renewables to reefs? decommissioning options for the
TRANSCRIPT
Renewables to Reefs? –
Decommissioning options for the
offshore wind power industry (*)
Mike Elliott1, Katie Smyth1, Nicky Christie2, Daryl
Burdon1, Jon Atkins3, Richard Barnes2,
Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS),
University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
The Law School, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX,
UK
The Business School, University of Hull, Hull, HU6
7RX, UK
(* submitted as Smyth et al to Marine
Pollution Bulletin)
Challenges for science & management:
• Recovery/coping with historical legacy
• Endangered coastal and marine
ecosystem functions
• Legal & adminstrative framework
• Economic prosperity and delivery of
societal benefits
• Coping with climate change & moving
baselines
There is only one big idea in marine
management: how to maintain and
protect ecological structure and
functioning while at the same time
allowing the system to produce
ecosystem services from which we
derive societal benefits.
Drivers (big
societal
requirements)
Activities (of
society)
Pressures
(resulting from
activities)
State change
(on the natural
system)
Impacts (on
human
Welfare)
(changes
affecting
wealth
creation,
quality of life)
Responses
(economic,
legal, etc)
DAPSI(W)R modelling framework (Also *
DPSIR, DPSWR, DPSEEAC, etc.!) *
Drivers
Pressures
State change
Impact
Response;
Drivers
Pressures
State change
Welfare/Impact
Response;
Drivers
Pressures
State change
Exposure
Effects
Action
Context
(for each EnMP cf. ExUP)
Management Questions:
• Where are the problems & What changes do they cause?
• What is the impact of these on ecosystem structure and functioning?
• What are the repercussions for ecosystem valuation based on economy-
ecology interactions?
• What are the future environmental changes and economic futures?
• What governance framework is there, what do stakeholders need?
• What can we do about the problems?
• Where are the risks and how to address them now and in the future?
• What are the governance successes, failures and implications?
• How ‘good’ is the decision-making?
To be successful, management measures or responses to
changes resulting from human activities should be:
The 10 tenets:
• Ecologically sustainable
• Technologically feasible
• Economically viable
• Socially desirable/tolerable
• Legally permissible
• Administratively achievable
• Politically expedient
• Ethically defensible (morally
correct)
• Culturally inclusive
• Effectively communicable
Management tools
needed to cover all of
these!
(cf. PESTLE for
business)
Impacts Key:
Dri
vers
Imp
acts
Res
po
nse
s
Physical nature of the seabed
LOCAL - MMO licence conditions
Boundary conditions
INTERNATIONAL - UNCLOS, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, OSPAR Convention, The Convention on Biological Diversity, Bern Conventio, Ramsar Convention, Barcelona Convention
EUROPEAN INT'L - EU EIA Directive (2011/92/EU), EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (08/56/EC), EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), EU Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC.), ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention,
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC).
NATIONAL - EIA and Habitats Regulations 2007, UKHabitats Regulations 2010, The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009, Marine and Coastal Access Act 200, National Renewable Energy
Action Plan for the United Kingdom, Climate Change Act 200, Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, Marine (Scotland) Act 201, The Marine Strategy Regulations 201, Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003, Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act (2003), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (& amendments), The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994
Quality and quantity of
energy provision
Price of electricity
Spiritual/ Cultural
well-being;Aestheticbenefits.
Marine organismsWater, sediment & air
quality
UK demand for marine renewable energy in the
form of wind power
Export demand for UK marine renewable energy in the form of wind power
Viability of renewable
energy industry
Quality and quantity of
food(wild,
farmed)
Healthy climate
Cognitive
benefits(education
and research)
Tourism/ Nature
watching
Sea defence
Prevention of coastal erosion
Pre
ssu
res
Stat
eC
han
ges
Installation / maintenance /
removal of foundations
Installation / maintenance /
removal of cabling routes
Installation / maintenance /
removal of pile and turbine
Waste from maintenance & service vessels
Physical nature of the water column
Disturbance from turbine operation
Disturbance from service and supply
vessels
Fish feed(wild,
farmed, bait)
Fertiliserand
biofuels
Ornamentsand
aquaria
Medicines and blue biotech
Healthbenefits
Waste burial /
removal / neutralising
Complete Decommission(natural recovery)
- All above and below bedcomponents removed
- The do nothing approach- Recovery time will depend on
local conditions such as the hydrodynamics, sediment particle size and intensity of the activity.
