The Mountaineering Council of Scotland

Issue 15 December 2002

EXECUTIVE NEWS The Industrialisation of the Hills Regular readers of Scottish Mountaineer will not have missed the campaigns undertaken by MCofS to fight what we felt were destructive developments in our hills. High profile examples have been as diverse as the superquarry proposal on the Isle of Harris and inappropriate tourism developments affecting the Cuillin, including helicopter flights. Since its inception the MCofS has also fought many hydroelectric schemes, epitomised by the recent Sheildaig scheme. It is this latter 'renewable energy' development, which has become a major issue again, but now including the new technology of wind farms. No one will have missed the recent construction of wind farms on Beinn Ghlas near Oban, on the Lowther hills in Ayrshire and at Soutra in the Lammermiur Hills. With the governments “climate change levy” on companies raising money in order to subsidise renewable projects (up to £230m in the next 3 years, with landowners being able to gain up to £1,000 per turbine) many more proposals will come forward. Recent applications for renewable's that MCofS have heard about include a small hydro scheme at Invervar Burn in Glen Lyon by 'Inogy Hydro' (1.1MW output) on the fringes of the SSSI; two small scale hydro schemes on the Allt Fionn and Ben Glas burns in Glen Falloch, Loch Lomond by 'Dulas Ltd'; A 50 turbine wind farm by 'National Wind Power Ltd' across the Beinn Bhreac, Carn Odhar and Carn Dubh hills at Farr, just west of Tomatin (100MW output); and another by the same developers for a 27 turbine farm on the low hills of The Forest of Alyth north of Blairgowrie. Assessing the potential effects of these and other schemes regarding breeding birds, fish stocks, hydrology as well as scenic value is of vital importance but can be difficult. Even the most environmentally conscious of applications can falter after completion such as the recent criticism of the Assynt Crofters 225KW hydro scheme on the river Oldany, where salmon stocks are allegedly being destroyed. Even off-shore projects have generated local objections on scenic grounds, such as that in the Solway Firth, even though at sea wind is more constant and predicable, and turbines up to 100% more efficient. So where do 'environmentally conscious' mountaineers and walkers stand on this subject? Below are abridged versions of this years MCofS Annual Gathering presentations on this subject, with three differing views. The MCofS is now being consulted extensively on new developments and would like to know what our members think we should be supporting or not! Please make the effort to comment. The Governments View by Bill Band (SNH) Too Good to Waste by Bob Aitken Renewables are good for Re-population by Alison MacLaren

