MEDIA RELEASE
Guidelines for bird monitoring at wind farms
Johannesburg, 11 July 2011: BirdLife South Africa (BLSA), the largest bird conservation NGO in South
Africa, fully supports the responsible development of a renewable energy industry in South Africa.
Wind energy, although good for the environment, is not necessarily always good for birds. The most
important impacts of wind energy facilities (WEFs) on birds are displacement of sensitive species
from development areas, and mortality of susceptible species primarily through collisions with the
wind turbines. The nature and extent of these impacts is highly dependent on both site- and speciesspecific
factors and, as there is no detailed understanding of the possible effects of wind energy
developments on South African birds, conservationists are currently making use of the experiences
learnt from Europe and North America.

For all new wind energy facility developments, Environmental Impact Assessments are conducted,
and these include detailed bird impact assessments. The current bird assessments however do not
necessarily provide sufficient information for a decision to be made on the potential impact on birds.
BirdLife South Africa and its partner, the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), have therefore produced
and released the “Best Practice Guidelines for Avian Monitoring and Impact Mitigation” to bring the
assessment in line with internationally accepted best practice.
BirdLife South Africa is confident that this proposed advanced monitoring will allow for informed
decisions, and allow wind farms to be developed at sites where impacts on birds are unlikely.
BirdLife South Africa encourages the wind energy industry to show that it respects not only the
carbon and economic benefits of wind farms, but also South Africa’s biodiversity. Globally, the
placement of renewable energy facilities are treated as important and BirdLife South Africa urges
the Department of Environmental Affairs and the financial sector to consider renewable applications
in South Africa no differently.

“The environmental community must work with the renewable energy industry in effectively
managing the environmental and social impacts of energy options to help it understand, avoid and
manage risks,” says Juan Marco Alvarez, Director of the IUCN Economy and Environmental
Governance Group. “We must ensure that renewable energy is developed in the right places,
meaning not just technically and financially, but also environmentally and socially.”
BirdLife South Africa and the EWT are proactively approaching the interaction between birds and
bats and wind energy through the development of the monitoring guidelines, an Avian Wind
Sensitivity Map and a “South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind Farm
developments”.

“The avifaunal impact assessment must allow for the collection of adequate relevant field data to
support precautionary and strategic decision making,” says Dr Hanneline Smit, BirdLife South Africa’s
Conservation Manager. “This would translate into a baseline survey through pre-construction
monitoring over a minimum of 12 months, which is in line with international best practice,” adds Dr
Andrew Jenkins, representative of the Birds and Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG).
Further, according to Jon Smallie from the Wildlife Energy Programme (WEP) of the EWT, site
alternatives must be considered as part of the pre-feasibility study, or desktop scoping process, for
all projects, particularly given that correct WEF positioning is widely agreed to be the primary means
of mitigating wind farm impacts on birds.

Smit and Smallie recently returned from a Wind Energy and Wildlife Impact Conference in
Trondheim, Norway. The conference dealt with the global and case-specific wind turbine/farm
impacts on birds and bats. Ernst Retief, BirdLife South Africa Gauteng Regional Conservation
Manager, presented the Avian Wind Sensitivity Map, developed by BirdLife South Africa and the
EWT, at the conference to showcase South Africa’s advanced approach of mitigation to minimise the
impact on our country’s birds. Attendance at the conference has strengthened BirdLife South
Africa’s approach to conform to international best practice and guide the wind industry in the
proposed development of wind energy facilities in South Africa.

WIND FARMS, BIRDS & BATS

EWT and BirdLife have published best practice guidelines for monitoring birds and bats in EIA processes for wind farm projects. Please use the links in the column on the right of this page.

Position statement on Avifaunal and Bat Impact Assessment for Wind Energy Facilities in South Africa

Position statement on Avifaunal and Bat Impact Assessment for Wind Energy Facilities in South Africa

Endangered Wildlife Trust & BirdLife South Africa

March 2011

Please go to: Position Statement

Latest environmental setback for Greyton

It would appear that the proposed Scholz River storm water management scheme will result in the destruction of one of our very few local wetlands - click on the attached Google Earth image for a mock up.

Ecosense, the environmental practitioners will soon be holding a stakeholders meeting - go and have your say!

COMMENTS ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR CALEDON WIND FARM

Mr Jan-Willem de Jager,

Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd

By email to: jdejager@gibb.co.za

21 September 2010

COMMENTS ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT AND EIA FOR PROPOSED CALEDON WIND FARM

DEA Ref: 12/12/20/1701.

Dear Mr de Jager,

1. We were dismayed to note that in addition to the changes outlined in your letter dated 17 September 2010, the following significant changes were made to the FSR, thereby downgrading the previously stated commitment:

DSR “Avoiding, at all costs, the placement of wind turbines within Renosterveld vegetation occurring within the study area, regardless of the wind data in those regions”

FSR “Avoiding the placement of wind turbines within Renosterveld vegetation occurring within the study area”

Quite apart from the above, all turbines and infrastructure should avoid Renosterveld.

