Saturday, 8 April 2017




 BIRDLIFE SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA RELEASE

Cape Vultures killed at wind farms

Johannesburg, 6 April 2017: African’s vultures are in trouble. Most old-world vultures (vultures found in Africa, Europe, and Asia) have faced severe population declines and are on the edge of extinction. The Cape Vulture is found only in southern Africa, which means that South Africa has a special responsibility to protect this species. This vulture was recently up-listed from “Vulnerable” to “Endangered”[1], and the species faces numerous threats including poisoning and collisions with and electrocution on powerlines. Scientists predict that increased temperatures associated with global climate change may also negatively impact Cape Vultures. Ironically, a major part of our strategy to minimize climate change – wind energy – may pose a new threat to these endangered birds.

“It is with great sadness that we share news of the first Cape Vultures fatalities as a result of collisions with wind turbines” said Samantha Ralston-Paton, Birds and Renewable Energy Project Manager at BirdLife South Africa. “As far as we know, these are the first incidents of this kind for the species” she said. To date four Cape Vulture fatalities as a result of turbine collisions have been reported to BirdLife South Africa[2].

The collisions were expected and have confirmed conservationists’ concerns that Cape Vultures and wind farms are not compatible. Other vulture species (e.g. the Eurasian Griffon Vulture) have experienced high fatality rates at wind farms in Spain, and the Cape Vulture is ranked as the top priority in BirdLife South Africa’s list of bird species likely to be vulnerable to the impacts of wind energy.

“It is a challenge to find a balance between wind energy and bird conservation,” notes Samantha. “Climate change is a significant threat to our environment and to our well-being, and healthy ecosystems are our main line of defense. We need renewable energy, but it must be developed with respect for nature,” she said.

The most widely accepted strategy to minimize wind energy’s negative effects is to place wind turbines outside of areas regularly used by collision-prone birds. Vultures travel many kilometers from their colonies and roosts, and according to BirdLife South Africa, this implies that large areas may be unsuitable for the development of wind farms. One of the wind farms that reported Cape Vulture fatalities is located approximated 20 km from the nearest known vulture roost, and the other is approximately 12 km from a temporary roost. 

“We have come a long way since the first wind farms received environmental approval. The impact assessments for the two wind farms where the mortalities were recorded were completed before BirdLife South Africa and the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Best Practice Guidelines for monitoring and impact assessment were adopted, and we also now recommend, and are seeing, much more rigorous impact assessments where wind farms are proposed within the range of Cape Vulture” notes Samantha. 

“We are grateful that post-construction monitoring data are being gathered and shared with us. This is not the norm in many countries elsewhere in the world. So far only a small number of vultures have been affected, but it is important that we learn from and respond to these experiences as quickly as possible to make sure the number of mortalities stays low. Sharing this information also gives us an opportunity to engage with decision-makers, wind farms, bird specialists and researchers to try find solutions”.

Both wind farms have committed to implement further mitigation measures, including actively searching for and removing any animal carcasses in the area. This will reduce the likelihood of vultures visiting the wind farms in search of food. The risk of collisions can also be minimized by stopping turbines turning when vultures are observed in the vicinity of the wind farm. This strategy has been implemented at one of the wind farms, and is being considered at the other.  

BirdLife South Africa, the Endangered Wildlife Trust and VulPro have recently issued a statement highlighting their concern around ambitions to develop wind farms in the Eastern Cape. Two Renewable Energy Development Zones proposed by the Department of Environmental Affairs’ draft Strategic Environmental Assessment for Wind and Solar Energy overlap with areas regularly used by Cape Vultures[3]. “A recent study by the CSIR[4] has confirmed that the wind resource in South Africa is excellent in most areas, and we believe there is no need to develop in high risk areas” notes Samantha.