Renewable Energy - a view from a Government advisor By Bill Band (Scottish Natural Heritage) Climate change and its predicted consequences in the latter half of this century rates as one of the most significant of global issues. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, in their report on Energy and the Environment in 1999, included the graph at Fig 1 which shows dramatically how global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has fluctuated more or less regularly over half a million years, but has shot up over the last hundred years as society has learned to exploit fossil fuels. Global temperature very closely follows CO2 concentrations - the CO2 acts like a greenhouse around the earth, capturing heat reflected from the earth's surface. If no action is taken to curb emissions of CO2 or other 'greenhouse gases', the impacts of global climate change will be dire. A typical prediction is that by the year 2080, the number of people world-wide affected by coastal flooding would rise from 13 to 94 million, mostly in south and south-east Asia; the Nile delta and Bangladesh would be particularly flood-prone; crop yields would be reduced in Africa, the Middle east and India; there would be large-scale die-back of tropical forests; and millions of environmental refugees. The RECP report shows graphs (Fig 2) predicting atmospheric CO2 concentration, rise in sea level (owing to melting of the ice caps), and increase in global temperature over the next three centuries. The red lines show the effect if no action is taken to curb emissions. The green lines show the reduced impact - albeit still of serious proportions - if there is a concerted global effort to curb emissions and to stabilise the atmospheric CO2 concentration at a level only twice that prior to the industrial revolution. There has been an unprecedented level of international agreement on the need to mitigate climate change, leading to the Kyoto agreement on emission reductions. It is to be regretted that the US has not as yet committed itself to this flexible agreement, in which individual countries can negotiate their own contribution to the global objective. As part of the Kyoto agreement the UK has undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% against a 1990 baseline. The UK climate change programme shows emission reductions from a range of sectors (Fig 3). These include energy efficiency and use of waste heat in the business sector, better standards of housing insulation and control of heat losses from domestic housing, and improved vehicle efficiency and use of more energy-efficient transport methods in the transport sector. The other big saving is in electricity generation, by substituting renewable sources like wind, wave and hydro for use of fossil fuels. The UK can only meet its Kyoto commitments by tackling all these sectors at once. It would be unrealistic to think one could avoid the need for renewable energy solely by concentrating on energy efficiency. All the proposed measures are needed, acting together, to contribute to the required scale of emissions reduction. Government has set a target for the year 2010 of having 10% of all electricity supplied from renewable sources. The Energy Review conducted by the Cabinet Office and completed in February this year proposed that a further and more challenging target of 20% should be set for 2020. A glance at a map of the wind resource in Europe quickly points to the privileged opportunity which Scotland has, in comparison with most European countries, to harvest wind or wave energy. An assessment in 2001 of Scottish renewable energy resources, commissioned by the Scottish Executive, led to new estimates of the power which could be generated, within constraints which included environmental sensitivities, electricity grid capacity, and a reasonable cost ceiling. Offshore wind, followed by wave power, offer the largest opportunities, but even onshore wind power - currently the cheapest and most readily available technology - has the potential to provide almost twice the present total electricity consumption in Scotland. Fig 4: Scottish renewables resource (Garrad Hassan 2001) Type of renewable energy     Potential power available onshore wind 11.5 GW offshore wind 25.0 GW wave 14.0 GW tidal stream 7.5 GW agricultural wastes 0.4 GW small-scale hydro 0.3 GW Against this background, what are SNH's views? We recognise the over-riding importance of taking effective action to address climate change; so we are supportive of the Government's overall climate change programme. That includes support for renewables - provided that effective action is also taken to secure energy efficiency and to reduce demand for energy. However we also note the high levels of impact which some types of renewable energy project have on the environment . Wind farms have a strong visual and landscape impact, hydro schemes are often in remote locations and can affect fish populations, and the impacts of wave and tidal generators are yet to be fully explored. We ask that all potentially significant impacts on the natural heritage should be assessed and minimised. Renewable energy developments should safeguard areas of national or international significance for their natural heritage. They should benefit the rural communities within which they sit and utilise existing vehicle track infrastructure wherever possible. Government and planning authorities should guide renewables developments towards those locations, and those technologies, which are most easily accommodated within Scotland's landscapes and habitats. Recently, SNH has developed locational guidance for onshore wind farms. Relative levels of constraint and opportunity, in natural heritage terms, are identified in three zones, from Zone 1 with the greatest opportunity for wind farm development, through Zone 2 where there is some scope depending on scale, and careful siting and design, to Zone 3 which includes internationally and nationally protected areas and is of the highest natural heritage sensitivity and where wind farm development is least likely to be acceptable. The final composite map (Fig 5) provides a strategic steer as to the areas believed most suitable, in natural heritage terms, to wind farm development. SNH's policy on renewable energy, and the locational guidance for onshore wind farms, may be found on SNH's Website www.snh.org.uk.   