Supplementary written evidence submitted by RSPB (NPE0043)

This evidence is submitted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds expanding on verbal evidence given to the committee by the RSPB on changes to the National Policy Statements for Energy.

Summary points

• Changes to CNP status that remove the ability of developers to reduce capacity as a mitigation measure will disincentivise high quality planning and remove a key mitigation for wildlife from development. For offshore wind farms, it is standard practice at present to plan the layout for maximum capacity during the initial stages, with the presumption that capacity will be reduced at a later stage once more environmental data has been obtained.
• Offshore wind, when poorly planned, can have a population-level impact on seabirds, i.e., it can contribute to the decline of species, not just individual colonies.
• We recommend that the Department conduct and publish analysis of this change on the Government’s ability to meet Environment Act targets.
• Building in peat reduces its ability to absorb and store carbon. EN-3, 2.12 ‘Onshore wind’ has not sufficiently considered Net Zero targets on peat restoration, particularly the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation that 79% of upland peat be restored by 2050.[1]
• We recommend that in absence of Natural England guidance, the new draft EN-3, 2.12.76 be amended to direct developers to Nature Scot guidance ‘Advising on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland in development management’[2]. This would protect the deepest peat and help to fund peatland restoration.
• The Government should also assess the emissions from building onshore wind in peat.
• With strategic and spatial planning that values low carbon energy and nature, strong nature protections and better resourcing including of data – the energy transition can be delivered with minimal harm to our natural environment and play an active role in biodiversity restoration. Wholesale reform risks overwhelming an over-stretched system. We need delivery of the NIC’s recommendations on environmental data.[3] The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan included a commitment to launch an engagement exercise ‘in early 2025’ on ‘nature-positive best practice’ for energy infrastructure development. We would welcome the launch of this exercise so that we can support development of nature-positive energy policy. New polling shows the public want infrastructure to be delivered with minimal harm to nature.[4]
• Nature is good for growth – the Dasgupta Review found that nature loss could reduce UK GDP by 6-12% by 2030.[5]

Summary of contents

1. Our view on changes to CNP status
2. What is the impact of offshore wind on seabirds?
3. Peatland, onshore wind and wildlife
4. Further changes we recommend to the new draft NPS
5. Our positions on how we deliver more energy and help nature
6. Details of the RSPB’s work on energy, including recent research

1. Our view on the draft changes to CNP status, National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1

We have concerns regarding the introduction of the following wording in EN-1, paragraph 4.2.24, ‘Measures that result in a material reduction in generation capacity for CNP infrastructure are unlikely to be considered appropriate as mitigation’.

It is unclear whether the Department has assessed the implications of this policy change on the Government’s ability to deliver Environment Act 2021 targets to reduce the risk of species extinction by 2042 and halt the decline in species abundance by 2030, or achieve Good Environmental Status as set out in the UK Marine Strategy for which seabirds is the only indicator of 15 not only failing but moving away from target. We recommend that it does. As red-listed species of urgent conservation concern, many of the UK’s seabirds such as Puffin, Kittiwake and Herring Gull are covered by the Environment Act, as are land-based upland birds such as Curlew, Sky Lark and Black Grouse.

On land this policy change may encourage developers to select sites that they may otherwise have avoided, and develop parts of the site that they otherwise might have set aside for habitat restoration. Wildlife activity may be concentrated in certain areas within a site. In this instance, reducing the number of turbines and altering layout can be a key mitigation measure. Further research is needed, but evidence suggests that when onshore wind is planned well and is not in an important area for birds of conservation concern, the impact on birds is minimal.

Whereas at sea, the policy change will increase negative impacts on seabirds, implying a significant reliance on compensation to offset impacts, which could have been avoided through reducing the design envelope of the infrastructure. Compensation (strategic or project level) must not be the status quo, measures for seabirds still remain untested, unproven and extremely costly.

Offshore wind farms are often located in shallow sea depths, these typically are the highest areas of ecological sensitivity due to the upwelling of ocean currents and increased food availability. The ability to reduce the design envelope facilitates the co-existence of nature and offshore wind. Often, reducing the number of turbines, adjusting layout and increasing turbine size can be the most effective mitigation measure in avoiding or reducing impact – for example North Falls wind farm[6].

It is standard practice for wind farms to plan for the ‘upper limit’ of turbines in early stages, with a widely-held presumption that this will be reduced once more environmental data has been obtained.

There is also a lack of clarity within the policy on whether other mitigation measures are covered e.g., pausing turbines at certain times of day during breeding season, using technology to pause turbines when a bird approaches, or increasing the height of offshore turbines, which can significantly reduce collision risk[7].

