Tag Archives: which

Death by landfill – cutting ‘green tape’ costs lives Updated for 2026





I’ve been a professional ‘environmental investigator’ for over 22 years now. Over that time I’ve seen some awful offences against the environment. I’ve also witnessed some inspiring action from the individuals and communities affected.

After seeing so many outrageous cases it’s easy to become desensitised to the more everyday environmental offences – even if they are, of themselves, dire to those involved.

But every now and again you come across something that jerks you back to stark reality – something that touches a raw nerve.

I spent the 1990s working as an ‘eco-troubleshooter for hire’ across Britain. For the last decade or so, tired of seeing the same problems coming around again and again, I’ve become more strategic – trying, proactively, to deal with issues before they become an offence to human health and environment. For example, I was apparently the first person touring the UK talking about fracking in 2009 / 2010.

I’ve seen all sorts of ‘nastiness’ – from the dodgy waste reclamation plants of the Black Country, to the chemical plants of Teeside, to the landfills of South Wales.

The point at which I decided to stop chasing tipper lorries, and instead proactively identify ‘the next big issue’, was after fighting Newcastle City Council in 1999/2000.

They had, as a method of ‘recycling’, dumped highly toxic incinerator ash on public parks and allotments across Newcastle – only for them to get a slap on the wrist in the court and, politically, to brush the matter under the carpet.

A case from the ‘book of horrors’

1991-2003 is a time in my career which I look back upon with both fond and troubling memories. And a few weeks ago it came back to haunt me with a vengeance. After speaking about fracking in Guildford I met a couple whose case was right out of my old ‘book of horrors’ from the 1990s.

During February of this year the news was dominated by the flooding along the Thames Valley. Amidst the general mayhem there was one tragedy which has received little public attention.

In the early hours of 8th February 2014, Kye Gbangbola, his seven year old son Zane, and Zane’s mother Nicole were all taken ill at their home in Thameside, Surrey. An ambulance was called and they were taken to hospital. Both Kye and Zane had suffered cardiac arrest. Zane died later in hospital. Kye remains paralysed from the waist down.

Kye and Nicole came to my talk in Guildford and told me of their campaign to find the truth of what happened that day. Surrey Fire and Rescue Service attended and found hydrogen cyanide. Medical tests also showed the presence of cyanide in the family’s blood.

Ten months later the case has not been resolved: no date for an inquest; no death certificate; no resolution to the family’s plight.

What is the possible source of cyanide from flooding?

Just to the north of their home was a former gravel pit which, some years ago, had been used as a waste dump. Before waste licensing came in a the end of the 1970s, waste dumping was pretty much uncontrolled. Former gravel and brick pits around the periphery of London were used extensively to get rid of the capital’s waste.

And the source of the waste? No one knows. If, for example, the site had been filled with innocently identified ‘construction waste’, and if that material had come from a former gasworks in London or elsewhere, it could contain high levels of cyanide.

These things happened in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1992 I discovered the the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Harwell Laboratory, Britain’s premier nuclear research agency, had for years been secretly dumping waste chemical flasks and radioactive waste transport containers in a gravel pit on the edge of an Oxfordshire village.

In April 2014 Surrey County Council, the waste disposal authority for the area, denied that the site had been landfilled. If you go to the Environment Agency’s web site, you can see that the site is classed as an ‘historic landfill’ – that is, pre-dating the controls brought in during the late 1970s.

As flood-waters rose in February, the landfilled material is presumed to have become saturated. As the result of either chemical reactions, or the displacement of toxic gases, or both, the groundwater which filled the cellar is presumed to have carried the toxic gas into the house, overcoming the family.

A trip down eco-memory lane

What I’ve found so troubling about this case is that, for twenty years, this has been a tragedy waiting to happen. To explain why, I need you to take a trip down eco-memory lane.

When I started work professionally in 1992, the first thing I did was to write a series of reports on the issue of contaminated land. During my ‘voluntary period’ (1984-1991) I’d come across the issue a number of times.

From closed landfill sites, to old gasworks, it was a serious problem – and one which I believed could form the basis of a viable business as a full-time ‘environmental investigator’.

The Department of the Environments’ (DoE) Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL) had produced a number of documents in the early 1980’s setting out the best practice for the redeveloping contaminated land.

In 1985 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s Eleventh Report highlighted the problems too. This led to research being commissioned, and eventually the issuing of a DoE / Welsh Office circular explaining the procedures and best practice in the redevelopment of contaminated land. The ICRCL also revised some of their previous notes to reflect this.

In 1989 the Government decided to put all this new research and best practice into a formal, legally enforcible regulatory framework; which was inserted into the new Environmental Protection Bill , eventually becoming Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Then the development industry went absolutely berserk!

