Offshore Wind Consultation Report

March 2024

R.47/2024 (re-issue)

Re-issue Note: This report has been re-issued to include additional  consultation comments in the appendices.

Ministerial foreword

The prospect of an offshore wind farm being built in Jersey's waters was heavily trailed in both the Carbon Neutral Roadmap and the Bridging Island Plan. It is not a new idea but one which, if done the right way, could bring with it a multitude of economic and environmental benefits.

When the previous Environment Minister, Deputy Jonathan Renouf , announced in October 2023 that the Government of Jersey intended to progress such a project, it was a hugely significant moment.

Simultaneously, the Council of Ministers lodged a Proposition asking for States Members to give their in-principle support, to back the idea of a wind farm in an area off the south west of Jersey's coast.

It was quite right that the principle of such a major project was put to public consultation at an early stage – quite frankly if the Island isn't on board, then it is a non-starter.

We are thankful to the hundreds of Islanders who took part in the consultation or attended the many engagement events. Your views - whether positive, negative or somewhere in between - have been collated and have been considered as part of this report, which will help frame the upcoming States debate on the matter.

There is, overall, a great deal of positivity and excitement in the responses, but there are also those who are opposed to the idea. Both groups have concerns that we acknowledge and that will be addressed before any future project is given the green light. In the interests of transparency, as well as the summary of the feedback, the survey responses are also published in full.

We look forward to hearing what States Members have to say and hope the contents of this report proves useful ahead of our discussions in April.

Deputy Steve Luce

Minister for the Environment

Deputy Kirsten Morel Minister for Sustainable Economic Development

Contents

Introduction  4 Background  4

Vote of no confidence  5

Methodology  6 Summary  6

The Engagement Pyramid  6 Delivery of the consultation  7 The survey  7 Engagement activity to promote participation in the consultation  8 Consulting children and young people  9

Processing and collating data  11 Processing and collating data from the consultation survey  11

Data protection  11 Processing and collating responses from contributing stakeholders  12 Processing and collating data from consultation with children and young people  12 Responses from schools  12 Responses from youth projects  13

Findings  14 Analysis of survey responses  14

 Question 1  14 Question 2  14 Question 3  15 Question 4  17 Question 5  20  Question 6  27 Question 7  34  Question 8  38 Question 9  40  Question 10  40 Analysis of consultation responses from children and young people  41 Summary of findings  42 Summary of findings from children and young people  45

Analysis of stakeholder written responses  46 Government of France: Direction générale de l'énergie et du climat  46

Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners  47 Jersey Electricity plc  47 Marine Economy Group  47 National Trust for Jersey  48 Public Health Directorate  48 Rubis Channel Islands  49 Société Jersiaise Ornithology Section  49 Summary of stakeholder written submissions  50

Key consultation findings  51 Conclusion  53 Appendices  54 Appendix 1: Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) for P.82/2023 offshore wind  54

Appendix 2: Survey responses  69 Survey responses to Question 4  69  Survey responses to Question 5  95 Survey responses to Question 6  117 Survey responses to Question 7  150  Survey responses to Question 8  167 Appendix 3: GCSE Geography event responses  184 Appendix 4: Jersey Youth Parliament debate feedback  188 Appendix 5: Le Rocquier school responses  189 Appendix 6: Victoria College Preparatory School responses  193 Appendix 7: Stakeholder written responses  200

Introduction

Background

The consultation on Proposition p.82-2023[1] ran for 16 weeks from 10 November 2023 to 29 February 2024. This report summarises this process and analyses the responses received through the survey and from children and young people. The purpose of the consultation was to inform the States Members' debate on p.82-2023 as well as other discussions. The Proposition reads:

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion –

to agree that Jersey should pursue the opportunities arising from the development of an offshore wind farm in the south west of its territorial waters;

to agree that development of up to around 1000MW in provision should be encouraged in order to meet the needs of Islanders, to power the Island's future economy and to create energy for export; and

to request the Council of Ministers to bring forward appropriate policy and legislation before the end of 2024 to set in place a process to lease, provide consent for, regulate and safely decommission a wind farm.

The need to consult

Effective, inclusive engagement is a key priority for the Government of Jersey. The Government Engagement Framework is a good practice guide to assist in planning engagement and consultation activities, suggesting when and how to engage[2].

The framework was considered in relation to the issues raised by p.82-2023 to determine an appropriate approach to consultation. Consultation at the early in principle stage allowed for a wider range of feedback to be sought and considered.

Hearing the views of children and young people

The Government of Jersey values children's participation, and efforts were made to involve them in the consultation in ways that ensured they could engage effectively considering their age and maturity. Jersey, as a State Party, is accountable for upholding children's rights, as stated in Article 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child[3]. This involves creating systems and laws to safeguard these rights. An offshore wind farm could affect rights outlined in the United Nations Convention on

the Rights of the Child, either directly or indirectly:

• direct impacts are where the offshore wind project could directly impact children

• indirect impacts are where the offshore wind project will not directly impact children but will still affect them. This includes impacts on how others can meet their responsibilities for children.

The Children's Commissioner for Jersey previously provided guidance and advice on participation and engagement with children and young people in the development of the Carbon Neutral Roadmap. This guidance was used to frame how the views of children and young people were sought as part of this consultation.

A Child Rights Impact Assessment, found in Appendix 1, evaluates how an offshore wind farm might affect children's rights based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It will be updated at key stages if the project progresses.

Vote of no confidence

A vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister[4] occurred during the consultation period, leading to the selection of a new Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. During this transition, government activities followed election period guidelines, ensuring impartiality[5] .

Between the vote of no confidence and the formation of the new Council of Ministers, the consultation continued, and the survey remained open, but promotion and engagement sessions were temporarily halted. To account for that short period of limited activity, the consultation was extended until 29 February 2024 and engagement events were rescheduled.

Methodology

Summary

Both engagement and consultation methods were used:

• public engagement activities aimed to raise awareness and facilitate Islanders' understanding of the issues through methods such as public meetings, communications, and visual presentations

• consultation was a formal process to gather Islanders' opinions through a survey with both closed and open questions, available online and in print in multiple languages.

Engagement sessions did not collect Islanders' views directly. Instead, participants were directed to the consultation survey to express their opinions. However, children and young people's views were gathered directly through a separate process.

The Engagement Pyramid

The Engagement Pyramid[6], utilised in the Government Engagement Framework, simplifies the understanding of how people engage at different levels. It consists of four layers, ranging from low- level, lightweight engagement at the base to high-intensity, deep engagement at the top.

Typically, more individuals engage when the commitment required is lower, leading to a larger proportion situated in the lower half of the pyramid. However, achieving engagement at higher levels often necessitates personal relationships, which can be resource intensive. To gather diverse views on the Proposition, a mix of engagement tools across various levels were used to cater to different levels of interest and engagement.

The Engagement Pyramid and the consultation

At this stage in the offshore wind project the project sits at Level 2: Endorsing. The purpose of the consultation was to:

• take a temperature check on public opinion across a broad demographic (observing)

• ask the public about their views on the potential development of offshore wind and to raise public awareness/interest and assess whether Government is on the right track with their proposal (endorsing).

Delivery of the consultation

The consultation survey and supporting information were available in both English and Portuguese. The online surveys and supporting information were available on the gov.je website[7]. Printed copies of the survey and information in both languages were distributed to all Parish Hall s.

Various channels were used to promote and advertise the consultation, ensuring a wide awareness across different demographics. A detailed communications plan was developed to inform Islanders about the consultation process. Communications included the following tactics:

• social media posts on Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter) and LinkedIn

• information on the Government of Jersey website, including a link on the gov.je homepage

• video with the Minister for the Environment

• press release issued to the media

• Ministerial media interviews

• advertisements in the Jersey Evening Post (JEP)

• online adverts, including Google ads and JEP digital advertising

• digital screen advert in the Government of Jersey's Broad Street window

• radio presenter "talk-ups" on Channel 103

• posters in Parish Hall s.

The survey

The survey consisted of 10 questions.

• Questions 1 and 2 checked if respondents understood the supporting information provided

• Question 3 used a Likert scale to understand Islanders' views on four potential benefits from the scheme. A Likert scale is a type of psychometric measurement scale used to gauge respondents' attitudes or opinions by asking them to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a series of statements. This question was included because it is likely that trade-

offs will need to be made between these benefits and Islanders' views can be taken into consideration at this time; it has not been used to understand the level of support for or opposition to the scheme

• Questions 4 to 8 allowed respondents to provide detailed or concise answers to a series of prompts (these questions have been used to understand the level of support for the scheme)

• Questions 9 and 10 collected demographic information on age bracket and parish.

Engagement activity to promote participation in the consultation Engagement differs from consultation. The purpose of engagement in this instance is to draw attention

to the consultation and help Islanders to engage with the issues relevant to an offshore wind farm

being developed in the south west of Jersey's waters. Engagement activities ranged from public meetings, media communications and visual mock-ups. The purpose of engagement was to ensure a wide awareness of the consultation and participation in the survey, to make sure a breadth of views was gathered.

At least one meeting was held in every parish during the first half of the consultation period. Those attending such meetings were encouraged to complete the survey either online or in person. Support was available for those who required assistance in completing the survey.

The following engagement sessions were run during the period of the consultation:

• three public meetings were held which included a presentation followed by an opportunity to ask questions

• 12 drop-in question and answer sessions for the public where Islanders could ask questions

• two online presentations with question-and-answer sessions for stakeholder groups

• three in person presentations with question-and-answer sessions for stakeholder groups

• two in person drop-in question and answer sessions with the Portuguese community at local cafes with Portuguese Community Engagement freelancer.

Consulting children and young people

A number of methods were used to hear the views of children and young people, recognising different ages and levels of maturity. As a result, the responses of children and young people were recorded differently to those in the consultation survey. Some young people did choose to complete the consultation survey and in those instances their responses were analysed in the same way as the other survey responses.

Links to the consultation survey were sent to Jersey Youth Service who were asked to share the survey with their members. They were also offered the opportunity to host in-person engagement sessions. The following youth provisions requested an in-person engagement session.

Processing and collating data

Processing and collating data from the consultation survey

The online survey, in English and Portuguese, was created in SmartSurvey, a digital tool that is widely used in Government of Jersey consultations. To prevent the results from being unreasonably skewed by any one individual, the system allowed only one survey submission per device. A special survey link was created allowing for multiple responses to be entered on Government of Jersey devices that were taken to consultation engagement events for Islanders to use.

