Wild Land News no 58, Autumn 2003

Focus on Shieldaig Article

Wild Land Group members responded magnificently to the special mail-out to members on the issues of the proposed Shieldaig hydro scheme.

Despite an incorrect e-mail address for responses, members managed to send in contributions by email, letter and postcard by the deadlines. A good number copied their replies to me, and without exception everyone plainly saw this locality as a special place not to be disturbed. There was a huge response as shown by the official figures:

The public consultation period ended on 6 June 2003 and the Scottish Executive received 837 objections to the proposal. They have been split into six location categories:

No Address 30

E-Mails 117

Highland Council Area 142

Rest of Scotland 241

Rest of UK 299

Overseas 8

The following organisations objected: The National Trust for Scotland, The John Muir Trust, Torridon and Kinlochewe Community Council, The Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board, The Ramblers' Association, Wester Ross Fisheries Trust, British Mountaineering Council, Scottish Countryside Activities Council, The Scottish National Anglers Association, The Scottish Wild Land Group and several outdoor climbing clubs and guiding business.

The matter is in the hands of the Scottish Executive and it is hoped that a further public inquiry will be held to consider the application. With huge wind farms and a new large-scale hydro project being proposed elsewhere in Scotland, the miniscule size of this project defies justification for the effort put in by the developer to get it approved.

What becomes clear from looking at renewable energy projects is that can be very, very profitable - and even small ones like Shieldaig must surely generate a reasonable income.

So why do these schemes need such large subsidy from the customer and the taxpayer? Should some of the subsidy not be foregone so as to curb excess profiteering? Could the subsidy not be used in making sure that renewable energy developments do not impact upon wild land?

And are renewable energy project becoming just another way of pump priming for remote areas, where politicians and others are lured by the crumbs of community contributions to help their constituents? Certainly the Wild Land Group is keen on renewable energy, for projects that support community development, and integrated industries, i.e. wind farm turbine production producing employment as well the wind farms producing energy. However what is crucial is nationally agreed location guidelines that are enforced so that projects are directed to appropriate locations rather than a developer coming up with a inappropriate scheme and opponents having to fight it.

Similarly, funds should be available for communities to own and manage schemes, with the initial loans paid back out of the subsidies/profits.

Britain seems to have a renewable energy policy that creates conflicts, generates excess profits yet cannot deliver without harming another key national resource - its magnificent landscapes.