailscumulative impacts of the suite of technologiesselected.When considering cumulative consequencesit is importanttoassessbothsystemicrisksassociatedwith a technology and the siting risks posed toparticularlyvulnerableorhighriskhabitats.For renewable energy deployment it is important tonot only assess the risks associated with the energyproduction site but also the consequences ofsupporting infrastructure to link this to end users egtheelectricitygrid,gasnetworketc

Concerns regarding the cumulativeconsequences of a small scale hydro plantwithin one river catchment or alternatively thecumulative impacts on a particular habitat atriskofconversionorintensificationofuse,suchassemi-naturalgrasslands.For certain technologies therewill bea limit inthescaleofdeploymentpossibleieappropriatesitesforhydro,tidallagoons,thescaletowhichbiomassdedicatedforenergycanbesupported

Sitingconcerns Thelocationofmanyrenewabletechnologies,andthesupporting infrastructure required, is central todetermining their environmental risks and impacts.These vary in character, range and nature dependingon the technology in question and the decisionsconcerningpotentiallocations.

Certaintechnologiescanbeentirelyappropriateinsomesitesbutnotatallinothers(egoffshorewind farms, solar). Some technologies arealmost invariably in sites of environmentalsensitivity and will likely eliminate or degradeassociated habitats (such as large hydro, tidalbarragesandtidallagoons).Thesewillthereforeinevitablyhave impacts, the scaleofwhichwilldepend on the fit between an installation andthecharacteristicsofthesite

Projectdesignconcerns

Thespecificcharacteristicsofasitewilldeterminethemost appropriate design and scale, to mitigatepotentialimpactsonlocalbiodiversity.

Designdecisions(iethesetupofasolararrayorwind turbine selection) will determine theoverall balance of biodiversity impacts duringthe lifetime of an installation, and whetherinterventions are reversible. At this stage it ispossible not only to mitigate negative impactbut also take positive steps to promotebiodiversitybenefits.

Ongoingmanagementconcerns

For some renewable sources the ongoingmanagement of a site and the provision of positivemeasures for biodiversity can make an importantdifferencetoitslongtermbiodiversityimpacts.For facilities using biomass to produce power ortransport fuels the raw material must be grown,harvested,sourcedandconsumedonanongoingbasis.As a consequence, ongoing efforts to understand,monitor and control feedstock production and usagepatterns are essential to determining desiredenvironmentaloutcomes.

For static renewable sources the ongoingmanagement of a site is usually critical forbiodiversityandsecuringpositiveoutcomes,forexample, management of vegetation on solarfarms or intelligent management systems tohaltwindturbinesattimesofhighrisktobirds.Forbiomassusedasenergytheprecisetypeandorigins of biomass feedstocks, and the secondorder implications of deploying them in theenergy sector, are the primary factorsdetermining the environmental footprint ofbiomass used for energy and outcomes inrelation to systemic, scale, capacity and sitingconcerns.

14

3. Assessingthe2020ClimateandEnergyPackagePolicy–KeyLearningPointsfor2030

Thepatternofrenewableenergydeployment,andthenatureofimpactsontheenvironment,isdeterminedbytheinterplaybetween:

- EUrules(seebox1);- nationalimplementingmeasuresandsupportschemes;- infrastructureavailability;and- investmentin,andtheevolutionof,theEUenergymarket.

Thesefactorscombinetodeterminetheeconomicsignalsandinvestmentdecision-making.This section examines the nature of support for renewable energy in EU law up to 2020,considers how this might influence the environment, and identifies positive elements of theexistingpoliciesandlessonstobelearntintermsofpromotingresponsiblerenewableenergy.Complementarylegislationandpoliciesondemandsidemanagementandenergyefficiencyarenot included in the scope of this assessment. Action in these fields would, however, offerimportantbenefits in terms reducingGHGemissionsand limiting the infrastructureneeded todeliverenergyalternatives,resultingineconomicandenvironmentalbenefits.Box1-The2020ClimateandEnergyPackage:DeliveringEmissionReductionsandRenewableEnergyinEuropeupto2020The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) is one part of a package of EU measures adopted to pushforwardclimatepolicyintheEUtowards2020thatincludes:

- amendmentstotheEUEmissionsTradingScheme(Directive2009/29/EC–EUETSDirective);- the Effort Sharing Decision (No 405/2009/EC) that sets out GHG emission reductions to be

deliveredfromnonEUETSsectors;- amendments to the FuelQuality Directive (2009/30/EC – FQD) incorporatingmechanisms to

monitorand reduceGHGemissions fromtransportbyat least6per cent (up to10per cent,basedon2010levels)by2020.

Thispackageofmeasures,alongwithsupportingandcomplementaryrequirementssetoutinStateAidGuidelines (forenvironmentalprotectionandenergy2014-2020) and theDirectiveon common rulesfortheinternalmarketinelectricity(2009/72/EC–IEMDirective),inessencesetouttheframeworkforsupportforrenewableenergyinEUlawupto2020.

15

3.1. EnvironmentalProtectionandthe2020ClimateandEnergyPackage–ANeedtoFurtherIntegrateClimateandEnvironmentGoals

The2020climateandenergypackage(seeBox1)isstructuredtodeliveranenvironmentalgoal,iethereductioninGHGemissionsinEurope.Themeasureswithinthepackage,however,havelimited or ambiguous references to wider environmental protection and the pursuit of widerenvironmentalgoals,alongsidethepromotionofGHGreductionsandenergysystemtransition.

- The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) does not state a desire to deliver renewableenergyinawaythatisenvironmentallysustainableinabroadsense11.

- Deliveringan‘environmentallysustainablemarketforelectricity’ismentionedintheIEMDirective; however, this it not defined and references to environmental impacts in thewidertextreferonlytoenergyefficiencyandcombattingclimatechange.

- EnergyefficiencyanddemandsidemanagementarehighlightedasprioritiesorpriorityactionsintheIEMDirective,EUETSDirectiveandEffortSharingDecisionandemphasisedin the formulation of the targets under the RED. Despite the acknowledged positiveenvironmentalimpactofsuchaction12,implementationofthepackagehasbeencriticisedfor its lack of emphasis on efficiency13, which leads to increased demand for energyinvestment.

Future action on renewable energy should both be closely alignedwith delivering energy andclimate goals, and place greater emphasis on the importance of interactions with energyefficiencyanddemandmanagement.Moreover,actiontopromoterenewableenergyshouldbeveryclearlyembeddedwithinawidersetofgoalsaimedatprotectingEurope’senvironment,suchasthoseonbiodiversityprotection,whichrepresentoutcomesthatarevaluedbyEurope’scitizens,andprotectedbyEUandnationallaws.

3.2. TargetSetting–TheImpactsofBindingCommitmentsTheREDcurrentlysetsabindingtargetforeachMemberStatetodeliveraproportionofenergyfromrenewablesby2020.TheproportionofrenewableenergytobedeliveredbyeachMemberStatewasdeterminedbasedon:historicperformance indeliveringrenewableenergy;GDPpercapita;andtheneedtodeliver20percentofallgrossfinalenergyconsumptionfromrenewablesourcesintheEUasawhole14.ThetargetsettingprocesswasimportantinthateachMemberStatewasallocatedabindingtargetintendedtoberelevanttotheirownnationalconditions.

11 Thereisoneexplicitreferencetoenvironmentalsustainabilityinthespecificcaseofbiofuelsandbioliquidsandtheestablishmentofsustainabilitycriteria 12TheInternalElectricityMarketDirectiveexplicitlyhighlightsthepositiveenvironmentalimpactofenergyefficiencyanddemandsidemanagement 13ClientEarthletteroneffortsharing-http://www.clientearth.org/reports/131014-climate-and-energy-open_letter_to_hedegaards_cabinet_effort_sharing_reform_and_essential_conditions_to_the_ghg_target.pdf.Thishighlightstheimportanceofastrongeffortsharingdecisionbothtodeliveremissionreductionsandreducepressureonenergydemand/energytransformation 14 TheREDalsosetsasecondtargetthatrequiresthatallMemberStatesdeliver10percentofenergyusedintransportfromrenewablesourcesby2020.Thisthencontributestowardstheirachievementofthewidertargetforenergydeploymentfromrenewablesources.

16

AllocatingspecificbindingrequirementstoeachMemberStateavoids‘freeriding’ie.situationswhereanationalgovernmentlessmotivatedtotakeclimateactionsimplyreliesonover-deliveryby countries with more ambitious energy and climate policies. Free riding would potentiallyimpact the EU as a whole in terms of the cost of renewable energy delivery, and the EU’scollective ability to make progress towards energy system decarbonisation. Importantly theformulation of the RED national targets does not inhibit flexibility or cooperation betweenMemberStates,ascooperationmeasuresarespecificallyoutlinedtoenablestatisticaltransferofrenewableenergy,jointprojectsorjointsupportschemes15.ThetargetsundertheREDhavedrivensignificantexpansion intheuseofrenewableenergy inEuropesincetheiradoptionin2009.Onechallenge,however, isthatthenatureof the targetshastendedtoincentivisegovernmentstoincreasethesupplyofrenewableenergyratherthanto focus on the most environmentally sustainable options. In a number of cases they havedriven those technologies which were closest to market profitability, without sufficientconsideration of wider environmental consequences or the need to maximise long termdecarbonisationopportunities.Thishasledtoconcerns,inparticular,aroundtherapidexpansionin the use of biofuels for transport and large scale use of biomass for heat and power. Thecurrentquantitybasedtargetsmay fail toprovideenoughpolicysupport for technologies thatareatpresentmoreexpensive,butwhichare likely tobeneededaspartofa long-termcost-effective and sustainable decarbonisation strategy; orwhere significant upfront investment ingridorotherinfrastructureisnecessary.Progress towards the targets has been slower than originally hoped (when compared, forexample, to submissionsmadeaspartof theNationalRenewableEnergyActionPlan (NREAP)process). The 2015 Progress Report from the Commission shows that 19Member States areconsideredontracktomeettheir targets,butsomeareconsideredtoneedtotakesignificantadditionalpolicyaction16.OversightandpotentialenforcementactiontoobligeMemberStatestorectifyaninsufficientlyambitioustrajectoryarepossibleduetothebindingnatureofreportingrequirementsandthenational targets.Thishasbeenshowntobean importantmeansof trying tosecuresufficientprogress.ThevalueofenforcementactionishighlightedwithinCaseExample1.This illustratesthepressuretheCommissionwasabletobringtobearonPolandtosecurefulltranspositionoftheRED.

