Tag Archives: must

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

The Green voice must be heard in Election 2015! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Ofcom have made a provisional decision (technically it’s called an ‘initial view’) to exclude the Green Party from the general election debates.

This is a shameful and irrational decision. For here is the central point about Ofcom’s deliberations. There must – of course! – be consistent criteria for who gets included and who gets excluded from the debates.

If the criteria are backward-looking, looking based on what happened at the last General Election, then the Green Party must be included in the debates. For the Green Party got someone elected to Westminster – Caroline Lucas – at the last general election, unlike UKIP.

If the criteria based on current support, then the plain fact is that the Green Party have overtaken the LibDems in the polls. The Greens are consistently ahead now in Yougov results, which are the most regular polls by far: see their latest chart, showing the long-term trend, and now showing the Greens consistently ahead of the LibDems.

So, if the criteria are focussed on the present, once again, the Green Party must be included in the debates. This is the crux of the matter: if UKIP are a ‘major Party’, then so are the Greens, and that if the LibDems are a ‘major Party’, then so are the Greens.

Membership numbers – how’s this for a ‘surge’?

Another objective measure for Ofcom to apply would be member numbers. And here too the Greens have a story to tell. Latest figures show that our present membership has reached 31,492 in England & Wales, and close to 40,000 including Scotland and Northern Ireland.

That’s level pegging with UKIP, which claimed 40,000 members in December. And it’s slightly smaller than the LibDems, who reported 44,000 members in April 2014, trumpeting a “membership surge” with numbers rising by about 1,000 a year, a tad under 2.5%.

Now compare that growth rate to the Greens – our membership rose by an amazing 123% over 2014, and we have added 4,324 new members since the beginning of December – over the festive period when most peoples’ minds are fixed on matters other than politics.

At this rate, we look set to overtake both LibDems and UKIP in short order. So by whichever measure, the Green Party must be included in the general election debates! There is no way around this logic. The Ofcom decision is wrong.

Let’s add something else important: that the Ofcom decision is unpopular and undemocratic. A recent ICM poll showed that fully 79% of the British public wants the Green Party included in the debates.

Moreover, even key opponents of the Green Party want the Greens included in the debates. Sadiq Khan is running the new Labour anti-Green attack unit. Yet even he wants the Green Party included in the debates.

All credit to him for this: this is how democracy is supposed to work, by political opponents arguing with each other in public view; not by one Party being excluded arbitrarily.

Are there any good arguments against the Greens’ participation?

Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP, has already taken to Twitter to express his outrage: “it’s a disgraceful, indefensible decision by Ofcom”. And – most consequentially – David Cameron has already responded to the decision by insisting that he will not take part in the debates unless the Greens are included.

This will surely force the broadcasters to change their stance: for, if the cost of the Greens being excluded is that the debates don’t happen at all, surely that cost will be one that the broadcasters are unwilling to pay.

But are there are any good arguments against the Green Party being regarded as a ‘major party’ suitable to be included in the debates?

The only one I have heard that has any ‘legs’ at all (though it is not one that Ofcom highlights, to my knowledge) is that the Greens, unlike the other Parties, are not going to be contesting some seats at the General Election.

In fact, the Greens are already committed to contesting three quarters of the 573 seats in England & Wales – that’s 430 – and it looks like the Party may well end up contesting 80-85% of constituencies. In Cambridgeshire, where I’m the prospective Green candidate, we will have a full slate, and the same goes for neighbouring Norfolk and Suffolk.

Now, actually, we don’t of course know that the other Parties will contest all 573 England & Wales seats at the General Election, though in 2010 they did come very close. But they will certainly not be contesting seats in Northern Ireland – where the Green Party, which exists in Northern Ireland (and has elected representatives) will be taking part.

The position is clear. The Green Party is a national party, and as the #GreenSurge rolls on, so the number of seats in which there will be no Green Party candidate standing gets smaller and smaller.

The threat of a genuine alternative?

And here’s another couple of good reasons for including the Greens in the debates. The Green Party is the fastest growing political force in England – and, like the SNP, we are growing even faster in Scotland.