Complete Decommission(with restoration)
- All above and below bedcompnents removed
- Area restored mechanicaly tomatch what was there before interms of physical characteristics
- Recovery time will depend on local conditions such as the hydrodynamics, sediment particle size and intensity of the activity.
Partial Decommission(renewables-to-reefs)
- Some parts of scour potectionand/or foundations left in situ
- Area not restored to previousconditions
- Recovery time will depend on local conditions such as the hydrodynamics, sediment particle size and intensity of the
activity.
Licence Conditions
- Operatioanl licences- Decommissioning licences
Monitoring
- Pre-installation baseline survey- Ongoing monitoring surveys
during the lifetime of the licence- Post-installation impact survey- Pre-decommissioning baseline
survey- Post-decommissioning impact
survey
Maintenance
- Ongoing servicing and maintenance
Provisioning ecosytem goods/benefits
Regulating ecosystem goods/benefits
Cultural ecosystemgoods/benefits
Governance as a tool in management
Policies, politics, laws and administrations for the
adoption of internationally recognised principles:
• ecologically sustainable development;
• intergenerational equity;
• the precautionary principle;
• conservation of biological diversity and ecological
integrity;
• economic valuation of environmental factors
• the polluter pays principle;
• waste minimisation, and
• public participation.
Treatment of urban waste water
Quality of bathing waters
Nitrates & fertiliser control
Marine spatial planning (MSP) & coastal zone management (CZM)
Renewable energytargets
U.N. CONVENTION on
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
UNCLOS
MARPOL
Regulations to control shipping & pollution from ships to give safer shipping,
navigation and pollution control and operation
Integrated maritime policy
RAMSAR CONVENTION
BERN CONVENTION
BONNCONVENTION
Integrated pollution control
Control of waste
LONDON CONVENTION
& PROTOCOLOSPAR,
HELCOM,
UNEP-MAP, BUCHAREST
(Regional Seas
Conventions)
BALLAST WATER
CONVENTION
Management of fisheries from 6nm to 200nm for sustainable fisheries
ICES
Strategy and regulations on invasive alien species control
Safe consumption of shellfish and fish
Transitional and coastal waters status
Environmental liability to prevent and remedy environmental damage
Flood and coastal erosion protection
Coastal and marine waters status
CITES fauna & flora for endangered species protection
CITES
Protection of habitats & species in transitional, coastal and marine waters
U.N. FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE (UNFCCC)
KYOTO PROTOCOL
ESPOO CONVENTION
Strategic assessment of public plans or projects in a transboundary effect
IMO
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON
SALVAGE
Impact assessment of a plan or project
Protection of wild birds in transitional, coastal and marine waters
Biodiversity strategy
Inshore fisheries management 0-6nm
Protection of marine archaeology
UNESCO PROTECTION OF
UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE
Marine environmental protection
KEY
International Law /
Commitments
International Bodies &
Conventions
(Boyes &
Elliott MPB
in press)
Article 60(3) UNCLOS provides that offshore installations should be
‘removed to ensure safety of navigation taking into account any generally
accepted international standards established in this regard’.
The London Convention, and its 1996 Protocol, Article 3(1)(a)(ii) provides
that the deliberate disposal at sea of platforms or other man-made
structures constitutes ‘dumping’. While the Convention aims to prevent
pollution by dumping, there are certain substances which may be
disposed at sea after licensing. Platforms and other man-made structures
at sea are treated within Annex II, the ‘grey list’ of the Convention, and
may be permitted for sea disposal.
OSPAR Guidance on Environmental Considerations for Offshore Wind
Farm Development 2008-3 (OSPAR OWF Guidance) follows Decision
98/3 and provides that “in line with OSPAR’s Policy on waste disposal at
sea, the removed components of a wind farm should generally be
disposed of entirely”.
