Home | News & Events | News | Angling Trust News: Anglers Fume as Regulator Bows to Hydropower

Angling Trust News: Anglers Fume as Regulator Bows to Hydropower

image


The Angling Trust has reacted angrily to the Environment Agency’s massive over-exaggeration of the amount of electricity that could be harnessed from English and Welsh Rivers and its failure to act to prevent hydropower developments damaging fragile fish stocks. The Trust is calling on its members to object to planning applications for new hydropower installations on the rivers they fish and has provided a guide to making an objection here.

The Agency recently commissioned a survey to map opportunities where run-of-river hydropower could be developed. This identified nearly 26,000 possibilities which their Consultants estimated had a “realistic” total potential of 580 MW, which is just 0.5% of the current demand for electricity. However, the Agency has chosen to promote in recent press statements the absolute maximum figure of three times this amount. Achievement of this amount would depend on using all the possible water flow at every possible site.

This is obviously both unattainable and unsustainable, and is yet another example of the Agency actively promoting an activity which will make no difference to our energy needs or to global warming, yet has the potential to result in irreparable damage to the Nation's fish stocks, including threatened species such as salmon, sea trout and eels.

The Angling Trust has also learnt that the Environment Agency is allegedly considering issuing “gagging orders” on its staff in the Fisheries Department to stop them giving their expert advice to local councils about how to mitigate the impact of hydro-electric plants on fish and objecting when these are not acceptable. Anglers were astounded to hear that the fisheries staff paid for with rod licence fees might be told not to do their job. The Agency is a statutory consultee on planning matters.

Furthermore, in a paper to the recent Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreational Advisory Committees (RFERACs), the Environment Agency implied that there may be schemes that will be approved that have ‘acceptable’ impacts on fish stocks. The Angling Trust believes that allowing these to be developed would be in contravention of the Environment Agency’s statutory duty of maintaining and improving fish populations and complying with the EU’s Water Framework Directive, which makes any deterioration of ecological status (including fish stocks) illegal.

The Angling Trust will be e-mailing all its members and encouraging them to object to any hydropower development on their rivers on the grounds of insufficient information being available and that they cause danger of unsustainable damage to fish populations. This applies to at least 95% of the planned developments the Angling Trust’s technical advisers have looked at. A list of developments is available on the Agency's website here.

The Angling Trust’s legal arm in England, Fish Legal, is investigating whether legal actions might be brought against the Environment Agency on behalf of its member riparian owners and clubs whose property rights are damaged by hydropower developments approved by the regulator.

Angling Trust Chief Executive Mark Lloyd said:

“The Environment Agency is not only overstating the value of run-of-river hydropower it is also apparently stopping its own staff advising developers and planners how to reduce the impact of these developments on fish. The Angling Trust is exasperated with the Agency’s flagrant promotion of this damaging industry which is being developed at the expense of sustainable fisheries. We call on the nation’s anglers to stand up and be counted to defend their fish and their fishing by objecting to any schemes near where they fish today. Details of how to do this are on the Angling Trust’s web site.”

Angling Trust Technical Director Dr Alan Butterworth, who recently retired after a long career with the Agency, latterly as their national expert on the impacts of hydropower on fisheries, reacted angrily to the Agency's position:

“It is very clear that English and Welsh rivers are simply too small to make any difference to the Country's energy needs. But the Agency continues to encourage this type of ‘run-of-river’ hydropower which can do a massive amount of damage to the ecology of our rivers and block the migration of fish.

“Much of Europe and the United States have learnt this lesson the hard way and are dismantling even much larger schemes in order to save their rivers, yet the Agency continues to spread the red carpet for hydropower developers irrespective of the risk of ruining ours. A small amount of hydropower generation is perfectly possible, but it must only be allowed where it causes no damage to our fragile fish populations.”

End of AT press release -- The original EA announcement is as follows:

EAlogo2010_400.jpgEnvironment Agency project uncovers hydropower opportunities in England & Wales

A new map which shows where hydropower could be deployed in England and Wales could help to tap into the unused power potential of British rivers.

The hydropower opportunities and environmental sensitivities map, commissioned by the Environment Agency, found almost 26,000 locations where a hydropower turbine could theoretically generate green electricity. Together, these sites could generate enough electricity to power up to around 850,000 homes and produce 3% of the country’s 2020 renewable electricity needs. In reality, however, only some of these sites could be exploited due to environmental sensitivities, as well as practical constraints such as access to the electricity network.

The new maps help to identify areas where hydropower could make a positive contribution to the local environment, and sites where it is less appropriate.

The report found that a sensitively designed hydropower scheme that includes a fish pass could improve the local environment as well as generate electricity in around 5,000 sites. These win-win opportunities are particularly concentrated on rivers such as the Severn, Thames, Aire and Neath.