2. EIA Plan of Study

This chapter is lacking in detail and methodologies.

Fauna

• Frog and bat studies are highly specialized areas of zoology, and should be performed by different experts, not only by your Faunal Specialist (who is in fact a botanist).

• The report 'lumps' bats with frogs seemingly with little understanding that the two taxa are very different in every aspect of their natural history. Designing surveys for frogs has no relevance for a taxon that has an aerial and migratory lifestyle, with a likely territory of many kilometers and if their migrational range is considered, this may be more than a thousand kms. There should be a separate section for the consideration of the impacts on bats.

• There is no mention of such studies. Will they be undertaken, and if so by whom? If not, why not?

• Our previous question regarding the Cape Dwarf Chameleons which are native to renosterveld remains unanswered. Will these Chameleons be subject of a specialist study? If not, why not?

Bats

Dr Sandie Sowler PhD MIEEM, an international authority on bats has contributed the following comments:

“Bats may be affected in different ways – collision or death by barotrauma, and loss of foraging have been mentioned in the Fauna Report. Additional effects are interruption of commuting routes, which may be a major threat, and the emission of ultrasound by turbines. The migratory routes to and from the De Hoop Reserve are unknown at present, but wind farms may pose significant threats.

Surveys should not only be undertaken in the summer to identify local foraging bats, but also in the spring and autumn when bats may be migrating into and out of the Western Cape, to or from their hibernation sites. In view of the agricultural role of bats, all species, not only ‘Red Data species should be considered.

In the UK, the duration of surveys demanded would cover several years in order to gain a full picture of how the proposed site is being used. To inform survey design, thorough data trawls should be undertaken including information regarding the bats of De Hoop and their known movements. Survey techniques may include automated bat detector surveys as well as perhaps some radio tracking.

I would suggest that whoever wrote this scoping report has only read a fraction of the considerable weight of literature that is out there regarding bats and wind turbines. It would be interesting to speculate if this wind farm (and others) was to adversely affect migrating bats travelling to De Hoop, whether the local farmers who use the ecosystem services of bats for insect control, could legitimately sue the wind farms for the increased cost of pesticides!!”

Because of the lack of knowledge about bats in South Africa, the precautionary approach to impact assessment should be adopted.

Avifauna

The scoping reports have relied on desktop data from programmes which were not intended or designed for use in EIAs. Extensive field work will have to be undertaken over an extended period covering all seasons for a proper assessment to be made. The Terms of Reference for the bat and avifaunal studies must include ongoing monitoring programmes for injuries and mortalities during the operational phase.

Below are some selected quotations from the “Briefing Document on best practice for pre-construction assessment of the impacts of onshore wind farms on birds”, written by Mike Jordan and Jon Smallie for The Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Wildlife and Energy Programme. It is compiled from international information, guidelines and experience. Much of it also applies to bats. Until the definitive best practice document has been published this current document should inform the EIA process and the avifaunal and bat studies.

a)      “Onshore wind farm developments have the potential to adversely affect bird populations in three main ways; displacement & disturbance, habitat loss & fragmentation, and direct mortality through collision. This briefing document discusses best practice from Australia, Canada, the EU, the UK and the USA with regard to pre-construction assessment of the potential impacts. It does not discuss offshore developments or post-construction assessment of affects.”

b)      “There is a general consensus that in virtually all cases baseline information has to be collected by actual observations at the proposed wind farm development site and that quantitative data on actual bird usage of the site is required to adequately assess the potential impacts.”

c)       “There is a complete consensus that the duration of bird studies at a potential wind farm site must as a MINIMUM cover all of the normal variation in bird usage at the site; including breeding, wintering/non-breeding and passage/migratory movements through the site; normally at least a minimum of one year of field observations, and generally if species of particular concern are present studies should span longer periods than a year.”

d)      “There is a general consensus that baseline information has to be collected from across the entire proposed wind farm site and including a buffer area dependent upon the species of concern for which data is being collected. Point observations specifically for the calculation of collision risk should cover the entire site and a small buffer to allow for observer error.”

e)      The UK minimum guidance for observations to assess collision risks are:

“The recommended minimum is that 36 hours of watches should be conducted at each VP (Vantage Point) for each season (breeding, non-breeding, migratory) when the species is present. Each season should be regarded as a discrete observation period. Within each season, each part of the wind farm should be watched for at least 36 hours. If half of the proposed wind farm area has been watched for 36 hours, for example, and the other half has been watched for 36 hours (with no overlap in visibility areas), then the proposed wind farm area has been watched over for 36 hours (the time spent observing each part of the proposed wind farm), and NOT 72 hours (the total time spent in observation).”

f)        “There are well established protocols for the collection of normal ornithological survey data, however there is a general consensus that special emphasis should be placed on the observations necessary to provide the data required to calculate predictions of collision risk. These observations are unique to the assessments of wind farm impacts and may involve special protocols and additional skills.”