Shortly after the new Act was approved, developers and landowners, fearful that their assets would be effectively worthless if they had to clean up historic contamination, brought brickbats to bear on politicians and regulators. What particularly stirred their wrath were two specific sections of the new Act:

Section 61, which required local waste regulation authorities to map all the former landfill sites in their area. The rationale was that what is the value of bringing new regulations to control the hazard from current and new landfill sites if you didn’t police the condition of the old ones too. Specifically paragraph 1 stated,

“it shall be the duty of every waste regulation authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect whether any land is in such a condition, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, that it may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.”

Section 143 was similar, but it extended the need to survey and evaluate land to all potentially “contaminative uses of land”, and created a,

“duty of a local authority, as respects land in its area subject to contamination, to maintain, in accordance with the regulations, a register in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars.”

The fear expressed by many property developers was that large areas of land would be ‘blighted’. The land would be worthless because of the perceived risk in the mind of the public, and because of the large costs of decontamination before any new developments could be built.

That view ignores the potential hazards of development – and arguably the greater cost to public health and the NHS. I’d carried out some research on behalf of Friends of the Earth in Oxfordshire, Kent and Lancashire, and there were a large number of sites which could cause problems to the environment and human health if badly redeveloped.

The risk was not from the land as it was – it was the impact on workers and the public if the substances locked-up in the ground were disturbed, dug up or moved.

In May 1991, following a public consultation, regulations were drafted to implement the new system – to be commenced in April 1992. These were abandoned shortly before this date due to pressure from property developers.

To address the developer’s concerns, following a second consultation period, the regulations were the redrafted – the new guidelines only covering 15% of the land area which the original regulations would have. Despite this, the Department of the Environment still received objections from major developers and landowners.

The Government caves in to pressure

On 24th March 1993 the Government abandoned plans to implement sections 143 and 61 of the Act, and announced that it would begin a review of the powers of regulatory bodies to control the pollution of land.

The exact nature of pressure brought to bear on the Conservative government, causing them to cave into the development lobby rather than protecting public health, was not clear at the time. All we can do today is ask the minister responsible for that decision, Michael Howard – now a member of the House of Lords.

By 1995 the Government was planning to merge various environmental regulators to form a new ‘super-regulator’, the Environment Agency.

That was brought about by The Environment Act 1995. Section 57 of that Act repealed section 143 of the 1990 Act, inserting in its place a new ‘Part IIA’ of the Environmental Protection Act which instituted a new legal framework for dealing with contaminated land.

Section 120 and Schedule 22 of the 1995 Act repealed section 61 of the 1990 Act, taking away the obligation to monitor former landfill sites – meaning that they would be dealt with just like any other types of ‘potentially contaminated land’ even though, arguably, landfill sites are a more hazardous land use.

How can we summarised this new process? That’s best summed up in DEFRA’s 2008 legal definition of land contamination, drawn up by the then ‘New Labour’ government (my emphasis):

“Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force in England in 2000. The Government sees a central aim of the Part 2A regime as being to encourage voluntary remediation of land affected by contamination.”

What does ‘voluntary remediation’ mean in practice?

Around 1997/8 I investigated the redevelopment of the former Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield Lock. Redevelopment was causing nausea and skin rashes amongst nearby residents.

What that ‘remediation’ meant to the developer of the new Enfield Island Village was that at the least contaminated end of the island, where the ‘expensive’ houses were to be built, a metre or two of soil was dug up (which was causing the problems experienced by the neighbours) and replaced with fresh material before the houses were erected.

At the other, most contaminated end of the island, very little soil was removed. Instead a metre of clay was rolled down on the ground surface before the ‘low cost’ social housing was erected.

This is the problem with the framework for contaminated land instituted in 1995. It proceeds on a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ basis. If the local council doesn’t press the issue, the developer need only undertake works which render the site fit for its intended purpose.

Worse still, if a local authority decides that a site presents an imminent risk to the public, it might have to bear the cost of remedial action and try to bill the landowner for the work. Consequently it isn’t in the interests of local authorities to look, just in case they find something – Surrey’s immediate denial in this case being an exemplar of the principle.

If Section 61 had not been repealed in 1995, Surrey County Council would have had to investigate every former landfill in the area and assess its risk to the public (around the periphery of London, that’s quite a lot of sites).

If Section 147 had not been repealed, Spelthorne Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department would have had to keep a detailed register of potentially contaminated sites, and that register would have been available to anyone to view.

There is a repeating pattern of administrative action at work here

Just as in the early 1990s, today the Government and regulators are coming under pressure to water-down environmental regulations, and ‘cut the green tape‘, to allow business to develop more easily.

For example, on the back of a more right-wing economic bandwagon, instituting policies such as ‘fracking’ for shale gas, David Cameron has instructed his aides to get rid of the green crap from policy.

