• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Angling Trust Press Release

Ray Walton

Senior Member
Anglers Fume as Regulator Bows to Hydropower


The Angling Trust has reacted angrily to the Environment Agency’s massive over-exaggeration of the amount of electricity that could be harnessed from English and Welsh Rivers and its failure to act to prevent hydropower developments damaging fragile fish stocks. The Trust is calling on its members to object to planning applications for new hydropower installations on the rivers they fish and has provided a guide to making an objection here.

The Agency recently commissioned a survey to map opportunities where run-of-river hydropower could be developed. This identified nearly 26,000 possibilities which their Consultants estimated had a “realistic†total potential of 580 MW, which is just 0.5% of the current demand for electricity. However, the Agency has chosen to promote in recent press statements the absolute maximum figure of three times this amount. Achievement of this amount would depend on using all the possible water flow at every possible site.

This is obviously both unattainable and unsustainable, and is yet another example of the Agency actively promoting an activity which will make no difference to our energy needs or to global warming, yet has the potential to result in irreparable damage to the Nation's fish stocks, including threatened species such as salmon, sea trout and eels.

The Angling Trust has also learnt that the Environment Agency is allegedly considering issuing “gagging orders†on its staff in the Fisheries Department to stop them giving their expert advice to local councils about how to mitigate the impact of hydro-electric plants on fish and objecting when these are not acceptable. Anglers were astounded to hear that the fisheries staff paid for with rod licence fees might be told not to do their job. The Agency is a statutory consultee on planning matters.

Furthermore, in a paper to the recent Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreational Advisory Committees (RFERACs), the Environment Agency implied that there may be schemes that will be approved that have ‘acceptable’ impacts on fish stocks. The Angling Trust believes that allowing these to be developed would be in contravention of the Environment Agency’s statutory duty of maintaining and improving fish populations and complying with the EU’s Water Framework Directive, which makes any deterioration of ecological status (including fish stocks) illegal.

The Angling Trust will be e-mailing all its members and encouraging them to object to any hydropower development on their rivers on the grounds of insufficient information being available and that they cause danger of unsustainable damage to fish populations. This applies to at least 95% of the planned developments the Angling Trust’s technical advisers have looked at. A list of developments is available on the Agency's website here.

The Angling Trust’s legal arm in England, Fish Legal, is investigating whether legal actions might be brought against the Environment Agency on behalf of its member riparian owners and clubs whose property rights are damaged by hydropower developments approved by the regulator.

Angling Trust Chief Executive Mark Lloyd said:

“The Environment Agency is not only overstating the value of run-of-river hydropower it is also apparently stopping its own staff advising developers and planners how to reduce the impact of these developments on fish. The Angling Trust is exasperated with the Agency’s flagrant promotion of this damaging industry which is being developed at the expense of sustainable fisheries. We call on the nation’s anglers to stand up and be counted to defend their fish and their fishing by objecting to any schemes near where they fish today. Details of how to do this are on the Angling Trust’s web site.â€

Angling Trust Technical Director Dr Alan Butterworth, who recently retired after a long career with the Agency, latterly as their national expert on the impacts of hydropower on fisheries, reacted angrily to the Agency's position:

“It is very clear that English and Welsh rivers are simply too small to make any difference to the Country's energy needs. But the Agency continues to encourage this type of ‘run-of-river’ hydropower which can do a massive amount of damage to the ecology of our rivers and block the migration of fish.

“Much of Europe and the United States have learnt this lesson the hard way and are dismantling even much larger schemes in order to save their rivers, yet the Agency continues to spread the red carpet for hydropower developers irrespective of the risk of ruining ours. A small amount of hydropower generation is perfectly possible, but it must only be allowed where it auses no damage to our fragile fish populations.â€
 
Let's hope that some of the energy wasted on the otter issue is diverted to this much greater threat by anglers in general as well as the AT.
Given the likelihood following the next election of an eventual breaking up of the EA, the issue of the gagging of the Fisheries staff is an interesting one. I would like to see some evidence for this and will be asking the EA's press office for a quote.
Mark Llyod on Radio 4 this morning
 