• 959 responses using the English online survey

• six responses using the Portuguese online survey - text responses were put through an online translation app

• 14 online surveys were submitted using the special survey link

• six paper copies of the English survey were received

• three paper copies of the Portuguese survey were received.

Officers in the Infrastructure and Environment department developed a methodology coding structure to theme responses for each of the survey questions that asked for a text response. Dedicated officers then read each response and used the coding system to categorise responses in accordance with the methodology. These officers also carried out any necessary redaction. The coded data was then quality checked independently by a senior officer in Infrastructure and Environment. The outputs from each question have then been summarised in this report. In addition, where possible, AI was used to confirm the themes identified for questions. This approach confirmed the themes that had been manually identified.

All redacted responses are published in Appendix 2. They are in question order and then the responses are sorted alphabetically to ensure it is not possible to identify respondents through the thread of their answers.

Data protection

Before launching the consultation, a Data Protection Impact Assessment was conducted. Responses were securely stored in a password-protected Microsoft Excel file. Trained officers, independent of result analysis, redacted free text responses to eliminate any personal information or information that would make a respondent identifiable. Offensive language was redacted using the Ofcom guide[8], excluding mild expressions unlikely to cause concern. The redacted survey responses, including translations, are in Appendix 2. To ensure anonymity, results are published by question, with free text responses alphabetically sorted. This approach prevents attributing answers to any individual or creating a traceable "data breadcrumb." The process aligns with data protection measures, safeguarding respondent privacy throughout the consultation.

Processing and collating responses from contributing stakeholders

Stakeholders were identified and targeted specifically for additional input in the consultation. These stakeholders submitted written responses to the consultation (listed alphabetically):

1. Government of France: Direction générale de l'énergie et du climat
2. Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners
3. Jersey Electricity plc
4. Marine Economy Group
5. National Trust for Jersey
6. Public Health Directorate
7. Rubis Channel Islands
8. Société Jersiaise Ornithology section

Processing and collating data from consultation with children and young people

Consultation with children and young people was primarily carried out with schools. Schools were asked to send through consultation responses ensuring that any personal or identifiable information was not included.

Responses from schools

GCSE Geography event

184 young people took part in the GCSE Geography event. The offshore wind consultation session was one of the workshops at the event. All attendees took part in each workshop.

The workshop included a short presentation followed by an interactive version of the survey using the app Slido, which is an interactive digital platform. There was a separate but identical Slido session for each of the workshop groups. Each participant was invited to log onto Slido using their own device or an iPad loaned by the school. Slido responses were all anonymous.

Following the result all the responses were combined in Microsoft Excel. Due to time constraints the free text questions in the survey were replaced with word clouds (Appendix 3).

The following schools participated:

• Les Quennevais Year 10 & Year 11 GCSE Geography students

• Haute Vallee Year 10 & Year 11 GCSE Geography students

• Beaulieu Year 10 GCSE Geography students.

• De La Salle Year 10 GCSE Geography students

• Grainville Year 10 GCSE Geography students

• Hautlieu Year 10 GCSE Geography students.

All attendees were reminded that they could complete the online survey if they wanted to.

Le Rocquier consultation session

All Year 9 pupils at Le Rocquier School along with their Year 10 GCSE Geography students attended a session in the school hall. The offshore wind consultation session included a short presentation. Students then returned to their classroom to complete a survey designed by the school. Feedback was collated by the school and analysed by Year 10 Geography students and then emailed through as an Excel spreadsheet.

The school organised a focus group of eight students.

All attendees were reminded that they could complete the online survey if they wanted to.

Victoria College Preparatory School Year 6 responses

The school ran their own consultation session for pupils in Year 6. They devised their own survey and emailed the results through in an Excel spreadsheet.

Beaulieu School Year 10 responses

Beaulieu school held a debate in Year 10 science. The outcome of the debate was emailed by the teacher.

Responses from youth projects

First Tower Youth Project

Young people were invited to make windmills as an art and craft activity during a busy Friday evening youth club session. They discussed the Proposition while making their windmills. They were shown images including the photo realistic image and a photo taken in First Tower of the existing St Brieuc wind farm, taken during the month before the session. 15 young people joined in with activity and shared their thoughts informally.

Jersey Youth Parliament

11 Members of Jersey Youth Parliament participated in a debate on the Offshore Wind Farm. Members were split into two teams. The young people were given the information that was on the consultation page of the Government of Jersey website, including the photo realistic image. They were provided with laptops so that they could do their own research. One group was asked to argue in support of the Proposition and the other group against it. The Senior Youth Worker emailed through their results which can be found in Appendix 4.

Findings

Analysis of survey responses

The consultation survey was completed by 988 Islanders. The redacted survey responses can be found in Appendix 2.

Question 1

Were you able to read the supporting information before taking the survey? 95% of respondents read the supporting information before taking the survey.

No 5%

Yes 95%

Question 2

How much of the information do you feel you understood?

89% of respondents understood most or all of the supporting information.

5%

6%

I did not read it

45% I did not understand any of it

I understood a little

I understood most

44% I understood it completely

Question 3

Developing offshore wind presents several possible benefits for Jersey. How important are the following to you?

A. More energy security because we would be able to agree prices over the longer-term

70

60 57%

50

40

30 24%

20

10 7% 3% 4% 5%

0

Very important Fairly important Neither important Not very Not at all Don't know (I nor unimportant important important need more

information)

100% of respondents answered Question 3a.

81% of respondents considered the potential of having greater energy security due to being able to agree prices over the longer-term a very important or fairly important possible benefit.

2. Creating enough energy to export, which could help grow Jersey's economy and create good jobs

50 45%

45

40

35 29% 30

25

20

15

10 7% 4% 9% 6%

5

0

Very important Fairly important Neither important Not very Not at all Don't know (I nor unimportant important important need more

information)

100% of respondents answered Question 3b.

74% of respondents considered the potential of creating enough energy to export, which couldin turn help grow Jersey's economy and create good jobs as a very important or fairly important possible benefit.

3. Additional income for the public purse, such as new tax revenues

45

41%

40

35

30%

30

25

20

15

11%

10 6% 6% 6%

5

0

Very important Fairly important Neither important Not very Not at all Don't know (I nor unimportant important important need more

information)

100% of respondents answered Question 3c.

71% of respondents considered the potential of additional income for the public purse, such as new tax revenues, as a very important or fairly important possible benefit.

4. Securing our access to low carbon energy and helping other countries reduce their fossil fuel use

70

59%

60

50

40

30

20 17%

9%

10 6% 4% 5%

0

Very important Fairly important Neither important Not very Not at all Don't know (I nor unimportant important important need more

information)

100% of respondents answered Question 3d.

76% of respondents considered the potential of securing our access to low carbon energy and helping other countries reduce their fossil fuel use as a very important or fairly important possible benefit.

Question 4

Do you have any particular opinions about how a wind farm would be funded that are important to you?

62% of respondents provided a response to this question There was no limit placed on the amount of text that could be included in response to this question, respondents were able to write as much or as little as they wanted.

Question 4 focused on funding but some responses expressed opinions that did not address issues relating to funding a wind farm. The survey presented other opportunities to comment on these issues, so they were disregarded in response to Question 4.

The funding model

52% of those who responded to Question 4 indicated their preferred funding model.

Prefered funding model

20%

16% Solely private

Mainly private

Private public partnership 22% Mainly public

Solely public

33%

Of all the models, a private public partnership was proposed the most (33%). If solely private and mainly private were combined then that category would have been the most popular (42%), but mainly private suggests a degree of government funding hence the categories remaining separate. Comments suggest that Islanders are keen to see the government retain some control but due to the investment required a private partnership was seen as a more pragmatic solution.

"Private-public partnership to ensure that the Government of Jersey still retains some control, but that private investors can fund the building/some shares in the wind farm so the public purse is not hit too hard."

"Could this be on a similar basis to the JEC with the states being the majority share holder."

"a public private partnership with the public funding being secured through a sovereign bond issuance into

debt capital markets".

"I would support the use of public funds or subsidy in addition to private funding. This is a critical investment in

Jersey's future."

"This could be funded by an insetting programme where companies who are headquartered in Jersey, rather than offsetting in projects across the world, could 'inset' by investing long term into the funding of the windfarm. The only issue with this is that many corporate organisations are already strides ahead for Government as far as decarbonising their operations and there is a risk that they will be carbon neutral or net zero before the funds are

raised and therefore limiting the availability of funds."

Preference for private funding

Many respondents favoured private funding for the wind farm project, either solely (20%) or mainly (22%). Respondents who supported private funding empha ised the expertise and resources that private investors bring to large-scale energy projects like wind farms. They highlighted the importance of private investors in bearing the risks associated with development, financing, and construction.

"Private developers are better placed to take the risks associated with developing, financing and building an

offshore wind farm".

Other benefits to private funding included the efficiency and accountability of private funding mechanisms. Respondents expressed confidence in the motivation of private investors, who are driven by financial returns.

"I feel that it should be privately funded, and that as much as possible of the construction and maintence [sic] is done by islanders, with training (ie apprenticeships offered to local people), to make our workforce more diverse."

Some respondents also pointed out that private funding could lead to faster project implementation and reduce the reliance on public resources. They argued that private investors are more adept at navigating the complexities of large-scale infrastructure projects.

"This needs to be led by the private sector. The role of Government is create the right conditions for the project to succeed by have a clear permitting regime and an eatablihsed [sic] route to market, offering developpers [sic] certainty and faster lead times than other potential sites. This will help make us attractive in an otherwise difficult market for wind power."

Respondents stressed the economic benefits of the wind farm project, including job creation, revenue generation, and long-term financial viability. They suggested exploring various funding options, such as infrastructure funds and financing through local banks.

"Across the UK several wind farms have been created and funded in numerous ways. These include infrastructure funds and through financing. We have world leading banks on the island that could help us to consider these options and funding requirements."

Preference for public funding

Public funding either solely (8%) or majority (16%) were slightly less popular. Comments supporting public ownership felt the income generated should come back into the public purse and that a public entity would ensure the cost of electricity to Islanders could be controlled.

"I believe it should be funded by the population via the States directly, OR via a state-owned utility, so that islanders benefit in the long run, as opposed to external commercial funders."

"Government Funded so as to control ownership and pricing."