That’s also why this case touched a raw nerve with me. I’ve come across some nasty cases in the past – such as the Rocket Pool estate in Bradley, Wolverhampton, where people living on the edge of a former landfill were becoming seriously ill (a few years later, a number of local people who I worked with on that case had died).

What really annoys me is that, 20 years ago, the consequences of decisions made then were entirely foreseeable – and were made purely for the sake of money over the value of people’s health.

Today, that same blinkered agenda is still driving decision-making. That’s what hit me as I talked to Kye and Nicole in Guildford. My past was catching up with me and it had so much to say about the present.

We can’t be certain that if sections 61 and 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 had not been withdrawn, and the legislation enacted as originally anticipated, that Zane and his family would not have succumbed to the tragedy which befell them in February.

What we can say, especially given the requirements of section 61 on Surrey County Council, is that it would have been less likely to happen if these sites had been properly investigated 20 years ago.

And today, though their individual case is a sad reminder of Britain’s legacy of past mistakes, it should serve as a red flag over decisions taken today to ‘cut green tape’ – which, with what we know from our recent past, could plague present and future generations.

 


 

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

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on the Free Range Activism website.

 

 




388382

Death by landfill – cutting ‘green tape’ costs lives Updated for 2026





I’ve been a professional ‘environmental investigator’ for over 22 years now. Over that time I’ve seen some awful offences against the environment. I’ve also witnessed some inspiring action from the individuals and communities affected.

After seeing so many outrageous cases it’s easy to become desensitised to the more everyday environmental offences – even if they are, of themselves, dire to those involved.

But every now and again you come across something that jerks you back to stark reality – something that touches a raw nerve.

I spent the 1990s working as an ‘eco-troubleshooter for hire’ across Britain. For the last decade or so, tired of seeing the same problems coming around again and again, I’ve become more strategic – trying, proactively, to deal with issues before they become an offence to human health and environment. For example, I was apparently the first person touring the UK talking about fracking in 2009 / 2010.

I’ve seen all sorts of ‘nastiness’ – from the dodgy waste reclamation plants of the Black Country, to the chemical plants of Teeside, to the landfills of South Wales.

The point at which I decided to stop chasing tipper lorries, and instead proactively identify ‘the next big issue’, was after fighting Newcastle City Council in 1999/2000.

They had, as a method of ‘recycling’, dumped highly toxic incinerator ash on public parks and allotments across Newcastle – only for them to get a slap on the wrist in the court and, politically, to brush the matter under the carpet.

A case from the ‘book of horrors’

1991-2003 is a time in my career which I look back upon with both fond and troubling memories. And a few weeks ago it came back to haunt me with a vengeance. After speaking about fracking in Guildford I met a couple whose case was right out of my old ‘book of horrors’ from the 1990s.

During February of this year the news was dominated by the flooding along the Thames Valley. Amidst the general mayhem there was one tragedy which has received little public attention.

In the early hours of 8th February 2014, Kye Gbangbola, his seven year old son Zane, and Zane’s mother Nicole were all taken ill at their home in Thameside, Surrey. An ambulance was called and they were taken to hospital. Both Kye and Zane had suffered cardiac arrest. Zane died later in hospital. Kye remains paralysed from the waist down.

Kye and Nicole came to my talk in Guildford and told me of their campaign to find the truth of what happened that day. Surrey Fire and Rescue Service attended and found hydrogen cyanide. Medical tests also showed the presence of cyanide in the family’s blood.

Ten months later the case has not been resolved: no date for an inquest; no death certificate; no resolution to the family’s plight.

What is the possible source of cyanide from flooding?

Just to the north of their home was a former gravel pit which, some years ago, had been used as a waste dump. Before waste licensing came in a the end of the 1970s, waste dumping was pretty much uncontrolled. Former gravel and brick pits around the periphery of London were used extensively to get rid of the capital’s waste.

And the source of the waste? No one knows. If, for example, the site had been filled with innocently identified ‘construction waste’, and if that material had come from a former gasworks in London or elsewhere, it could contain high levels of cyanide.

These things happened in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1992 I discovered the the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Harwell Laboratory, Britain’s premier nuclear research agency, had for years been secretly dumping waste chemical flasks and radioactive waste transport containers in a gravel pit on the edge of an Oxfordshire village.

In April 2014 Surrey County Council, the waste disposal authority for the area, denied that the site had been landfilled. If you go to the Environment Agency’s web site, you can see that the site is classed as an ‘historic landfill’ – that is, pre-dating the controls brought in during the late 1970s.

As flood-waters rose in February, the landfilled material is presumed to have become saturated. As the result of either chemical reactions, or the displacement of toxic gases, or both, the groundwater which filled the cellar is presumed to have carried the toxic gas into the house, overcoming the family.