With government soon to offer subsidies of up to 20p for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, a medium-sized scheme that typically generates enough electricity for about 32 homes, could receive around £25,000 a year. Average set up costs range from £100,000 to £150,000. But, the Environment Agency stressed, a only schemes that were well designed and had no negative impacts on the river wildlife or the local environment would get the go ahead.

Tony Grayling, Head of Climate Change and Sustainable Development at the Environment Agency said: “Some hydropower schemes have the potential to deliver low carbon electricity and improve the local environment for wildlife, for example by improving fish migration. But there will inevitably be some sites where the risk to the environment outweighs the benefits of power generation.

“With Government’s new feed-in tariff for renewably generated electricity, hydropower could become an attractive income generator for hydropower developers, if environmental safeguards are met.

“The report recommends that fish-friendly design needs to be incorporated in all schemes, and that grants for fish passes could help to unlock the potential of small scale hydropower in England and Wales.”

The Environment Agency report Opportunity and environmental sensitivity mapping in England and Wales was commissioned to identify the opportunities for small scale hydropower schemes on the rivers of England and Wales alongside the environmental sensitivities associated with their exploitation.

The report found:

 

  • A total of 25,935 small scale hydropower opportunities. 
  • Over 5000 win-win opportunities, where a hydropower scheme with a fish pass could deliver an improvement in the local environment as well as renewable electricity. 
  • Small scale hydropower at the sites identified could in theory generate up to 3660GWh electricity per year, or about 1.5 per cent of the country’s predicted 2020 electricity demand. The real potential is significantly less due to environmental and practical constraints.
  • Hydropower hotspots, where win-win opportunities exist on the same river or close by were identified in several areas, including the Rivers Severn, Thames, Aire and Neath.
  • Around half the sites identified were deemed to be highly environmentally sensitive for hydropower due to impacts on river ecology. Extra fish-friendly measures would be required in these locations.

 

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State for Energy said:

“Small scale hydropower is potentially one of the most cost-effective means of producing clean, green and home grown renewable electricity.

“It is clear that recent advances in technology, reduced equipment costs and financial incentives like the new feed-in tariffs will provide further opportunities for communities to harness the power of our rivers and streams.”

An interactive map is available to view on the Environment Agency website, and lists the number of hydropower opportunities in each region, as well as the total power potential and the environmental sensitivities to be considered.

The full report Opportunity and environmental sensitivity mapping in England and Wales, and the interactive hydropower maps are available to download at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/32022.aspx

ENDS







Rate this article
3.40


Comments (19 posted):