Now that there is evidence the Cape Vultures are at risk at wind farms, the challenge for conservationists and environmentalists is to make sure that the number of vultures affected remains low. “One of BirdLife South Africa’s roles is to make sure that birds do not get overlooked as we scramble to find solutions to the climate change crisis” Samantha concluded.

More on Vultures
Vultures clean our landscapes and help to prevent the spread of disease. Many Old World Vultures are under threat of extinction. Counties are coming together address the plight of these bird and a Multi-Species Action Plan to conserve African-Eurasian Vultures has been drafted, launched by the Coordinating Unit of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) Raptors MOU, in collaboration with BirdLife International, Vulture Conservation Foundation and the IUCN Vulture Specialist Group. (The CMS Raptors MoU is the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia—an international, legally non-binding agreement to protect migratory birds of prey.)

BirdLife South Africa
BirdLife South Africa is the country partner of BirdLife International, a global partnership of conservation organisations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, by working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. BirdLife International partners operate in more than 100 countries and territories worldwide. BirdLife South Africa works with government, scientists and industry help ensure that impacts of renewable energy on birds are understood and minimised.

BirdLife South Africa relies on donor funding and financial support from the public to carry out its critical conservation work. Investec Corporate and Institutional Banking (a division of Investec Bank Limited) sponsors BirdLife South Africa’s Birds and Renewable Energy Project Manager.

For more information, visit www.birdlife.org.za




[1] The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland
[2] Three fatalities occurred at one wind farm and one at another.
[3] Download statement here.

Wednesday, 23 September 2015

DEA has refused environmental authorisation for the Goereesoe wind farm




The DEA has refused environmental authorisation for the Goereesoe wind farm and cited the following significant issues and reasons in support of their decision:

  • The natural remaining vegetation on site consists of Eastern RÈ—ens Shale Renosterveld and RÈ—ens Silcrete Renosterveld both of which are classified as Critically Endangered Ecosystems. It also forms part of the CapeNature Protected Areas Expansion Strategy.
  • The proposed site is within an Important Bird Area (IBA) and has an abundance of bird species of conservation concern in the area such as Denham’s Bustard, Cape Vulture, Martial Eagle, Secretarybird, Blue Crane, Black Harrier and White Storks which are potentially vulnerable to the impacts of wind energy facilities.
  • The proposed site is unsuitable based on its proximity (30Km) to the Cape Vulture breeding colony at Potberg and international experience shows that vultures are very vulnerable to collision with turbines and the impact would be very difficult to mitigate due to the birds moving through the area on a regular basis.
  • The proposed development falls within the 20Km buffer zone around the De Hoop Guano Cave which qualifies as a major bat roost as it roosts abundant bat species.
  • The negative impacts of the Goereesoe WEF outweigh the positive benefits of renewable energy.
  • Given the potential adverse threats posed by the project, the lack of assessment of location alternatives, the fatal flaws identified in the avifaunal and botanical assessment conducted as part of the EIAr dated February 2015, and the concerns raised by I&APs that the proposed facility not be constructed, the proposed development on the site is not supported.
  • In view of the above, the competent authority is of the opinion that that the proposed listed activities will conflict with the general objectives of integrated environmental management stipulated in Chapter 5 of NEMA, 1998 (Act 107 0f 1998) and that any potentially detrimental environmental impacts resulting from the listed activities may not be mitigated to acceptable levels and should therefore be prevented altogether.

The applicant has the right to appeal this decision to which we will respond as appropriate.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT EIA REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED GOEREESOE WIND FARM, NEAR SWELLENDAM DEA Ref: 12/12/20/2199



Shawn Johnston, Sustainable Futures ZA

14 January 2015

COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT EIA REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED GOEREESOE WIND FARM, NEAR SWELLENDAM DEA Ref: 12/12/20/2199

Dear Mr Johnston,

Please find below our comments on the Revised DEIA dated November 2014.

  1. FAUNA
This Specialist report is wholly inadequate, with only one day-time site visit on 1 Nov 2012, and should be disregarded.