The inclusion of the Greens would make the debates so much more up-to-date and interesting … Caroline Lucas MP or Natalie Bennett, one of whom would represent the Green Party in the debates, would not only be the only woman there, but the only one of the five parties offering a genuine alternative.

For example, the Greens are the only one of the five parties opposing TTIP (the massive EU-US trade and investment deal now under negotiation). We are the only party opposing nuclear power and the UK’s ‘Trident’ nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

We are the only party supporting a Green New Deal as an alternative to endless economc austerity, promising to take the railways back into public ownership and to cut fares, opposing fracking and GM food and crops, supporting a Citizens Income and a Land Value Tax … the list of Green USPs goes on and on.

If Ofcom stick to their bad decision, and if none of the broadcasters include the Green Party, then it undermines the democratic legitimacy of the debates. In that event, it will be essential for a high-profile ‘alternative’ or ‘real’ debate to be set up which includes the Greens, and I believe that that not only should but would happen.

But it would be far better if the broadcasters were to recognise the widespread groundswell of opinion among media-professionals, politicians and the public that the Green Party should be included in the debates that have already been planned, and to make this happen.

You can help to sway Ofcom’s decision

Fortunately Ofcom’s ‘initial view’ is not a final decision. They can yet change their minds. I hope that the upsurge of outrage against this terrible decision will be so huge that they will have no option but to do so.

You can help in that process: for instance, by sharing this article on social media and on email – and by telling Ofcom exactly what you think of their decision, on their stakeholder forum. They are consulting on their ‘draft’ decision, now.

I have bent over backwards in this article to be fair to Ofcom. But there is no way around it: they are blatantly being unfair to the Greens, and unfair to democracy as a whole.

Let rationality and the people’s will prevail. Let the Ofcom decision be overturned, or let the broadcasters simply ignore that decision and make the 5-party debate happen – for, if the Greens are not there, then nor will David Cameron be, and there will then surely be no TV debates at all, this time.

It’s really very simple: #InviteTheGreens to the general election debates … If Clegg and Farage are there, then it is plain illogical to do anything else.

 

 

Rupert Read is the Green Party’s prospective Parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, and Chair of the Green House Think Tank, under whose auspices he recently co-authored a report on the state of democracy in an era of 5-party-politics: ‘Strangled by the duopoly: the collapse of UK democracy and some prospects for its revival‘.

 

 




388769

Rich nations must cough up for past carbon pollution Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Two weeks of international climate negotiations in Lima, Peru, are over, with an agreement pulled out of the bag at the eleventh hour.

While Lima has been seen by many as a mere curtain-raiser to talks in Paris in a year’s time, when a new deal needs to reached to replace the Kyoto Protocol, it will have an impact beyond this.

Lima has reinforced the familiar battle ground between the developed and developing world, and it has seen the re-emergence of a key concept: climate justice.

The idea of equity is at the heart of this – the question of how to ensure any UN-backed emissions deal is fair and that those countries that caused the problem do the most to clean it up. This had largely been ignored at previous summits but at Lima it was once again a big talking point.

2011: the US’s big ‘No’ to equity

“If equity is in, we are out.” Those were the reported words of Todd Stern, the US chief negotiator, on the eve of the last day of Durban talks back in 2011, when the foundations for a new global agreement were laid.

Stern was reacting to the clamour from developing countries that rich, developed nations should take the lead in making emission cuts under the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility and capability‘, given their historical responsibility for climate change and their enhanced technological capabilities.

While some observers were alarmed by Stern’s position, his words were a fair, if vulgar, rendition of the mind-set that is quite pervasive among many developed countries.

Rich nations tend to prefer to wave aside or at least make light their moral responsibility to tackle climate change, while appealing for concerted action by ‘all parties‘.

Pragmatism, realism, and ‘we are in this together’ are some of the phrases used by developed countries as they try to duck their responsibility and cajole developing nations to instead step up their own climate actions.

It was to this effect that many Western countries lined up behind the US in Durban. Eventually all references to equity, justice and common but differentiated responsibility were expunged from the text.

Lima – justice and transparency return

It was a short-lived victory. Events in Lima over the past two weeks have overwhelmingly demonstrated the utter futility of developed countries’ schemes to diminish issues of equity and justice, let alone sidestep them altogether.