The Legal Position – to remove:
The Legal Position – to leave: IMO Guidance (para 3.5): “where entire removal would involve an
unacceptable risk to the marine environment, the coastal State may
determine that it need not be fully removed”.
OSPAR OWF Guidance: if the “competent national authority decides that a
component of the wind farm should remain at site (e.g. parts of the piles in
the sea-bed, scour protection materials), it should be ensured that they
have no adverse impact on the environment, the safety of navigation and
other uses of the sea” (para 93).
Of further environmental significance is that the IMO Guidelines aim to
ensure that “the means of removal or partial removal should not cause a
significant adverse effect on living resources of the marine environment,
especially threatened and endangered species”.
DECC (2011) current recommendations in the UK: Removal of the
monopile and foundations but it is optional for scour protection to be
removed and it can be left in situ.
The ecosystem-based approach
‘A comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best
available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify
and take action on influences which are critical to the health of the marine ecosystems,
thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of
ecosystem integrity.’
The Qualitative Descriptors within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Biodiversity Fishing Foodwebs
Seafloor integrity
Hydrography Pollution Litter
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
SWOT Complete Removal Partial Removal
Str
en
gth
s
Restoration of all shipping
activity.
Restoration of all fishing
activity.
Restoration of previous habitat
if possible.
Less intrusive on any new
habitat that has developed
e.g. around the scour
protection and foundation.
Reduced cost for developers
during the removal stage.
Less noise/sediment changes
likely to have an impact on the
wider marine environment.
SWOT analysis of removing all structures and
infrastructures (complete removal) vs. leaving the
foundations and scour protection in place (partial
removal)
SWOT Complete Removal Partial Removal
We
ak
ne
ss
es
Significant impact on habitats
– almost as severe as
construction stage - potential
loss of created habitats.
Increased financial
implications for developers.
Lack of practical knowledge
and experience in
decommissioning offshore
wind farms.
Additional costs in future
maintenance of the site,
continued monitoring and
associated costs – where does
this cost lie?
Limiting potential for future
development of site for major
alternative use.
Lack of practical knowledge
and experience in
decommissioning offshore
wind farms.
Possible spread of non-
indigenous and/or invasive
species by leaving
components in place
SWOT Complete Removal Partial Removal
Op
po
rtu
nit
ies
Site can be opened up again
for new development
opportunities e.g. leasing the
site for aggregate dredging.
Due to the protection of the
habitat the site may present
development opportunities for
recreational users e.g.
tourism, diving, recreational
fishing etc.
Potential for some commercial
activity if site considered
suitable e.g. crustacean
ranching.
SWOT Complete Removal Partial Removal
Th
rea
ts
Financial liabilities.
Alienation of certain user
groups.
Potential collision
risk/entanglement of fishing
gears due to uncovered
elements resulting from
sediment change if the site is
not effectively monitored.
Spread of non-indigenous
species.
Alienation of certain user
groups.
Socio-ecological system - Integrating Concepts:
Physico-chemical structure / stock
Physico-chemical processes / functioning
Ecological structure / stocks
Ecological processes / functioning
Individual (use & non-use) values
Total Economic
Value
Stock of natural capital - Natural carrying capacity
Shared (monetary & non-monetary)
Natural environmental system & Total Ecological Value
Ecological capital
Total Social Value
[ME/JPA/DB (UoH) & RKT (UEA) Coastal zone ecosystem services HG v9]
Physico-chemical capital
Socio-Econo-Techno System measured as TSSV (Total Societal & System Value) & Socio-economic carrying capacity
Intermediate ecosystem services
Final ecosystem services
Complementary assets (human capital – population expending
energy, time, money, skills)
Ecosystem goods Societal benefits
Intermediate
Ecosystem
Services
Partial
Removal*
Complete
Removal** Comments
Primary production − − − More hard substratum, more primary production
depending on photic zone
Larval and gamete
supply ? ? Changes dependent on local hydrographic regime
Nutrient cycling 0/? 0/? Gap in current understanding; unlikely to detect
change
Formation of
species habitat − − − Less hard substratum, less diverse habitat
Formation of
physical barriers + + + Removal of structures removes physical barriers
Formation of
seascape 0 0 The seascape will be changed
Biological control 0 + Return to natural food webs, reduction in
invasive/alien species
Natural hazard
regulation − − −
Physical structures remove energy from waves
and tides
Waste breakdown
and detoxification 0/? 0/?