15 Itshould,however,benotedthatlittleusehasbeenmadeofcooperationmechanismstodatebasedonassessmentsofthenationalprogressreportssubmittedtotheEuropeanCommission 16 Basedonthe2015ProgressReportsforMemberStates19MemberStates,maydeliverorpotentiallyexceedtheir2020renewableenergytargetswithimplementedandplannedrenewableenergypolicies.TheProgressReportstatesthatsomeMemberStates,includingFrance,Luxembourg,Malta,theNetherlandsandtheUnitedKingdom,andtoalesserextentBelgiumandSpainneedtoassesswhethertheirpoliciesandtoolsaresufficientandeffectiveinmeetingtheirrenewableenergyobjectives.Achievementofthe2020renewableenergytargetsisalsonotcertaininthecaseofHungaryandPoland:itisonlyunderoptimisticassumptionsrelatedtothefuturedevelopmentofenergydemandandcountry-specificfinancingconditionsthatthe2020renewableenergytargetsappearachievable–RenewableEnergyProgressReport,COM(2015)293,15.6.2015-http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4f8722ce-1347-11e5-8817-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

17

Box2-CaseExample-TranspositionofEUlawonrenewablesinPolandThePolishenergygenerationmixisdominatedbyfossilfuels;energyfromcoalrepresentedmorethan52%ofPolishgross inland energy consumption in 2013. In 2013, the share of renewables in gross final energy consumptionamountedto11.3%increasingfrom6.9%in2004whenPolandenteredtheEU.ThenationaltargetsetbyREDis15%by2020.Theshareof renewableenergy in transport fuels reached6% in2013,downslightly fromthe2010-2012levels.For many years Poland promoted electricity from RES through a quota, tax, subsidy and loan schemes. Heatgenerated from RES was supported through subsidies and a loan. Renewable energy in transport is promotedthrough a biofuels quota obligation. Non-discriminatory access and priority in transmission of electricity fromrenewableenergysourcestothegridisguaranteedbynationallegislation.Nevertheless, Poland struggled to implement both directives: 2001/77/EC and the RED. To address “completeabsenceoftransposition”ofthelatter,theCommissionsentaLetterofFormalNoticetoPolandinJanuary2011anda Reasoned Opinion inMarch 2012. One year later, the European Commission referred Poland to the Court ofJustice, with a proposed penalty for non-transposition of over €130 000 per day. To avoid the fine, the Polishgovernment voted a number of amendments to the existing laws, providing the Commissionwith the grounds toreducetheproposedpenaltytoaround€61000perday.However,Polandfailedtoestablishsufficientrequirementsrelatedtotransportfuelsandthesustainableuseofbiofuelsandbioliquids.Themissingprovisionswereintroducedon15January2015,andnotifiedtotheCommissionon29January2015.TheCommissionhasnowwithdrawntheRES-relatedcaseagainstPolandfromtheCourt.The Act on Renewable Energy Sources was adopted on 20 February 2015, but it is not, according to the PolishMinistry of Economy, related to the infringement procedure before the Court. The new scheme of support torenewableswillapplyasofthe1stJanuary2016.Thenewactremainshighlycontroversial;itremainsuncertainastowhetherthenewlawwillbeeffectiveinpromotingthemostsustainablerenewableenergyandsupportingsmallerplayersbycreatingtheconditionsforthemtosharethemarketwiththebiggestutilities.Forexample,accordingtotheMinistryofEconomywhichisinchargeoftheact’simplementation,acurrent20-23%shareofbiomassco-firinginthePolishrenewableenergymixisexpectedtobemaintainedinthelongertermduetotheprolongedsupporttothispracticeindedicatedinfrastructureownedbyincumbentgenerators.

3.3. StreamliningPermittingRequirements–PotentialtoLimitEnvironmentalRiskandIncreaseInvestorCertaintyRemainsUntapped

Protractedapprovalprocesses for renewableenergyprojectsareoftencitedas causingdelaysand inhibiting renewableenergydeployment.Moreover,poorcoordinationor lackofeffectiveconsideration of environmental aspects (and other social factors) can lead to local oppositionandinappropriatesitingofdevelopmentunderminingconfidenceinrenewabletechnologies.Tocombat these challenges theRED setoutprovisions to streamlineand improve thepermittingprocess.IntheCommissionprogressreports,actiontoaddresspermittingisoneofthekeyareascitedwheretherehasbeenlimitedprogressbyMemberStates.Better, more coordinated planning that properly takes account of environmental risk canincrease certainty and reduce upfront administration costs for investors and developers.

18

Marketactorsregularlycitetheimportanceofclearrules,planningandpermittingproceduresascriticaltofacilitatingdevelopment17.Restriction can become facilitation if youare informedandcanplaneffectivelyup frontwithclarityandcertaintytodeterminetheappropriatelocationsforrenewableenergyinfrastructure.There is clearly a need to continue to promote better coordination, planning and approvalprocesses for renewable energy in Europe. It should, however, be noted thatwhile there is aclearappetite fromrenewable industryplayers formorecoordinatedandexplicitplanningandpermitting regimes for renewables, experience in the energy sector (linked to the TEN-Estreamliningexercise18)suggeststhatMemberStateappetiteforthisismorelimited.

3.4. MonitoringandReporting–ABasisforAssessingDeliveryandProvidingOversightUnder the RED, the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) submitted by theMember States forma strongbasis for anongoing systemofmonitoring and assessmentofnational progress19. Within the NREAPs Member States are required to set out a variety ofinformationaroundsupportforrenewableenergy,policiesunderdevelopmentandinplace,andtheiranticipateduseofdifferent technologies toput themselvesona trajectory tomeet theirnationallybindingrenewableenergytargetundertheRED.Subsequentprogressreports20thenreflectonMemberStatedeliveryagainsttheNREAP.NREAPreportingisperceivedtohaveimprovedunderstandingconsiderablyastoMemberStateuse and policy support for renewables. This enables learning across Member States andimprovedanalysisof theappropriate responseto the targetsset. Italsoprovidesan increasedlevelofconfidencewithintheEU,andamongthirdcountries,thatactionwillcometofruition.AtpresentwhiletheoverallrenewableenergyvolumesandtechnologiestobeusedaresetoutintheNREAP,there is littleemphasisonwhereandhowrenewableenergywillbedelivered.Nor is theremuch reference tohow associated grid investmentswill be dealtwith.MemberStateshavealsobeencriticised forapproaching theNREAPprocess toomuch in isolationwithlearningopportunitiesandsharingofinformationfailingtobemaximised.WithintheNREAPsguidelinesfordevelopmenttheonlymentionofenvironmentalsustainabilityisinrelationtobiomassrequirements.Thisapproachissimilartothatusedinotherreportingonenergy infrastructure development. The exception is the Internal ElectricityMarket Directive,which includes the need to report on the environmental consequences of opening up theelectricitymarketswithinrequirementsonannualreporting.AsfortheNREAPs,however,there

17BasedonexperiencesunderinitiativessuchasBESTGRIDhttp://www.bestgrid.euanddiscussionswithstakeholdersaroundthefutureofEUandnationaltargetsforrenewablesenergyandrenewabletransportfuelsincludingcommentsmadeundertheauspicesoftheTransportEnergyTaskForceintheUK. 18TheTEN-EisthesupportforTrans-EuropeanEnergyInfrastructureanddetailsoftheeffortstostreamlinepermittingprocedurescanbefoundathttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/PCI_guidance.pdf 19DetailsofallNREAPsarepublicallyavailableathttps://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/national-action-plans 20 MemberStatesareobligedtosubmittheseevery2years,withtheCommissionthenassessingonthisbasistheeffectivenessofnationalactionandthelikelihoodofachievingthenationaltargetin2020.Todatereportsweresubmittedin2011,2013and2015andcanbefoundathttp://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/70

19

is no spatial information associated with the reporting making impacts difficult to unpick.Moreover, the progress reports, reviewed as part of this analysis, contained no reference tobiodiversity as an issue for consideration when delivering the internal energy market forelectricity. Moreover, references to environmental protection related only to introducing theDirective rather than reflecting on potential consequences and impacts21. Therefore, whileopportunities exist to report on environmental issues, these are not currently prioritised orimplementedinaformwhereitispossibletodevelopaclearunderstandingoftheassociatedconsequences.Therearesignificantopportunitiestobuildupfromtheinformationbasethatisalreadyavailabletomake the information reported in the NREAPs, and linked reporting on energy transitions,easier to interpret. Importantly, it is difficult to understand the appropriateness of EUwidepolicies unless the locations and spatial characteristics of anticipated and establisheddevelopment are set out.Renewable energy, and the development of energy infrastructuremoregenerally,arespatiallyexplicitand,ashighlightedinSection2,consequencesaresiteandlocationspecific.Therearepotentialtoolsalreadyinplacethatcouldbeenhancedtoprovidespatialinformation.For example, Guarantee of Origin22information is already required under Article 15 of REDalongside theplanning/management systems inplace. In futuremore oversight regarding thelocationofcapacityandhowrenewableenergysourcesfitwithina longtermvisionfor landuse, interconnections and the wider energy system, would facilitate cooperation betweenMember States. It would also support industry in terms of upfront planning and facilitateenvironmental protection.Thiswillbecome increasingly importantas thescaleofdeploymentincreases.

3.5. SupportSchemes–AMissedOpportunitytoDeliverAddedValueandSupportLongTermTransitionoftheEnergySystem

TheREDcurrentlyobligesMemberStatesto‘introducemeasureseffectivelydesignedtoensurethe share of energy from renewable sources equals or exceeds their target and trajectoryspecified in theDirective’.Oneof the twooptions stated for suchmeasures is toput inplacesupportschemesforrenewableenergy.TheDirective,therefore,notonlyspecifiesthetargetbutobligesMemberStatestotakeidentifiableactiontodeliverit.WithinrelatedArticlesoftheREDMember States are asked to report on support schemes that take account ofmore than justcapacity of renewable sources but ‘additional benefits in relation to other comparabletechnologies’ (the example given was lignocellulosic biofuels from waste/residues beingpromotedoverotherbiofuelalternatives).Thisoffers thepotential to identifyandadditionallysupport renewableenergy technologies thatdeliveraddedvalueeither in termsofminimisingenvironmentalimpactormaximisingthecontributiontolong-termdecarbonisationneeds.