2. What is the impact of offshore wind on seabirds?

We are pleased to be a member of the Offshore Wind Evidence and Change Programme, through which we work closely with industry, The Crown Estate and Government to find solutions to the sharp decline of the UK’s seabird populations.

The UK hosts a high percentage of the global seabird population for many species and is therefore widely recognised as internationally important. The most recent census ‘Seabirds Count (2012-2021)’ found that in the last 20 years, the UK’s seabirds have declined by 62% and in Scotland, our seabird stronghold, this number is as high as 70%.[8] Species of particular concern include the Kittiwake (-42%), Puffin (-24%), Common Gull (-49%), Leach’s Storm-petrel (-78%) and Arctic Skua (-66%). These declines were reported prior to the outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), or “Bird Flu”. Our report from February 2024 confirmed even further declines particularly in species that were previously considered to be improving.[9] If trends continue, these birds will be driven to extinction.

These declines are a product of many factors, including: unsustainable fishing practices which reduce prey availability and have high risk of bycatch (accidental mortality of seabirds caught in fishing nets); climate change impacts on the marine food chain and extreme weather; the introduction of Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) to seabird islands off the UK’s coast; and recently, offshore wind. As top predators, seabirds are key indicators of ocean health and their declines give a clear signal that the marine ecosystem is failing. To recover, seabirds need a safe place to breed, safe places to feed and plenty of food. Without frontloading nature in the planning system for offshore wind delivery and prioritising avoidance of impact, the Government’s ability to deliver on the long-term environmental targets and the environmental principles enshrined by the Environment Act may be hindered.

We recognise the importance of delivering offshore wind, hence why we work collaboratively to facilitate nature-friendly delivery. We only oppose offshore wind projects in exceptional circumstances, such as Berwick Bank.

Many of the UK’s offshore wind farms cover hundreds of square miles. The proposed wind farm ‘Berwick Bank’ in the Firth of Forth, Scotland, has a footprint four times the size of Edinburgh and is located in one of the most important areas for foraging seabirds in Scottish waters. Offshore wind developments can have a significant impact on seabirds[10] through:

• Collision – birds coming into contact with the rotating blade, a significant threat for Kittiwake and Gannet.
• Barrier effect – the wind farm inhibits the passage of seabirds from their nesting grounds to their feeding grounds. Seabirds who are already suffering from lack of food availability need to travel longer distances to reach food sources, expending more calories hunting and ultimately resulting in less food for chicks. Barrier effect can also be a problem for migrating birds.
• Displacement – seabirds may avoid hunting within the area of a wind farm, which reduces the food sources available to them, a significant threat for Razorbill and Guillemot. Sandeel, a key food for many seabirds, is often concentrated around sand banks, which are favourable for offshore wind development.
• Disturbance – this primarily occurs during construction, maintenance and from increased boat activity, a significant threat for Red-throated Diver.

3. Peatland, onshore wind and wildlife

The new draft NPS EN-3, Onshore wind, fails to provide a steer against development on deep peat and this creates the likelihood of conflict between different Net Zero goals. England’s upland areas contain much of the country’s remaining deep peat, are relatively less populated, and are windy.

We are already seeing this conflict emerge, for instance, at one of England’s most important deep peatland sites, Walshaw Moor in Yorkshire, where a developer has proposed to build 41 new turbines, almost all of which will be on deep peat[11]. The entire project will be within the boundaries of designations for blanket bog and upland birds.[12]

Upland peat is recognised as vital to Net Zero 2050 by the Climate Change Committee’s the Climate Change Committee’s 7th Carbon Budget. At present, damaged peat is responsible for approximately 3.5% of UK emissions.[13] It is unclear whether the Department has made any assessment of the implications for the draft NPS on its ability to deliver the upland peatland restoration target. The CCC’s Balanced Pathway recommends that 79% of upland peat should be restored to natural or near-natural state by 2050. This should be 60% by 2040, and 37% by 2030.[14] The Office for National Statistics found in 2019 that restoring all of the UK’s peatlands would capture carbon benefits of £109 billion, outweighing the costs of doing so by 5 to 10 times.[15]

Constructing onshore wind within deep peat, such as blanket bog, will inhibit our ability to deliver on the CCC’s recommended targets. Onshore wind developments damage peat by:

• Permanently removing peat for: underground cabling, construction of access tracks for each turbine, foundations for each turbine. These are not usually removed or re-used when the site is repowered so new foundations would be installed if the site is repowered.
• Changing peat’s hydrology – increasing drainage, inhibiting its ability to form new peat and making it more likely to dry out and emit carbon. This also increases vulnerability to wildfire. Peat loss also reduces the bog’s ability to absorb heavy rainfall and protect valley communities from flooding.