In virtually all the key issues and categories under discussion – countries’ mitigation contributions, states’ adaptation commitments, the remit of the loss and damage, and climate finance, among others – equity and differentiation have stood out as sticking points.

For example, the G77 group of developing countries said that the principle of equity must guide all negotiations and long-term actions. Showing their heightened distrust in the progress, developing countries even requested that texts should be displayed on the big screen in real time while negotiating to enhance transparency.

The harshest word for developed countries, however, came from Bolivian president Evo Morales, who referred to industrialised nations that have appropriated more than their own fair share of global atmospheric space as “thieves“ that must be made to pay back what they have stolen.

Without a moral dimension, there can be no climate agreement

Of course, none of this implies that developing countries should be given an easy ride in negotiating the 2015 climate agreement, or that there are easy approaches to finding a ‘just’ climate agreement.

Climate justice is a deeply contested concept, open to multiple interpretations, recommending diverse and sometimes conflicting policy. For example, there are plausible justice-based arguments for allocating carbon emissions quota on individual (per capita) and on national (per country) basis.

However it appears that the Stern approach to international climate politics, seemingly without morality, is beginning to lose ground. If Lima has taught us anything, it is that humanity badly needs a dose of international respect if we are to avoid climate chaos.

The brazen scheme to expunge equity from previous climate agreements by the US and its backers only served to further erode the mutual trust sorely needed to make compromises.

Morality might be a dirty word in some states’ foreign policy handbooks. But call it what you like, the world needs to find its guiding principles quickly, and developing countries want rich nations to pay for what they’ve broken.

 

 

Chukwumerije Okereke is Associate Professor of Environment and Development at the University of Reading.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




388217

Palestine: occupied or annexed? Israel must end the ambiguity Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Like most people, I was horrified by the devastation of the recent Gaza war. But I cannot say I was surprised.

I have been closely engaged with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on both sides, for nigh on fifty years and feel a strong affinity towards both peoples.

If I have learned anything, it is that peace is dependent on the imperatives of mutual acceptance and equality. As long as either of these fiercely proud peoples dominates the other, there will be conflict.

In a Jewish Quarterly article in the summer of 1977, following Likud’s first election victory in Israel, I proffered the following thought:

“Once the remaining hope of Palestinian self-rule is finally extinguished, the West Bank is likely to embark on a permanent rebellion – mostly simmering and periodically erupting … When the fire starts to ignite, next month or next year, let no-one register astonishment … “

The vibrant democracy that practices tyranny

It took another ten years for the first intifada in the West Bank and Gaza to erupt (to the astonishment of myopic Israeli policy makers). Further eruptions have periodically marked the landscape ever since and doubtless will continue to do so until both peoples are finally free to exercise their self-determination in neighbouring, interlinked, states.

Occupation brutalizes the occupier as well as the occupied. It breeds enmity and produces other deleterious effects. Hamas, founded in 1987, is a product of the occupation. Like Israel, it stands accused of war crimes, but were it to be eradicated, something else-possibly a lot worse-would take its place.

For over 47 years, vibrantly democratic Israel has ruled most undemocratically – by military fiat – over millions of people. This and the intensive bombardment by a technologically advanced state of an impoverished, entrapped people would never be tolerated by the custodians of Jewish values if they were perpetrated by any other country.

Israel’s misguided policies have been very damaging. Apart from the death and destruction delivered on Gaza, they have generated new waves of hatred against the Jewish state and global calls for its isolation. They have fanned anti-Jewish sentiment in other countries and fostered deep divisions within the Jewish world.

Israel’s suicidal slide towards apartheid must be halted

If the Israeli government is not prepared, of its own volition, to end its blockade of Gaza and suffocation of the West Bank, the international community would be entitled to challenge it to decide definitively by a firm date whether its rule over the Palestinians is or is not an occupation.

Until now, it has argued both sides of the case, enabling it to cherry-pick the Geneva Convention.

If it is an occupation, its – supposedly provisional – custodianship should be brought to a swift end. If it not an occupation, there is no justification for denying equal rights to everyone who is subject to Israeli rule.