However, several respondents expressed scepticism about public funding for the project, citing concerns about the financial burden on taxpayers and the risks associated with investing public resources. They argued that public funds should be used judiciously and that private investors would be better suited to bear the risks of large-scale infrastructure projects.

"Must be no cost to the taxpayer"

"I think private investment is the only way to go, due to the amount of money required and the expertise needed"

Others questioned the feasibility and sustainability of relying on public funding, especially given the uncertainties surrounding the project's economic viability and long-term returns. They called for careful consideration of alternative funding mechanisms that minimise the exposure of taxpayers to financial risks.

"Jersey should seek investment partners and competitive tenders so the burden does not fall heavily on taxpayers"

Investment opportunities for Islanders and Jersey-based businesses

A number of respondents suggested a funding model that allowed for Islanders and Jersey-based businesses to invest.

"I think the public should be given a chance to invest in the windfarm project - perhaps through a form of government bond that pays back over the generation lifetime of the project. It would give islanders an opportunity to become really part of the project and reduce the perception that profit is being siphoned off island"

"Because of the very significant level of investment needed, and the significant risks associated with that investment, it is proposed that the wind farm should be privately funded and built by companies that have substantial experience of similar development elsewhere. THIS SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT LOCAL PEOPLE FROM INVESTING IN THE PROJECT"

Alignment with values

Some respondents emphasised the need to align the project with Jersey's economic, environmental, and social values. They advocated for funding mechanisms that prioritise transparency, accountability, and consideration of local priorities.

"Encourage local private investment. Ensure we are clear in our "values", economic, environmental and social."

"I would sincerely hope that it would be funded by organisations that have NO fossil fuel connections".

In summary, there was support for private funding due to its efficiency and accountability, but concern that a solely private funded project would offer limited benefits to the Island. Respondents stressed the need for sound due diligence, ethical funding sources, and alignment with local values and priorities. Public funding elicited more of a mixed response, although popular with some for reasons of control, concerns were raised about the potential risks associated with public funding. A private public partnership model was the most popular with appropriate safeguards in place. There was a strong desire for opportunities enabling local people and businesses to invest in the project.

Question 5

If there are things that particularly excite you about the proposed development of offshore wind, please let us know here.

71% of respondents answered Question 5, while 29% skipped it.

Respondents could write as much or as little as they wanted. The question asked for detail around what particularly excited the respondent, so responses were expected to be mostly positive. Among those who responded:

• 68% were positive

• 24% were negative

• 8% were neutral, neither positive nor negative.

The top five things that excited people were:

• production of renewable energy

• energy independence

• taking action on climate change / reducing carbon emissions

• income generated

• new jobs in the Island.

Production of renewable energy

Production of renewable energy was the most popular thing that excited Islanders in response to Question6. 23% of Islanders who responded to this question expressed very positive views regarding the potential of an offshore wind farm to produce renewable energy for Jersey. It was widely considered that renewable energy would diversify our economy, enhance sustainability, and security. They were mainly excited by:

Offshore wind enabling Jersey to transition to renewable energy sources which would benefit the environment.

"This is clearly the way we should be moving. I fully support renewable energy. I appreciate this is the most viable option for Jersey at the moment. I like we are keeping future opportunities on the table. I am not comfortable with nuclear energy. Exporting something renewable is great and could put Jersey in a positive light as well as helping with global decarbonisation. I like the look of wind farms - this one seems hardly visible anyway in the image and it says that is on a clear day. I think there is potential for these to work as marine protected areas as people won't be able to trawl in the zone."

There was a strong emphasis on the benefits of achieving energy independence and security for the Island. There were concerns about our current reliance on imported energy, particularly from France. The wind farm was seen as a solution to mitigate this risk.

"Our ability to be self sufficient in a more resilient way than ever before whilst harvesting energy that will be

cleaner than anything before."

Respondents see the wind farm as not only a source of clean energy but also as a potential economic boon for Jersey. They mentioned revenue generation from selling the surplus energy, the creation of new jobs in the energy production sector and the diversification of the economy.

"Locally sourced grid scale power is good for Jersey The prospect of a renewable power economy the Island would be great for opening up alternative career options as well as placing Jersey on the global map for a forward thinking environmentally conscious jurisdiction."

Many expressed excitement about Jersey embracing renewable energy technologies and taking a leadership role in sustainability efforts. They see the production of renewable energy as an opportunity for innovation, progress, and positive international recognition.

"I think it is an unbelievable opportunity to leave the traditional energy methods behind and embrace renewable

clean energy It's a no brained [sic] to enhance nature for our benefit I would also support tidal energy too".

"

Energy independence

23% of respondents to Question 5 emphasised the importance of energy security, particularly in light of past incidents where energy supply from France was threatened during disputes. Such threats highlighted the vulnerability of relying on external sources for energy and the need for Jersey to have control over its own energy supply.

"The ability to secure our own energy and not reliant on French state (which by its recent threats to our energy has not only shown itself an unreliable partner, but also one which seeks leverage over us). We would be able to be a good neighbour by exporting our energy to our Europen [sic] network neighbours."

Achieving energy independence was seen as a crucial aspect of maintaining Jersey's sovereignty and autonomy. By generating our own energy, it was felt that Jersey could reduce our reliance on external entities and have greater control over our energy policies and resources.

"Energy security for the island Less reliance on France Low carbon option"

Respondents were excited that energy independence could ensure stability and reliability in the face of potential disruptions or fluctuations in global energy markets. By diversifying our energy sources and investing in renewable energy infrastructure, Jersey could ensure a steady and secure supply of electricity for Islanders and businesses, even during times of geopolitical tension or economic uncertainty.

"Energy security in a destabilising world. Reduced reliance on hydrocarbons"

Some comments mentioned a desire to implement grid-scale storage solutions, such as battery

storage or hydrogen production, to enhance the reliability and efficiency of renewable energy systems. Using these technologies to store excess energy generated during peak production periods, could ensure a stable and consistent energy supply even when renewable sources were not actively generating electricity.

"The opportunity to have a low carbon supply of power, which could be made more resilient by implementing grid scale storage (whether that is battery, sodium salt or another method), so we can be independent from issues caused by disputes beyond the island's control, is something that can only be good for our island, economy, environment and workforce."

Developing renewable energy infrastructure could present an opportunity for Jersey to become a hub for engineering and innovation in the renewable energy sector. Respondents commented that this

could attract skilled professionals and investment to the Island, fostering economic growth and creating job opportunities in emerging fields related to renewable energy technology and development.

"Most of the people we know are supportive of the need to be more energy independent in light of growing world political and economic instability. Increasing economic diversity is essential in Jersey not just for wealth creation

and maintaining the public sector but also for employment opportunities. Keeping electricity affordable, ensuring supply and moving away from fossil fuel dependency shouldn't just be laudable ambitions they should be regarded as essential. Jersey must be seen as a forward looking economy to maintain and develop future investment. Jersey is well placed to maximise the potential for renewables ie; wind but also future investment in tide and wave technologies. The creation and development of a engineering hub would be exciting for the younger and future generations."

Investing in renewable energy infrastructure was considered a proactive measure to ensure long-term sustainability and prosperity for Jersey. By embracing renewable energy technologies and reducing its reliance on fossil fuels, Jersey could future-proof our energy supply, mitigate environmental risks, and position our Island as a leader in sustainable development and resilience planning.

I think the island is tremendously well-placed to exploit its natural resources (in particular the wind and tide) and I think we should do this - to generate clean energy, to go some way towards "future-proofing" our energy

supply and to reduce our reliance on France for energy. I think we have to play our part in tackling the climate crisis - we are a wealthy island and we have no plausible excuse not to.

Developing renewable energy infrastructure could provide economic stability by diversifying Jersey's economy and reducing our dependence on any single industry, such as finance. Respondents suggested that this could help safeguard against fluctuations in global markets and ensure a more balanced and resilient economy for the Island.

"I think as an island we are in a fantastic position to take advantage of offshore wind. Whilst the majority of the energy we get from France is from renewable sources, it is very important for us to have a secure supply of our own to help our energy security. If the project is successful we will also have a potential new source of income to the island, which will reduce our reliance on sectors such as finance to support our economy."

Tackling climate change, reducing carbon emissions

15% of respondents were excited by the potential for offshore wind to reduce carbon emissions or help tackle the climate crisis. The responses reflected a strong commitment to environmental sustainability, renewable energy, and reducing carbon emissions in Jersey. Common thoughts regarding climate change and reducing emissions in these responses included:

Excitement about becoming carbon negative or carbon neutral: There was a palpable enthusiasm among respondents regarding the prospect of Jersey achieving carbon negativity or neutrality. This excitement reflected a shared commitment to environmental sustainability and signified a desire to actively participate in combating climate change. The aspiration to reach such milestones indicates a recognition of the urgency of addressing environmental issues and a willingness to take significant steps towards a more sustainable future.

"I'm exited [sic] to see Jersey become a step closer being a carbon Negative Island."

Desire to combat climate change and reduce carbon footprint: Within this theme, there was a clear consensus on the importance of combating climate change and reducing carbon emissions, many emphasised the need for swift action. Respondents expressed a sense of responsibility towards future generations and a recognition of the global impact of carbon emissions. The desire to reduce our carbon footprint underscored a commitment to environmental stewardship and a determination to contribute positively to addressing the climate crisis.

"I see this as a great opportunity for Jersey not only to provide clean energy for own use but to contribute to the overall pool of clean energy. The current electricity the island receives from France would then be largely available to other users reducing their use on energy supplied from the burning of fossil fuels. I think it is vital that Jersey sticks to its net zero policy and achieves this in the fastest time possible and demonstrates that it takes the climate emergency very seriously. To be a leader in this surely must enhance the Islands reputation around the world. We owe it to future generations for the decision on this not to be influenced to doubters, the

mis-informed or those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry, but based on fact, if we do not how might

history judge us. Adding to this energy security and potential economic benefits it's seem a no brainer not to pursue this exciting potential."

Support for renewable energy sources to protect the environment: The support for renewable energy sources, such as wind and tidal power, emerged as a key component of efforts to protect the environment. Respondents recognised the potential of renewable energy to mitigate climate change by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Some respondents were excited that exporting renewable energy would help other countries to decarbonise more rapidly. This support reflected an understanding of the need for sustainable energy solutions to safeguard the planet's natural resources and ecosystems.