A trip down eco-memory lane

What I’ve found so troubling about this case is that, for twenty years, this has been a tragedy waiting to happen. To explain why, I need you to take a trip down eco-memory lane.

When I started work professionally in 1992, the first thing I did was to write a series of reports on the issue of contaminated land. During my ‘voluntary period’ (1984-1991) I’d come across the issue a number of times.

From closed landfill sites, to old gasworks, it was a serious problem – and one which I believed could form the basis of a viable business as a full-time ‘environmental investigator’.

The Department of the Environments’ (DoE) Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL) had produced a number of documents in the early 1980’s setting out the best practice for the redeveloping contaminated land.

In 1985 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s Eleventh Report highlighted the problems too. This led to research being commissioned, and eventually the issuing of a DoE / Welsh Office circular explaining the procedures and best practice in the redevelopment of contaminated land. The ICRCL also revised some of their previous notes to reflect this.

In 1989 the Government decided to put all this new research and best practice into a formal, legally enforcible regulatory framework; which was inserted into the new Environmental Protection Bill , eventually becoming Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Then the development industry went absolutely berserk!

Shortly after the new Act was approved, developers and landowners, fearful that their assets would be effectively worthless if they had to clean up historic contamination, brought brickbats to bear on politicians and regulators. What particularly stirred their wrath were two specific sections of the new Act:

Section 61, which required local waste regulation authorities to map all the former landfill sites in their area. The rationale was that what is the value of bringing new regulations to control the hazard from current and new landfill sites if you didn’t police the condition of the old ones too. Specifically paragraph 1 stated,

“it shall be the duty of every waste regulation authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect whether any land is in such a condition, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, that it may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.”

Section 143 was similar, but it extended the need to survey and evaluate land to all potentially “contaminative uses of land”, and created a,

“duty of a local authority, as respects land in its area subject to contamination, to maintain, in accordance with the regulations, a register in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars.”

The fear expressed by many property developers was that large areas of land would be ‘blighted’. The land would be worthless because of the perceived risk in the mind of the public, and because of the large costs of decontamination before any new developments could be built.

That view ignores the potential hazards of development – and arguably the greater cost to public health and the NHS. I’d carried out some research on behalf of Friends of the Earth in Oxfordshire, Kent and Lancashire, and there were a large number of sites which could cause problems to the environment and human health if badly redeveloped.

The risk was not from the land as it was – it was the impact on workers and the public if the substances locked-up in the ground were disturbed, dug up or moved.

In May 1991, following a public consultation, regulations were drafted to implement the new system – to be commenced in April 1992. These were abandoned shortly before this date due to pressure from property developers.

To address the developer’s concerns, following a second consultation period, the regulations were the redrafted – the new guidelines only covering 15% of the land area which the original regulations would have. Despite this, the Department of the Environment still received objections from major developers and landowners.

The Government caves in to pressure

On 24th March 1993 the Government abandoned plans to implement sections 143 and 61 of the Act, and announced that it would begin a review of the powers of regulatory bodies to control the pollution of land.

The exact nature of pressure brought to bear on the Conservative government, causing them to cave into the development lobby rather than protecting public health, was not clear at the time. All we can do today is ask the minister responsible for that decision, Michael Howard – now a member of the House of Lords.

By 1995 the Government was planning to merge various environmental regulators to form a new ‘super-regulator’, the Environment Agency.

That was brought about by The Environment Act 1995. Section 57 of that Act repealed section 143 of the 1990 Act, inserting in its place a new ‘Part IIA’ of the Environmental Protection Act which instituted a new legal framework for dealing with contaminated land.

Section 120 and Schedule 22 of the 1995 Act repealed section 61 of the 1990 Act, taking away the obligation to monitor former landfill sites – meaning that they would be dealt with just like any other types of ‘potentially contaminated land’ even though, arguably, landfill sites are a more hazardous land use.

How can we summarised this new process? That’s best summed up in DEFRA’s 2008 legal definition of land contamination, drawn up by the then ‘New Labour’ government (my emphasis):

“Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force in England in 2000. The Government sees a central aim of the Part 2A regime as being to encourage voluntary remediation of land affected by contamination.”

What does ‘voluntary remediation’ mean in practice?

Around 1997/8 I investigated the redevelopment of the former Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield Lock. Redevelopment was causing nausea and skin rashes amongst nearby residents.

What that ‘remediation’ meant to the developer of the new Enfield Island Village was that at the least contaminated end of the island, where the ‘expensive’ houses were to be built, a metre or two of soil was dug up (which was causing the problems experienced by the neighbours) and replaced with fresh material before the houses were erected.