After nearly half a century, it is surely past time to end the ambiguity before it really is too late for a genuine two-state deal and to halt Israel’s suicidal slide towards a home-grown version of apartheid.

 

 

Tony Klug has written extensively about Arab-Israel issues since the early 1970s: his doctoral thesis was on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank between the wars of 1967 and 1973. Former co-chair of the Council for Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue and vice-chair of the Arab-Jewish Forum, he worked for many years as a senior official at Amnesty International. Currently, he is a special advisor on the Middle East to the Oxford Research Group and an international board member of the Palestine-Israel Journal.

This article was originally published in the Autumn/Winter edition of the Jewish Quarterly, as one of 16 short reflective pieces on the Gaza war, and comes to us via Open Democracy where it is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 




387800

Soil Association must get back to its roots Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




We expect fellow members of the Soil Association will wonder why we resigned. In a democratic organisation they certainly have a right to be told without delay.

Below is an edited version of our resignation letter and a shortened summary of the concerns which led to our collective action, following a vote by a majority of the Soil Association Council not to hold an emergency meeting to address the issues.

A longer account of our concerns is available, should Soil Association members or the wider community wish to read it.

We think that the organic approach to food and farming is ecologically coherent, humane, scientifically responsible and potent and we remain committed supporters of the organisation’s founding purposes.

We hope that our action stimulates thought about how the Soil Association might campaign most effectively for the adoption of organic ideas in order to build a healthy society from the ground up.

Our edited resignation letter

Dear Dennis [Dennis Overton, Chair of SA Council]

We are writing to tender our resignations as Trustees of the Soil Association with immediate effect.

Since joining Council we have tried to fulfil our obligation as trustees to help guide the organisation in achieving its aims and purposes. Our contributions have been based on a clear commitment to the organic cause and on our long-standing and varied track record in food policy, campaigning, journalism and production.

We have brought to Council not only perspective but engagement. We have reported on how others see the Association and have presented several well thought-through proposals for improvements in practice.

Despite our strenuous attempts to raise our latest concerns in a way that was discreet and proper, the majority response has been to shoot the messenger rather than face the awkward message.

Meanwhile, the questionable presence on Management Committee (with an attendant reputational risk) of a non-organic farmer and a doctor who publicly attacks an important tool of organic animal husbandry (homoeopathy) seems not to concern a Council that purports to be committed to good governance.

We fear for the good name and relevance of an organisation that we have supported for many years. We have done our best to alert fellow trustees to the dangers implicit in the way that the current strategy is being implemented.

It is clear that ours is a minority view and we can no longer collude in a bogus consensus. Accordingly we are resigning. We will continue to devote our energies to challenging corporate control of the food system.

Yours sincerely,

Joanna Blythman, Lynda Brown, Pat Thomas, Andrew Whitley.

Shortened summary of trustee concerns

Implementation of the Soil Association strategy [Road to 2020] and its effect on the Soil Association profile.

We believe that the implementation of this strategy is a major factor in the demise of organic awareness, and the general confusion around what the Soil Association is, what it stands for, and what it does. In particular we would note the following:

1. Demise of organic awareness

  • The avoidance, wherever possible, of the ‘O’ word in preference to ‘nature-friendly’ and ‘planet-friendly’ substitutes.
  • A reluctance to use the ‘O’ word in relation to the Soil Association and its activities.
  • The emphasis on ‘starting where people are’ which leads to confusing messages and uncomfortable compromises. An example here is the use of a long-standing organic slogan ‘Food you can trust’ to promote the ‘Food For Life Catering Mark’ when its standards depart in important respects from Soil Association organic standards.
  • The widespread confusion resulting from compromised positions.
  • The tendency to ‘infantilise’ the organic message in major campaigns.
  • The policy of ‘pick and mix’ organics, which undermines informed understanding of organic principles.

2. Subordination and dilution of the organic message to a healthy eating message

  • Food For Life and the Catering Mark messaging is given prominence and is becoming the preferred ‘voice’ of the Soil Association.
  • The shift in focus to position the Soil Association as a public health delivery organization rather than the UK’s main organic food and farming organisation.