Even the author of the report admits to it being unrepresentative as there were no seasonal visits. The proposed mitigation measure of removing threatened fauna to a safe location is patently absurd.

  1. AVIFAUNA
Knowledge of SA avifauna of some of the field observers is again questioned.  There are no peer reviews of the avifauna survey data.  For instance, a reported sighting of Black-chested Snake Eagle, Circaetus pectoralis, seems highly unlikely. More likely this was confused with the Endangered Martial Eagle, Polemaetus bellicosus, which are known to occur in the area, and can be misidentified by inexperienced observers. The same applies for purported sightings of Ludwig’s Bustard.  Many other common species are omitted.

The CVs of all observers, including specific experience in SA bird identification, should be provided.

The proposed site is within the Overberg Wheatbelt) Important Bird Area (IBA) (OV115), and is sandwiched between the De Hoop Nature Reserve IBA (SA119), which has full protection, and the Bontebok National Park (South African National Parks 2012).

Cape Vulture ( Gyps coprotheres)

The proposed development is situated well within the 40Km buffer zone around the Potberg Cape Vulture colony recommended in the SEA for wind development (2013).

Blue Crane, Anthropoides paradiseus, monitoring was woefully inadequate:

Nest Searches

Only 4 nest searches were conducted in total, not optimally timed to discover Blue Crane nests, although the report admits to the likelihood of them breeding within the area.

Of the total of 4 nests discovered the species could only be identified in one of them, throwing doubt on the timing, methodology and field observer expertise.

 Flight movements

Blue Crane flights were mostly missed due to observers being present in daylight hours, whereas this species is known to fly in extremely low light conditions. There is therefore no possible way in which collision risks could have been assessed for this globally Vulnerable species.

There is no evidence to support the statement “The pre-construction monitoring confirmed the site to be of low
sensitivity from an avifauna habitat perspective since the site (and the general surrounding area) is heavily
transformed by agriculture.” It serves only to demonstrate again the ignorance and lack of understanding of this varied habitat by the ‘specialists’

It is clear from the DEIA statement that the entire project should be abandoned as relocation of 10 turbines would not be feasible and there is no confidence that proposed mitigation measures would succeed in significantly reducing adverse impacts on avifauna: –

 “In terms of the proposed Goereesoe Wind Energy Facility, avoidance of the impact on avifauna would require the relocation of all but 4 of the proposed turbines to areas of lower sensitivity.”

The precautionary approach must be followed as there is a high probability of negative impacts on local and regional avifauna. BirdLife South Africa has recommended that important habitats for species such as Blue Cranes and Denham’s Bustard (and Black Harrier) must be avoided until the results of post-construction monitoring of already approved wind farms become available for analysis before further wind farms are considered in the area.
 
  1. BATS
 Appendix I, the Bat Impact Assessment Report is exactly the same one that was included in the first DEIA.  On questioning this with the EAP company, Savannah, they replied that EWT had withdrawn and therefore the Bat Specialist Report did not include findings from Pre-construction monitoring.

The results of pre-construction bat monitoring conducted by Bio3 and then Bio Insight SA are published in a separate report, from which Savannah, the EAPs, have selectively quoted in the Revised DEIA.

The proposed development is situated close to the 20Km buffer zone around the De Hoop Guano Cave bat roosts where several hundred thousand bats are estimated to roost. (SEA for wind development (2013)).

What is meant by “feasible” when not moving turbine positions to safer locations? Technically, economically, profit-related? To quote:

 “Nonetheless  such  measures  should  only  be  implemented  if  necessary  and  they  should  be  carefully  planned  in order to find the best trade off in reduction of the collision risk and minimize the loss in revenue resulting from mitigation.”

Repeated recommendations of increased monitoring of high-risk turbine positions does not constitute mitigation and is not a substitute for removal of turbines from high-risk areas. The damage will have been done, and as the chances of a WEF being closed down due to bat mortality are vanishingly small, will continue for the lifetime of the development, and beyond.