21 Singlemarketprogressreport-https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/markets-and-consumers/single-market-progress-report 22 EffortshavealreadybeenmadetobetterstandardiseandmakeuseoftheGuaranteeofOrigininformationincludingbyEkoenergy,whoprovideanecolabelforelectricity-http://www.ekoenergy.org/ecolabel/aspects/tracking/

20

There is, perhaps, anopportunity formore targeting of support in future to take accountofadditionalco-benefits.There is increasingpressureonsubsidiesandnationalsupportschemes,whichhasbeenmarkedbyapullbackfromsupportpartlyonthegroundsofcoststoconsumers.To justify futurepublicsupportandfundingtherewillbean increasingneedtodemonstratevalue for money. One approach to this could be that support for renewable energy shoulddelivernotjustquantityofrenewabledeploymentbutalsoqualitydeploymentthatsupportsalong term transition in line with the concerns of citizens (ie taking account of broaderenvironmentalconcernsandtheneedtomaintainandrestoreecosystemservices).The Commission has published guidance on support schemes highlighting that publicintervention is needed as ‘the market does not provide optimal level of renewables in theabsence’ of such measures23. This is considered to be due to market and regulatory failuresassociatedwith:lowlevelsofcompetitionandunfaircompetitionwithotherfuels,inparticularsubsidiesforfossilfuelsandnuclearenergy;theincompleteinternalisationofexternalcosts(airpollutionandenergy security);anda rigidelectricity systemdesign that inhibits thegrowthofrenewableenergy.Tocounterandcorrectsuchsituationspublicauthoritiesintervene.Examplesgivenintheguidanceincludestateaidtocertainsectorsorcompaniesintheformofgrantsorexemptionsfromtaxesandcharges.TheguidanceonsupportschemesiscomplementedbyspecificStateAidGuidelines.TheStateAid Guidelines set out conditions under which aid for energy and environment may becompatiblewiththeinternalmarketandareconsideredtocontributetoobjectivesofcommoninterest. The support for renewable energy within the existing state aid guidelines is morenuanced than some relatedmeasures; there is an explicit presumption in favour of long termdecarbonisation objectives. Measures considered, under certain conditions, to be compatiblewith the internal market and objectives of common interest include: aid for energy fromrenewable sources; aid for energy efficiency measures, including cogeneration and districtheatinganddistrictcooling;aidintheformofreductionsinorexemptionsfromenvironmentaltaxes; aid in the formof reductions in funding support forelectricity from renewable sources;andaidforenergyinfrastructure.State Aid Guidelines set the high level direction for acceptable support fromMember States.However, it is difficult to target these towards achieving a broad goal, such as ensuringrenewable energy deployment respects broader environmental needs or biodiversity. This isbecause the associated systems for approval are not dynamic. They are, however, of morepotentialuseinlimitingfinancialsupporttoaspecificdamagingpathwayiestatingwhatshouldnot be supported (as has been the case with the withdrawal of support from food-basedbiofuels24).

23 COMMISSIONSTAFFWORKINGDOCUMENT,EuropeanCommissionguidanceforthedesignofrenewablessupportschemes, 5.11.2013 SWD(2013) 439,https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/com_2013_public_intervention_swd04_en.pdf24 Paragraph 112 of the guidelines states that the ‘Commission will consider investment aid in new and existingcapacity for food-basedbiofuelnot tobe justified.However, investmentaid to convert food-basedbiofuelplantsinto advanced biofuel plants is allowed to cover the costs of such conversion.Other than in this particular case,investmentaidtobiofuelscanonlybegrantedinfavourofadvancedbiofuels’.

21

3.6. Biofuels,BioliquidsandBioenergy–GovernanceandGHGAccountingBiofuelsfortransportandbioliquidsusedforotherenergysolutions,standoutintheRED.Theyrepresent the only renewable energy technologies for which specific environmentalparameters,intheformofsustainabilitycriteria,aresetoutasconditionsoftheirbeingcountedtowardthedeliveryof theRED’s targets.Thesecriteriacover: thedeliveryofacertain levelofGHGsavings;avoidanceofdirectlandusechangeinareasofhighbiodiversityvalueandofhighcarbonstock;andtheavoidanceofpeatland.The sustainability criteria adopted for biofuels and bioliquids represented a positive step toattempttocontrolthepotentialadverseimpactsofbiomass-basedfuels.Theywereintendedtoaddressknownenvironmentalconcernsandtoenableresponsibledeployment.The successofthecriteriahas,however,beenmutedbytwokeylimitingfactors:theirincompletecoverageofthe range of biomass used for energy purposes; and their failure to account fully for GHGemissionsassociatedwithbiomassuseforenergy.These limitations, and the associated controversy, have led to a questioning of the ability ofbiomass based energy technologies to deliver GHG emission savings. As a result public andpoliticalsupportforthetechnologieshasbeenunderminedleadingtoalackofclarityandhighriskfortheindustryandpotential investors.Controversyaroundtheuseofbiomassforenergyhas been compounded by the high levels of bioenergy adopted, or to be utilised, by manyMemberStatestodelivertheirtargetsundertheRED25.- Despite evidence at the time, and associated concerns26, sustainability criteriawere only

applied to biofuels and bioliquids, not to solid and gaseous bio-based fuels. This hascreatedamismatchintermsofstandardsandalackofclarity;particularlyasthefeedstocksfor solid and liquid fuels are becoming more closely linked over time as ligno-cellulosicbiofuelsbecomemarketready27.

- Thesustainabilitycriteriaaddressedthequestionofdirect landusechange,however,theyfailedtotakeintoaccountindirectGHGemissionsassociatedwithlandusechange(ILUC)asaconsequenceofthedisplacementofagriculturalactivity.

- Therewasnoprovisionmadetotakeintoaccountthelagbetweengrowth,consumptionofbiomassandregrowthiethegapbetweenGHGemissionstotheatmosphereassociatedwith use of biomass for energy and the reabsorption of those emissions throughphotosynthesis.Whileforannualfoodcropsthelatterpointisofmorelimitedimportance,thisisanimportantconsiderationfortheuseofwoodbasedfuelsandresidues.

- Biomass based renewable energy is considered within the same framing as otherrenewable technologies such as wind, solar, hydro, tidal despite the system constraints,costsandnatureofthetechnologiesbeingfundamentallydifferent.Unlikeotherrenewable

25Between2000and2012,theuseofbiomassforenergyeffectivelydoubledreaching102Mtoein2012:75Mtoeinbioheat;12Mtoeinbioelectricity;and15Mtoeinbiofuelsfortransport(Aebiom,2014).BasedonMemberStates’plannedcommitmentswithintheNREAPsby2020139Mtoeofbioenergyisanticipated(BeurskensandHekkenberg,2011). 26 ThiscanbedemonstratedbyattemptsbytheEuropeanParliamentduringthefirstreadingoftheREDtobroadenthesustainabilitycategoriestoallbiomassforenergy. 27 Thesecanuseasimilarprofileofwoodbasedbiomass,residuesandwastesasforsolidbiomassplant.

22

energytechnologies,bioenergy,likefossilfuels,reliesonarawmaterialthatis‘used’withintheenergyprocess;whilebiomassispotentiallyrenewable,asbiomasscanberegrown,thepotentialforthisisfinite,anddependentontheuseofland,waterandnutrientsforongoingproduction.Thekeychallengeforbioenergy, indeedforallbiomassproduction, isthattheenvironmental impactsaresensitive to thevolumeofsupplyatboththelocalandgloballevel28.Theorderofmagnitudechangeinbiomassuseforenergyhasimplicationsassociatedwithlandusechangeandalsoimportantlyfortheincreasedintensityoflanduse,withintheEUandglobally.

DespitetheabsenceofacoordinatedEUapproach,inresponsetoenvironmentalconcernssomeMemberStatesandindustryactorshavesoughttoextendsustainabilitycriteriatosolidbiomassindependently.However,mostschemesdonotfullyaddresstheerrorsincarbonaccountingsetout above. There is increasingly an emphasis within some Member States on developingapproachesto:

- limit biomass use in certain installation types - Netherlands – Energy Agreement forSustainableGrowth,2013setalimitoncofiringofbiomassof25Petajoules29;

- tofocusbiomassuseonmoreefficientconversiontechnologiesiepreferentialsupportforcombinedheatandpowersolutions-UK-In2012amendmentswereadoptedtotheRenewable Obligation (RO) that imposed a cap of 400MW on new build dedicatedbiomassplantforelectricitygeneration.Plantthatcandemonstratethattheydeliverhighquality combined heat and power (CHP) in linewith theUK government’s certificationschemeareexempt fromthecap.There is separatelyanadditionaluplift in thecreditsgainedundertheROforCHPplant.MoreovertheUKrequires,asofOctober2013thatnewbiomassplantover1megawattmeetsustainabilitycriteriaforsolidbiomasssetbytheUKgovernmentinordertoreceivesupportundertheRO;and

- tocontrol the feedstocksenteringplant ierequiringaminimumproportionofbiomassfrom waste in biogas installations - Denmark - in 2014 adopted standards to requirebiogas plants to use a minimum of 25% waste material – focus on added value andbiomassthatdeliversgreatestGHGsavingpotential.