At the other, most contaminated end of the island, very little soil was removed. Instead a metre of clay was rolled down on the ground surface before the ‘low cost’ social housing was erected.

This is the problem with the framework for contaminated land instituted in 1995. It proceeds on a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ basis. If the local council doesn’t press the issue, the developer need only undertake works which render the site fit for its intended purpose.

Worse still, if a local authority decides that a site presents an imminent risk to the public, it might have to bear the cost of remedial action and try to bill the landowner for the work. Consequently it isn’t in the interests of local authorities to look, just in case they find something – Surrey’s immediate denial in this case being an exemplar of the principle.

If Section 61 had not been repealed in 1995, Surrey County Council would have had to investigate every former landfill in the area and assess its risk to the public (around the periphery of London, that’s quite a lot of sites).

If Section 147 had not been repealed, Spelthorne Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department would have had to keep a detailed register of potentially contaminated sites, and that register would have been available to anyone to view.

There is a repeating pattern of administrative action at work here

Just as in the early 1990s, today the Government and regulators are coming under pressure to water-down environmental regulations, and ‘cut the green tape‘, to allow business to develop more easily.

For example, on the back of a more right-wing economic bandwagon, instituting policies such as ‘fracking’ for shale gas, David Cameron has instructed his aides to get rid of the green crap from policy.

That’s also why this case touched a raw nerve with me. I’ve come across some nasty cases in the past – such as the Rocket Pool estate in Bradley, Wolverhampton, where people living on the edge of a former landfill were becoming seriously ill (a few years later, a number of local people who I worked with on that case had died).

What really annoys me is that, 20 years ago, the consequences of decisions made then were entirely foreseeable – and were made purely for the sake of money over the value of people’s health.

Today, that same blinkered agenda is still driving decision-making. That’s what hit me as I talked to Kye and Nicole in Guildford. My past was catching up with me and it had so much to say about the present.

We can’t be certain that if sections 61 and 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 had not been withdrawn, and the legislation enacted as originally anticipated, that Zane and his family would not have succumbed to the tragedy which befell them in February.

What we can say, especially given the requirements of section 61 on Surrey County Council, is that it would have been less likely to happen if these sites had been properly investigated 20 years ago.

And today, though their individual case is a sad reminder of Britain’s legacy of past mistakes, it should serve as a red flag over decisions taken today to ‘cut green tape’ – which, with what we know from our recent past, could plague present and future generations.

 


 

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

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on the Free Range Activism website.

 

 




388382

Death by landfill – cutting ‘green tape’ costs lives Updated for 2026





I’ve been a professional ‘environmental investigator’ for over 22 years now. Over that time I’ve seen some awful offences against the environment. I’ve also witnessed some inspiring action from the individuals and communities affected.

After seeing so many outrageous cases it’s easy to become desensitised to the more everyday environmental offences – even if they are, of themselves, dire to those involved.

But every now and again you come across something that jerks you back to stark reality – something that touches a raw nerve.

I spent the 1990s working as an ‘eco-troubleshooter for hire’ across Britain. For the last decade or so, tired of seeing the same problems coming around again and again, I’ve become more strategic – trying, proactively, to deal with issues before they become an offence to human health and environment. For example, I was apparently the first person touring the UK talking about fracking in 2009 / 2010.

I’ve seen all sorts of ‘nastiness’ – from the dodgy waste reclamation plants of the Black Country, to the chemical plants of Teeside, to the landfills of South Wales.

The point at which I decided to stop chasing tipper lorries, and instead proactively identify ‘the next big issue’, was after fighting Newcastle City Council in 1999/2000.

They had, as a method of ‘recycling’, dumped highly toxic incinerator ash on public parks and allotments across Newcastle – only for them to get a slap on the wrist in the court and, politically, to brush the matter under the carpet.

A case from the ‘book of horrors’

1991-2003 is a time in my career which I look back upon with both fond and troubling memories. And a few weeks ago it came back to haunt me with a vengeance. After speaking about fracking in Guildford I met a couple whose case was right out of my old ‘book of horrors’ from the 1990s.

During February of this year the news was dominated by the flooding along the Thames Valley. Amidst the general mayhem there was one tragedy which has received little public attention.

In the early hours of 8th February 2014, Kye Gbangbola, his seven year old son Zane, and Zane’s mother Nicole were all taken ill at their home in Thameside, Surrey. An ambulance was called and they were taken to hospital. Both Kye and Zane had suffered cardiac arrest. Zane died later in hospital. Kye remains paralysed from the waist down.

Kye and Nicole came to my talk in Guildford and told me of their campaign to find the truth of what happened that day. Surrey Fire and Rescue Service attended and found hydrogen cyanide. Medical tests also showed the presence of cyanide in the family’s blood.

