1. How did you get involved in struggles against large-scale wind farms?
I became involved when the Ecological Assessment Study (EIA) of the company interested in installing wind farms in Vermio came out. The EIA was put up for open consultation so that citizens and NGOs could comment on it. Some colleagues asked me to write a report on the European Souslik (Spermophilus citellus), because they found that the EIA had recorded this species in the area. I only did a literature survey, because until then I had not worked on any experiment or recording related to the impact of wind farms on fauna.
The company’s study mentioned many protected species such as birds, wolves, bears, etc. When the public consultation process began, each scientist who participated wrote comments on the subject matter they knew best. I, for example, only dealt with the Souslik. Callisto1 wrote about the bear, another researcher about the birds, and the Hellenic Zoological Society2 submitted its opinion. Many scientists from different institutions participated independently, each with their own contribution.
2. What was your criticism of the wind farm study?
My main comment relates to the scientific adequacy and reliability of the EIA submitted by the company. Despite the existence of extensive and recent scientific literature – both at European and national level – the study does not make use of any of the available sources. The absence of this literature creates the impression that they avoid scientific data that may not be consistent with the company’s intended conclusions.
In addition, the EIA uses lots of quotes from scientific studies but it extracts them from the context in which they were initially said. The fragmentary and instrumental use of scientific knowledge, without methodological rigour, leads to misleading or non-scientific conclusions.
For instance, the scientists who wrote the EIA argue that the project doesn’t impact Sousliks because they found a nest near by the container in which they work. Such a conclusion, without statistical data, comparative observations or even literature support, cannot be considered scientifically valid. I would say that this is more a personal impression than a concrete finding.
The question of our impact on biodiversity and ecosystems is really serious and we have to provide studies with a clear methodology and evidences that can be verified. The preparation of an EIA, especially for large-scale infrastructures such as wind farms, should meet minimum standards of scientific ethics. Unfortunately, the present study falls far short of these requirements.
3. To make the difference in methodologies clearer, can you tell me what a scientist following good scientific practices would do?
Well, I would record the burrows and individuals of the species throughout the entire area before, during, and after operations. This would allow me to track whether populations have moved, declined, left the area, or if there has been mortality. I could also use radio collars to monitor the daily and seasonal movements of the animals in the area. In addition, I would assess the stress of the animals to understand the pressure they are under due to human interventions. For this evaluation, it is necessary to observe changes in animal behaviour before and after the intervention. Alternatively, I could collect faecal samples to analyse the hormones produced, which are often indicators of stress.
There are therefore a variety of methods available, none of which are based on simple or subjective observations, but rather on sound scientific procedures. Scientific research requires strict standards. A study cannot be considered valid if a thorough review of the literature relevant to the topic hasn’t been carried out, if the data collected are insufficient or do not fully cover the scope of the research, and if the methodology used by the researcher is not explained and justified. Studies such as the EIA often primarily serve the administrative requirements for issuing environmental permits in the simplest and quickest way possible. However, such studies often do not meet the standards to be considered equivalent to a scientific study.
4. So you did a counter-study. What happened after you made it public?
Nothing happened. The public consultation is a formal process that is not necessarily taken into account. I don’t even know if the public bodies that evaluate these projects get hold of it. For instance, the Agency for the Natural Environment and Climate Change (NECCA) that takes care of Natura 2000 areas asked me to send them my report. We had worked together before so they knew me otherwise I don’t know if they would have gotten the information.
I get the impression that there is no willingness to listen to the scientific community. For instance, a scientist from the University of Ioannina did an in-depth study. She analysed all the areas in Greece where wind farms could be installed with minimal environmental impact – avoiding sensitive zones, such as national parks – and at the same time make a substantial contribution to the country’s energy strategy. This research, which was financed by public funds and led to two published studies, is a model of scientific work. It should be a benchmark for policy making. Yet, despite its quality and usefulness, there has been no real response from the institutions that supported it.
Personally, I find this extremely disappointing – almost tragic. When knowledge is available but not used, an opportunity for meaningful planning that could combine environmental protection and energy progress is lost.
1 Callisto is an NGO specialised in the protection of large carnivors such as wolves, bears and lynx. https://callisto.gr/?lang=en
2 The Hellenic Zoological Society studies the geographical distribution and ecology of wild animals in Greece to foster their protection. https://www.hzoos.gr/en/about-us