TheEUcoordinationofsustainabilitycriteriaforbiomassandthetreatmentofbioenergyisalsoof importance in thecontextof theEUETS.Atpresent,biomassusedtodeliverenergyundertheEUETS isconsideredtobezerocarbon,while fossil fuelsarerequiredtoaccount for theiremissions. Thismeans thatone of the key routes for installations to reduce their emissionsunder the EU ETS is the use of biomass. For bioliquids, used for thermal or electric energygeneration(transportisnotcoveredatpresentbytheEUETS)underthescheme,tocontinuetoreceivethiszerocarbonratingtheymustcomplywiththeREDsustainabilitycriteria30.Forother

28Estimates of land use for bioenergy are that 44.5Mha of land and forest areawere in use in 2010 to deliverbioenergy within the EU. This would rise to an estimated 57Mha by 2020 were anticipated use patterns to bedeliveredbasedonNREAPs.Thiswouldencompassapproximately14Mhaofcropland(equivalenttoapproximately12percentofthetotalEUarea)and43Mhaofforestland(Schutter&Giljum,2014) 29http://www.ser.nl/nl/actueel/persberichten/2010-2019/2013/~/media/Files/Internet/persberichten/2013/Samenvatting-Energieakkoord-voor-duurzame%20groei.ashx 30COMMISSIONREGULATION(EU)No601/2012of21June2012onthemonitoringandreportingofgreenhousegasemissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council – amends to take

23

biomass,intheabsenceofsustainabilitycriteria,theseareconsideredtoallbezerocarbonbydefault31. This createsan imbalance in the considerationofbiomass-basedproducts in theEUETS.Itisalsonowunderstoodthatapproachesintendedtoaccountforemissionselsewherearenot effectively implemented nor are signals effectively communicated to installations throughthepricesignalsoftheEUETS.Thereis,therefore,aneedtoshiftthebaselinetoensurethatuseofbiomasstodeliversavingsundertheEUETS,andassociatedpricesignalsforitssupport,reflecttherealitythatbiomassuseisnotazerocarbonendeavour.Biomass forenergyhasapotential role in future indelivering renewableenergy inEurope.Tofulfill this role in a way that delivers climate mitigation and broader environmental goals,requiresmore effective regulation of all biomass used for energy. This is critical forbuildingconfidence in renewable energy use beyond 2020, providing clarity in terms of delivery ofalternative renewable energy sources and ensuring that renewable energy delivery iscoordinated with environmental protection. There are a number of issues that a futureframeworkmustaddress:- Thevariabilityand, insomecases, limitationstoGHGsavingsassociatedwithbiomassuse

forenergy;- Thatthere isa limit to the scaleof sustainableand renewableuseofbiomass forenergy

and that scale is critically linked to ability to deliver both GHG savings and broaderenvironmentalprotection;

- That renewable biomass for energy is a limited commodity which therefore needs to beutilisedinanenergyandresourceefficientwaysothatGHGsavingsaremaximised;and

- That the nature of the biomass feedstocks and associated production methods arefundamentallylinkedtoenvironmentalimpactandGHGsavings.

accountofsustainabilitycriteria forbiofuels/bioliquids, translatesdefinitionsfromtheREDtoEUETS-http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R0601-20140730&from=EN 31GuidanceDocument,BiomassissuesintheEUETS,MRRGuidancedocumentNo.3,FinalVersionof17October2012-http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring/docs/gd3_biomass_issues_en.pdf

24

4. TheRoleofEUEnvironmentalLegislation The climate and energy acquis determines the level of ambition and overall governance ofrenewable energy solutions. Climate and energy policy does not, however, act in isolation.Environmental legislation has a critical role to play in directing development providing aframeworkthatshoulddelivergreaterclarityandcertaintyaroundappropriateusesandsitesfor energy infrastructure. Box 2 sets out the key EU environmental Directives of particularrelevancetorenewableenergydevelopment,thesearepresentedinmoredetailinAnnex2.Theenvironmental acquis is intended tohelp support sustainabledevelopment in Europeandensureenvironmental issuesare taken intoaccountduringalldevelopment. It isan importantcomplementtorenewableenergysupportprovidingmanyofthetoolsandmethodsneededtofacilitate planning for renewable energy solutions and provide clarity regarding appropriatelocation, design and management conditions. To offer clarity and robust environmentalprotection,however,manyofthesemeasuresrelyonspecificityintermsofthetypeandlocationofimpact,andanunderstandingofthecumulativeimpacts.Theimplementationofthese lawsand their effectiveness in delivering responsible renewable energy, therefore, depends on acoherentandexplicitframeworkfortheplanningandestablishmentofenergyinfrastructure.These environmental measures would, therefore, be complemented and strengthened by astrongapproachtoclimateandenergygovernancepost2020.Biodiversity and environmental protection are critically important when considering publicsupportforrenewableenergydeployment.Inaddition,manyoftheenvironmentalmechanismsinplacesetoutexplicitrequirementsforpublicengagement.Rapidbutresponsibledeploymentis key to delivering renewable energy solutions that meet the EU’s targets and deliversappropriate transition of Europe’s energy into the longer term. Rules are needed to provideclaritytofacilitatethisprocess–industryactorsandnationalpolicymakershavehighlightedtheimportanceofclearrulesandsharedunderstandingrepeatedly.Coherent,comprehensive,andgeographically specific plans for renewables deployment, including the linked connectivityinvestment,cancontributebothtoathoroughunderstandingofwiderenvironmentalimpacts,butalsotoimprovedviabilityandconfidenceamongpotentialinvestors.

Box3–EnvironmentalLegislation-ComplementingClimateandEnergyPolicyThefollowingmeasureshavebeenreviewedwithinthisreportandareconsideredhighlyrelevanttotheeffectivedeliveryofenvironmentallyresponsiblerenewableenergy.Allofthesemeasuresareintendedtoprotecttheenvironmentfrominappropriatedevelopmentanddegradation.- EnvironmentalImpactsAssessment(EIA)Directive,2011/92/EU- StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment(SEA)Directive,2001/42/EC- BirdsDirective,2009/147/EC- HabitatsDirective,92/43/EEC- WaterFrameworkDirective(WFD),2000/60/ECForfurtherdetailsofeachmeasure,itscoverageandrelevanceseeAnnex2

25

4.1. Strengths–KeyAddedValueforResponsibleDeploymentofRenewableEnergy In principle, the main benefits of the SEA and EIA processes are that environmentalconsiderations should be taken into account in decision-making in a transparentwaywhilstidentifying potential impact avoidance and mitigation options. This enables competentauthorities to reject projects where likely impacts are considered unacceptable, or to requireimplementation of mitigation or compensation measures through consent conditions.Furthermore, as a result of a reviewof the EIADirective, a numberofweaknesseshavebeenaddressed in a revised EIA Directive - 2014/52/EU. This is expected to improve the level ofbiodiversity protection through a newexplicit requirement to consider biodiversity, provisionsforjointprocedureswhereAppropriateAssessments32andanSEAaresimultaneouslyrequired,measures to improve the quality of EIAs, requirements for Member States to ensure thatdevelopers implementtheenvisagedmitigationandoffsettingmeasuresforsignificantadverseeffectsontheenvironment,andcompulsorymonitoringofadverseimpactsontheenvironment.AkeystrengthofSEAisthatithasthepotentialtoovercomemanyofthelimitationsofproject-basedEIAbyprovidingopportunitiesforconservationandsustainableuseofbiodiversitytobeconsideredas a fundamental partof strategic decision-making. For example, SEA can supportandenhanceEIAprocessesby:- Building biodiversity objectives into land-use, urban or sectoral policies, plans and

programmes,atanypointbetweeninternationalandlocallevels;- Identifying andmanaging cumulative impacts, whichwould be considered insignificant if

assessed in isolation, but which may pose severe threats to biodiversity if assessed incombinationwithothersimilarimpacts;

- Identifying biodiversity-friendly alternatives and mitigation strategies that would becompatiblewithsustaineddeliveryofecosystemservices;

- Ensuring effective monitoring programmes are in place to provide information aboutbiodiversitytoinformbaselineassessmentscarriedoutforEIA;and

- Allowingbiodiversity specialists and decision-makers and/or planners to engage and todevelopasharedunderstandingofbiodiversityrequirements.

AlthoughtheBirdsandHabitatsDirectiveshavesomeweaknessesandimplementationproblemsthe Directives are widely considered to provide a strong science-based protection andmanagement framework33.Most importantly, despite slow and incomplete implementation oftheDirectivestodate,thereisevidencethattheBirdsDirectivehashadsignificantmeasurablebenefitsforbirdsthatarethefocusofitsprotectionmeasures(ielistedinAnnexI)34andsomebirdsandmammalsarerespondingwelltoconservationactionsunderbothDirectives35.Atthesametime,theBirdsandHabitatsDirectivesareconsideredtobeflexibleandproportionate,andifappropriately implementeddonotappeartohavebeenasignificantconstraintonnecessary

32 RequiredundertheHabitatsDirectiveforprojects/plansthatmayhavesignificantimpactsonaNatura2000site 33IEEP(2011)ManualofEuropeanEnvironmentalPolicy.Taylor&Francis,London. 34 Donald,PF,Sanderson,FJ,Burfield,IJ,S.M.,B,Gregory,RDandWaliczky,Z(2007)InternationalconservationpolicydeliversbenefitsforbirdsinEurope.ScienceNo317(5839),pp810-813 35 Deinet,S,Ieronymidou,C,McRae,L,Burfield,IJ,Foppen,RP,Collen,BandBöhm,M(2013)WildlifecomebackinEurope:Therecoveryofselectedmammalandbirdspecies.FinalreporttoRewildingEurope.ZSL,BirdLifeInternationalandtheEuropeanBirdCensusCouncil,London,UK

26

developments andeconomic growth, for example as revealedby a governmental study in theUK36andanEUstudyofAppropriateAssessmentcases37.

4.2. Weaknesses–LimitingEffectiveEnvironmentalProtectionDuringDevelopment DespitetherecentrevisionoftheEIADirectivethemostfundamentallimitationisthatEIA,andSEA,areprocessesthataimtoensurethatenvironmentalissuesareconsideredanddescribed:theydonotcreatealegalrequirementtoactuallyavoidorreduceimpactsnorcompensateforresidualimpacts.AnothersignificantweaknessofbothEIAandAppropriateAssessmentsistheirlimitedabilitytotake into account cumulative impacts arising from other projects and plans. Therefore, asdescribedabove,SEAhasanimportantroletoplayinaddressingthis.Indeed,therequirementfor anAppropriateAssessmentof aplanalso triggersa requirement for anSEAof theplan inquestion.However,thereisscopefor improvingthewaythatSEAsassesscumulativeimpactsontheNatura2000network38.TobemosteffectiveSEAshouldbeusedinthedevelopmentofspatiallyexplicitdeliveryplansormulti-sector strategiesthataimtobalanceandachieveenvironmental,economicandsocialobjectives. Such plans can be an extremely effective way of avoiding the most damagingactivitiesandpromotingwin-winopportunities,suchasoptionstolocaterenewableenergiesonlandof lowbiodiversity andeconomic value (eg contaminated land). In accordancewith goodpractice, spatial plans should follow six fundamental principles namely: 1) the democraticprinciple;2)thesubsidiarityprinciple;3)theparticipationprinciple;4)theintegrationprinciple;5) theproportionalityprinciple; and6) theprecautionaryprinciple39.However,manyMemberStateshavenotdeveloped (or in the caseof theUK,have scrapped) such large-scale spatialplans.Therefore,thelocationofrenewableenergyandrelated impactassessmentsareoftenconducted in the absence of high-level spatial policy and related guidance. This makes itdifficulttostrategicallyaddresssomeofthecoreconcernssetoutinthisreportregardingtheappropriatescaleandlocationofrenewableenergy.AlthoughsomeoftheweaknesseswithrespecttoEIArelatetothelegislationandprocess,thereare also significant problems with implementation. For example, this has been noted withrespect to the limited use of effective impact assessments in Spain where there is a generalpresumptioninfavourofdevelopment,whichhasresultedinsomesevereimpactsonbirdsasaresultofpoorsitingofwindfarms40.