"Sustainability - combat climate change and do our bit on a more global scale and not just for our island. Opportunities for jobs and career development in an industry that matters and makes a real difference Being an

exporter of renewables With a postive [sic] return on investment - how can the govt take that positive return and invest in Jersey and accelerate the CNR? There are so many positive things that could be acheived [sic] with more

revenue for the island. And this takes the pressure off the declining tourism and financial sector. indeed use rhe [sic] income to boost these very areas back up?"

Income generation

12% of respondents to Question 5 expressed a multitude of positive sentiments regarding the income generation potential from the project. Some key points highlighted were:

Economic Boost: Participants emphasised the economic benefits derived from the sale of energy, foreseeing it as a significant source of revenue for the Island.

"This is a hugely beneficial thing for the Island. There are a significant number of very positive benifits [sic] as listed in the supporting information. The generation of jobs alone is of huge value to the islands. The additional revenue is also significant and cannot be overlooked."

Revenue Generation and Investment Opportunities: In addition to the sale of energy, respondents viewed the project as a valuable opportunity to generate additional income for the Island, potentially surpassing revenue from sectors like finance. They also highlighted the potential for investment and the creation of new industries.

"Another income stream for Jersey through taxation. Another export other than finance including more local jobs. Ability to transition to low carbon forms of transport and heating. Opportunities to utilise low carbon energy for other currently energy intensive sectors e.g. indoor vertical farming, IT infrastructure and server farms."

Tax reduction: They also noted the potential for reducing the tax burden on residents through government income generated from the project.

"This offshore wind farm is a unique, once in a generation, opportunity for the island to prepare its sustainable and prosperous future. If delivered successfully the wind farm can provide the following:

• Improved energy security through reduced reliance on French supply. A second option for the supply of low- carbon power also improves Jersey's negotiating position.

• Long-term electricity price certainty. French supply does not come with a 20 year price agreement and the

island is likely to be exposed to greater price volatility when it comes to renegotiate the supply contract in 2027.

• Fiscal income to the island's treasury through lease payments and tax revenues directly from the wind farm's operations and indirectly from other local activities.

• Economic diversification by providing a new sector for Jersey's businesses to service the island's wind farm and export their services to offshore wind projects across Europe.

• Skilled jobs and retention of talent. This new sector will provide opportunities for Jersey's graduates and the skilling up of the local workforce.

• Ancillary industries and investments. The development of an offshore wind farm will create associated

investments to improve the local port and grid. It could also catalyse ancillary industries such as aquaculture and data centres. The EU has set out clear and ambitious targets for offshore wind and will welcome the additional generation from Jersey which will contribute to its net zero plans. Interconnecting power markets is a strategic objective of the EU to achieve its renewable targets and Jersey is strategically placed in close proximity

to the EU and UK markets to be able to contribute to both."

Job creation and economic diversification

The generation of jobs was emphasised as a significant benefit, contributing to economic diversification and providing opportunities for the local workforce. Respondents saw the project as a means to revitalise industries and boost the Island's economy.

"I would be very pleased to see a wind farm in our waters and to know that this contributes to our energy

security and the provision of green jobs and long-term income for the Island."

Creating more skilled jobs was seen as a very important benefit from the project.

"Possibility of the venture requiring skilled local labour including engineers and technicians. Definite potential for making good careers for locals on a large project. Plus the need for management and maintenance staff giving more high skill, green energy jobs"

Responses to Question 5 elicited very positive responses, particularly concerning the production of renewable energy. Key themes emerged, which emphasised the importance of renewable energy production, energy independence, climate change mitigation, income generation, and long-term benefits for the Island.

Respondents suggested that a wind farm could be a crucial step towards diversifying Jersey's energy sources and reducing reliance on imported energy. They highlighted the potential for the wind farm to enhance energy security, stabilise electricity prices, and provide a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.

Furthermore, there was a strong consensus on the need to combat climate change and reduce carbon emissions, with many expressing excitement about Jersey's potential to achieve net zero through renewable energy initiatives.

Economically, the wind farm was seen as a significant opportunity for income generation, job creation, and economic diversification. Respondents anticipated revenue from energy sales, investment opportunities, and the creation of new industries, which could help alleviate tax burdens and boost the Island's economy in the long term.

Question 6

If there are things that particularly concern you about the proposed development of offshore wind, please let us know here.

70% of respondents answered Question 6, while 30% skipped it. Respondents could write as much or as little as they wanted. The question asked for detailed concerns, so responses were expected to be mostly negative. Among those who responded:

• 14% were positive

• 65% were negative

• 14% were neutral, neither positive nor negative.

The top five areas of concern were:

• environmental concerns especially relating to the impact on wildlife

• cost and funding of the project

• lack of trust in government

• visual impact

• speed of construction.

Environmental concerns especially relating to the impact on wildlife

The potential impact on the environment was the key concern raised in response to Question 6. 35% of Islanders who responded to this question raised an environmental concern. The comments regarding the environmental impacts conveyed a range of concerns, with a predominantly negative sentiment.

The impact on birds was a very common concern, with birds referenced in 12% of responses to this question. There is a consensus among many respondents that the wind farm project could have negative consequences for bird species in the area, particularly those that migrate through or inhabit the surrounding marine environment. However, there were also suggestions for mitigating these impacts to minimise harm to bird populations.

The main concerns regarding birds were:

Concern for bird migration routes: Some comments expressed concern about the wind farm's location along important bird migration routes. There was worry that the turbines could pose a risk to migratory birds.

" The site is in the middle of the Eastern European flyway for bird migration. Most migrating seabirds fly

through the middle of this site, there are hundreds of thousands biannually"

Potential bird fatalities: Several responses mentioned the risk of bird strikes, with concerns raised about the number of birds that could be killed or injured by the turbines. The scale of bird fatalities was highlighted as a significant environmental concern associated with the wind farm.

"It is well known that these turbines kill birds and affect sea life and that there are massive repercussions with

this."

Advocacy for mitigation measures: A few comments advocated for implementing mitigation measures to reduce the impact on bird life, such as shutting down turbines during peak migration periods or using deterrents to prevent bird collisions with the turbines.

"|I support the development, however I believe the construction should be done with the latest science in mind when it comes to wildlife. For example, the option to shut down during big migration events, deterring birds and marine life (e.g. bubble curtains) and other mitigation practices which are currently being used worldwide when

constructing wind farms."

Acknowledgment of environmental impact: Some respondents acknowledged the potential harm to bird populations but weighed that against the broader benefits of renewable energy. They emphasised the need for comprehensive environmental assessments to understand and mitigate the impact on birds.

"Environmental impacts will need to be assessed, and any potentially negative impacts mitigated wherever

possible"

Impacts on other wildlife were also of significant concern. Many comments expressed concerns about the potential impact on marine life, including fish stocks and seabed habitats. The disruption to marine ecosystems was highlighted as a potentially significant environmental consequence of the wind farm.

"What measures will be taken to ensure minimal damage to the sea bed and all the fish etc that live there? Is there more that can be done to make this an environmental success, both in terms of sustainable energy and de- carbonising but also in terms of protecting the ecosystem?"

Several respondents raised concerns about the disturbance to marine habitats caused by the construction and operation of the wind farm. They expressed worry about damage to the seabed and the loss of important feeding and breeding grounds for marine species.

"Bats could also be affected. And if the sea floor is disrupted, this would have a negative effect on sea life on which the ecosystem depends. Hydrocaustic noise from the operation of these turbines would disrupt marine mammals' communication"

Some comments suggested implementing mitigation measures to minimise the impact on wildlife, such as conducting biodiversity surveys before, during, and after construction and ensuring ongoing monitoring of marine ecosystems.

" I also know that the construction phase is detrimental to marine biology, we need to ensure that we are very careful and respectful of this. We also need to conduct ongoing annual marine biodiversity surveys, before, during and after construction"

A few responses acknowledged the need to balance environmental concerns with economic considerations. They emphasised the importance of assessing the environmental impact against the potential economic benefits of the wind farm project.

"The only concern I would have would be the impact on marine ecology. I would hope to see a full environmental impact assessment completed prior to any construction taking place. The impact on the marine

environment would however need to be weighted agains the need all developed nations have to decarbonise as quickly as possible."

In summary, there was some recognition that the wind farm project could have both positive and negative environmental consequences. Renewable energy was seen by some respondents as beneficial for reducing carbon emissions, but there were many concerns raised about the potential harm to local wildlife and ecosystems. Opinions varied regarding the impact of the wind farm on other wildlife, with some respondents expressing significant concerns about potential ecological disruptions. Much emphasis was placed on the importance of environmental impact assessments, highlighting the need for careful planning and mitigation to minimise any adverse effects.

Concerns regarding the cost or funding of the project

23% of respondents to Question 6 raised concerns about the costs or funding of the project. The funding model was considered in-depth in Question 4. The main concerns regarding finances, cost and other financial aspects of the proposed wind farm project in Jersey include:

Cost effectiveness: Many expressed doubts about the cost-effectiveness of the project, questioning whether the benefits will outweigh the expenses. There were concerns about the potential financial burden on taxpayers and the overall return on investment.

"Similar projects in other jurisdictions are not cost effective in the slightest, and end up costing the public in

subsidies which Jersey would do well to avoid."

Funding and economic viability: Individuals raised numerous questions about the funding sources for the project and its economic viability.

Some respondents expressed doubt about whether the project would generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs and provide long-term benefits. There were concerns that if the government does not secure appropriate funding there will be a potential financial burden on taxpayers.

"Additionally, I feel deeply concerned by the "selling point" within the consultation that suggests that the economics and viability of the project are very much based on the notion of exporting the electricity produced to France/Europe"

Financial risks and uncertainties: Several comments highlighted the risks and uncertainties associated with the project's financial aspects. Concerns included the possibility of cost overruns, changes in market conditions affecting energy prices, and the long-term financial sustainability of the project.

In addition to this, the reliability of wind energy as a sustainable and cost-effective source of electricity was questioned.

"I need to understand a lot more about where the latency-period ( no wind) electricity would come from. I assume France. What impact would a wind farm have on electricity supply price from France? Will the resulting power price be lower for consumers than the current 100% coming from France"

Ownership and control: This was a key area of concern and has been considered comprehensively in response to Question 4. There were worries about the involvement of private companies in the project and the potential loss of control over energy prices and supply. Some expressed concerns about the government's ability to negotiate favourable terms and protect the interests of taxpayers.

