• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

RSPB et al. Windfarm Petition (1 Viewer)

David

Well-known member
Draft text of a “moratorium” petition addressed to the RSPB and copied to the Scottish Executive, Scottish National Heritage (?and other similar English, Welsh and N. Irish Countryside bodies? What about DEFRA? Please advise.)


Please feel free to comment on this draft text, but don’t clog up the thread unless you feel your comments need a good public airing. I will publish as many revises as necessary with source named as requested/required. (I have also copied this to Mark Duchamp for his comments.). I personally believe that in the case of a public petition we should avoid too much detail and present a broad view which as many people as possible can support. I have used a lot of the RSPB’s own wording on the matter.


http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/index.asp

and

http://www.rspb.org.uk/action/eagledeaths.asp .


There are a lot of experts out there who are considerably more qualified and informed than I am as a miserable amateur. Individuals and organisations are of course free to lobby the RSPB separately and present more detailed evidence and arguments. I believe the real aim of this petition is to show the RSPB and other organisations that a large number of people are concerned about this subject, and “push them off the fence” on which they are uneasily sitting. To be fair, it’s not easy making or influencing politics!



Call for a moratorium on planning, siting and erection of wind turbines in areas with sensitive bird and other wildlife populations and habitats


We welcome the concern that the RSPB has demonstrated about proposals for the erection of wind farms in areas where significant bird and other wildlife populations and habitats are likely to be adversely affected. We applaud the many objections the RSPB has raised to wind farm proposals (on and offshore) over the past few years, particularly the 234 turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis in the Hebrides, on an extremely fragile and special area for wildlife. We also share the RSPB’s concerns on the effect of climate change and the aim to increase the proportion of a broad mix of effective forms of renewable energy with large long- term potential and minimal environmental impacts

It is however the view of the undersigned that the RSPB could and should initiate more radical and urgent action in this matter in order to fulfil its basic and primary objective of the protection of birds.

In your policy statement on wind farms you state:

“To ensure that future wind farms do not affect sensitive bird populations or their habitats, the RSPB is pressing the government for more research and monitoring of the effects of these developments on birds.”

This passive stance on the core of the windfarm debate does not go far enough in our opinion. Evidence from Spain and the United States of America confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines. Wind turbines have caused the deaths of huge birds of prey on isolated islands off the Norwegian coast. The recent alarming reports of the deaths or displacement of white-tailed eagles from Smøla in Norway has as you have stated “increased fears that wind farms in Britain could take a similar toll on native and migrating wild birds”. In this context it is important to examine the accumulative effect on certain bird species, such as the Golden Eagle in Scotland, where the sustainability of the population could be adversely affected without this becoming apparent in a mere site population count.

This persuades us that the Precautionary Principle should be applied to environmental impact assessment of all wind farm proposals in areas considered sensitive for birds or other wildlife. The RSPB is better aware than any other organisation of such areas in the United Kingdom.

We consider that in view of the increasing number of wind farm applications, which present planning and review authorities with an immense administrative burden and consequently increases the risk of ‘rubber-stamping”, that an immediate moratorium on all sensitively sited windfarm proposals in the United Kingdom should be imposed. This moratorium should remain in place until a strategic approach to applications and planning procedures is in place. This approach should pay particular attention to the indirect and long term effects on particularly vulnerable populations of large raptor species such as the Golden Eagle.

We call on the RSPB to actively promote and support such a moratorium, which should remain in place until a strategic policy on the assessment of wind farms effects on wildlife has been drawn up and implemented. The aim must be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in each and every case, that no significant threat exists, or will develop, for birds or other wildlife.


Go on then - tear it apart ;)

David
 

Tyke

Well-known member
Well done David
In view of the present circumstances I can't contribute.
Good luck with it.
Colin
 

birdman

Орнитол&
I couldn't possibly tear it apart, David.

If this is to become a Proact Petition, then, as you know, you have my support as a permanent signatory.
 

David

Well-known member
savethebirds said:
You say you have copied this for Mark's comments. Can I ask if you have sent this internally through BF mail?
I spoke with him on Skype this morning and he gave me a couple of pointers. I have sent him a copy of my draft and asked for his comments.

savethebirds said:
Once I know, Mark has been able to look at the wording as per my orginal post on this then I will feel that democracy is still alive and kicking. It is essential that the wording it is completely correct so that everyone interested in this is able to comment, be happy with the wording ....and of course, be able to sign any online petition through birdforum.
You will have to trust me then. I will take all comments on board and will justify any amendments I make - except on grammar or style.

*HTH* to mollify you ;)

David

Now lets keep this thread free for concrete suggestions.
 

David

Well-known member
Don't rock the Bird Forum boat.

Any forum or club has rules and BF is no exception.

I make use of BF for raise support for what I consider important efforts to prorect birds, wildlife and their habitats.

I am not prepared to carry the can for people who rock the BF boat or break the rules. I am not kow-towing - just being pragamatic. If people can't accept or work within the rules then please find another outlet.

I have had a gypsie's warning for not controlling the activities of others. I am sure that I have not gone out of line or encouraged others to do so. So please don't make my task any more difficult.