36 DEFRA (2012) Report of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives Implementation Review. Department forEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs,London. 37 Sundseth,KandRoth,P (2013)StudyonEvaluatingand Improving theArticle6.3PermitProcedure forNatura2000Sites.Mainreportandcasestudycompilation.EcosystemsLtd,Brussels 38 Arcadis and IEEP (2010) Dealing with conflicts in the Implementation and Management of the Natura 2000Network-StrategicPlanning(lot2).GuidanceDocument.ReporttotheEuropeanCommission:ContractNumberN°070310/2008/515135/SER/B2.Arcadis,Antwerp,Belgium 39 UNECE(2008)SPATIALPLANNING,KeyInstrumentforDevelopmentandEffectiveGovernance 40 Bowyer, C, Baldock, D, Tucker, G, Valsecchi, C, Lewis,M, Hjerp, P (2009) Positive Planning For OnshoreWindExpandingOnshoreWindEnergyCapacityWhileConservingNature,IEEP,London

27

Thereareparticularproblemsregardingimpactassessmentsofagriculturalimprovementsanddevelopments,whichisrelevanttotheregulationofdirectandindirectimpactsofbiofuelsandbiomass crops. Rural Development Programmes (RDPS) can include measures that supportbioenergyproduction(eganaerobicdigesters).WhilsttheRDPsmustbesubjecttoanSEA, it isdifficulttoassesstheimpactsofmanyrenewableenergyrelatedmeasuresbecausetheyarenotprecisely defined in the RDPs. Nevertheless, the SEA provides an important opportunity toidentify environmental safeguards that should be taken up in the plan. The EIA legislationrequires Member States to act to minimise environmental damage from agriculturaldevelopmentsandother ‘projects’ inruralareas includingtherestructuringofagricultural landand conversionof uncultivatedor semi-natural habitats to intensive agriculturalmanagement.However, analysis has found that the frameworks and criteria for screening are poorlyimplemented and use high thresholds that result in many agricultural improvements fallingoutsidethescopeofthelegislation,sothattheirpotentialimpactsareoftennotassessed41.There isalsoevidence that some provisions of theHabitatsDirective are not adhered to bysomeMember States in certain situations. For example, despite their strict protection, someproposeddevelopmentsthreatenNatura2000sites.SomeofthesethreatsleadtointerventionsbytheEuropeanCommissionand,ifnecessaryreferralofsomecasestotheEUCourtofJustice,asforinstanceconcerningthepotentialimpactsofwindturbinesandotherprojectsonKaliakraSPA in Bulgaria42 . However, it seems inevitable that other damaging impacts will remainunnoticed or unreported andwill not be taken up by the Commission. Given the evidence oflimitedapplicationofEIArequirementstoagriculturaldevelopments,itseemsthatthepossibleimpactsofbiofuelcropsandbiomassproductiononNatura2000sitesareespeciallylikelytobeoverlooked.

4.3. OpportunitiesforImprovingOversight-EnsuringEnvironmentallyResponsibleDevelopment

The recent revisions to the EIA Directive are expected to improve the efficiency andeffectivenessofimpactassessmentswhentheyarecarriedout.Improvedandmoretransparentscreening procedures may also help to address the problem that some projects, especiallyrelatingtoagricultureandforestry,arenotsubjecttoEIAswhentheyshouldbe.However,thismay be partly the result of a lack of awareness amongst project proponents (especiallylandowners) of the need for EIAs. There is, therefore, an opportunity to address this byincreasingawarenessoftheEIADirectiveandtheprojectsthatrequireEIAs.TheCommissionisnowstartingtopreparethe2nd implementationreportfor2016,whichwillevaluate the application and effectiveness of the SEADirective across theEUandassess thepotentialforsimplification.AccordingtotheCommission’sworkprogramme,thismayleadtoaREFIT evaluation. This may provide an opportunity to improve the Directive and itsimplementation, by implementing recommendations made under the previous review if theyremain relevant. These included, thepossible coverageof policies and legislation (such as theRED) in the application of the SEADirective, steps to develop the capacity ofMember States

41 COWI(2009)StudyconcerningthereportontheapplicationandeffectivenessoftheEIADirective.ReportforEuropeanCommissionDGENV.COWIA/S,Denmark. 42http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-654_en.htm?locale=en

28

effectivelycarryoutSEAsanddevelopmentofguidanceonbestpracticeapproachestoSEA.Forexample, guidance forMember States on how to identify sites suitable for renewable energydeployment and ensure that this is recognised in SEA, as well as land already protected forbiodiversity,wouldbevaluable.Aspartof its ‘REFIT–Fitness forgrowth’ initiative, theEuropeanCommission iscarryingoutafitnesscheckofEUnaturelegislation,focusingontheBirdsandHabitatsDirectives.AccordingtothepublishedmandatefortheFitnessCheck43,theaimistoestablishwhetherthelegislationisfitforitspurpose,takingintoaccountitseffectiveness,efficiency,relevance,coherenceandEU-added value. The ultimate objective is to promote better/smart legislation that is moreresponsive to existing and future challenges, and to help to improve its implementation. TheFitness Check aims to identify any excessive administrative burdens, overlaps, gaps,inconsistencies and/or obsolete measures taking into account the cumulative impact of EUlegislation. The results of the Fitness Check (and supporting evaluation study) are due to bepublished in early 2016. Any Commission proposals that arise from the exercisemay have animpactonthetreatmentofrenewablesprojectswithinthenaturelegislationappliedbyMemberStates.

43http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/docs/Mandate%20for%20Nature%20Legislation.pdf

29

5. AVisionforResponsible,RenewableEnergyDeliveryto2030ThecurrentEUclimateandenergytargetsandtheirsupportinglegislativeacquisarefocusedondelivering change up to 2020; and aswe have noted above, they suffer from a weakness offailingtoplacerenewablesdeploymentinalong-termperspectivebeyond2020.Discussionontargets and legislation for the period from 2020 to 2030 has been under way since theCommission’spublicationof its communication “Apolicy framework for climateandenergy inthe period from 2020 to 2030”44in January 2014. The European Council adopted a set ofconclusions in October 2014 responding to the Commission communication, and providingguidelinesforfuturepolicydevelopment.Thetargetsoutlined,andwhichhaveformedthebasisfor the EU’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution as submitted to the UNFCCCsecretariatinadvanceoftheParisConferenceofthePartiesinDecember2015,includea27percentshareforrenewableenergyby2030;anenergyefficiencytargetofaleveloffinalenergyuse 27 per cent below that projected for 2030; and an overall domestic greenhouse gasemissionsreductiontargetofatleast40percentby2030.Potentially as significantas the targets themselvesare theEuropean Council’s suggestions onthe flexibility allowed to Member States on their implementation. These are likely to haveconsiderableinfluenceontheCommission’sdraftingofitslegislativeproposals;however,itisfarfrom certain that the European Parliament will follow the policy direction suggested by theEuropean Council, particularly as its weaknesses in terms of ensuring delivery and providinginvestorcertaintybecomebetterunderstood.TheEuropeanCouncil’sdecisionmakingprocess,which is predominantly based on consensus, places significant power in the hands of a smallminorityof reluctantMemberStates,whocanrefusetoagreeconclusionsuntil theirconcernsaremet.ConsequentlyiftheEuropeanCounciltakesonaquasi-legislativerolebyspecifyingitspreferences in termsof thedetaileddesignof legislation, itpotentiallydisrupts thebalanceofpowerbetweenthedifferentlegislativebodieswithintheEUforeseenbytheTreaty45.Thecurrentexpectationisthatdetailedlegislativeproposalsfortheimplementationofthe2030climate andenergy targetswill beput forward in the first half of 2016, in the light of furtherevaluation work, and of the results of the Paris Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC. TheEuropeanCouncil’s conclusions ofOctober 2014 suggest that the legislative framework couldlookverydifferenttothatcurrentlyinplacetodeliverthe2020targets,particularlyintermsoftheapproachtothepromotionofrenewableenergy.Thekeyelementsofclimatelegislation(theEmissions Trading System (ETS); and the Effort Sharing Decision, which allocates betweenMemberStates the responsibility fornon-ETSemissions sector reductions)will remainbroadlysimilar, although with a more rapidly declining cap in the Emissions Trading Systems, andunspecifiedadditionalflexibilityforMemberStatesintheEffortSharingDecision.

44 COM2014(15)final“Apolicyframeworkforclimateandenergyintheperiodfrom2020to2030”,Brussels22/1/2014 45 See“Meyer-Ohlendorf,Nils2015:CantheEuropeanCouncilimposeconsensusonEUclimatepolicies?DiscussionPaper.Berlin:EcologicInstitute”foradetaileddiscussionofthisissue.Thereis,however,nostrongreasonwhytheEuropeanParliamentshouldconsideritselfboundbyEuropeanCouncilviewsonthedetaileddesignoflegislation,asdemonstratedbytheirinsistenceinnegotiationsonthe2014-2020multi-annualfinancialframeworkonprovisionswhichalteredtheapproachwhichtheEuropeanCouncilbelievedithadagreedon.

