No green light for Severn barrage

Last modified: 01 October 2007

Sanderlings on beach at sunset - Nigel Blake

Europe's most dynamic estuary will be destroyed by the construction of a barrage across the Severn while other less striking measures would cost less and could do more to cut carbon emissions.

Latest update - 1 October

Severn barrage construction will be shackled by the huge costs and legal obstacles highlighted by the Sustainable Development Commission today.

Dr Mark Avery, Conservation Director at the RSPB, said: 'The SDC’s report is not a green light for the barrage but something between red and amber. Watch the video

'Its construction will cause the emission of ten million tonnes of carbon. Greenhouse gas savings will be substantial in the long run, but those savings could be too late to avert the damage of climate change.

'It would be far better to spend the £15 to £20 billion the barrage will cost on measures that will cut emissions more quickly. The Severn estuary is an irreplaceable refuge for wildlife and because of that, the SCD report questions whether a barrage across the Severn is the best way to spend that money.'

The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) on Monday (October 1) publishes its assessment of a Severn barrage and other proposals to harness tidal energy. A barrage would damage areas protected by international, European and UK law because of their value to birds and other wildlife.

The RSPB has set seven tests it believes the SDC must address in writing its report:

It must acknowledge the Severn estuary's importance to wildlife and its extensive legal protection;
Accept the legal requirement to establish that there no alternative to a barrage and that there is over-riding public interest in building it;
Then recognise the legal requirement that thousands of acres of compensatory habitat would need to be created – a scale never undertaken in the UK before;
Consider other options for harnessing the Severn's tidal power such as tidal stream;
Accept that barrage construction will generate huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions for many years before it generates energy;
Assess whether the money spent on a barrage would be better spent on other clean technologies and other measures such as cleaner cars to cut emissions;
Confirm that any development on the Severn would not be dependent on public subsidy.

Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB's Conservation Director, said: 'Tackling climate change is hugely important but this can be done without destroying irreplaceable national treasures like the Severn estuary.

'We should be harnessing the power of the Severn but there are better ways of doing this than by hauling ten miles of concrete into the estuary.

'The government should be aiming to help, not destroy, wildlife and that applies to proposals for green energy schemes just as much as new supermarkets or housing estates.'

International importance

The RSPB has called on the Commission to ensure its advice on Monday is impartial and that its members are not swayed by political pressure to favour one energy scheme over another.

Dr Avery said: 'The SDC report must recognise the international importance of the estuary and fully consider the legal implications of barrage construction. Huge amounts of new habitat will have to be created if the wildlife havens fashioned by the Severn's tidal range are lost.

'It took 11 years to replace 110 hectares of mudflats destroyed at Lappel Bank on the Medway, when the government last broke European law. Damage on the Severn would be 10, 20 or 30 times as great. Other land is being lost to sea level rise so replicating Severn habitats would be enormously difficult.'