Ten months later the case has not been resolved: no date for an inquest; no death certificate; no resolution to the family’s plight.

What is the possible source of cyanide from flooding?

Just to the north of their home was a former gravel pit which, some years ago, had been used as a waste dump. Before waste licensing came in a the end of the 1970s, waste dumping was pretty much uncontrolled. Former gravel and brick pits around the periphery of London were used extensively to get rid of the capital’s waste.

And the source of the waste? No one knows. If, for example, the site had been filled with innocently identified ‘construction waste’, and if that material had come from a former gasworks in London or elsewhere, it could contain high levels of cyanide.

These things happened in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1992 I discovered the the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Harwell Laboratory, Britain’s premier nuclear research agency, had for years been secretly dumping waste chemical flasks and radioactive waste transport containers in a gravel pit on the edge of an Oxfordshire village.

In April 2014 Surrey County Council, the waste disposal authority for the area, denied that the site had been landfilled. If you go to the Environment Agency’s web site, you can see that the site is classed as an ‘historic landfill’ – that is, pre-dating the controls brought in during the late 1970s.

As flood-waters rose in February, the landfilled material is presumed to have become saturated. As the result of either chemical reactions, or the displacement of toxic gases, or both, the groundwater which filled the cellar is presumed to have carried the toxic gas into the house, overcoming the family.

A trip down eco-memory lane

What I’ve found so troubling about this case is that, for twenty years, this has been a tragedy waiting to happen. To explain why, I need you to take a trip down eco-memory lane.

When I started work professionally in 1992, the first thing I did was to write a series of reports on the issue of contaminated land. During my ‘voluntary period’ (1984-1991) I’d come across the issue a number of times.

From closed landfill sites, to old gasworks, it was a serious problem – and one which I believed could form the basis of a viable business as a full-time ‘environmental investigator’.

The Department of the Environments’ (DoE) Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL) had produced a number of documents in the early 1980’s setting out the best practice for the redeveloping contaminated land.

In 1985 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s Eleventh Report highlighted the problems too. This led to research being commissioned, and eventually the issuing of a DoE / Welsh Office circular explaining the procedures and best practice in the redevelopment of contaminated land. The ICRCL also revised some of their previous notes to reflect this.

In 1989 the Government decided to put all this new research and best practice into a formal, legally enforcible regulatory framework; which was inserted into the new Environmental Protection Bill , eventually becoming Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Then the development industry went absolutely berserk!

Shortly after the new Act was approved, developers and landowners, fearful that their assets would be effectively worthless if they had to clean up historic contamination, brought brickbats to bear on politicians and regulators. What particularly stirred their wrath were two specific sections of the new Act:

Section 61, which required local waste regulation authorities to map all the former landfill sites in their area. The rationale was that what is the value of bringing new regulations to control the hazard from current and new landfill sites if you didn’t police the condition of the old ones too. Specifically paragraph 1 stated,

“it shall be the duty of every waste regulation authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect whether any land is in such a condition, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, that it may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.”

Section 143 was similar, but it extended the need to survey and evaluate land to all potentially “contaminative uses of land”, and created a,

“duty of a local authority, as respects land in its area subject to contamination, to maintain, in accordance with the regulations, a register in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars.”

The fear expressed by many property developers was that large areas of land would be ‘blighted’. The land would be worthless because of the perceived risk in the mind of the public, and because of the large costs of decontamination before any new developments could be built.

That view ignores the potential hazards of development – and arguably the greater cost to public health and the NHS. I’d carried out some research on behalf of Friends of the Earth in Oxfordshire, Kent and Lancashire, and there were a large number of sites which could cause problems to the environment and human health if badly redeveloped.

The risk was not from the land as it was – it was the impact on workers and the public if the substances locked-up in the ground were disturbed, dug up or moved.

In May 1991, following a public consultation, regulations were drafted to implement the new system – to be commenced in April 1992. These were abandoned shortly before this date due to pressure from property developers.

To address the developer’s concerns, following a second consultation period, the regulations were the redrafted – the new guidelines only covering 15% of the land area which the original regulations would have. Despite this, the Department of the Environment still received objections from major developers and landowners.

The Government caves in to pressure

On 24th March 1993 the Government abandoned plans to implement sections 143 and 61 of the Act, and announced that it would begin a review of the powers of regulatory bodies to control the pollution of land.

The exact nature of pressure brought to bear on the Conservative government, causing them to cave into the development lobby rather than protecting public health, was not clear at the time. All we can do today is ask the minister responsible for that decision, Michael Howard – now a member of the House of Lords.

By 1995 the Government was planning to merge various environmental regulators to form a new ‘super-regulator’, the Environment Agency.