30

5.1. The2030framework–RenewableEnergyandEnergyEfficiency The legislative framework forboth renewableenergy investmentand thedeliveryof energyefficiency targets will, if the Commission and the co-legislators follow the policy directionproposed by the European Council, contain significant structural weaknesses due to theuncertainenforceabilityofthetargetstheyprovide.TheOctoberconclusionsoftheCouncilandtheFebruaryEnergyUnionPackageCommunicationputforwardbytheCommissionincludethefollowingtargets,setoutintable3.TargetsRelatingtoEnergySupplyandManagementProposedfor2030

Targets ActionssetintheRoadmapforEnergyUnionandscheduledtimesfordelivery

Renewables Atleast27%ofenergyconsumedintheEUtobefromrenewablesourcesin2030

• “BindingatEUlevel”• No“nationallybinding

targets”tobeset

RenewableEnergyPackage:includinganewRenewableEnergyDirectivefor2030;bestpracticesinrenewableself-consumptionandsupportschemes;bioenergysustainabilitypolicy(anewpolicyforsustainablebiomassandbiofuels);legislationtoensurethatthe2030EUtargetismetcost-effectively(2015-2017)CommunicationonWastetoEnergy(2016)

Energyefficiency

Atleast27%improvementinenergyefficiencyby2030comparedtopreviousprojections

• AnindicativetargetatEUlevel,tobereviewedin2020withaviewtoa30%target

• No“nationallybindingtargets”tobeset

Reviewof:- theEnergyEfficiencyDirective(2016)- DirectiveofEnergyPerformanceof

BuildingsincludingSmartFinanceandSmartBuildingsInitiative(2016)

- Energyefficiencyframeworkforproducts(EnergyLabellingDirectiveandEcodesignDirectives)(2015)

Strengtheningthetargeteduseoffinancialinstrumentstosupportinvestmentinenergyefficiency(2015)

Therearealsolimitations.TheEuropeanCouncil’sconclusionsfromOctober2014containratherambigousmessagesontheinclusionofMemberStatetargetsforrenewables.Ontheonehand,theystatethat‘targetswillnotbetranslatedintonationallybindingtargets’;buttheyalsomakeitclearthat‘IndividualMemberStatesarefreetosettheirownhighernationaltargets.’MemberStates would, therefore, be responsible for proposing their own plans for renewable energydeploymentupto2030,withtheCommissionmonitoringprogressagainstthese.Withoutclear

31

targets set down in legislation to guide Member State performance and the Commission’sassessment of performance, it is difficult to see how the ‘higher national targets’ mentionedwouldbeunderstood–higherinreferencetowhatshareoftheEUtarget?The Council’s overall approach has a number of weaknesses in terms of its delivery ofrenewableenergy,comparedtoeithertheexistingframework,orarevisedframeworkbasedonMemberStatetargets.Inparticular:1. Thelackofnationaltargetsforenergyefficiency,orclarityonwhatfurthersupportwouldbe

available for energy efficiency through EU level policy instruments (including productstandards and vehicle emissions standards), and uncertainty over even the indicative EUtarget,potentiallycreatessignificantuncertaintyoverlikelytotalfutureenergydemandandinfrastructure requirements. This brings with it risks of (a) a failure to bring forwardinvestment in the deep decarbonisation necessary for longer-term emissions reductionsbeyond2030,and(b)increasedinvestmentincurrentlycheaper,butmorecarbonintensive,energy sources, including gas, leading to infrastructure that is either stranded by moredemandingtargetsinfuture,orwhichleadstoincumbentlobbyingagainstambitioustargetsand a failure to deliver long-term EU decarbonisation goals. More energy generation andtransmissionassetsofallkindsimplyagreatercumulativeimpactonbiodiversity.

2. Theabsenceofnationallybindingtargetsforrenewableenergywouldbelikelytoleadtolessambitious,andlessconsistentlypursued,approachesatMemberStatelevel(aswesetoutinthisreport,enforceabletargetshavehadaclearimpactofthedevelopmentofMemberStatepolicy,andthedeliveryofnewrenewablesinvestment);

3. A lackof certainty for investors,whowould face greaterpolicy risk in relation toMemberState support mechanisms, than if those support mechanisms were backed by legallyenforceablenationaltargets;

4. The potential for those Member States less politically committed to decarbonisationobjectivestofreerideonmoreaggressivepoliciesinotherMemberStates,withthepotentialfor reduced collective support for a decarbonisation agenda, and higher overall long-termcostsofdecarbonisation;

5. Theabsenceofeitherabindingor indicative trajectory for targets risksdelayingnecessaryinvestmentfurther;

Thelackofclarityforinvestmentintroducedbythesignificantlylooserframeworkproposedbythe European Council thus poses substantial risks both for longer term decarbonisation goals(andthus,ofsignificantdamage fromclimatechange inbothhumanandwiderenvironmentalterms),and in the short- tomedium- term for landuse,biodiversity,andotherenvironmentalimpacts from misdirected energy infrastructure investment. While it is expected that thegovernance structure developed for the delivery of energy targets will replicatemuch of thedetailofNationalRenewableEnergyActionPlansunderthecurrentRenewableEnergyDirective,thelackofaclearrequirementfordeliverybyMemberStatesrisksrobbingtheNREAPsoftheirvalue.Ontheotherhand,therearesomewelcomeelementsoftheexpectedpackage,althoughtheirpotentialisheavilydependentontheambitionwithwhichtheyarebroughtforward,andwouldin any case be significantly reduced if the weaknesses identified above are a feature of thelegislation finally adopted. In particular, drawing together different strands of Member Stateenergy policymaking, monitoring and reporting into a single framework should helpMemberStates–andcivilsocietygroupsinMemberStates–presentanddiscussaclearerpictureofthe

32

totalimpactofenergydecarbonisationgoals,andofthechoicesrelatedtoalternativeroutestotheirdelivery.Trade-offsandopportunitiesforwin/winsbetweenenergyefficiencyandthelanduse, biodiversity, and wider costs of energy infrastructure should become clearer. Theimportanceofgridinfrastructureissues,andthepotentialchangesrequiredintermsofdemandmanagementandstorage(togetherwiththeassociatedinfrastructureneedsandcosts)inorderto accommodate a significantly greater share of variable renewable energy will also behighlighted. Thereis,therefore,anopportunitytoensurethatthenewreportingandplanningframeworkexplicitlyrequiresintegrationoflanduseandbiodiversityimpacts,bothofadditionalgeneratingcapacity,andofthegridandstorageinvestmentsassociatedwithit.Makingenergymarketsandgridinfrastructure‘fitforrenewables’isacross-borderchallengeand will require adequate action at regional and EU level. Isolated policy and nationalinvestmentsdeliveredwithoutcoordinationbetweenneighbouringcountriesmayfailtoaddressthe particular challenges of adding RES into the energy system and, as proposed by theCommission, ‘integrate renewable production progressively and efficiently into a market thatpromotescompetitiverenewablesanddrivesinnovation’.Arisingshareofintermittentsources(i.e.PVandwind)intheEUenergygenerationmixhasimpactsonelectricitymarketsaswellason transmission and distribution system operations. If these impacts are not reflected in theregionalmarketdesign(s),end-consumerscould incursignificantextracosts, renewableenergydeployment would slow down, and its positive environmental impact would be limited.Moreover,theresultingdisruptionofmarketconditions(e.g.greaterspotpricevolatility)couldalsocreateadditionaluncertaintyforinvestors.

5.2. The2030framework–GHGEmissionReduction,theEUETSandBeyond WhileourexpectationisthatthepricesignaldeliveredbytheEmissionsTradingSchemewillbestrengthened,includingthroughimplementationoftheMarketStabilityReserve, itseemsclearthatitwillremaininsufficienttoprovideadequatesignalstoencourageambitiouspublicpoliciesorprivateinvestmenttodeliverdecarbonisation.Itwill,however,continuetoprovideincentivesforchangesinhowthecurrent,largelyfossil-fuelbased,energyinfrastructureisused;anditwilltherefore be important to ensure that those incentives are aligned with long-termdecarbonisationobjectives.Inparticular,thecurrentanomaloustreatmentofbiomasswillneedtobeaddressedinordertoimprovetheintegrityofemissionsreductionsundertheETS,andinordertoavoidperversesubsidiestofossilfuelgeneratingcapacity(seediscussioninsection3).TheEuropeanCouncil’sOctober2014conclusionsalso setout twopossibleapproaches to thetreatmentoftargets,whichcreateconcernsontheintegrityandeffectivenessoftheEU’spolicyframework.Ontheonehand,itcallsontheCommissiontoexaminehowtheLandUse,LandUseChangeandForestry(LULUCF)netemissionscanbebroughtwithinthetargetframework.WhilepositiveincentivesformitigationintheLULUCFsectorwouldbewelcome,thereisasignificantriskthatsimply includingthesector intodeliveryofanoverall40percentemissionsreductiontarget would (by virtue of the LULUCF sector’s current net sink status) have the effect ofweakeningthattarget’scontributiontoenergysystemdecarbonisation.Secondly,thepossibilityof a flexibility for Member States to transfer effort from the non-traded sector to the ETSsector,bymeansofanup-frontreduction inETSallowances,risksweakeningpolicysignals fordecarbonisation in the transport, agriculture and heat sectors. If any such flexibility is to beincluded in the final legislation, it will be important to ensure that it is accompanied bymechanisms ensuring that Member States making use of it are nevertheless required to

33

demonstrateambitiouslong-termplansforthenon-ETSsectors;andtoensurethattheresultingreduction in allowances in the ETS sector is guaranteed to lead to an equivalent reduction inemissions(theautomaticityofwhichwillbeweakenedbytheoperationoftheMarketStabilityReserve).Finally, the EuropeanCouncil’semphasis on delivery of targets in “a cost-effectivemanner”,whileitisfundamentallyright(inprinciple,efficiencyisconsistentwithsustainability;andhigh-costapproachestodeliveryriskreducingsocietalandpoliticalsupportandambitioninthelongerterm),isexpressedtoonarrowly.Inparticular,itisfocusedondeliveryoftargetsin2030;andnot on establishing long-term least-cost pathways to the energy system decarbonisationneeded beyond 2030. It therefore creates risksof investmentnow in fossil fuel infrastructure(bothgenerationand transmission)whichwillbestranded in the future;and thusofawastedinvestmentinthatinfrastructure,includingtheassociatedenvironmentalimpacts.

34

6. ConclusionsandRecommendations

6.1. KeyMessages Thisreportsuggeststhatthebuildingofanefficient;expandingandenvironmentallysustainablerenewable energy sector in Europe could best be advanced by a more developed EU policyframework than that currently advocated by the European Council. There are two principalreasonsforthis.

i. Amoreelaboratedandspecific framework for thedevelopmentof renewableenergywouldhelptocreatetheconfidencenecessaryforinvestmentontherequiredscaleupto2030andbeyond.Itwouldhelpsendclearersignalsforinvestorsontheneedforbothcurrentlycompetitiverenewabletechnologies,andfor innovationinothertechnologies.Thisimpliesacceptanceeitherofsomeformofexplicitnationaltargetsoranequivalentmeasure. These should not be dismissed as an unwarranted interference in nationalflexibility; theyarethebestwaytoreducethepolicyriskthat investorsotherwiseface.Greaterclarityonthetechnologicalandgeographicalspreadthatgovernmentsforeseeiscritical for securing jobs and growth benefits from renewables, for enabling effectiveplanning and coherence of technology and grid choices, and for managing widerenvironmentalimpacts.

ii. The environmental rationale for the development of renewable energy, risks beingundermined by approaches which effectively encourage a rush towards short-termdeliveryofthelowest-costtechnologies,regardlessoftheirlong-termimpacts.Improvedpolicy frames, technology choices and coherent spatial planning, as well as enhancedimplementationofexistingEUlegislationonenvironmentalimpacts,willhelptodealwiththeserisks.