Consultation and transparency: Many comments criticised the consultation process for not providing enough information about the project's financial aspects at this in-principle stage. There were concerns about transparency and the need for more detailed financial analysis to assess the project's feasibility and potential impacts on the Island's economy.

The funding model is considered in more detail in response to Question 4. The other main concerns regarding finances revolved around the cost-effectiveness, funding sources, economic viability, government spending and accountability, financial risks, ownership and control, and the transparency of the consultation process.

Concerns regarding a lack of trust in government

14% of respondents expressed a wide range of concerns regarding their lack of trust in the government's involvement in various aspects of the wind farm project, drawing parallels with past projects such as the hospital project. Some key concerns include:

Lack of economic maturity in negotiations: Concerns were raised about the government's ability to negotiate favourable commercial contracts that benefit the Island economically while protecting the environment. There were additional worries about the cost of the project and potential exploitation by others involved such as the private sector or other larger jurisdictions. Some raised doubts about the economic viability of the wind farm.

"My concern would be taking a shortsighted [sic] view of the project and allowing for it to be majority privately owned, which would ultimately result in the Government having to negotiate for the purchase of electricity and

the private entities profit elements being passed on as cost to the islanders."

Government's track record: Lack of trust in the government's ability to manage large projects efficiently, potential mismanagement of contracts and concerns about government's slow decision- making processes. This included concerns regarding risk management.  

"The government and civil service have clearly demonstrated they cannot deal with large projects successfully, without endless amounts of taxpayer money being poured down the drain. This will be no different. The contracting developers will run rings round the Minister and his team".

There was also scepticism regarding the government's vision and ability to undertake and stick to large infrastructure projects, given past political instability and indecision. Questions were asked regarding the government's track record of delivering on major projects.

Jersey public sector has a poor record of major infrastructure projects. Thi [sic] is the greatest threat to the

project.

Some were concerned that taxpayer money could be wasted due to political interference and inefficiency.

"Only how the 'Our Hospital' project has devolved into a horrendous mess because of political evolvement. If the assembly is minded to approve the project, funding mechanisms up to X, and subject to any constraints upon a developer - that and future assemblies must go 'hands off' and let the market fill the gap thereafter and not meddle or interfere. Most importantly it shouldn't be a 'government led' project."

Transparency and consultation process: There were concerns about transparency in the decision- making process and the need for timely action rather than prolonged consultations.  

"Political uncertainty hampering the process. While this council of ministers might approve the proposition, future politicians may not like the project and ask for a change or amendment etc, and delay the process and put off the various market players required to get such a project started."

Ownership and control: This was covered in more detail in Question 4. But respondents to Question 6 raised noticeable concerns about off-island ownership and control of the project. There was also concern about the potential lack of local involvement and job creation.

Climate crisis response: Concerns about the government's response to the climate crisis and the effectiveness of the wind farm project in addressing energy needs while balancing environmental concerns.

"Slow speed of decision making worries me. This is critical to our climate efforts and our continued

independence."

Some respondents expressed a strong sense of scepticism and apprehension regarding the government's handling of the wind farm project. They cited past projects and a perceived lack of accountability and transparency as their primary concerns.

There were worries about the ability of the Government of Jersey to secure adequate funding and negotiate favourable contracts. There was also scepticism about the government's ability to manage contracts.

Concerns regarding the visual impact

13% of respondents to Question 6 expressed concerns about the negative visual impact of the wind turbines, particularly on iconic landmarks like St Ouen's Bay and Corbière Lighthouse. They voiced concerns that the turbines will ruin the natural beauty of the Island and become an eyesore on the horizon. Some suggested considering alternative locations to minimise the visual impact on the Island's coastline.

"I just hope the offshore farm will be tasteful and not too industrial".

Several respondents expressed concerns about the potential negative impact on tourism and the overall quality of life for residents.

"Yes, the location. Why have it right behind one of jersey [sic] most iconic locations. this will have a massive impact on the natural beauty of the island which will then have a knock on effect for other industries such as tourism."

In contrast there were a few comments that suggested a not in my back yard' agenda would be a response they expected to see and raised concerns that this could impact the project proceeding.

"Educating the "nimby"s [sic] about the benefits of the proposal before they derail the project."

In summary, respondents are concerned about the visual impact of a wind farm and the impact it will have on Jersey's natural beauty.

Concerns regarding the speed of construction

9% of respondents to Question 6 raised concerns regarding the speed or pace of the project. There

was a strong sense of urgency and frustration among the public regarding the pace of progress on the wind farm project. Respondents indicated a clear desire for swift and decisive action to address both environmental concerns and Jersey's energy security needs.

"My concern lies at the sluggish pace at which the island is progressing with securing energy security."

Respondents expressed frustration over a potentially slow and lengthy planning process. They pointed to other government projects, such as the hospital, as examples of slow moving and delayed projects.

"None - just get on with it (although I realise that the legal and construction phase will take many years). Can we not make this another hospital saga and still be discussing it in ten years time when the rest of the world has passed us by."

There were additional concerns about government inefficiency, bureaucratic red tape, and the potential for cost overruns. It was also considered that political interference and uncertainty could hinder progress and lead to further delays. However, there was an emphasis on the need for transparency in the selection process for companies involved in the project and a call for decisive action rather than prolonged deliberation.

"Political uncertainty hampering the process. While this council of ministers might approve the proposition, future politicians may not like the project and ask for a change or amendment etc, and delay the process and put off the various market players required to get such a project started."

Some respondents wanted to see fast action and for the project to be treated with urgency due to the climate crisis. There were concerns that delaying key decisions and implementation could exacerbate environmental issues.

"I understand the decision to make such a large investment needs to be made with care however with the current pace of environmental changes I'm not sure taking several years just to come to a conclusion is wise. With the nature of our coast lines [sic] and weather, jersey should already have been using wind and tidal power"

There were also concerns that potential opposition groups and those more resistant to change would delay or derail the project.

"That it won't get built and end up in permanent limbo like the hospital because it'll "spoil" someone's view".

There were also concerns about wasting time and unnecessary delays. It was felt that much of the necessary research has already been conducted and similar projects have been successfully completed elsewhere. Some respondents seemed anxious about missing out on opportunities and falling behind other regions in the development of renewable energy sources.

"I am concerned by the words used in this survey "a decision to proceed with a wind farm will not be taken for several years" This is poor thinking and dare I say typically "Jersey" - delaying a decision will put us out of the

running given global demand for turbines. There are far bigger projects that would take priority if a decision is not made within a year. Jersey will miss the boat'!"

In summary, respondents were concerned about the speed of the project and were concerned that it would take longer than necessary to deliver.

Question 7

At this initial stage, in one sentence, how would you summarise your current opinion about developing a wind farm in the south west of Jersey's waters?

Summary

97% of respondents answered Question 7. of those who responded:

• 71.8% of responses were positive

• 23.5% which were negative

• 4.7% of responses were neither positive nor negative.

Within the positive responses there was overwhelming support for green energy initiatives in Jersey highlighting a collective recognition of their pivotal role in ensuring energy security, reducing environmental impact, and fostering economic growth. Embracing renewable energy solutions was seen by many as essential for transitioning towards a sustainable future, contributing significantly to global climate change mitigation efforts, and positioning Jersey as a leader in clean energy innovation. While there was plenty of enthusiasm for the potential benefits of such initiatives, there's also a call for careful consideration of environmental concerns and transparent communication with Islanders to ensure a balanced approach towards achieving a greener, more prosperous Jersey.

The top six themes of responses which were positive were:

Support for green energy

There was widespread support for green energy initiatives in Jersey. Islanders recognised the importance of reducing carbon emissions, fighting climate change, and transitioning to sustainable energy sources.

"It is our responsibility to exploit our renewable resources as soon and as responsibly as possible."

Economic benefits

Implementing green energy projects was seen as beneficial for Jersey's economy, providing stability, creating jobs, and potentially lowering electricity prices as well as addressing the future economic needs of the Island.

"An excellent opportunity to diversify the Jersey economy"

Energy security and independence:

Green energy initiatives are viewed as essential for ensuring energy security, reducing reliance on external sources, and moving towards energy independence.

"Positive for the island on many fronts, environmentally, energy security and diversification of economy"

Environmental sustainability:

There was a strong emphasis on the environmental benefits of green energy, including reducing the Island's carbon footprint, protecting biodiversity, and contributing to global climate change mitigation efforts.

"Absolutely crucial to our economy and global responsibility on climate change."

Community engagement:

There was a call for transparent communication and community engagement throughout the process of this project and other future renewable energy projects. It was also important that concerns about environmental impact and aesthetics be addressed in later stages of this project.

"Great opportunity for the island community and jersey companies"

Vision for the future:

Many saw green energy initiatives as integral to Jersey's long-term sustainability and prosperity, positioning the Island as a leader in clean energy innovation and contributing to a greener, more resilient future.

"Exciting and forward thinking opportunity for future generations"

Overall, the positive responses highlighted a strong support for the establishment of a wind farm in Jersey. There was a shared commitment to embracing green energy as a cornerstone of Jersey's economic, environmental, and social development, with a focus on sustainable growth and climate action. Responses to Question 7 were driven by the project's potential to bring economic benefits, enhance energy independence and security, and contribute to environmental sustainability.

Based on the 224 negative survey responses to Question 7, the main areas of concern were:

Environmental concerns:

Many respondents expressed grave concerns about the potential damage to wildlife, marine life, and the overall environment, particularly regarding the impact on bird populations and the disruption of marine habitats.

"Worst possible area for endangered balearic shearwaters [sic] and other birds whilst resting in moult on

migration"

Economic viability and cost:

There is widespread scepticism about the economic feasibility of the wind farm project. The main areas of concern were about its cost-effectiveness, potential financial burden on taxpayers, and doubts about the long-term economic benefits.

"Waste of time & taxpayers money"

Visual impact and aesthetic concerns:

A significant number of respondents objected to the Proposition on the grounds of visual impact of an offshore wind farm. They expressed concerns about the spoilage of scenic views and the Island's natural beauty.

"I think it would be an eye sore [sic], will disrupt wildlife and also ruin the best view in Jersey".

Governance and decision-making:

Many respondents expressed frustration with the government's handling of the project. They criticised a perceived lack of transparency, poor planning, and scepticism about the government's ability to effectively manage such a large-scale initiative. Comparisons with the hospital project were drawn on numerous occasions, citing that project as evidence that the government will not be able to deliver such a large-scale project.