That was brought about by The Environment Act 1995. Section 57 of that Act repealed section 143 of the 1990 Act, inserting in its place a new ‘Part IIA’ of the Environmental Protection Act which instituted a new legal framework for dealing with contaminated land.

Section 120 and Schedule 22 of the 1995 Act repealed section 61 of the 1990 Act, taking away the obligation to monitor former landfill sites – meaning that they would be dealt with just like any other types of ‘potentially contaminated land’ even though, arguably, landfill sites are a more hazardous land use.

How can we summarised this new process? That’s best summed up in DEFRA’s 2008 legal definition of land contamination, drawn up by the then ‘New Labour’ government (my emphasis):

“Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force in England in 2000. The Government sees a central aim of the Part 2A regime as being to encourage voluntary remediation of land affected by contamination.”

What does ‘voluntary remediation’ mean in practice?

Around 1997/8 I investigated the redevelopment of the former Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield Lock. Redevelopment was causing nausea and skin rashes amongst nearby residents.

What that ‘remediation’ meant to the developer of the new Enfield Island Village was that at the least contaminated end of the island, where the ‘expensive’ houses were to be built, a metre or two of soil was dug up (which was causing the problems experienced by the neighbours) and replaced with fresh material before the houses were erected.

At the other, most contaminated end of the island, very little soil was removed. Instead a metre of clay was rolled down on the ground surface before the ‘low cost’ social housing was erected.

This is the problem with the framework for contaminated land instituted in 1995. It proceeds on a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ basis. If the local council doesn’t press the issue, the developer need only undertake works which render the site fit for its intended purpose.

Worse still, if a local authority decides that a site presents an imminent risk to the public, it might have to bear the cost of remedial action and try to bill the landowner for the work. Consequently it isn’t in the interests of local authorities to look, just in case they find something – Surrey’s immediate denial in this case being an exemplar of the principle.

If Section 61 had not been repealed in 1995, Surrey County Council would have had to investigate every former landfill in the area and assess its risk to the public (around the periphery of London, that’s quite a lot of sites).

If Section 147 had not been repealed, Spelthorne Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department would have had to keep a detailed register of potentially contaminated sites, and that register would have been available to anyone to view.

There is a repeating pattern of administrative action at work here

Just as in the early 1990s, today the Government and regulators are coming under pressure to water-down environmental regulations, and ‘cut the green tape‘, to allow business to develop more easily.

For example, on the back of a more right-wing economic bandwagon, instituting policies such as ‘fracking’ for shale gas, David Cameron has instructed his aides to get rid of the green crap from policy.

That’s also why this case touched a raw nerve with me. I’ve come across some nasty cases in the past – such as the Rocket Pool estate in Bradley, Wolverhampton, where people living on the edge of a former landfill were becoming seriously ill (a few years later, a number of local people who I worked with on that case had died).

What really annoys me is that, 20 years ago, the consequences of decisions made then were entirely foreseeable – and were made purely for the sake of money over the value of people’s health.

Today, that same blinkered agenda is still driving decision-making. That’s what hit me as I talked to Kye and Nicole in Guildford. My past was catching up with me and it had so much to say about the present.

We can’t be certain that if sections 61 and 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 had not been withdrawn, and the legislation enacted as originally anticipated, that Zane and his family would not have succumbed to the tragedy which befell them in February.

What we can say, especially given the requirements of section 61 on Surrey County Council, is that it would have been less likely to happen if these sites had been properly investigated 20 years ago.

And today, though their individual case is a sad reminder of Britain’s legacy of past mistakes, it should serve as a red flag over decisions taken today to ‘cut green tape’ – which, with what we know from our recent past, could plague present and future generations.

 


 

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

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on the Free Range Activism website.

 

 




388382

Death by landfill – cutting ‘green tape’ costs lives Updated for 2026





I’ve been a professional ‘environmental investigator’ for over 22 years now. Over that time I’ve seen some awful offences against the environment. I’ve also witnessed some inspiring action from the individuals and communities affected.

After seeing so many outrageous cases it’s easy to become desensitised to the more everyday environmental offences – even if they are, of themselves, dire to those involved.

But every now and again you come across something that jerks you back to stark reality – something that touches a raw nerve.

I spent the 1990s working as an ‘eco-troubleshooter for hire’ across Britain. For the last decade or so, tired of seeing the same problems coming around again and again, I’ve become more strategic – trying, proactively, to deal with issues before they become an offence to human health and environment. For example, I was apparently the first person touring the UK talking about fracking in 2009 / 2010.

I’ve seen all sorts of ‘nastiness’ – from the dodgy waste reclamation plants of the Black Country, to the chemical plants of Teeside, to the landfills of South Wales.

The point at which I decided to stop chasing tipper lorries, and instead proactively identify ‘the next big issue’, was after fighting Newcastle City Council in 1999/2000.