Delivering a robust, renewable energynetwork is not a technologically and spatially neutralendeavour.Bothitsenvironmental impacts,anditscontributiontoEurope’seconomicsuccess,clearlydependonwhat isbuilt,whereandonthescaleofdeployment.A futureEU legislativeframework must reflect this. An effective frame of EU policies that deliver deployment ofrenewableenergysolutionsatscaleandsimultaneouslyprotectandpromotetheenvironmentand biodiversity requires action at both the EU and Member State level. The followingrecommendationsfocusontheactionwethinkisneededatEUlevel.The need for greater coordination and cooperation justifies a proportionate set ofrequirementsbeingplaceduponMemberStatestodeliverchangeupto2030;complementingthose already in place, such as state aid rules. An approach based purely on voluntarycooperation(iebuildingupaEuropeancommitmentfromdifferinglevelsofnationalambitioninthehopeofachievinganoverallEU2030target)cannotbereliedontodeliver.Furthermoreitseems unlikely to deliver deployment that is consistent with sustainable environmental andeconomicpathwaystodeliverthefurtherdecarbonisationrequiredby2050.EUpolicyneedsaclear,predictable,frameworkforMemberStateactiondueto:- thesheerscaleofthechallengeinvolvedinEurope’slong-termdecarbonisation;- thelevelofprivatesectorinvestmentnecessary;and- theextenttowhichtheenergymarketandphysicalenvironmentcrossnationalborders.

35

To deliver both renewable energy deployment and environmental protection in the decadeafter2020werecommendthatanEUframeworkshouldincludethefollowingelements.- More explicit and transparent target setting for renewable energy delivery by each

MemberStateoranequivalentmechanism.TargetsshouldbedeterminedataEuropeanlevelbasedonobjectivecriteria, rather thandiffering levelsofMemberStateenthusiasm.Thisisneededtoensuredelivery,toprovidethegreaterconfidencethatinvestorsneed,toavoid the risks and costs imposed by free rider Member States, and to support otherMemberStatesintheirambitionstogofurther(ascalledforbytheOctober2014EuropeanCouncilconclusions);

- Amore coherent single EU governance framework for developing and delivering energytargets that recognises the important contribution that energyefficiency andassociateddemand management approaches (including distributed generation and improvedmanagement of the heat sector) can make to EU decarbonisation objectives, while alsosignificantlyreducingimpactsonthewiderenvironment;

- A requirement for Member States to plan for renewable energy delivery in ways thataddress cumulative impacts on biodiversity and other aspects of sustainability, thataddress land use concerns and constraints associated with certain technologies andsupporting grid infrastructure, and that provide a basis for effective monitoring of thespatial impactsof renewableenergydeployment.Thisshould includetheeffectiveuseofexisting legislative instruments covering plans and projects, particularly the StrategicEnvironment Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives, in order toensurethatriskstobiodiversityareidentifiedearly,andavoided.

- Sustainability criteria and requirements that apply to all biomass feedstocks used forenergy.Theseshouldtakeintoaccount:• theattributesofeachfeedstockandtherelevantenvironmentalissuesthatresult;• thescaleofbiomassuseforenergythatis judgedenvironmentallyresponsibleandany

consequentlimitations;• appropriateaccountingregimesandmonitoringarrangements;• differentiate bioenergy use from wider renewable energy technologies, this

differentiation should be reflected in other EU instruments that support renewableenergyadoption,includingtheEUETS.

ThisreportdoesnotaimtoassesstheactionsthatMemberStateandsub-nationalauthoritiesneed to take, although we have referred to some potentially helpful approaches in differentchapters and a few proposals are included in the recommendations. Clearly the policyframework for renewablesneedtobeelaborated inmostdetailat theMemberStateratherthanEUlevel,withmanydecisionstakenattheregionalorlocallevel.

36

6.2. ElementsoftheEUClimateandEnergy2020PackagetobeRetainedandImproved

There are a number of key elements of the existing framework for delivery of the EU 2020targetswhoseretention,orimprovement,appearstobecrucialfor2030andpotentiallybeyond.- RenewableEnergyTargetsorequivalentatMemberStatelevel–TargetsatEUlevelthatset

some formofnormativeexpectation forMemberStateperformance– ideallybinding,andideallysetonthebasisofanobjectiveprocess,ratherthanvolunteering–areessentialbothtoguideinvestmentdecisionsandensuredelivery.ThisalsofacilitatesthoseMemberStateswhichwishtoadoptamoreambitiousstancetodoso,withoutsimplycreatinggreaterscopefor other Member States to free ride on their efforts. There will also be consequentialbenefitsforemissionreductionsandanenhancedcapacitytomanageenvironmentalimpact.

Moreover, clarity on the need for individual Member States to meet a specific share ofrenewableenergyby2030willhelptodriveanimprovedlevelofspatialplanninginnationaldelivery.Without a clear indicationof the required share of renewables for eachMemberState,whichwillgiveagoodsenseofthecumulativecapacityneeded,itwillbetooeasyforpolicymakers to relyon incrementalpriceandpolicy signals, rather thanpromotingaclearvisionoftheoverallinvestmentrequired.Settingoutaclearvisionwouldhelpbothtocreategreater investor certainty, and to push Member States to acknowledge and address thecumulative environmental impacts of the investment required. We set out below somesuggestions forhownewapproachescanhelp toensure that these incentives forMemberStatescanbetranslatedintoimprovedplanning.WerecognisethatthisapproachdiffersfromtheapproachsetoutbytheEuropeanCouncil.Wealsounderstandthatthereis likelytobesignificantresistancebyasizeableminorityofMemberStates,andthatthisresistancemaydissuadetheCommissionfrombringingforwardproposals along the lines we suggest. In our view, the damage the European Council’sapproachwouldcreateboth for investorcertainty, fordeliveryof theEU’sdecarbonisationapproach,andforthefreedomformoreambitiousMemberStatestomakerealprogress,areserious and dissuasive. However, if the co-legislators, including the European Parliament,maintaintheirreservation,theremaybescopeforagreeingtargetsthataresubjecttomid-termreviewandadjustment.ThiscouldinvolveredistributingeffortbetweenMemberStateswhere there is a clear and agreed rational, as a result the overall level of EU effort andinvestorconfidencemaintained.Werelegislatorstoagreeonasub-optimalsystemwithoutany binding national renewables targets, the need formany of the other elements in ourproposedpackageofactionsbecomesstronger.

- Sustainability criteria forbiofuelsandbioliquids -Strongercriteriaarerequiredpost2020

for biomass based renewables, either in a revised RED or elsewhere in EU legislation.Experience with certain biofuels and other forms of biomass energy havemade clear thesignificantrisksintermsofimpactsonlanduse,intheEUandbeyond.Thereisariskofbothnegating climate changemitigation and significantly exacerbating biodiversity and broadersustainabilityimpacts,wherethewrongchoicesaremade.Inthecaseoftransportfuels,theproposednon-renewalofthecurrentEUvolumebasedconsumptiontargetfor2020(whichin practice primarily promotes biofuels), would remove some of the perverse incentivescreatedbythecurrentEUlegislation.Appropriateformsofbioenergyonasustainablescale

37

can make an important contribution to the spectrum of renewables deployed in Europe.However,itwillbenecessarytoensurethatboththebiofuelsandtheotherbiomassbasedrenewables contributing to attainment of the overall EU and any corresponding MemberState targets genuinely have a significant impact on reducing GHG concentrations in theatmosphere,andavoidsignificantharmfulimpactsonbiodiversity.

TheexistingREDsustainabilitycriteriathereforeneedtobesignificantlyimprovedandpartlyreconceived,takingintoaccountawiderrangeofbothpotentialfeedstocksandenergyenduses.Formanyfeedstockssustainabilityispartlyaquestionofscalee.g.theareaofEuropeanagricultural land that isacceptable todevoted toenergy (includingmaize forADplants)orthe proportion of forest residues that can be extracted and utilised for energy – reducingavailability for other uses. Mechanism to address appropriate scale within differentgeographicparameterswillneedtobedevelopedaspartofanewsustainabilityregime.Thisischallengingandthepotentialcomplexitycanbeaconcern.Itis,however,unavoidabledueto the different nature of bioenergy compared to other renewable energy sources. Thisdifferencehastoberecognisedinpolicy,especiallysupportregimesacrosstheenergyfieldincludingwithintheEUETSandstateaidrules.

- Monitoring and planning provisions in the RED - The requirement forMember States to

develop a National Renewable Energy Action Plan has been beneficial in assisting moreplannedandtransparentdecision-makingatnationallevel,andinprovidingtheCommissionwith some of the information necessary for it to gauge whether progress is being made.Similar requirements should be maintained and strengthened (particularly if there are nobinding national targets). The European Council’s preference for bringing together diverseelements of energy policy planning into a single governance framework would create therightstructureandcouldcontributetoabetterplannedandmoretransparenttransition.

- EU environmental legislation - While the prime role in planning for investment in

renewables,selectinglocationsandaddressingenvironmentalimpactslieswiththeMemberStates,itishelpfultohaveaEuropeanframeworkwithconsistentcoreprocessesthatguidesgoodpracticeandprovidespredictabilityfordevelopers.Here,thelongestablishedSEAandEIA Directives are of particular value and relevance to renewable energy technologies.Experience to date indicates that they often do help to avoid and minimise detrimentalimpacts (eg through the consideration of alternatives and the identification of mitigationmeasures) and can lead to worthwhile compensation for unavoidable residual impacts;although implementation varies considerably between Member States. EffectiveimplementationoftheDirectivesremainsapriority,followinggoodpracticesforexamplesetoutintheEuropeanCommission’existingguidanceonwindpower.

