The construction of wind farms in Spain is not a road of roses. The Spanish Government’s planning aims to multiply by 2.5 times the current installed power in order for 81% of the electricity to be of renewable origin by 2030. This deployment is causing territorial tensions. But, in addition, half of the files on large wind projects (of more than 50 MW, processed by the central administration) are resolved with a negative environmental impact statement or are filed away, according to data from the Ministry for the Ecological Transition.
Of the last 39 projects analyzed by the Administration in the round that ended on January 25, only 20 (51%) obtained a positive environmental impact statement (the essential requirement to obtain administrative authorization); instead, 13 (33.5%) had a negative resolution and 6 (15.5%) were archived. In terms of power, they moved forward with files representing 57% of the megawatts at stake and the rest were either resolved negatively or shelved.
If the total balance includes the projects under autonomous supervision (those of less than 50 MW), 27% of the resolved files did not obtain the environmental impact statement or were filed (32% in terms of power in megawatts), according to the Wind Energy Business Association (AEE), which has analyzed 557 files since 2018.
The main reasons for these failures are insufficient information provided, the serious ecological impact that could be caused or the lack of sufficient corrective measures to prevent ecological damage.
The environmental impact statements that are approved by the administrations often impose on the promoters substantial modifications of the project, with corrective or compensatory measures to protect threatened species (large raptors, such as the crested eagle, the buzzard or the gray sparrow) and others.
For these reasons, they are demanding “changes in the design of the evacuation lines, burying of lines, obligation to move the wind turbines or the elimination of some of these machines”, says Juan Virgilio Márquez, director general of the AEE. “Before resolving an environmental impact statement, 75% of the projects have modifications that involve reductions in the area of ??occupation or the volume of equipment to be installed”, say sources from the Ministry for the Ecological Transition.
In the case of burying lines, the costs can be multiplied by more than four in relation to an overhead line. “It is very common for the Administration to impose the burying of a line and this makes the project unviable, because burying a line forces you to recalculate everything and then everything is much more expensive,” says Márquez. If the investment is increased, the projects may run into financing problems.
“We assume that there is less and less risk of electrocution of birds on the new lines, but there are still many collisions and the increase of thousands of kilometers of lines also increases this risk exponentially”, says Ana Carricondo, expert of the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/BirdLife).
In general, the installation of mills tends to avoid the protected spaces of the Natura 2000 Network, “but the promoters see no problem in placing them on their edges, right next to the strip of these natural spaces, so that, in practice, the effect on the birds can be the same”, complains Carricondo. Companies generally take into account the ministry’s zoning map (which indicates that it is not advisable to locate mills in areas of maximum environmental sensitivity), because placing mills there can be a dead end full of litigation.
Proponents largely avoid placing the mills in Nature Network spaces, but instead they tend to affect Important Bird Areas (IBAs): the lines do sometimes cross protected areas, says SEO/BirdLife.
Of the more than 100 projects to which this organization has submitted allegations between 2019 and 2022 (the projects it deems most worrying), 20% are less than one kilometer from an area of ??the Natura 2000 Network or within (few). “These data show that the way things are being done does not allow for full guarantees that there will be no impact on areas of natural or legally protected value”, says Ana Carricondo, who proposes a binding ban for areas of maximum environmental sensitivity due to the “lack of planning”.
The most serious impacts appear because the parks are often located too close to each other. “We are talking about hundreds of wind turbines together, which causes the complete destruction and degradation of bird habitats, to the point where it is no longer viable for these species”, adds SEO/BirdLife. Relatively small wind farms already built are having high mortality levels of vultures and some eagles, report.
The ones that annoy environmental groups the most are the macroparks. “We find a succession of parks, one next to the other, until we create a territory centered on wind monoculture, in Teruel, for example, which, in addition to the environmental impact, prevents a balanced socio-economic development”.
Forced also by the need to comply with energy planning (and the strict legal deadlines to resolve the files), the ministry is approving environmental impact statements conditional on the submission of subsequent reports on biodiversity (sometimes under regional jurisdiction) to better assess the corrective measures that must be applied.
“The problem is that the rush can damage the quality of the environmental assessments, that the impacts are underestimated or that they are not considered relevant when it comes to authorizing the projects”, explains Carricondo. The required corrective measures will depend on subsequent monitoring, without a public system “to carry out this monitoring effectively”, he adds.
The ministry points out that when the conditional environmental impact statement includes the request for reports from third parties as a prior requirement to carry out the work, “what these reports indicate will be mandatory”. In addition, remember that “all projects have an environmental monitoring program that ensures good execution”, so you will be able to carry out checks and obtain information to verify compliance with these conditions”. Among the projects rejected by the administrations are those of the Pisuerga, Rubagón (Palencia) or Cabeza Grande (Salamanca) parks, especially to protect the avifauna.