I will repeat this privately (PM) to those whom the message is directly meant for.

Thanks,

David
 

Blackstart

Saxophonus pinus
Hi David,

The letter might have a bit more punch if the "sensitive areas" are more specifically defined. Are these areas IBAs, SPAs, etc., or are they areas that have been deemed sensitive (or not) by the RSPB? As it stands, I think the wording is too vague.

Adam
 

David

Well-known member
Input please

Blackstart said:
Hi David,

The letter might have a bit more punch if the "sensitive areas" are more specifically defined. Are these areas IBAs, SPAs, etc., or are they areas that have been deemed sensitive (or not) by the RSPB? As it stands, I think the wording is too vague.

Adam
Lets have some input from the experts then please. I'm just the gifted literary amateur ;)
 

David

Well-known member
Blackstart said:
Hi David,

The letter might have a bit more punch if the "sensitive areas" are more specifically defined. Are these areas IBAs, SPAs, etc., or are they areas that have been deemed sensitive (or not) by the RSPB? As it stands, I think the wording is too vague.

Adam
To take up your point again Adam.

Defining the sensitive areas to the RSPB really is teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. They are after all BirdLife International UK and ultimately responsible for ensuring that the govt designates IBAs and SPAs in the first place. If any others emerge, they can be submitted/reported to the RPSB.

My formulation

"This persuades us that the Precautionary Principle should be applied to environmental impact assessment of all wind farm proposals in areas considered sensitive for birds or other wildlife. The RSPB is better aware than any other organisation of such areas in the United Kingdom."

was based on this fact.


Let me make one thing clear at this stage. If it wasn't for the RSPB the state of conservation would not be at the high level it is today - and that's true of their work in many countries outside the UK as well.

IMHO we are only trying to nudge them out of a corner (perhaps too wind farm minded),


RSPB: "However, wind power has the greatest potential to make a significant difference in the UK in the coming decade. It is the most advanced and widely available of the new renewable technologies.")
and back on the central track of direct bird protection. Not that a long term strategy of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and their 'dirty' disadvantages is not their remit as well. They need focussing.

But let's not repeat a debate which has been rehearsed elsewhere please. Comments on the draft text please.

David
 
David

there are a few minor grammatical errors that need correcting; captalisation of bird names wrt consistency for example, and some others too. I would also chop it down a little if i were you.

I can elaborate if you want (maybe via PM) but don't want to step on any toes. And this isn't a criticism either.

However, if you are going to run with this, it will carry more weight if it tightly written and edited.

Tim
 
Last edited:

deborah4

Well-known member
Why would anyone who has consistently supported wind farms regardless of the cost to wild birds (that others on BF have been trying to express) arguing that global warming is a higher price to pay, now seek to help word a petition calling for a moratorium on existing proposals in order to protect birds from being slaughtered by turbines?

Have I misunderstood you Tim?

or have you changed your mind?
 
deborah4 said:
Why would anyone who has consistently supported wind farms regardless of the cost to wild birds (that others on BF have been trying to express) arguing that global warming is a higher price to pay, now seek to help word a petition calling for a moratorium on existing proposals in order to protect birds from being slaughtered by turbines?

Have I misunderstood you Tim?

or have you changed your mind?

no change of mind

just got skills in the English department

offer recinded then. If you want taking seriously, do it properly

Tim
 

deborah4

Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
no change of mind

just got skills in the English department


Tim

As have many of us who support the petition. (in addition to legal skills)

Sorry you have taken such offence, just wanted to know where you stand and you certainly did not respond so 'helpfully' when I posted an original draft and have been very confrontational to posts Ive made previously which I have found intimidating and not very constructive at times. I have been informed by PM that you are a nice guy - I'll take it on trust :t:
 

Grousemore

Senior Member
Tim Allwood said:
just got skills in the English department

offer recinded then. If you want taking seriously, do it properly

Tim

...shame the 'skills' don't extend to being able to spell rescinded 3:)
 

savethebirds

Well-known member
Grousemore said:
...shame the 'skills' don't extend to being able to spell rescinded 3:)
:clap: :t: but at least there is an attempt to help with some input. Where are the other experts?
 
Last edited:

Steve

Surfing
Staff member
United Kingdom
but at least there is an attempt to help with some input. Where are the other experts?


I will be giving some input into this and the windfarm thread fiasco tomorrow.

:frog:
 

savethebirds

Well-known member
Steve said:
but at least there is an attempt to help with some input. Where are the other experts?


I will be giving some input into this and the windfarm thread fiasco tomorrow.

:frog:
Thanks Steve. Hope to see it, if I am still around...hopefully.
 

deborah4

Well-known member
THANKS TIM

Tim, thanks for your suggestions, they are ones I would also have raised myself. Ive PM'd the full text of your proposals to David so hopefully he will be able to incorporate suggested amendments and post them back here for further perusal.

Ive suggested that if he doesn't have time, I can download what we have so far and incorporate your suggestions in a word doc which might be easier than doing it on the thread and then PM them back to David.

B :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top