"100% support for the project, but skeptical [sic] that the Government has the ability to deliver"

Alternative energy sources:

Respondents also were keen to explore alternative energy sources such as tidal power or nuclear energy, indicating a preference for options they perceived as less environmentally disruptive or more reliable.

The negative responses in response to Question 7 highlight widespread scepticism and opposition towards the proposed wind farm project, driven by concerns regarding its environmental impact, economic viability, aesthetics, governance, and a preference for exploring alternative energy sources.

"We should develop tidal power not wind power".

Just under 5% of responses to Question 7 were neutral – neither positive nor negative. Neutral responses seem to revolve around uncertainty, scepticism, lack of knowledge, and the need for more information. Without some of this information, Islanders felt unable to form an opinion.

Uncertainty and scepticism:

Respondents expressed doubt, displayed scepticism, or indecision about the feasibility, necessity, or effectiveness of the Proposition.

"I'm still not sure this is the best option".

Need for information and consideration:

Islanders reported that they require more evidence or data before they could form an opinion on the Proposition.

"I don't believe that Jersey is currently able to take an informed decision on such a large project".

Concerns about feasibility and execution:

Respondents raised doubts regarding the practicality or the Proposition as well as how it would be implemented or executed. They raised concerns about financial aspects and the environmental impact assessment.

"Lets look at the feasibility of this project very carefully."

Desire for public involvement and accountability:

There was an emphasis on the importance of public ownership, input, and transparency in decision- making processes related to the renewable energy project.

"Not opposed to the idea, but should be publicly owned".

Emphasis on sustainability and environmental impact:

The need to prioritise environmental considerations, and the economic impact of the proposed project was recognised, including the need for thorough assessment and exploration of alternative renewable energy sources.

"Need more proof that it is sustainable to the sea and economy".

The neutral responses reflect concerns about the sustainability and environmental impact of the proposed renewable energy project. They suggest a desire for thorough consideration of the environmental consequences, exploration of alternative sustainable energy sources, and information to support the notion that the project is economically viable in the long term.

Question 8

Is there anything else you wish to add?

The comments in response to Question 8 are mixed, reflecting a range of perspectives on the proposed offshore wind farm project. Many of the issues have been raised in response to other questions in the survey. Some common themes raised include:

Support for renewable energy:

Many respondents express support for the transition to renewable energy and acknowledge the importance of reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy security through initiatives like offshore wind farms.

"This is a positive step towards cheaper electricity and reducing our carbon footprint".

Concerns about financial viability:

There was scepticism and concern about the financial viability of the wind farm project, with some questioning the potential costs and economic benefits for Jersey. Others raise issues related to funding, financing models, and potential risks to taxpayers.

"I'm surprised that the technology only lasts 10 to 15 years, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be a market for the surplus energy, AND WHAT IS PARTICULARLY ANNOYING IS THAT IT SEEMS TO BE A DONE DEAL!"

Environmental considerations:

Concerns about the environmental impact of the wind farm, including its effects on marine ecosystems, wildlife, and aesthetics, are frequently mentioned. Some advocate for thorough environmental assessments and mitigation measures to address these concerns.

"Any development must be designed and constructed to minimise the environmental impact as far is reasonably

practicable."

Transparency and consultation:

Many respondents emphasised the importance of transparency in the consultation process and call for ongoing engagement with the community to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in decision-making. There was a distrust of government processes expressed by a few respondents, with some considering the consultation process skewed and biased.

"Get real and look at real problems in Jersey rather then [sic] wasting time and money on pipe dreams. Your

survey questions are rather pointed, in favour of this folly."

Desire for local ownership and control:

There was a desire among some respondents for local stakeholders, including Jersey Electricity, to have a significant role in the project's development and operation to ensure that the benefits accrue to the Island and its residents. There appeared to be an appetite for a collaborative approach with neighbouring jurisdictions.

"We were informed at a meeting that this wouldn't cost Jersey anything and it would make money as we would sell excess electricity to France. There is no way that the French would buy some of the excess electricity - why would they when they have plenty of their own - and they are building wind farms everywhere to make more. We should not lease our seabed to a third party over which we would have no control if they went into liquidation".

Exploration of alternative energy sources:

Many respondents advocated exploring alternative renewable energy sources, such as tidal power and solar energy, alongside (or instead of) offshore wind farms, highlighting their preference for energy diversification and long-term planning.

"Not every country has the ability to have renewable energy from offshore wind, tidal, solar etc. Jersey is in a prime position to take large steps forward in their own energy security and for their position in the rest of the world. The benefits of offshore wind far outweigh the costs and we should seriously consider alternative industries for the island to also us to adapt and diversify our economy."

Youth engagement and future focus:

Some respondents stressed the importance of considering the interests and opinions of younger generations in shaping the Island's energy future, emphasising the need for sustainability and forward- looking planning.

"I hope that the the [sic] feedback of young people to this survey are carefully listened to. We are the generation that will inherit this island and the future conditions of the world. I don't wish that future be robbed by those who have more selfish reasons to oppose the wind farm."

Learning from past projects:

There was a cautious approach among some respondents, with concerns being raised about other government projects. It was considered vital that the wind farm project be well-managed, accountable, and that it delivers tangible benefits to the Island.

"We do not want a 'New Hospital Scenario' Make a decision and make it happen."

Through these additional comments it was evident that, while there is support for renewable energy initiatives like offshore wind farms, there are also significant concerns and considerations raised by Islanders regarding the proposed project's feasibility, environmental impact, financial implications, and transparency in decision-making.

Question 9 How old are you?

Question 10

In which parish do you live?

Analysis of consultation responses from children and young people

399 children and young people participated in the consultation via their school and a further 26 participated through their youth project. Each of these consultation sessions was delivered to meet the needs of the participants meaning that the results cannot be collated and analysed as a homogenous response.

Over 100 children and young people (under 20 years old) completed the full consultation survey. Their results are included in the analysis of survey responses.

GCSE Geography event

184 young people attended the event in December 2023. Not every student answered every question, some worked in pairs or groups of three. The results can be found in Appendix 3.

Le Rocquier School

139 students from Year 9 and their Year 11 GCSE geography course attended an event in January 2023. The Head of Geography devised a survey, the results were processed by the Year 10 students and can be found in Appendix 5.

Victoria College Preparatory School

55 pupils from Year 6 were involved in the consultation. Their teacher devised a survey, the results of which are in Appendix 6.

Beaulieu Convent School

The school ran a debate in Year 10. A science teacher provided feedback.

Jersey Youth Parliament

11 young people from the Jersey Youth Parliament held their own debate. Their Senior Youth Worker sent through their feedback by email, their results are in Appendix 4.

First Tower Youth Project

15 young people joined in with the windmill making activity and shared their thoughts informally. Notes were taken of their thoughts and opinions during the evening.

Summary of findings

Overall, the views of children and young people are very similar to those of the survey respondents. The majority of children and young people were supportive of the Proposition.

"I have also had a debate with a year 10 group who unanimously (21 girls) agreed that Jersey should have a

wind farm ASAP without delays or bureaucratic hold ups." - teacher

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Jersey Youth Parliament were the only group who did not support the Proposition. Following their debate five young people voted for the Proposition and six against.

Having access to low carbon, affordable electricity was seen as a positive. Energy security, independence was also important. The cost of electricity in the future was a concern.

I support the building of the wind farm because the project will boost Jersey's economy massively, it has low carbon emissions, it will supply 6 times as much electricity (Year 6)

If this goes ahead I think it will be a better and safer place; we're not using France's fossil fuels and nuclear power

which will make us independent (Year 6)

Children and young people felt the potential economic benefits were important. For example, 83% of students from Le Rocquier School ranked creating enough energy to sell to other countries could help grow Jersey's economy and create good jobs in Jersey' as very important or quite important.

Creating enough energy to sell to other countries could help grow Jersey's economy and

create goodjobs in Jersey. How important is this to you?

70 64

60 52

50

40

30 22

20

10 1

0

Very important Quite important Neutral Not important Not at all Don't know

important

Response

Figure 1: Le Rocquier school (Appendix 5)

Many children and young people were especially passionate about the potential for future jobs, especially jobs that were in a different sector to finance.

"I support the building of the wind farm because it will creat [sic] job opportunities which will grow jersey's

economy massively" (Year 6)

They were also positive about the potential benefits for the future economy.

A wind farm could provide us with more money from tax to pay for our public services.

How important is this for you?

70

60

60 52

50

40

30 24

18

20

10 7

0

Very important Important Neutral Not important Really not important

Level of Support

Figure 2: GCSE geography event (Appendix 3).

Children and young people did report concerns over the project.

What are the top three things that concern you about the proposed development of

an offshore wind farm for Jersey?

Another electricity source will bbelo nweeded when the wind does not 17

Possible impact on seabirds including being hit by blades 17

Possible impact on marine mammals 30 Reduced areas for fishing boats to fish 17

The size of the turbines 9

The size of the windfarm 12

Possible impact on fish migration and breeding grounds 20

For tourists - the visual impact from the south-west coast 13

For local residents - the visual impact from the south-west coast 5

The electricity produced by the windfarm could cost more per unit

than the electricity imported from France 19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of times selected

Figure 3: Victoria College Preparatory School (Appendix 6)

There was concern over impacts on wildlife, in particular marine life, but there was also concern regarding the impact of climate change on wildlife.

"I oppose the building of the wind farm because sea life might get hurt and birds will be hot by the blades" (Year 6)

There were mixed views about the visual impacts of a wind farm. With some finding the visual impact a huge negative whereas others found them to be visually pleasing.

"Ugly" (Year 10)

"Eyesore" (Year 10)

"Big and beautiful" (Year 5)

"A windfarm won't be permanent and they don't last forever. As different types of renewable energy become real

then the wind farm can be removed. We'll get to give the view back to our children" (Year 9)

Summary of findings from children and young people

The views from children and young people were similar to those of adults who responded to the survey. Overall, they are supportive of the Proposition, but they do have concerns. Many reported concerns about potential environmental impacts. Others were also concerned about the visual impacts and the costs of the project. However, children and young people were keen to see States Members support the Proposition.

Analysis of stakeholder engagement events

As previously mentioned, all those who attended stakeholder engagement sessions were encouraged to participate in the survey. No formal data was captured at these meetings as they were designed to answer questions and concerns that Islanders may have.