Gap in current understanding; unlikely to be
detectable
Carbon
sequestration − − −
Increased C-sequestration and biomass (C
storage) associated with artificial reefs/hard
structures; unlikely to be detectable
Final Ecosystem
Services
Partial
Removal
*
Complete
Removal*
*
Comments
Fish and shellfish 0 − − Removal of artificial reef effect particularly in
total removal case
Algae and
seaweed − − −
Hard substratum allows seaweed/algal
growth depending on photic depth
Ornamental
materials 0 −
Increased biodiversity associated with
structures
Genetic resources ? ? Current gap in knowledge; depending on
habitat formation
Water supply 0 0 Negligible in offshore locations
Climate regulation 0 −
More C-sequestration and storage
associated with hard substratum; difficult to
be detected
Natural hazard
protection − − − Structures reduce wave and tidal energy
Clean water and
sediments 0 0 No long term change expected
Places and
seascapes 0 0 These will be changed
Goods/Benefits Partial
Removal*
Complete
Removal** Comments
Food (wild,
farmed) + + +
Some fishing may be allowed after partial removal
(dependent on fishing methods applied). Possible
removal of fishing restrictions after total removal of
structures and infrastructure (excluding spill over
effects)
Fish feed (wild,
farmed, bait) − − −
Increased biodiversity and biomass associated
with structures
Fertiliser and
biofuels 0 0
Hard substratum allows seaweed/algal growth
depending on photic depth but not easily
harvested
Ornaments and
aquaria 0 − Increased biodiversity associated with structures
Medicines and
blue
biotechnology
? ? Current gap in knowledge
Healthy climate 0 − Increased C-sequestration and storage on hard
substrata
Prevention of
coastal erosion − − −
Reduction in wave/tidal energy reduces coastal
erosion
Goods/Benefits
(cont.)
Partial
Removal*
Complete
Removal** Comments
Sea defence − − − Reduction in wave/tidal energy reduces coastal
flooding
Waste burial /
removal/
neutralisation
0 0 No long term change expected
Tourism and
nature watching 0 − −
Artificial reef effect retained in partial case (diving,
angling etc)
Spiritual and
cultural well-
being
0/? 0/? Changes may be positive or negative (see main
text)
Aesthetic benefits 0/? 0/? Changes may be positive or negative (see main
text)
Education,
research 0 0 Research opportunities exist for both cases
Health benefits 0/? 0/? Changes may be positive or negative (see main
text)
Hazard leading to Risk (depending on assets)
A) Surface hydrological hazards
B) Surface physiographic removal by natural processes - chronic/long-term
C) Surface physiographic removal by human actions - chronic/long-term
D) Surface physiographic removal - acute/short-term
E) Climatological hazards - acute/short term
F) Climatological hazards - chronic/long term
G) Tectonic hazards - acute/short term
H) Tectonic hazards - chronic/ long term
I) Anthropogenic microbial biohazards
J) Anthropogenic macrobial biohazards
K) Anthropogenic introduced technological hazards
L) Anthropogenic extractive technological hazards
M) Anthropogenic acute chemical hazards
N) Anthropogenic chronic chemical hazards
Hazard & Risk Typology:
= Risk Assessment & Risk
Management (RA&RM):
• Hazard Identification:
• Risk Assessment:
• Risk Management:
• Risk Communication:
Top
Event
Hazard
“How do we prevent the
hazard from being released?”
“How do we keep control?”
5
“How might controls fail?”
“How could their
effectiveness be
undermined?”