There is no up-to-date mechanism for assessing carbon emissions from onshore wind construction in peat. In Scotland, a Carbon Calculator is used to estimate emissions from building onshore wind on peat. The Scottish Government’s climate research centre concluded last year that there are issues with the methodology and recommended amendments.[16] The Government should assess the Greenhouse Gas emissions impact of building onshore wind in peat.

There is no up-to-date guidance from Natural England on onshore wind, and in recognition of this the new draft NPS directs developers to use Nature Scot guidance for developing onshore wind.[17] However, it does not direct developers to use Nature Scot guidance for development on peat. EN-3, Paragraph 2.12.76 should be amended to direct developers to use Nature Scot guidance ‘Advising on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland habitats in development management’.[18] This sets out types of peat on which development is likely to raise a national interest concern and recommends avoiding these types. It also establishes a 1:10 loss-to-restoration ratio. If applied in England, this guidance could both protect the deepest and rarest peatland habitats from harm, and help to fund peatland restoration. We recommend that the Government adopts a parallel policy position or directs developers to use of Nature Scot’s 2023 guidance on peatland development. We encourage the Government to provide Natural England with funding to develop its own guidance, which should reflect that peatland habitat is rarer in England than in Scotland.

The decision of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero not to ringfence the deepest peat from development within the new draft NPS also risks undermining efforts by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to better protect it, such as through the England Peat Action Plan and new proposals to restrict the burning of deep peat. The Nature Minister said: ‘Our peatlands are this country’s Amazon Rainforest – home to our most precious wildlife, storing carbon and reducing flooding risk. The UK has 13% of the world’s blanket bog. A rare global habitat, it is a precious part of our national heritage, and that is why we‘re announcing a consultation on these measures to ensure deep peat is better protected.’[19]  The RSPB welcomed this consultation.[20] These long-overdue proposals to introduce licensing of grouse moors and restrict burning of deep peat will increase regulation of grouse moors and some grouse moor owners could seek to develop the land.

In the Environment Improvement Plan (2023), peatland restoration is viewed as important for meeting the habitats target in the Environment Act: ‘Restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside of protected areas by 2042.[21]

In 2024 RSPB has published research that concluded just 1.7% of UK land is needed to build onshore wind, so there should be no need for it to come into conflict with peatland restoration if a strategic and spatial approach to planning, that protects deep peat, is taken.[22]

Noise guidance from 1996 embedded in the new draft NPS limits the availability of sites for onshore wind. This compounds potential conflict between onshore wind, peat and nature protection, by steering development towards remote areas. The new NPS makes clear that the ‘primary’ factor in choosing a site will be wind speed. Draft NPS EN-3, 2.12.99 – 103 directs developers to this 1996 guidance, that suggests a minimum distance of 350m from a dwelling.[23] However, the increased size of contemporary turbines means that developments may need to be even further away if following the guidance. This would exclude most areas of England from development.

The new draft NPS notes that the Government is satisfied with the quality of this guidance, however, a 2023 report produced for then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy found that as technology has since made significant advancements, this guidance should be reviewed.[24]

4. Further changes we recommend to the NPS

The Department’s decision to publish the new draft NPS without tracked changes made it difficult to scrutinise changes.

We have highlighted to the Department in our consultation response:

• The need, in each document, to better embed and reinforce the application of the mitigation hierarchy. The mitigation hierarchy makes avoidance of harmful impacts the first port of call, followed by mitigation, and finally compensation.
• The need within the new draft EN-3 to better recognise the ongoing work around the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme, including around the Consenting Process and Seabed Leasing.
• EN-1, 4.6.10 weakens the policy requirements from a maximalist position on biodiversity net gain, to a more ambiguous one.
• EN-5, 2.9.3 should be amended to provide a stronger steer on the application of the mitigation hierarchy with respect to collision and electrocution of birds from powerlines. There is growing evidence that electrocuted birds can be a cause of wildfires in dry conditions.[25]

5. Better resourcing renewable energy planning

To deliver a nature-friendly energy transition, we need:

• A strategic and spatial approach to planning for new energy, that places a high value on nature. Important sites for nature must be ringfenced from development within the Strategic and Spatial Energy Plan, Regional Energy Strategic Plans, and other strategic planning documents. We also need a Marine Spatial Plan that identifies, integrates and avoids seabird foraging areas, to facilitate de-risked and faster offshore wind roll-out, and reduce the need for costly compensation requirements.
• More environmental data, managed centrally. The National Infrastructure Commission recommended in its 2023 report on improving national infrastructure planning, that DEFRA should introduce a data sharing platform, including relevant developer and statutory body data. It also recommended development of a library of mitigation measures, and that statutory bodies should be resourced to develop more baseline data and agree strategic compensation mechanisms.[26] The RSPB supports these recommendations.
• Meaningful mechanisms for strategic compensation for seabirds, that can support delivery of the Seabird Conservation Strategies.
• Better resourcing of our planning system (see below).