Last edited:
Ray, they have just rejected plans for wind turbines because its on the edge of the beacons, hell hardly anyone lives there, that could have supplied a large slice of the electric in s/wales, they also rejected plans for wind turbine farms in the sea too...j.w
 
there,s 2 planned for my local river the goyt later this year

http://www.ourvalley.org.uk/images/hydrostudypdf.pdf
http://withington-cooperative.blogspot.com/2009/11/hydro-scheme-for-stockport.html
if anyone is interested or can help
tight lines
jerry
See you have already raised this on the Co-op party web site. With a general and local elections coming up one of the best ideas is where ever you locality is, if a planned hydro scheme affects you, to register and start raising the issue on every local political party web site you can Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green. Pay particular attention to areas with "hung" councils or Tory / Lid Dem / Labour marginal parliamentary seats.
The natural reaction of most politicos of all stripes at present is anything with a "green" tag applied will get support. Pointing out the downside of these Hydro schemes, the effects on wildlife and the marginal effects they have on climate change in comparison to the large amount of public subsides the companies planning them receive is the best way of getting people to start opposing these things.
Don't wait for public consultation (once consultation starts formally it is usually to late to stop)
 
The Chairman on Monday


An entry in the Comments column of the Gurnard article that young Paul linked earlier:


nomeatpete

8 Mar 2010, 4:47PM

I still think a massive factory of Hamsters on wheels would be the best bet.

FREE THE HAMSTERS!!!!!


Most definitely. On our river, the flyfishers, celebs, personalities, auctioneers and sporting agents were the first to go against the - er - to be liberated.



As ever,

B.B.
 
Ray, they have just rejected plans for wind turbines because its on the edge of the beacons, hell hardly anyone lives there, that could have supplied a large slice of the electric in s/wales, they also rejected plans for wind turbine farms in the sea too...j.w

compared to the rest of the country anybody hardly lives in the Snowdonia national park or Lake district national park , lets face it apart from Cairngorm and other parts of the highlands these are some of our last wild places, its not just our rivers we have to think about saving and looking after but the countryside as whole.
 
Last edited:
Rob, have you any idea how large the beacons are mate, as for the offshore wind farm well unless it was proposed to be near the busy shores then theres ample room for one and most living in wales would probably never see it
it would sure beat using rivers
 
The idea that the river projects some way compete with other forms of energy generation is just nonsense. They only generate a tiny amount of energy which is designed primarily for local use and not to supplement the grid. They encourage further building in areas on the river plain, further contributing to abstraction and CO2 emmissions. They are absolutly nothing to do with the need to reduce energy consumption and replace the present coal and gas fired power stations.
In remote area where the grid doesn't reach hydro can be part of the solution to providing energy for existing locals however to start using English rivers in areas serviced by the grid is a load of nonsense. It is a profit making scheme for so called "green" companies and a political fig leaf for politicians afraid to deal with the very real problems of how we reduce CO2 emissions whilst maintaining the energy supply.
Off shore wind farms are disastrous for the already declining fish stocks, very expensive to build, create loads of CO2 in their building. Wind farms are also no solution. All these so called renewable sources cannot deal with the very real problems we have in relation to the issue - they just generate publicity and give the impression that the government is doing something without the risk that they loose votes by really doing what is required.
Energy reduction, in towns and Cities through efficiency is required, combined with nuclear generation replacing the de commissioned nuclear generation and the coal fired generators as a first step.
There is no need to destroy river, the sea and wild places. There is a need to reduce usage and to repair and maintain housing and buildings in present cities rather than spread new builds all over what remains of our countryside just to assuage the guilt of a few middle class "greens" and create profit for "green" companies.
 
For the politician a scheme whereby you, the private entity, pay for and build a generator and sell to the grid, is a no brainer. They are seen to be supporting the 'green' issue of the day and it doesn't cost them a penny. How can the issue of fish safety compete with such a vote winner?

Support the AT people, they are the only group that has any chance of a successful lobby on this issue.
 
Back
Top