For the last few years RSPB Scotland has been involved in a legal challenge regarding consents granted to four offshore windfarms in the Firths of Forth and Tay which many of you may have been following. Here our director Anne McCall reflects on the recent decision by the UK Supreme Court to decline our application to appeal against these consents.
RSPB Scotland will continue to do all it can to protect Scotland’s outstanding natural heritage
Whilst we believed the case for challenging the Scottish Government’s consents for four offshore wind farms in the Forth and Tay was very strong, there are never any certainties in pursuing a judicial review. Add to that the fact that it is hugely expensive, can be difficult to initiate, has a narrow procedural remit and, when challenging governments, can risk real reputational damage, then it requires very careful consideration. But when the lives of tens of thousands of our globally important populations of seabirds are at stake, it is RSPB Scotland’s duty to do everything within its power to prevent such damaging activities from happening. So when the news broke that the Supreme Court had declined to consider our case against these consents, we were hugely disappointed. We have invested more than 10 years, with hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of time and constructive commitment to the offshore sector to try and secure the best possible outcome for Scotland. We firmly believe that renewable energy projects can be an enormously positive thing for wildlife if they displace carbon emissions which are causing climate change and harming wildlife in Scotland and around the world – but not if the projects themselves cause huge direct damage to that very wildlife. No doctor would prescribe any treatment that hugely exacerbates the damaging and life-threatening symptoms of an illness. It does look like this particular legal challenge has now reached the end of the road. However, RSPB Scotland exists to protect wildlife, birds and the habitats where they live and feed. Our supporters and members give us such strong support because they understand this is what we do, and they expect us to stand up when these things are threatened. Even though we knew the chances of success were slim, with so much at stake for nature, we had no choice but to give it our best shot. We are committed to continue working with the sector, especially as the technology is now cheaper and more efficient; with the next round of licensing upon us we are likely to see a significant uplift in the number and scale of developments around our seas. Getting it right – for everyone’s sake – has never been more important. But this is not the end of the road. It should not be forgotten that neither the RSPB nor our members will be intimidated by any developer who threatens wildlife, birds and habitats - whether that is a renewable energy company, construction supply chain or the now President of the United States' proposal to build a damaging gold course on a (formerly) pristine part of the Aberdeenshire coast. It is a source of considerable pride that Donald Trump publicly acknowledged that RSPB Scotland fought his destructive development harder than any other organisation. Just as we stood up to him, we will continue to oppose the most harmful developments of any type and by any developer.
I would like to take this opportunity to offer RSPB Scotland’s sincere thanks for all of the support and encouragement we have had from many of you throughout this legal process – thank you.
This article was originally written for the Thunderer column in The Times.
Thomo,I'm with redkite on this. No one is keener on RSPB buying reserves than I am and obviously a balance has to be struck on how the charity's money is spent, but if RSPB don't fight the most important bad development cases wildlife in the UK will be a lot poorer. It's vital that developers know that RSPB will pursue important cases as far as they can be taken and RSPB always tries to be constructive - sensible developers back off or modify their proposals, and wildlife wins. Money well spent.
Keep up the great work RSPB. One becomes very cynical with how these developers “get away with it”, and how often they are supported by Governments,both local and national, which pay little or no regard to the science and wildlife in each case.
In all these things one must say where would the natural world be without the RSPB, we would have disaster after disaster on our hands if the RSPB was not there to stand up for nature. Keep up the brilliant work. There are bound to be triumphs and some disasters in this business.
I’m afraid I disagree with you StackyardGreen, as the RSPB must have lost loads of money on paying lawyers fees and costs to pay the oposition when they knew that they where unlikely to win this case and the money they have lost, could have been spend on buying new reserves and conservation.
Regards,
Ian.
A very disappointing outcome, especially as the initial challenge by RSPB was successful. It is essential that RSPB continues to fight the most damaging development proposals. Let's not forget that the RSPB has had many successes across the UK, persuading developers to withdraw or modify proposals.
I just wonder wheather the RSPB money could have been spent on better things than this, after paying lawyers fees and no doubt they will have to pay costs which would have been better spent maybe on possible new RSPB reserves. The RSPB probably knew that they would lose this case and I knew myself that there would be little chance of the RSPB winning the case.