The energy sector and environmental NGOs agree that one of the biggest challenges to delivering on the Government’s Clean Power 2030 targets is resourcing.

A joint report from the Aldersgate Group, RenewableUK and CPRE, and to which the RSPB contributed, found a key challenge is ‘insufficient resources across the system, especially within statutory consultees such as Natural England, Environment Agency and local authorities, contributing to uncertainty in timescales introducing risk for developers’.[27] This report recommended improved join-up between environment and energy policy planning, better resources, and frontloading nature within the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan.

A recent report from Regen, several reports from the RTPI, and Defra, have also identified the lack of resourcing within statutory bodies and local authorities as a major problem.[28] This is causing delays in the provision of advice to developers, and delays in project timeframes. Between 2014 and 2020, Natural England had a 45% core funding cut, which has left it unable to provide timely advice.[29]

There is sparse evidence that nature protections are a serious challenge to development.[30] Analysis of bats and newts in England’s planning system shows that they are a factor in 3.3% of planning appeals.[31] New research shows that the public want infrastructure to be delivered with minimal harm to wildlife.[32]

However, poorly planned, ecologically harmful projects can face delays within the planning system. Such projects are the product of weak environmental protections that permit poor site selection, and a failure of successive governments to plan strategically for infrastructure.

6. The RSPB’s work on energy

The RSPB is the UK’s largest nature charity, with 1.2 million members. We advocate for the interests of wildlife, and with climate change posing a growing threat to wildlife and the resilience of ecosystems, climate action is a key aspect of our work. Renewable energy is vital for climate action, however when poorly planned it can have negative impacts on species in crisis from climate change and other factors.

We recognise that we urgently need more renewable energy. We have staff across multiple teams working full-time on energy, from policy, to ecological advice and scientific research. For over a decade, we have supported renewable energy to work in harmony with nature. This includes: 

• Ongoing advice to three solar farm developers on biodiversity measures at solar farms and supporting on public engagement[33].
• Advising Scottish Power on biodiversity measures at the UK’s largest onshore wind farm, Whitelee, and supporting public engagement[34].
• Advising Vattenfall on biodiversity measures at Wales’ largest wind farm Pen y Cymoedd[35].
• A partnership with Ecotricity and deployment of renewables across the RSPB estate, including a 100m wind turbine at our Global HQ[36]. 
• Collaborative engagement with key policy and planning processes, including:
• Strategic Spatial Energy Plan
• Onshore Wind Task Force
• Offshore Wind Evidence and Change (OWEC) Programme
• Welsh Government’s TAN-8: Planning for Renewable Energy
• Welsh Government’s Future Electricity Grids for Wales project 
• Membership of National Grid Electricity Transmission stakeholder groups

• Public engagement on the need for new energy infrastructure

• Scientific research, including:
• ‘Ambitious onshore renewable energy deployment does not exacerbate future land use challenges’, 2024.[37]
• Our scientists mapped land use needs for nature-based solutions to climate change and nature, productive agricultural land and energy development needs.
• We concluded that it is possible to build enough onshore wind and solar, without reducing habitat for birds, or restricting our ability to cut land use sector emissions[38].
• Study suggested 2.6% of UK land is needed for onshore wind and solar targets.
• Mapping low ecological sensitivity areas for onshore wind and solar.[39]
• ‘Solar farm management influences breeding bird responses in an arable-dominated landscape’, 2024.[40]
• Surveyed 6 solar farms in the East Anglian fens, comparing those with ‘mixed habitat’ such as hedgerows and wildflowers vs. ‘simple habitat’ (cut grass or grazed, and no woody boundaries).
• At ‘mixed habitat’ solar farms, bird abundance for a range of species including Amber-listed and Red-listed was higher than at ‘simple habitat’ solar farms and nearby arable farmland.
• The intensification of farming practices has led to decline of farmland wildlife.
• There is a growing body of literature suggesting that solar farms managed for nature can benefit wildlife, when built in low-ecological sensitivity areas.

June 2025

9