g)      “There are common features to the criteria used in most regions to identify target/key species for EIA. These criteria typically comprise a combination of species deemed to be at risk from wind farms, globally/nationally red listed species, species listed under protection in national legislation; international migratory species and species occurring at low/very low density. Such criteria could easily be applied in a South African context.”

h)      “Collision mortality may be an ongoing impact for the entire operational life of the wind farm and if affecting wide ranging species then may have the potential to adversely affect whole regional, national or international populations of a species.”

i)        “There is general consensus that merely predicting whether or not an impact will occur is insufficient. Assessing the actual significance of predicted impacts is critical to the planning approval/refusal process. This presents particular challenges for wind farms and birds where the impacts may be ongoing for the entire operational life of the wind farm and also affecting large wide ranging populations. Increasingly Population Viability Analysis is used to put these impacts into perspective.”

j)        “There is a general consensus that assessing the impacts for each wind farm in isolation does not adequately assess the true significance of the impacts for bird populations. Greater attention needs to be placed on assessing the cumulative impacts of all operational, consented or planned wind farms (and other relevant developments) on target/key bird species. In some cases insignificant impacts at individual wind farms will accumulate across all wind farm developments to have a significant adverse impact upon birds.”

Visual

Notwithstanding the proposed Specialist Visual Report, TWK Municipality’s Mr. Jan Visagie has given assurance to the DEADP that no wind energy facilities be allowed in the 2 km buffer zone along the N2 (which has been classified as a scenic route within this area), especially in the area where the road descends the Houw Hoek Pass towards Caledon. In addition, it is the stated intention of the municipality that wind energy facilities should not be visible along the N2. How are these undertakings to be satisfied?

As a general comment, the blithe statements that “Data Gaps” should be highlighted and discussed are just not good enough – best practice would dictate that every effort should be made to fill those gaps.

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,

Stuart Shearer

Birdlife Overberg

Secretarybird in danger?

2010-04-21	Les Underhill
The Secretarybird – the range change maps send the warning lights flashing
The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, published in 2000, states: "A survey is urgently needed to determine the current conservation status of the Secretarybird, particularly regarding its relative density inside and outside conservation areas." In 2000 the Secretarybird was classified as "Near-threatened." In SABAP1, the Secretarybird species text says: "It is sensitive to habitat degradation due to overgrazing, bush encroachment, disturbance and loss of habitat to afforestation and crop cultivation" and "Its conservation status provides cause for concern." A decade later the comparison map between SABAP1 and SABAP2 sends some serious red lights flashing for this charismatic species, one of the icons of Africa. The range change map is mostly RED (where the species seems to have gone missing) and ORANGE (where the species is apparently rarer). Particularly alarming is the RED and ORANGE in the Kruger National Park. Interpretation note: The pentad data for SABAP2 have been amalgamated to quarter degree grid cells for easy comparison with SABAP1. The colours BLUE and GREEN denote quarter degree grid cells (QDGCs) where the species seems to be more abundant than in SABAP1. GREEN indicates that the SABAP2 reporting rate is greater than the SABAP1 reporting rate. BLUE indicates QDGCs where the species was not recorded in SABAP1 but has been recorded in SABAP2. RED and ORANGE indicate QDGCs where the species might be less abundant. ORANGE indicates that the SABAP2 reporting rate is smaller than the SABAP1 reporting rate, and YELLOW indicates that both reporting rates are equal. RED indicates that the species was recorded in SABAP1 but has not been recorded on SABAP2 checklists already received for the QDGC; the RED QDGCs are suggestive that the species might have disappeared from the area. Finally, PINK indicates QDGCs where the species occurred in SABAP1, but for which we do not yet have any SABAP2 data, and where we would dearly love atlasers to go and do fieldwork.

RAPTOR IDENTIFICATION COURSE IN CAPE TOWN

RAPTORS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA - AN ID COURSE

Friday 16 April (evening) and Saturday 17 April (full day)

Ulrich Oberprieler, known for his superb courses on nature and related topics, will present an ID course, based on his recently published “Raptor Guide of Southern Africa”. The course will provide an overview of Southern Africa’s raptors and will teach a systematic, step-by-step approach to raptor identification and appreciation. It will be based on the fact that the key to raptor identification is a thorough knowledge of South Africa’s 11 raptor groups. These groups will be discussed in detail, with special emphasis on a number of representative species within each group. A mixture of regional species occurring in the Western Cape and raptors that occur elsewhere in Southern Africa will be described, with emphasis on those that are less readily identified. In addition to the broad overview of species, Ulrich will cover roughly one third of Southern Africa’s 83 raptors in more detail.

Venue: Nassau Centre, Groote Schuur High School, Palmyra Road, Newlands.

Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from a master in his field. Bookings are now open. To register or make enquiries, contact Judith Crosswell on 021 - 6711787 after 19h00. Or e-mail Judith@kingsley.co.za