Analysis of stakeholder written responses

The following stakeholders submitted written responses to the consultation (listed alphabetically):

• Government of France, Direction générale de l'énergie et du climat

• Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners

• Jersey Electricity plc

• Marine Economy Group

• National Trust for Jersey

• Public Health Directorate

• Rubis Channel Islands

• Société Jersiaise Ornithology section

These written responses are in Appendix 7. Signatures, names and contact details have been redacted. The response by the Government of France, Direction générale de l'énergie et du climat was sent for translation[1]. The original French version is in Appendix 7.

Government of France: Direction générale de l'énergie et du climat

The letter from the Government of France was overall supportive of renewable energy from wind. They outlined their own plans for significant development of offshore windfarms aiming for 45GW of offshore wind power by 2050. They expressed that it is likely that new wind farms will be installed in the vicinity of the windfarm area proposed by Proposition P.82-2023, but within French territorial waters.

They voiced concerns about the technical and financial implications of connecting wind farms to the French electricity grid. They also emphasised the need for in-depth studies and substantial investments to ensure grid stability and reliability.

The Government of France acknowledged the strategic importance of the offshore wind project in renewable energy production and cross-border cooperation. They would like to establish a bilateral exchange (working group) to work collaboratively to look at plans in the area in a joined-up way. They highlighted the complexities involved, including managing marine resources, preserving biodiversity, landscapes, and accommodating other maritime uses such as fishing. Fishing was an issue of significant importance and there were concerns around understanding the challenges that would face fishing industry. They highlighted the political sensitivity of fishing especially in the wake of Brexit. They called for careful consideration of the impacts upon regional fishing and the integration of the wind farm project into Jersey's Spatial Plan to minimise adverse impacts on the fishing industry.

Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners

The members of Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners (JASP) represent a range of sustainability specialisms and hold a range of views. However, their members are unanimous in their support for exploring renewable energy generation, particularly offshore wind.

JASP stressed the importance of factors like energy security, income generation, and low carbon energy access while acknowledging the need for careful consideration of costs and environmental impacts. They emphasised the necessity of private sector engagement and suggest exploring various financing options, including private investment and community ownership. They believe that the potential for economic growth, tourism, and global reputation enhancement are exciting opportunities for Jersey. However, they have concerns regarding the commercial viability, environmental impact assessment, and ethical sourcing of materials. JASP advocate for inter-island collaboration and are keen to engage

further in stakeholder dialogues to address these concerns.

Jersey Electricity plc

Through their written submission, Jersey Electricity were extremely supportive of the Proposition. They fully endorse the proposal to develop offshore wind in Jersey waters. They strongly believe in the project's potential to profoundly impact the community, environment, economy, and energy system positively.

Through their submission, Jersey Electricity highlighted environmental benefits, including the role of offshore wind in supporting the transition to net zero emissions and enhanced energy security through locally sourced low-carbon energy. They also emphasised the economic opportunities, such as the creation of high-value jobs, tax revenues for public services, and investment opportunities for Islanders. Moreover, they stressed the significance of offshore wind in securing long-term energy sovereignty and fostering a forward-thinking energy policy, positioning Jersey as an ambitious jurisdiction.

They consider the proposed wind farm's capacity to meet electricity requirements and potential for exportation underscores its importance for future energy needs and economic stability. Jersey Electricity offered their full collaboration with stakeholders and emphasised the strategic importance of their early involvement in ensuring project success and seamless grid integration. They consider offshore wind as a transformative investment for Jersey's sustainable and prosperous future.

Marine Economy Group

Through the written submission made by the Marine Economy Group it was evident that Jersey's fishing community are overwhelmingly against the Proposition. They considered limited territorial sea area, the importance of fishing grounds, and the project's size made the proposed location entirely inappropriate for an offshore wind farm.

The Marine Economy Group vehemently opposed the idea of leasing the seabed to a private developer, regarding that as a step towards the privatisation of the public domain. They deemed the impact on the fishing industry, compounded by spatial squeeze and foreign vessel access as severe. Additionally, concerns were raised about energy and food security, with scepticism towards the project's economic feasibility and its potential to raise energy prices. They levelled criticism at the consultation process for allegedly biasing public opinion in favour of the project.

National Trust for Jersey

Through their written submission, National Trust for Jersey recognised the enormous value of renewables in addressing the impacts of climate change. They fully support the Island pursuing an agenda which helps deliver the Government's carbon neutral strategy. However, they emphasised the need for a rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to ensure that the full impact of the development is clearly understood, quantified and addressed. They urged for independent scrutiny of the environmental impact assessment and the involvement of key environmental stakeholders.

They also raised concerns regarding energy security and sovereignty, with doubts expressed over the project's clarity and economic viability. They pointed to discrepancies between documents and uncertainties about costs and reliability which further undermined their confidence in the project's economics.

The National Trust for Jersey asserted that significant issues must be addressed before the States can meaningfully consider any proposition regarding offshore wind farms. They advocate for a more robust approach to identify risks and opportunities. They express the need for more detailed information before forming a conclusion, emphasizing the importance of transparency and thorough analysis in the decision-making process even at this in-principle stage.

Public Health Directorate

Public Health acknowledged the significant interplay between environmental factors and health outcomes. They recognised the potential of offshore wind farms to impact various determinants of health, and stress the importance of ensuring health equity in distributing benefits and risks across different population groups. While highlighting the positive impacts on health and wellbeing associated with transitioning to renewable energy, they suggested that reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions could help to lead to improved respiratory health and decreased rates of cardiovascular diseases. By transitioning to renewable energy sources, they surmised that the proposal aligns with global efforts to mitigate climate change, thereby safeguarding the health of present and future generations. Public Health also underscores the need to acknowledge and mitigate potential risks, such as impacts on marine ecosystems and mental health.

However, they also acknowledged potential negative impacts on health and wellbeing. For example, changes in fish populations or contamination risks may impact food security and nutritional health. They also raised concerns about the possible use of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in manufacturing processes. The extent of PFAS impacts is still relatively unknown but PFAS has been a concern in Jersey over recent years. Public Health suggest that it is of the "utmost importance that the materials used in the development of the turbines and associated components are reviewed against best practice regulations and standards to ensure that PFAS risks are identified and mitigated prior to the commencement of the proposal". They also advocated for comprehensive health and social impact assessments as well environmental impact assessments to inform decision-making and safeguard population health.

Overall, Public Health support the proposal for offshore wind farm development in Jersey. By considering the social, economic, and environmental factors comprehensively and employing evidence-based decision-making, Public Health believe that the offshore wind farm development in Jersey could contribute to improved health and wellbeing for Islanders.

Rubis Channel Islands

Rubis Cannels Islands and the wider Rubis Group are committed to innovative energy solutions and they commend the initiative to further explore renewable energy options for Jersey. Although they do not currently include wind power (either offshore or onshore) in their portfolio, they believe the proposed offshore windfarm represents a significant opportunity for Jersey to achieve its energy goals and create a more sustainable future. As such, they support the initiative and are keen to collaborate and share their experience and expertise.

Société Jersiaise Ornithology Section

The Société Jersiaise Ornithology Section expressed grave concern regarding the proposed offshore wind farm in the south west and western parts of Jersey Territorial Waters.

Drawing on decades of bird population data, they emphasised the potential adverse impact on various bird species both resident and migratory and pointed to a number of species including Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanecus), a seabird which is classed internationally as critically endangered. Their concerns include the disruption of regular migration routes, and the risk of bird strikes with turbine equipment. They also raised concerns about the wider environmental impact on biodiversity, including fish species and marine mammals, as well as potential consequences for fishing zones and marine life abundance.

A comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which allows for seasonal variations and inter-species interactions is vital. They stressed the importance of mitigating measures to minimise disturbance to wildlife populations.

Summary of stakeholder written submissions

Common opinions

All stakeholders recognised the importance of exploring renewable energy sources, particularly offshore wind, to address energy security, environmental concerns, and climate change.

The majority of stakeholders including the National Trust for Jersey and the Société Jersiaise Ornithology Section expressed concerns about the environmental impact of offshore wind farms, particularly on biodiversity, marine ecosystems, and wildlife populations. They stressed the need for rigorous Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and mitigating measures to minimise disturbance to the environment.

Many stakeholders including Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners, Rubis Channel Islands and Jersey Electricity highlighted the potential economic benefits of offshore wind, including job creation, revenue generation, and investment opportunities. They saw offshore wind as a potentially transformative investment for Jersey's sustainable and prosperous future.

Stakeholders Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners and the Marine Economy Group emphasised the importance of engaging with the community and other stakeholders in the decision- making process. They advocated for transparency, balanced discussions, and collaboration to address concerns and ensure project success.

Differences of opinions:

While some stakeholders, such as Jersey Electricity plc, Rubis Channel Islands and the Public Health Directorate, fully endorse the offshore wind Proposition, others, like the Marine Economy Group, express strong opposition due to concerns about its impact on fishing grounds and the fishing industry.

There were differing views on the economic viability of offshore wind projects. While some stakeholders such as the Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners and Jersey Electricity highlighted the economic opportunities, others, such as the National Trust for Jersey, raised concerns about the clarity, reliability, and potential costs associated with offshore wind projects.

Most stakeholders expressed concerns about the environmental impact, but their specific focus varied. For example, the Ornithology Section was particularly concerned about the impact on bird species, while the Marine Economy Group was concerned about the impact on fishing grounds and access. There were differing views on the role of government in the consultation process and project development. Some stakeholders, including Jersey Electricity plc, emphasised the importance of government leadership and early involvement, while others, like the National Trust for Jersey, criticised the consultation process for bias and lack of transparency.

Key consultation findings

The consultation on offshore wind development in Jersey engaged a diverse range of participants, including survey respondents, and children and young people. The consultation aimed to assess community perspectives on the potential benefits and concerns associated with the project.

The insights gathered reflect a broad spectrum of perspectives on the Proposition p.82/2023, encompassing both support and concerns. Additionally, insights from stakeholders, including the Government of France, Jersey Electricity plc, and the National Trust for Jersey, among others, were integrated to provide a holistic view of the discourse surrounding offshore wind development in Jersey. The consultation revealed substantial support for the establishment of a wind farm in Jersey, particularly among children and young people, where it garnered an endorsement rate of 80%. Respondents to the survey also demonstrated a high level of endorsement for the project. This sentiment aligns with stakeholders' recognition of the importance of exploring renewable energy sources, to address energy security, environmental concerns, and climate change. Notably, stakeholders such as the Jersey Association of Sustainability Practitioners, Rubis Channel Islands and Jersey Electricity emphasised the transformative potential of offshore wind as a sustainable investment for Jersey's future prosperity.