38

6.3. ElementsoftheEUClimateandEnergy2020PackagetobeAmendedorRemovedThereareanumberofelementswithintheexistingrenewableenergypolicyframeworkthathavecausedproblemsand,therefore,areprioritieseitherforamendmentorcompleteremoval.- EU Renewable transport fuel targets and support for biofuels - The Commission has

proposedinits2014communicationonapolicyframeworkforthe2020to2030periodthatit “does not think it appropriate to establish new targets for renewable energy or thegreenhousegas intensityof fuelsused inthetransportsectororanyothersub-sectorafter2020.”Oneimportantreasonforthisretreatfromtargetsisthelevelofincentivesthattheygeneratedforarangeoffirstgenerationcropbasedbiofuels,whichthenhadtobemodifiedbytherecentagreementonILUC.

Consequently there are good reasons for ending undiscriminating targets. However, therearestrongargumentsforthisapproachtobeaccompaniedbytheintroductionofspecificEUmechanisms,including,potentially,targetsatMemberStatelevel,toencourageinvestmentinadvancedbiofuels,providedthefeedstocksmeetstringentsustainabilitycriteria(aspartofawidersupportschemeasoutlinedabove).Thesecouldbeaccompaniedbytherolloutofelectrictransportsolutionsbasedonrenewableenergy.Withoutprovisionforsuchincentivesat EU level, the necessary investment and technological development will be delayed.

- Correcting the zero rating for biomass in the Emissions Trading Scheme and lack ofsustainabilityconsiderationsforsolidandgaseousbiomass–CurrentlyEUlegislationfailstotakesufficientaccountofthedifferenceinthenatureofbiomassforenergycomparedwithother renewable energy solutions. Post 2020 there is a need for the environmentalconsequences of all biomass used for energy to be properly considered, not least inrecognisingthelimitsintermsofsustainablepotentialforarangeofbiomassfeedstocks.Onepolicymechanismforthisistheintroductionof‘sustainabilitycriteria’,asoutlinedabove,inotherpolicymechanismsusedtosupportlowcarbonenergy,includingtheEUETS.UndertheEUETS,thecurrentapproachappliesazero-ratingofGHGemissionsfrombiomasscombustion that fails to reflect the full, real world emissions. While zero-rating logicallyshould be removed as part of a review of biomass policy, defining a better approach is,however,morecomplex.Detailedcase-by-caseassessmentofsustainabilityandGHGimpactsof biomass fuels would be prohibitively complex. Other solutionsmerit investigation. Onewouldbeasimple,tieredcategorisationofbiomassfuels,withallthosefuelswithinacertainsustainabilitycategorybeingcreditedwithanappropriatepercentagereductionfromthefullrequirement to retire ETS allowances. (Thus, if a fuel meets the stipulated criteria for acategorysuggestingthatitsnetcarbonimpactisnomorethan,say,40%ofitsdirectcarbonemissions, the requirement to retire ETS allowances would be limited to 40% of theassociatedemissions).SuchasystemofcategorieswouldbebasedmainlyonlifecycleGHGemissionsbutalsowouldbelinkedtoanexpandedsetofsustainabilitycriteriaforbioenergy.

39

6.4. NewinstrumentsneededatEUlevelforthe2030PeriodandBeyondLeavingaside the issueof targets theproposedstreamlinedapproach toMemberStateactionplanningandreportingofprogressinthedeliveryofclimateandenergytargets,asendorsedbythe European Council, is welcome. A requirement to publish evidence-based, transparentnational programmes covering all aspects of energy policy (including renewables and otherapproaches to decarbonisation) has a number of potential benefits These include enhancedtransparency, certainty and understanding for potential investors; and a clearer overview ofcumulativelanduse,biodiversity,andothersustainabilityimpactsofenergyinvestment.Itwill,however,beimportanttoensurethattheactionplannediscredible,andthatMemberStatesareeffectively held to account for the delivery of their share of the wider European target. Theconsequenceofgovernmentsfailingtomeettheirshareofobligationsneedstobespelledoutclearly.Thefollowingaspectsofthegovernancestructurerequireparticularattention:• Planningforfurthermitigationpost2030:OneweaknessinbothCommissionandEuropean

Councilpolicystatementsonthe2030targetspackageisthattheyfocusheavilyondeliveryofspecifictargetsintheyear2030.Thetrajectoryofrenewablesinvestmentandassociatedemissions over the decade needs attention through a tracking and potential correctionsystem. Secondly,Member States need to be strongly encouraged to plan investment andsystem development in the light of emission reduction targets for 2050. A number of thepathwayswhichmaybenecessary for cost-effectivemitigationbeyond2030– in termsofrenewables capacity, and the potential for electrification of sectors such as heat andtransport, for example – may require preparatory investment now, but without suitableplanningmaybesubjecttopriceandpolicysignalswhichareinadequate.

• Incorporating landuse implications,biodiversity impactsandwidersustainability impactsintonationalenergyplanning-Asthisreportdemonstrates,thereareawiderangeofspatialplanning, land use and biodiversity impacts of renewables technologies as well as otherenergy investments required in the coming decades. A clearer spatial planning aspect toMember State energy planswould help to ensure that these impacts are addressed. Suchplanswouldnotonlyhelptoshowhowenvironmentalconsiderationswerebeingbuilt intocomplex and geographically dispersed investment programmes but would help todemonstratecompliancewiththeSEADirective.Bothatthestrategicandthemorespecificproject level, plans need to take into account at least the five different dimensions ofbiodiversity/RES interactionssetout in this report: systemicenvironmentalconcerns; sitingconcerns; ecological capacity concerns; project design concerns; andongoingmanagementconcerns. Ideally,Member State plans should include scenarios on thedesirable 2050 endstate for deployment of specific renewables and storage technologies; and should alsoindicatethepreferredapproachtotheirgeographicaldistributioninordertohelp:(i)managewider environmental and sustainability impacts and (ii) optimise connections betweengenerationanduseofenergy.

40

• Improved regional cooperation amongMember States – the Commission’s Energy Unioncommunication emphasises the importance of improved regional cooperation amongMember States, particularly in view of the need for better interconnection planning. Weshare the Commission’s belief in the importance of regional cooperation; in addition,improved regional cooperation could help to address many of the information challengesassociated with the greater focus on land use implications of renewable energy capacityoutlinedabove.

• Providing for investor confidence, and reducing policy risk associated with renewablesinvestment - While the key mechanism for creating improved investor certainty inrenewables is, in our view, explicit and (ideally) binding renewables targets for MemberStates,otherrequirementscouldbeincluded;and,indeed,wouldbecomemoreimportantintheabsenceofbindingtargets.ExamplescouldincluderequiringMemberStatestosetouthowtheywillprovideinvestorswith improvedcertainty;andtosetoutclearcommitmentson themechanisms theywill adopt to ensure that investors in renewables capacitieshavesome level of insurance or guarantee against policy risk (for example, future changes insupportregimes).This isanelementofpolicywhererequirementswouldneedtobemorestringentintheabsenceofbindingMemberStatetargets;giventhegreaterpublicpolicyriskstoinvestorsthatsuchanapproachwouldentail.

• Greater clarity on how energy market policy will help to promote the integration ofrenewables – Policy on renewableswill be an important component of the Energy Unioninitiatives aswell as the 2030 climate and energy package. Indeed, renewable energy is acriticalpartof secureand sustainable futureenergy supply. Ingeneral terms this impliesamoreinterconnectedinternalenergymarket,flexibledemandmanagementandappropriateback-upgenerationcapacity.AspartoftheEnergyUnionpackagemeasuresareneededto:

• makesurethattheEUMemberStatesfullyimplementtheenergymarketlegislationto improve the functioning of the internal energy market and resolve structuralproblems,

• carefully adjust the energy market design to ensure that market participants areincentivisedtoaddresssystemscarcities(suchascapacityandflexibilityissues)whilepreservingastableenvironmentforRESinvestors,

• create a stable, efficient, open and fair regulatory framework for demand sidemanagementactivities.

41

6.5. TheroleofMemberStatesPost2020 InallthemeasuressetoutinthischaptertheroleofMemberStatesiscrucial,butthisreportisnot intendedtomaptheactionrequiredatthis level inanydetail.Critically, theapproachwehavesetoutwouldrequireallMemberStatestotakethesortofstrategicapproachtoenergyandrenewablesplanningcurrentlyonlyattemptedinafew.WerecognisethatnotallMemberStatesareequallycommittedtodecarbonisationandrenewablestargets;andthatinmanycasesthis in turn reflects the different, democratically expressed, priorities of their populations.However, the European Council’s preferred approach effectively would allow more reluctantMemberStatestofree-rideontheprogressachievedbythemoreenthusiastic;webelievethisholdsseriousrisksofafailuretodeliverthetargetsagreedunanimouslybyMemberStates,andriskspreventingthemoreclimateprogressiveMemberStatesfrommakingthecontributiontheirpopulationswantthemtomaketotacklingclimatechange.Alop-sideddistributionofeffortonrenewables might also result in unavoidable environmental pressures in some areas withconcentratedinvestmentincapacitywhilesuitableresourceselsewherearenotexploitedatall.Ourapproachavoidsthisbytakingamoreequitableapproachtotheallocationofeffort,basedonobjectivecriteria.TheenhancedprocesswehavesuggestedforplanningthedeliveryofthateffortdoescreaterisksthatmorereluctantMemberStateswillmakeuseofagreaterfocusonlong-termspatialplanningconstraintsandthewiderimpactsofrenewablesdeploymentinordertoemphasisethedifficultiesofachievingthe2030targetsandthedeeperemissionsreductionsnecessarythereafter.TherearealsorisksthatinotherMemberStatestheprocessofsettingoutalong-termvisionmayshineaclearerlightonthechallengesandconstraints,andprovokesomedisagreementwithhighlevelsofambition.Inbothcases,thecontributionthatamorestrategicapproach could make to promoting early, transparent, and well-informed debate would bewelcomenevertheless;andtheresultingincreasedfocusonthebenefitsofenergyconservationmeasures couldhelp to trigger amore committedMember State approach topolicymaking inthatarea.OtherareasoutsidethemainfocusofthisreportwhereMemberStateactioncancontributetodeliveryofrenewablesandwiderenvironmentalsustainabilityobjectivesinclude:- Improved research into the environmental impacts of renewables and interconnector

development,includingimprovedsharingofresultsamongMemberStates;- Incorporatingtheenhancedfocusonlanduseimplicationsofrenewableenergycapacityin

theirwidernationallanduseplanningsystems,inordertoavoidasfaraspossiblethepre-empting of valuable sites for renewable energy investment by other, non-compatible,development.

42