560 Conservation News
Jos Biological Conservatory, Jos, Nigeria. 2IUCN Species Survival Commission,Gland,Switzerland. 3Global Center for Species Survival, Indianapolis Zoo, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC BY 4.0.
Biodiversity, renewable energy and maritime spatial planning in Europe: should offshore wind farms be located in marine protected areas?
European countries have committed to increase the area of ocean under protection to meet global and regional biodiversity targets, and also plan to expand offshore wind energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But how can ambitious goals for nature and renewable energy be delivered in seas already heavily exploited for fisheries, shipping, tourism, oil and gas? EU policies encourage the colocation of activities, but is wind farm construction viable in marine protected areas? These dilemmas are addressed in a discussion paper com-
missioned by the Renewables Grid Initiative (Stephenson, 2023,
renewables-grid.eu/publications/offshore-colocation- discussion-paper.html). An assessment of the policy con- text, the status of marine protected areas and the impacts of wind energy on marine ecosystems produced several findings. EU policies and directives allow wind farms to be con-
structed in Natura 2000 sites if significant disturbance can be avoided or if it is in the overriding public interest. National policies vary between allowing or banning wind farms in marine protected areas. Although wind farms may be less damaging than many other uses of the ocean, their construction, operation and decommissioning can cause habitat loss and harm wildlife through, for example, noise, pollution, invasive alien species and collisions with turbines, if mitigation measures are not taken. The reef effect (caused by adding solid substrates to the seabed), reserve effect (caused by restricting access to fishing vessels) and biodiversity enhancement (through nature-inclusive design of infrastructure) can increase the abundance of certain species in offshore wind farms, but the resultant communities differ from those found naturally. Colocating wind energy and marine protected areas is therefore risky for biodiversity conservation. Many European marine protected areas lack manage-
ment plans, objectives or IUCN management categories, and fail to protect nature because of their small size, weak enforcement of regulations, and inadequate restrictions on offtake. Only 1% of Europe’s seas are strictly protected, well short of the 10% target. Other human uses of the ocean, especially passive fish- ing, aquaculture, shipping and tourism, may provide more
appropriate colocation opportunities with wind energy than marine protected areas, as demonstrated by wind farms, such as Borssele in the Netherlands, which have multiple- use zoning plans. The discussion paper concludes that European states
must improve the management and protection of marine protected areas. They also need to clarify the designation process for other area-based conservation measures and identify those that can enhance marine protected area con- nectivity. Opportunities for the colocation of offshore wind energy with non-conservation related activities should be optimized. Where wind farms and marine protected areas are already colocated, operators must optimize mitigation and conservation, monitor environmental impacts and share results. The key enabling condition for marine con- servation and sustainable use is that EU Member States and their neighbours follow an ecosystem-based approach to data-driven maritime spatial planning that enhances renewable energy while not jeopardizing biodiversity.
PJ STEPHENSON (
StephensonPJ@gmail.com) Laboratory for Conservation Biology, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, and IUCN Species Survival Commission Species Monitoring Specialist Group
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC BY 4.0.
Collaborative national satellite event of World Species Congress for conservation in Indonesia
The first-ever World Species Congress, hosted by IUCN Reverse the Red, streamed globally for 24 hours on 15 May 2024. The main theme was celebrating success stories of conservation. As part of the Congress, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Republic of Indonesia, hosted anationalsatellite event—PekanKeanekaragamanHayati (Biodiversity Week)—on 15–17 May 2024, in Jakarta, sup- ported by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Indonesia Species Specialist Group and various partners, including corporations and NGOs. The event celebrated the richness of Indonesia’s bio-
diversity and highlighted the urgency of efforts to achieve the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework, specifi- cally Target 4 (halt extinctions and restore biodiversity). In talks, booths,mini games and performances, government agencies, companies and various organizations shared their efforts for species conservation. Over 7,000 partici- pants attended in-person or online (from government, pri- vate sectors, schools, universities and the public), and the event was also broadcast on the Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s YouTube channel (Kementerian LHK). The first day commenced with a keynote speech by Alue Dohong, Vice Minister of Environment and Forestry,
Oryx, 2024, 58(5), 555–564 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324001029
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