Despite the overall support, concerns about the potential environmental impacts of offshore wind development are widespread among survey respondents, children and young people as well as stakeholders, including the National Trust for Jersey and the Société Jersiaise Ornithology Section. The need for rigorous Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and mitigating measures to minimise disturbance to biodiversity, marine ecosystems, and wildlife populations was a prominent theme that emerged from all aspects of the consultation.

Additionally, economic viability concerns raised by many who participated in the consultation, including the National Trust for Jersey, highlight the need for clarity and reliability in assessing the costs associated with the potential offshore wind project.

Stakeholders, including the Marine Economy Group, underscored the importance of community engagement and transparent decision-making processes in offshore wind development. They advocated for balanced discussions and collaboration to address concerns effectively and ensure project success.

The funding model for the project was an area of significant concern, with Islanders' preference for a private public partnership being the model favoured by those who completed the survey. There was a common concern that public money may be misspent and about government not being able to deliver high-quality large-scale projects. There were also concerns that the political processes could hinder the project in the future. There were differing views on the role of government in the project should it

progress beyond the in-principle stage, with some stakeholders voicing concerns for a lack of transparency while others emphasised the importance of government leadership and early involvement, as highlighted by Jersey Electricity plc.

Some respondents to the survey and a few stakeholders such as the Marine Economy Group and the Société Jersiaise Ornithology Section expressed strong opposition to the Proposition.

The consultation process itself was called in to question and was perceived by some to have a bias that impacted the results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the survey findings and insights from children and young people as well as stakeholders underscore the complexity of offshore wind development in Jersey. While there was significant support for renewable energy initiatives like offshore wind, concerns about environmental impacts, economic viability, and the consultation process persist. Should the Proposition move forward beyond the in- principle stage, it will be imperative to conduct thorough environmental assessments, engage with stakeholders, and ensure transparency in decision-making processes to navigate the challenges and realise the potential benefits of offshore wind for Jersey's sustainable future.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) for P.82/2023 offshore wind

1: Child Rights Impact Assessment Screener

The Proposition

The Council of Ministers lodged the P.82/2023 Offshore Wind proposition[2] on 17 October 2023 for

debate by the States Assembly in Spring 2024. Recognising the significance of the proposition and its potential implications, the Council of Ministers thought that it was important to ask Islanders for their views through a 14-week public consultation. There was deliberate effort to include children and young people in the consultation.

The potential development of a wind farm is a long-term project. The outcomes of which will disproportionately impact children and young people. Recognising this, the consultation will give children and young people opportunities throughout the consultation to share their opinions. If the States Assembly support this proposition, then there will be more opportunities for children and young people to share their opinions as the project progresses.

Part A of the proposition asks the States Assembly if they agree that Jersey should pursue the opportunities arising from the development of an offshore wind farm in the south west of its territorial waters. The States debate is an in-principle decision. A Pour (for) vote to this proposition does not necessarily mean that a wind farm will be built in Jersey's waters. Instead, it is a general backing by the

States Assembly to explore the potential benefits. The actual development of such a wind farm will go through more scrutiny and consideration by the States Assembly, and the public through consultation periods at various future stages.

Which groups of children and young people are likely to be affected?

All children and young people now and during the lifetime of the windfarm will be affected by this proposition as it is something that has the potential to impact the entire Island. Some children and

young people who do not live in Jersey might also be impacted by the development of a wind farm.

Groups of children and young people likely to be affected include:

• those living in poverty

• those who are vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution associated with burning of fossil fuels e.g., children and young people with respiratory conditions such as asthma

• those who would consider a future career associated with the development and or operation of a wind farm

• those whose parents may be involved in the development and or operation of a future windfarm

• those whose families are involved in the fishing industry or are considering a future career in the industry

• those most at risk from the impacts of climate change. This may include children and young people forced to migrate due to changing climate

• those living in communities near the proposed offshore wind farm may experience changes in their immediate environment. This could include alterations in the landscape and visual aesthetics

What is the likely impact of the proposed decision on children and on their rights?

het

Child determined that a State can be held responsible for the impact of its carbon emissions on rights of children, both within and beyond its borders. The Committee ruled that States were not undertaking sufficient measures to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, it is important for the Government of Jersey to reduce carbon emissions, to reduce negative impacts on the rights of children and young people.

Potential benefits for children and young people and their rights as described in the UNCRC:

Article 3 - best interests of the child: The best interests of the child must be a top priority in all decisions and actions that affect children.

In Part A of the proposition, the States Assembly are tasked with deciding if Jersey should actively explore the opportunities presented by the development of an offshore wind farm in the southwest of its territorial waters. It is important to note that

the States Assembly debate is an in-principle decision. A pour (for) vote to this proposition does not necessarily mean that a wind farm will be built in Jersey' waters. Rather, it signifies general support to explore the potential benefits. However, a contre vote (against) the proposition signifies that Jersey will not explore the development of a potential offshore wind farm any further.

Given the significance of the decision, it is important that the States Assembly consider the best interests of the child in their deliberations and voting process. The potential impacts on children, both presently and in the future, should be carefully considered.

Article 12 respect for the views of the child: Every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously.

Children and young people were asked for their views, feelings and wishes during the public consultation. In addition to the public survey, this was approached in various ways, considering the age and maturity of the child. Their responses are included in the consultation report. The report will be provided to States Members in advance of the debate on P.82/2023 in Spring 2024.

Involving children in the decision-making process and seeking their opinions during public consultations can empower them and fulfil their right to express their views. Providing different opportunities for children and young people to participate in the consultation on P.82/2023 ensures that their voices are not only heard but also part of the decision-making process, aligning with the principles enshrined in Article 12.

Article 13 freedom of expression: Every child must be free to express their thoughts and opinions and be able to access all kinds of information, as long as it is within the law.

Children and young people were invited to express their thoughts and opinions on p.82-2032 through the public consultation. The consultation survey was open to all

Islanders. To support children and young people participating in a meaningful way, curriculum-based lesson plans tailored to key stages were sen to all schools. These lesson plans were designed to help children express their thoughts and opinions on the offshore wind proposal, considering their age and maturity levels. Schools determined how and what to feedback into the survey.

Engagement sessions were also offered to Jersey Youth Service so that their members would be able to understand the proposition and provide their feedback through the survey.

Article 24 health and health services: Every child has the right to the best possible health. Governments must provide good quality health care, clean water, nutritious food, and a clean environment and education on health and well-being so that children can stay healthy. Richer countries must help poorer countries achieve this.

A European Environmental Agency report published in 2023[3] states that air pollution is the greatest environmental risk factor for children in Europe. The report highlights several factors that make children and adolescents especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Over 1,200 deaths in people under 18 years of age are estimated to be caused by air

pollution every year in EEA member and collaborating countries.

Replacing fossil fuels with energy from renewable sources such as wind will reduce air pollution significantly.

Article 27 adequate standard of living: Every child has the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical and social needs and support their development. Governments must help families who cannot afford to provide this.

One of the opportunities for energy powered by offshore wind is that Islanders will be better protected from energy price volatility. Strategic Policy 2 in the Carbon Neutral Roadmap[4] looked at the Island energy market. It considers the need to

balance energy affordability and security with decarbonisation. The development of an offshore wind farm may meet this need as it could provide Islanders with energy that is protected from price volatility, and well as ensuring energy is secure and low carbon. This will benefit all Islanders, but in particular it will benefit those on lower incomes where price volatility poses a greater risk to their standard of living.

On a global scale, children are in danger of losing their homes because of the effects of climate change. This may result in migration or displacement. Climate change-induced displacement is when a person is forced to move due to environmental changes or threats like droughts, floods, hurricanes, or other natural hazards. Climate migration is related to movement of people after sudden or gradual climate-exacerbated disasters such as prolonged periods of drought, recurring natural hazards or as access to food decreases.

The offshore windfarm will contribute to sustainable development, creating economic opportunities that positively affect the standard of living for families and, consequently, children. For example, through the creation of jobs, diversification of the economy and future energy prices.

2: Full Child Rights Impact Assessment

The Child Rights Impact Assessment Screener identified that p/82-2023 does have identified impacts on children and their rights. Therefore, a full Child Rights Impact Assessmentis required.

The report provided with P.82/2023 states that the development of an offshore wind farm could

present very significant opportunities for Jersey. The opportunities cover several UN Convention on the Rights of the Child articles as shown in Part A.

The opportunities include:

• Environmental benefits – securing access to low carbon energy that our net zero transition requires;

• Fiscal and economic benefits – creating a new energy export sector, bringing attractive, high value jobs to the island, and new tax revenues to support public services; and

• Strategic and social benefits – greater energy security and sovereignty, greater protection from energy price volatility, and an enhanced reputation as a forward looking and ambitious jurisdiction.

The impacts of the proposed decision on children's rights

Information and research

Some evidence and information is detailed in Question 3.

Engagement with children and young people

Assessing Impact on children's rights

Weighing positive and negative impacts

At this in-principle stage there are no negative impacts on the Rights of the Child that have been identified. However, if the proposition is vote Pour and proceeds to later stages other impacts may come to light.

Conclusions

At this stage the impacts of P.82/2023 on children and young people are positive.

Children and young people expressed some of the positives for the project included having access to low carbon, affordable electricity. Energy security, independence was also important. The cost of electricity in the future was a concern but could be a very positive impact. (Article 3: Best interests of the child).

"If this goes ahead I think it will be a better and safer place; we're not using France's fossil fuels and nuclear

power which will make us independent" (Year 6)

Children and young people felt the economic benefits were important and this could have a positive impact on Article 27: adequate standard of living. For example, 83% of students from Le Rocquier School ranked creating enough energy to sell to other countries could help grow Jersey's economy and create good jobs in Jersey' as very important or quite important. Children and young people were especially passionate about the potential for future jobs, especially jobs that were in a different sector to finance. They were also positive about the potential benefits for the future economy.

Through the consultation children and young people did report concerns over the project.

There was concern over impacts on wildlife, in particular marine life. The impact of climate change on wildlife was also concerning. There were mixed views about the visual impacts of a windfarm. However, these are not identified in the United Nation UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The main concern was that children and young people need to have the opportunity to express themselves freely (Article 13) and for their voices to be heard (Article 12). These have been addressed through this consultation and will continue if the proposition proceeds.