3. The Soil Association’s public profile

  • A PR void at senior management level, and loss of an authoritative voice.
  • The Soil Association is no longer the ‘go-to’ place for media on food and farming matters.
  • The Soil Association lacks political clout on national farming matters.

4. A dull and uninspiring image

  • The evident lack of appeal to younger consumers, for example, as highlighted in a recent survey conducted by MMR Research Worldwide.
  • A safe, cautious, controversy-averse image, pre-occupied with being all things to all men and with an over -arching ‘soft sell’.
  • The substitution of vague promises for meaningful inspirational targets.
  • The lack of ‘fire in the belly’ campaigns and conviction in its own beliefs.
  • The policy – as seen in the Soil Association’s daily News Digest – of attaching itself to others’ coat tails to ‘walk the talk’.

5. The inward looking and parochial nature of the Soil Association

  • Too focused on its own achievements.
  • A lack of engagement with the wider organic world.
  • Inadequate  promotion of the success of the organic movement globally to help build general consumer/farming confidence.

6. Membership issues

  • Membership of the Soil Association continues to decline.
  • Members are undervalued in comparison to external ‘stakeholders’.
  • The evolution of Living Earth into a lightweight lifestyle magazine instead of an intelligent publication that inspires and informs.
  • An emerging agenda to change the Soil Association from a campaigning membership organisation into a ‘corporate’ entity.

7. Inadequate support and allegiance to organic farmers and growers

  • Licensee numbers have stagnated, yet there seems to be no pro-active strategy, in either the farming or the consumer arena, to capitalise on the upturn of organic sales and to champion overtly organic food.


Comments received

During the preparation of this document we spoke confidentially to various people from across the spectrum of farmers, growers, producers and consumers. We include some comments we received (unattributed) for background purposes:

  • “The SA is too prepared to jump on bandwagons rather than focusing on what it says it believes in.”
  • “Its content seems to be news-led rather than setting the agenda.”
  • “The SA is not explaining why organic is a good thing for people; they’ve lost their way.”
  • “The SA failed to make organic different and has been too keen to keep mainstream agriculture onside.”
  • “I haven’t a clue what organic stands for any more. The SA is not on my radar, I never hear about it. I’m no longer certified, but keep in touch with growers and all they do is moan about certification.”
  • “We need more consumer education. The SA is failing in this – people don’t know what organic is.”
  • “I hear a lot of frustration from growers and farmers. Certification is laborious and expensive for small producers – who constantly moan about it, and feel they are unfairly treated.”
  • “The SA needs to go out on a limb to defend organic philosophy and values. No one will thank it in 20 years time for being safe, for not sticking its head above the parapet, for avoiding difficult conversations or for striving to be a healthy eating charity – of which we already have many.”
  • “Organic is dying. The SA are failing in their duty to educate and explain what organic food and farming is all about – no-one knows what organic means; if this continues the organic movement will fade away.”
  • “The SA is diluting its message and spreading itself too far and wide: I couldn’t give you a definition of who the SA is now and what the SA stands for.”
  • “The SA has failed to make organic different and has been too keen to keep mainstream agriculture onside.”
  • “Campaigning organizations need to lead from the front. It’s not the easy stuff that counts, it’s the difficult decisions where you need to take a stand – that’s what people respect you for, and that’s where the SA ducks out.”
  • “The more SA embraces non-organic organizations, the more difficult it is for devoted producers, some of whom feel that it’s treachery; they feel let down and abandoned.”
  • “Large non-organic organizations don’t want the SA to campaign for organics, because it makes them look bad – the SA defer to this, which tarnishes their organic image and credentials.”
  • “Why is the campaigning for organic being left to the OTB? The current work being done by the OTB is very low level and just doesn’t work.”
  • “The SA effectively heads up the organic movement in the UK; indeed, historically, it is largely responsible for creating it. That carries a huge responsibility. It is the Mother Ship. It cannot cast it off and destroy it for its own short-term aims – and that’s what I see happening. If the organic movement dies in the UK, the SA will be responsible and history will judge it accordingly.”

 

 




387619