Morespiders on 08/03/2010 22:36:32
avatar
0.5%, sounds a great idea, why didnt i think of that?. Doah!!! im stupid, 40 people on bikes could make that much surely?
Steve Spiller on 08/03/2010 23:54:36
avatar
Good old E.A...... £27 down the pan for millions of anglers and we're sold down the river..... What a surprise! The E.A are shafting us with our own money! Sorry E.A you make me puke! Rod licence....Poll Tax..... Give our £27 to the A.Tr and see it put back to the anglers, not into your wage packets......disgraceful! Out of interest, is there any way we can find out what salaries are paid to E.A staff and management? ---------- Post added at 23:54 ---------- Previous post was at 23:38 ---------- In fairness the E.A staff are probably paid a pittance and love their jobs..... It's those greedy managers at the top, only interested in inflating their huge pensions that are the ones shafting us.... Thank goodness we've got the A.Tr who will out you!!!
The bad one on 09/03/2010 00:18:12
avatar
Good old E.A...... £27 down the pan for millions of anglers and we're sold down the river..... What a surprise! The E.A are shafting us with our own money! Sorry E.A you make me puke! Rod licence....Poll Tax..... Give our £27 to the A.Tr and see it put back to the anglers, not into your wage packets......disgraceful! Out of interest, is there any way we can find out what salaries are paid to E.A staff and management? ---------- Post added at 23:54 ---------- Previous post was at 23:38 ---------- In fairness the E.A staff are probably paid a pittance and love their jobs..... It's those greedy managers at the top, only interested in inflating their huge pensions that are the ones shafting us.... Thank goodness we've got the A.Tr who will out you!!! Steve they are paid on a national pay scale for Civil Servants, you'll find somewhere by using Mr Google ;).
Peter Jacobs on 09/03/2010 02:41:19
avatar
Well now, why are we surprised? Think about it: The EA are a sub set of DEFRA which is a government run department. DEFRA will basically do whatever the government of the day requires, or tells them to do. There is a General election on the near horizon. The 'green' vote will be important and is being pandered to by the current failing establishment, together with other 'gesture politics' Still surprised, anyone? Yes, it is Politics, but fishing related, so acceptable, on FM at least. As to the actual impact, if any, of these monstrous eye-sores even if you use the mid point, lets say 1% of our energy needs? Pretty poor price to pay, and we'll probably end up with nuclear power stations anyway. Just like France!
Steve Spiller on 09/03/2010 10:41:04
avatar
Sorry about my little outburst. When I read that last night I saw red. I've lost all faith in the E.A. They are the ones, who with our money are supposed to be looking after the interets of anglers, which clearly isn't the case. I've got a feeling the RSPB will be getting involved with this too and they do have some clout!
the blanker on 09/03/2010 12:22:58
avatar
i am fed up with the people who are supposed to protect fishing and are funded partly with our money ignoring the very thing they are paid to protect i will not be renewing my EA licence for the coming season,i have always had a rod licence for over 50 years but enough is enough.
Graham Whatmore on 09/03/2010 12:27:12
avatar
It doesn't surprise me one little bit mainly because as I have said before on matters like this, anglers count for nothing in the eyes of the government or its quango's or those departments that act at their behest. The EA? Just another government run department who do what they are told, not what is best for our rivers and certainly not what is best for anglers. Sometimes it is money that is the governing factor and in latter years it is what is seen to be green that directs their actions and anglers are not even a minute speck in the scheme of things, we are an inconsequence. What with the black death, otters, immigrants and the EA give it a few years and the only waters that contain fish will be the commercials.
Fred Bonney on 09/03/2010 14:19:11
avatar
"..........and anglers are not even a minute speck in the scheme of things, we are an inconsequence." ...........and long will we remain so, if we keep sitting on our wallets and moaning about everything that matters to us but,don't fund those that could in the long term help anglers. The AnglingTrust needs to represent far more than 14000 before we will get heard!!
the blanker on 10/03/2010 08:12:08
avatar
"..........and anglers are not even a minute speck in the scheme of things, we are an inconsequence." ...........and long will we remain so, if we keep sitting on our wallets and moaning about everything that matters to us but,don't fund those that could in the long term help anglers. The AnglingTrust needs to represent far more than 14000 before we will get heard!! very true fred and exactly the reason why i will be paying the AT and NOT the EA, its about time that the AT recieved our money and the EA did not
Fred Bonney on 10/03/2010 08:45:28
avatar
The only problem with that, is you may be unlucky and get a visit on the bank this season!!!
Peter Jacobs on 10/03/2010 09:41:55
avatar
very true fred and exactly the reason why i will be paying the AT and NOT the EA, its about time that the AT recieved our money and the EA did not It might be 'about time' but in reality it will never happen, and if it did then how on earth do you think the Angling Trust could undertake all of the work accomplished by the EA? To think that this, (or any other) government would hand over those responsibilites to any other private organisation is just pie-in-the-sky. Failure to produce a current EA license is an offence punishable by a fine of up to 2,500 pounds. A little too much to put at risk for a 'thin' principle don't you think?
Steve Spiller on 10/03/2010 11:24:22
avatar
That's why it is just another tax! If we wanna fish we have no choice. I feel the same as you Blanker, but I can't risk a £2,500 fine, which in reality is never issued. They usually enforce pathetic fines, has the max fine ever been given? If you wanna fish Blanker you're gonna have to bite the bullet like me and pay the £27, if you can afford it, join the A.Tr too. I would have thought this thread would have generated much more of a response from the members of FM. Spose it's just shows the apathy amongst anglers, or the knowing that we can do naff all about the E.A....
Fred Bonney on 10/03/2010 11:33:25
avatar
Perhaps people are beginning to realise Steve, that getting themselves wound up about Cormorant, Otter, hydro electric etc etc etc, on here, and elsewhere, has no affect whatsoever. Well it does, it has the effect of setting angler against angler. As I said, 14000 members counts for nought, 100 times that is a different story! The EA is a Government body and will not represent angling or anglers.