Section 5.2 of the Monitoring Report this observation was omitted from the DEIA:

 “The occurrence of at least one species considered to have a medium to high collision risk with wind turbines, Near Threatened conservation status (Friedmann & Daly 2004), with confirmed utilization of the rotor swept area, and with a large population in a nearby roost (i.e. Miniopterus natalensis) raises severe concerns regarding the impact that  the  Goereesoe  Wind  Energy  facility operation  may  have  on  the  species  population. …. the precautionary approach is recommended as this is a species of conservation concern.”


Section 8.5.3 of the Revised DEIA:

“The overall impact of the development is likely to be moderate to high if steps to mitigate impacts are not taken. This was confirmed through the pre-construction monitoring programme, this sensitivity is particularly due to the presence of roost, including the De Hoop Guano Cave, located at less than 20km from the study area, and features of higher importance for foraging bats.”

“Since this study showed that bats occur across the entire study area assessed it is likely that the proposed development will have a high impact on bat populations though collisions and barotrauma even with appropriate mitigation measures.”

There is no certainty that any mitigation measure, effective of otherwise, will actually be implemented during the operational phase. Who is there to monitor or enforce any recommendations?

  1. VEGETATION

Comments from the Overberg Lowlands Conservation Trust on the botanical aspects of this EIA are fully supported, as are those concerning the fauna and avifauna assessments.

  1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

All the potential local and regional cumulative impacts of this and the three proposed neighbouring wind farms, two of which have received authorization, must be addressed comprehensively.


It is stated in 8.5.1 of the Revised EIA that:

 “… Compounding – the impact of two developments of a similar nature is likely to be more than twice the impact of two single developments. To reduce the possibility of displacing bats from foraging areas in the area it would be better to place a second development in a different area.”

It should be pointed out that the development referred to above, the Biotherm Uitkyk & Excelsior WEF, was already authorized 3 years ago, therefore it is the Goereesoe development which should be “placed in a different area”.

It is imperative that the DEA and DEA&DP consider cumulative impacts of this and other WEFs in the vicinity.

In conclusion, it is proposed that the proximity of this proposed development to the Potberg Cape Vulture colony alone should constitute a Fatal Flaw and preclude any WEF development at this site.

We expect that all comments in this letter will be taken into account during the EIA phase, and will be circulated to other I&APs. We reserve the right to revise these comments and to make more comments if considered necessary.

Yours sincerely,



Cc.          By email to:

BirdLife South Africa; Endangered Wildlife Trust; CapeNature; BirdLife Overberg; Overberg Lowlands Conservation Trust; Overberg Crane Group.

REFERENCES

  1. Modelling power-line collision risk for the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa
Jessica M. Shaw, Andrew R. Jenkins, Jon J. Smallie, Peter G. Ryan: Ibis (2010), 152, 590–599

  1. Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa, 2012.


  1. South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind Farm Developments, Draft 3, 2012.


  1. Avian Wind Farm Bird Sensitivity Map.


  1. DEADP Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets. October 2011

  1. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR) Project;  Animal Demography Unit , Dept. of Biological Sciences, UCT 

  1. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape. Towards a regional methodology for wind energy site selection. Report 6: Proposed Project Level Methodology. DEADP

  1. DEA National Wind & Solar PV SEAs, CSIR Environmental Management Services, 31 July 2013

  1. Breeding habitat selection and reproductive success of Blue Cranes Anthropoides paradiseus in an agricultural landscape of the Western Cape, South Africa. Mark T Bidwell. Unpublished MSc thesis (Conservation Biology), Department of Zoology, UCT. March 2004.

  1. AC Doty & AP Martin (2012): Assessment of bat and avian mortality at a pilot wind turbine at Coega, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa, New Zealand Journal of Zoology,
DOI:10.1080/03014223.2012.741068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2012.741068