7
“How do we limit the
severity of the event?”
“How do we minimise the
effects?”
6
“How do we make
sure controls do not
fail?”
8
(Copyright Risktec Solutions Ltd.)
Tenet
environmental
management
should be…
Wind farm examples
Ecologically
sustainable:
That the natural ecology is maintained where possible and so not disrupted during decommissioning.
Technologically
feasible:
Mechanisms to prevent scour; adequate shielding for cabling to reduce EMF; navigational systems
notified of any potentially hazardous undersea infrastructure left in place after decommissioning; methods
for removal of all or part of the structure are sanctioned.
Economically viable: Compensation schemes for those people and areas affected; that industry in the national interest and
large urban areas are protected; ongoing monitoring costs are included from the outset to ensure future
costs are covered; that measures for pollution reduction are funded; that during decommissioning the
costs of full or partial removal are economically justified.
Socially
desirable/tolerable:
The society is educated regarding the effects and implications of renewable energy and its linkages with
the marine environment; that if partial decommissioning occurs then society sanctions the structures left in
place.
Ethically defensible
(morally correct):
Dealings with individuals are at the highest level and that no single sector is favoured unduly; that the
costs of present action to be borne by the future generations are considered (e.g. economic discounting).
Culturally inclusive: That indigenous peoples, habits and customs are incorporated into decision-making; aboriginal (first
nation) rights are defended; that effects of full or partial decommissioning on indigenous fisheries are
taken into account.
Legally permissible: That due consideration is given to environmental regulation at a national, regional and international level
for the protection of marine habitats and risk mitigation plans are in place; shipping and navigational safety
are ensured, in line with international obligations and standards; that there is legal sanctioning of partial
decommissioning and links to the MPA framework.
Administratively
achievable:
That there is horizontal and vertical integration between national and international administrators;
communication between statutory, planning, legal and environmental bodies ensures coherent
implementation.
Effectively
communicable:
That all sectors are aware of the important issues and involved decision making; that all stakeholders
have the opportunity to participate in decision-making
Politically expedient: That there is pressure on politicians to carry out measures; that politicians are aware of the risks and the
consequences of either not being prepared nor having suitable responses for the hazards occurring.
Figure 1: considerations in holistic & adaptive environmental management
(red arrows denote linkages between topics; black arrows denote direction of influence)
Extractors (D, P) (econ., technol.)
Inputters (D, P) (econ., technol.)
Regulators (R) (leg., admin.)
Affectees (I) (soc., ethic., cult.)
Influencers (I) (polit.)
Beneficiaries (I) (soc., ethic, cult.)
Horizontal Integration across stakeholders (refer to DPSIR and 10 tenets)
.... Ecosystem Services & deliver ..... (I(W))
who raise awareness of ...... (comm.)
....Societal Benefits for the ...
uses/users providing .../affecting .... .... who control the ...
…. fundamental processes (S) (ecol.) to create … (D+P) + R ≠ S + I
e.g. Conflict Res., 10 tenets, PPP, PP, EIA, CBA, MCA, LPI
Indicators + monitoring, e.g. EII
Maintaining, protecting and enhancing nature & .... (S) (ecol.)
The Ecosystem Approach
(b) localised human demands (endogenic managed pressures)
(a) wider pressures, e.g. climate change (exogenic unmanaged pressures)
Vertical Integration of governance across geopolitical levels
global
ecoregion
regional
national
local
Source of problems (activity-pressure-impact chain) which require ....
..... Risk assessment methods & response
to ensure no impact on .....
Main messages:
1) partial instead of full decommissioning of offshore wind
power infrastructure has benefits for the natural and human
environment
2) the maintenance of artificial reefs after OWP
decommissioning combined with marine spatial planning is
an environmentally sustainable solution
3) the 'renewables to reefs' solution is allowed under
national, European and international governance and has
accepted precedence in the US 'rigs to reefs' programme
“burning” question: what can the offshore energy industry
learn from the offshore oil and gas industry?
http://www.hull.ac.uk/iecs