Steve Spiller on 10/03/2010 11:42:57
avatar
Could be Fred, dunno? Is there a No' 10 petition started about the Hydro yet? I always used to have the misguided delusion that the E.A were the guardians of our waterways...... But no, they just take our money.....
Fred Bonney on 10/03/2010 11:56:30
avatar
WE are the Guardians of the waterways Steve. Part of the EA looks after the Fisheries, they are open to assistance and advice, if you approach them in the right way. Like yourself I'm sure, if you are approached by angry individuals, you ignore them, in the hope they will go away. As for Hydro, my guess is that applications for approval will be individual for specific locations,so you object to each one. Like this http://www.barbel.co.uk/site/vbulletin/forum/showthread.php?t=687
the blanker on 10/03/2010 16:58:52
avatar
It might be 'about time' but in reality it will never happen, and if it did then how on earth do you think the Angling Trust could undertake all of the work accomplished by the EA? To think that this, (or any other) government would hand over those responsibilites to any other private organisation is just pie-in-the-sky. Failure to produce a current EA license is an offence punishable by a fine of up to 2,500 pounds. A little too much to put at risk for a 'thin' principle don't you think? i fail to see how not being considered by the very people who are supposed to protect our waterways but dont is a thin principle, as for being fined well thats something i am willing to risk, as i have only ever been asked for my rod licence once in 54 years of fishing i consider the risk to be very low certainly lower than the risk to our waterways with the EA in control who seem to pander to whatever is wanted by whatever government of the day or whoever is shouting the loudest, we will never be the loudest as long as we just accept mediocrity and indifference from the EA as the norm. i repeat my money will be going to the AT and not to the EA this is my choice and although i know it will make no difference it is just that.
Peter Jacobs on 11/03/2010 07:19:20
avatar
i fail to see how not being considered by the very people who are supposed to protect our waterways but dont is a thin principle, as for being fined well thats something i am willing to risk, as i have only ever been asked for my rod licence once in 54 years of fishing i consider the risk to be very low certainly lower than the risk to our waterways with the EA in control who seem to pander to whatever is wanted by whatever government of the day or whoever is shouting the loudest, we will never be the loudest as long as we just accept mediocrity and indifference from the EA as the norm. i repeat my money will be going to the AT and not to the EA this is my choice and although i know it will make no difference it is just that. Well, yes, their job is to protect our waterways, however their over riding duty is as follows (and can be found on their webpages) "We play a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government and the Welsh Assembly Government through our functions and roles." So, to paraphrase my comments in an earlier post; given the impending general election, and the courting of the 'green minded' voters, the EA will do the bidding of their Lords, DEFRA and their Masters, the Government of the day. And as long as the skinny-latte-swilling chattering classes can influence the government of the day then anglers and angling can expect little or nothing from said governments, regardless of the colour of their politics. Our only hope for the future of angling is in the expansion of the Angling Trust by its' increased membership and/or donations. That said, and if you still decide to not buy your license then I wish you the best of luck in not getting caught. These chaps were not so lucky: Yesterday, 11 January 2010, at Nottingham Magistrates Court, fishing without a valid rod licence cost three cheating anglers a total of £1,470. Clive Gardner, age 49 years, of Commercial Road, Nottingham NG6 was fined £525 and ordered to pay £75 in costs and a victim surcharge of £15. He was convicted of fishing without a licence at Kodak Pools, Hucknall on 10 August 2009. The case was proved in his absence. John Padgett, age 33 years of Newark Crescent, Sneinton, Nottingham was fined £525 and ordered to pay £75 in costs and a victim surcharge of £15. He was convicted of fishing without a rod licence at the Nottingham/Beeston Canal, Beeston on 7 September 2009.The case was proved in his absence. Paul Bonser, age 51 years of Meadowvale Crescent, Clifton, Nottingham, was fined £150 and ordered to pay £75 in costs and a victim surcharge of £15. He was convicted of a charge of fishing without a rod licence at Kodak Pools, Hucknall, on 1 September 2009. Mr Bonser pleaded guilty by post.
the blanker on 11/03/2010 15:56:50
avatar
interesting that different fines were imposed although the offence was the same, down to the whim of a magistrate i suppose, perhaps if i do get caught i can plead ignorance through reason of insanity, i certainly dont think that i can be in my right mind fishing some of the places that i do but then again its nice to have places mostly to myself because they are awkward to get to. me not buying a licence wont make any difference at all but i will feel better knowing i am not funding government puppets who dance to far to many tunes i always used to think that whoever paid the piper called the tune sadly that is not the case where the EA is concerned.
Jeff Woody on 11/03/2010 16:19:32
avatar
To have any sanity on these issues you must realise that the EA is not only two faced, it is multi-faced. Each department more or less acts independantly of the others, hence one will be supporting one issue that would be disasterous for fisheries whilst our EA Fisheries Department will be fighting our cause. Infortunately the one that wins is usually pushing forward the Government's strategy, as has been said. However, do rest assured that your £27 is well spent by the Fisheries Departments (in most areas, I hope), but it doesn't mean that another arm or department isn't going to be working against you. At least it won't be drawing any of your £27. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, the Environmenmt Agency is the BIGGEST DISorganisation in the country. I can't think of another where one department wants to destroy the hard work of of it's colleagues in another department but that's the politics of it. I'm happy paying my £27 because I know how much I can gain from Fisheries, but for the other departments, they could take them out of their ivory towers, line them up against a wall and shoot the lot of them.
Comment on this article

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text