Solar farms managed for nature can benefit bird abundance and diversity
- A new study by the RSPB and the University of Cambridge has shown that solar farms managed for nature could benefit birds and other wildlife.
- Managed correctly this much-needed renewable energy infrastructure could provide biodiversity benefits in arable-dominated landscapes.
- With recent debate about the future of UK land use, and the many competing demands on it, prioritising wildlife needs in solar farm planning could help address public concerns and help the UK meet its climate commitments as well as delivering for nature.
A new study has shown that solar farms could provide biodiversity benefits in arable dominated landscapes, especially when managed with nature in mind, potentially making them an important part of the UK’s land use mix needed to address the climate and nature crisis.
Research by scientists from the RSPB and University of Cambridge as part of the Centre for Landscape Regeneration has found that – hectare for hectare – solar farms situated in agriculturally dominated East Anglia contained a greater number of bird species and overall number of individuals than surrounding arable land. This suggests that solar farms can provide biodiversity benefits in mixed-use landscapes. These numbers varied dramatically with solar farm management, with areas with a greater mix of habitats, managed specifically for nature co-benefits, having the greatest diversity – nearly three times as many birds compared to adjacent arable land.
The UK is committed to reaching net zero by 2050, which means moving from fossils fuels to clean energy such as solar and wind. Areas of land devoted to solar farms are increasing but are sometimes assumed to be bad for nature. Much of the new solar capacity is likely to be sited on agricultural land in lowland England. However, such areas also contain relatively high densities of farmland bird species, many of which are already under pressure and have declining populations. Finding ways in productive landscapes to meet the UK’s climate and nature targets will be critical for a sustainable future.
The RSPB’s chief executive Beccy Speight said “Delivering a future that safeguards nature, tackles climate change, ensures food security and resilient farm businesses, and enables sustainable development is the only sensible path. This research shows that it is possible to balance competing needs.”
The research, published in the journal Bird Study, took place in the East Anglian Fens and looked at two types of solar farms: those with a mix of habitats within the solar farm and those with a simpler associated habitat. Simple habitat was intensively managed, with no hedgerows along the boundaries and was constantly grazed by sheep. The mixed habitat solar farms had hedgerows around the edges, with no sheep grazing or grass cutting, leading to a greater diversity of flowering plants.
The highest abundance of threatened Red and Amber listed bird species (such as Corn Bunting, Yellowhammer and Linnet) was in mixed habitat solar and was significantly higher than in both surrounding arable land and in the simple habitat solar sites. Mixed habitat solar also held the highest total abundance of bird species. This suggests that nature-friendly management practices could significantly increase the nature value of solar sites. New solar farms should not be located in areas of ecological risk, nature-protected sites and other sites that are important for rare or declining species, as these continue to be vital refuges for wildlife and restoring such sites is crucial for meeting the Government’s legally binding nature recovery targets
Dr Joshua Copping, conservation scientist at the RSPB and lead author of the study said “With lots of demands on UK land, finding ways and space to reverse the long-term declines in a range of farmland birds is challenging. Species such as Corn Bunting, Linnet and Yellowhammer have seen their populations dwindle and finding ways to help them is critical for their long- term survival. The results of this study suggest that solar farms managed well for nature could make an important contribution and could provide relief from the effects of agricultural intensification on these species and other wildlife in the surrounding landscape.”
Solar farms do not pose a threat to our national food security or food production, especially when built on low or moderate grade agricultural land. Helpfully, planning policies in Great Britain discourage solar farms from being built on high-grade agricultural land. Last year, the RSPB published a study that found there is sufficient land for nature restoration needs, while building the renewable energy infrastructure required for net zero – but achieving these goals in tandem will require planning that prioritises nature.
Dr Catherine Waite, researcher at the University of Cambridge, and co-author of the study said “With the combined climate and biodiversity crises, using land efficiently is crucial. Our study shows that if you manage solar energy production in a certain way, not only are you proving clean energy but benefitting biodiversity”.
Beccy Speight concluded “We need a strategic and spatial approach to planning for renewable energy to ensure that solar farms are built in areas of low risk for nature and where we can deliver on our nature recovery targets alongside our net zero targets. The Government’s current land use framework consultation is an important step forward in realising this kind of approach.”
ENDS
[registration_form]
Mark,
All good stuff but I would be grateful if the RSPB could mention potential conflicts of interest over its solar farm studies .
Anesco (renewable energy developers) is proud to boast of its association with and support for the RSPB https://anesco.com/blog/2016/02/29/anesco-and-rspb-shine-light-on-solar-farm-biodiversity-2/
but I search in vain for any mention of Anesco on the RSPB website.
The RSPB should be open about this commercial support – maybe even in publications that did not directly benefit from it (which would be difficult to prove). In any case, the RSPB is often asked to comment on solar farm applications but, in my limited experience (e.g. Noke Farm proposal in Oxon, IMMEDIATELY next to the RSPB Bird Reserve) it does not do so.
I am concerned about the rapid and uncontrolled spread of large area solar in the UK (see https://www.solarq.org) across PRODUCTIVE farmland (yes they ARE using BMV land despite what the ‘industry’ says). Solar is intrinsically VERY inefficient in the UK latitudes (something the industry conveniently ignores). The large claims for BNG on solar farms involve the inappropriate use of the DEFRA metric (which does not have a landscape type ‘previous farmland now to grass under solar panels’ so cannot be applied). Agreed, turning arable land to grassland under solar is likely to produce net gain – but at the ‘expense’ of food production, which we can ill afford. The potential ecological benefits of ELMS to ALL farmland (c. 70% of England’s land area) vastly outweigh the ecological benefits on the 1% to c. 9% of local areas that will be covered by solar panels (YES it really is 8.8% in Jenrick’s Newark constituency!). Best wishes, David Rogers (old Zoology Dept., Oxford days!)
I am surprised at the haste with which the RSPB’s chief executive seems to have endorsed such limited research.
All the survey seems to say is that if you insert favourable habit into a solar park, or around it, then birdlife has the opportunity to benefit.
But is that not obvious anyway?
I would have been more encouraged if there had been any evidence of grey partridges, skylarks, meadow pipits or yellow wagtails nesting under the panels – or of swallows and bats hawking insects above them – but none has been produced here.