Too good to waste By Robert Aitken Even my friends tell me I'm far too purist about protecting mountain country. Renewable energy is benign, isn't it? - the very name says it all. Well, actually, no it isn't, it's only somewhat less damaging, in different ways, than coal, oil or nuclear power. It epitomises the continuing mirage of the technofix: technology will get us out of the hole we're digging for ourselves. Sorry folks, it won't - certainly not in the long term, probably not even in the short term. Renewables are still a small power source, often intermittent and weather dependent; so in any event we still need some form of big base-load platform for when the wind doesn't blow and the rivers run low. But don't let's face up to that, let's opt for a neat stopgap instead, and smash up some more fine landscape in the process. Location of renewable generation, is a key factor. Wind energy generation needs fairly short and easy access for construction and short-distance links to the grid, so is less likely to have drastic impacts in our best mountain country. But that's not to say we won't see major wind farm development in hill ranges in and around the Lowlands, like the Ochils or Campsies. In fact I'm ready to find wind turbines elegant and impressive in the right large-scale landscape. I can also live with individual turbines in crofting communities or on lower-ground farms, subject to good design and planning control. They can generate some revenue for local folk, though they'll hardly be a new solution to what used to be called the Highland Problem. But don't let us delude ourselves that wind farms can be built "clean": they need tracks for construction and management, and big pylon lines. Bear that in mind when people come forward with proposals for your cherished local hills. But for me the key priority is that we mustn't mess up our ever-dwindling remnant of wild land; and that's mainly about hydro. Let's remember that it was the impact of the last big push to renewables, the post-war drive for hydro power, that led to W.H.Murray's Highland Landscape, that cool yet impassioned account of the laying-waste of some of our best country. That heroic phase of development surged from Sloy to Monar, changing the face of the Highlands with big dams, tracks, pylons and other clutter, and leaving continuing drawdown scars in places like Mullardoch, Monar and Fannich that reach far into the heart of wild country. Only when the very finest remaining sites were threatened was that drive arrested. Now the developers are back again, scratching about for residual potential. A proposal for a major scheme in the Monadliath above Fort Augustus is on its way. But the small scheme proposed for Shieldaig is where I become unashamedly emotional. If you read the West Highland Free Press or the MCS website you'll have seen that the landowner pushing this proposal described its opponents with characteristic charm as "whingers and girners". I count it a privilege to number myself among that unhappy band; this scheme will intrude into one of our few remaining wild land sanctuaries. A major theme in the history of wild land conservation round the world is reaction against big dams. The Shieldaig scheme is about small dams, but the wild land of Scotland is also small, and acutely vulnerable: small dams are enough to destroy it in its remnants. What's our mountain country for? We've yet to produce a clear collective answer to that question. Instead it has been left at the mercy of external demands and market forces. Since the Industrial Revolution that has usually meant serving the urgent purposes of the richer and more populous parts of Britain, too often at the expense of its people and its higher values. I'm with Bill Murray, that we should be big enough to allow fine country some rights of its own. We don't have large areas of untouched country, but we still have remnants of remote land, with minimal if any population, where the hand of man is hardly seen, where we can win a sense of contact with strong landscapes and natural forces. I don't pretend to have any easy answers to the problem of our energy needs, and I recognise that I'm part of the problem, as we all are. But I would assert that we need to think long and hard before we sell our birthright for a mess of renewable energy potage. Our wild mountain country is a prime national asset; it's too valuable, too scarce, simply too good to waste.   Renewables are Good for the Continued Re-population of the Highlands and Islands By Alison McLaren I expect most hill walkers and mountaineers to be taken aback that one of their own would wish to speak in favour of the industrialisation of Scotland. The reasons for my support of this viewpoint - with some reservations - lie in the experiences, which turned me, despite growing up in Greenock, into a keen walker and lover of the outdoors. We tend to equate industrialisation with pollution, ugliness and general squalor, but the fact is that industrialisation can take many forms. My earliest family walks took me to the 'Cut'. This was a waterway with a good path beside it. It was almost level walking and gave great views across the Clyde and Spango Valley, now known as Silicon Glen. Of course, its creation was the work of man, not of nature, as it had been built to supply the paper mill whose ruins are now invisible. Another favourite was a walk round Loch Thom. I am unaware that its essential function as a reservoir ever marred a single moment of my enjoyment. When I was a teenager, I had the privilege of roaming around in the Western Isles. In Lewis the 'industries' of crofting, fishing and peat cutting left their marks on the environment, but nothing of that could spoil the immense sea cliffs and wonderful sea and sky scapes. Twenty years later the five-foot peat hags and bogs had vanished, leaving barely a noticeable trace. In Harris the admittedly ugly chimney of the whaling station still stands as a monument to human endeavour to gain a living in very hard conditions. My first hill walking took place here too, an early ascent of Tirga Mor revealing it was possible to reach the tops of hills. Access to this hill, and many other fine walks, was aided by the track which had been built to facilitate the construction and maintenance of the inevitable Hydo-electric Dam and Power Station. Travelling as I did in these days without map or compass - or even of the knowledge of their existence - this was a very valuable and safe way to enjoy exploration of one of the remotest 'wilderness areas' without damaging the landscape further. From these experiences, I drew the conclusion that industrialisation has been going on in our countryside for a very long time, and that nature usually has its own way of coping with this. Some people would have you believe that the only truly beautiful view is one in which man and his industries do not and have not intruded, and nature rules, but Scotland is not such a place. Even the remotest hills and glens are spattered with place names showing historical human presence in 'sheilings' or 'ruins'. Our 'wilderness' is a man-made creation. What we need to realise is that man is part of the environment. Humans are a natural phenomenon, which may be exactly why we as hill walkers share the desire to return to our 'wild' areas for recreation and to rediscover something of our natural habitat. To create a well-planned wilderness is a contradiction, and to try to eradicate our social history would be a great mistake. We must also beware of creating such a precious attitude to 'wilderness' that we find ourselves barred from access. After all, hill walkers could be accused of causing just as much damage through over-use and disturbance to wildlife as any hydro scheme.

Back to Newsletter index     next article

This page is part of the old website of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland. To visit the new website, click on www.mcofs.org.uk

[ Home ] [ News ] [ Safety and Training ] [ Access and Conservation ] [ Sports Development ] [ Council Matters ]
[ Search ] [ Info Service ] [ Membership ] [ Publications ] [ Links ]

© The Mountaineering Council of Scotland 2002