They had, as a method of ‘recycling’, dumped highly toxic incinerator ash on public parks and allotments across Newcastle – only for them to get a slap on the wrist in the court and, politically, to brush the matter under the carpet.

A case from the ‘book of horrors’

1991-2003 is a time in my career which I look back upon with both fond and troubling memories. And a few weeks ago it came back to haunt me with a vengeance. After speaking about fracking in Guildford I met a couple whose case was right out of my old ‘book of horrors’ from the 1990s.

During February of this year the news was dominated by the flooding along the Thames Valley. Amidst the general mayhem there was one tragedy which has received little public attention.

In the early hours of 8th February 2014, Kye Gbangbola, his seven year old son Zane, and Zane’s mother Nicole were all taken ill at their home in Thameside, Surrey. An ambulance was called and they were taken to hospital. Both Kye and Zane had suffered cardiac arrest. Zane died later in hospital. Kye remains paralysed from the waist down.

Kye and Nicole came to my talk in Guildford and told me of their campaign to find the truth of what happened that day. Surrey Fire and Rescue Service attended and found hydrogen cyanide. Medical tests also showed the presence of cyanide in the family’s blood.

Ten months later the case has not been resolved: no date for an inquest; no death certificate; no resolution to the family’s plight.

What is the possible source of cyanide from flooding?

Just to the north of their home was a former gravel pit which, some years ago, had been used as a waste dump. Before waste licensing came in a the end of the 1970s, waste dumping was pretty much uncontrolled. Former gravel and brick pits around the periphery of London were used extensively to get rid of the capital’s waste.

And the source of the waste? No one knows. If, for example, the site had been filled with innocently identified ‘construction waste’, and if that material had come from a former gasworks in London or elsewhere, it could contain high levels of cyanide.

These things happened in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1992 I discovered the the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Harwell Laboratory, Britain’s premier nuclear research agency, had for years been secretly dumping waste chemical flasks and radioactive waste transport containers in a gravel pit on the edge of an Oxfordshire village.

In April 2014 Surrey County Council, the waste disposal authority for the area, denied that the site had been landfilled. If you go to the Environment Agency’s web site, you can see that the site is classed as an ‘historic landfill’ – that is, pre-dating the controls brought in during the late 1970s.

As flood-waters rose in February, the landfilled material is presumed to have become saturated. As the result of either chemical reactions, or the displacement of toxic gases, or both, the groundwater which filled the cellar is presumed to have carried the toxic gas into the house, overcoming the family.

A trip down eco-memory lane

What I’ve found so troubling about this case is that, for twenty years, this has been a tragedy waiting to happen. To explain why, I need you to take a trip down eco-memory lane.

When I started work professionally in 1992, the first thing I did was to write a series of reports on the issue of contaminated land. During my ‘voluntary period’ (1984-1991) I’d come across the issue a number of times.

From closed landfill sites, to old gasworks, it was a serious problem – and one which I believed could form the basis of a viable business as a full-time ‘environmental investigator’.

The Department of the Environments’ (DoE) Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL) had produced a number of documents in the early 1980’s setting out the best practice for the redeveloping contaminated land.

In 1985 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s Eleventh Report highlighted the problems too. This led to research being commissioned, and eventually the issuing of a DoE / Welsh Office circular explaining the procedures and best practice in the redevelopment of contaminated land. The ICRCL also revised some of their previous notes to reflect this.

In 1989 the Government decided to put all this new research and best practice into a formal, legally enforcible regulatory framework; which was inserted into the new Environmental Protection Bill , eventually becoming Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Then the development industry went absolutely berserk!

Shortly after the new Act was approved, developers and landowners, fearful that their assets would be effectively worthless if they had to clean up historic contamination, brought brickbats to bear on politicians and regulators. What particularly stirred their wrath were two specific sections of the new Act:

Section 61, which required local waste regulation authorities to map all the former landfill sites in their area. The rationale was that what is the value of bringing new regulations to control the hazard from current and new landfill sites if you didn’t police the condition of the old ones too. Specifically paragraph 1 stated,

“it shall be the duty of every waste regulation authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect whether any land is in such a condition, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, that it may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.”

Section 143 was similar, but it extended the need to survey and evaluate land to all potentially “contaminative uses of land”, and created a,

“duty of a local authority, as respects land in its area subject to contamination, to maintain, in accordance with the regulations, a register in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars.”

The fear expressed by many property developers was that large areas of land would be ‘blighted’. The land would be worthless because of the perceived risk in the mind of the public, and because of the large costs of decontamination before any new developments could be built.

That view ignores the potential hazards of development – and arguably the greater cost to public health and the NHS. I’d carried out some research on behalf of Friends of the Earth in Oxfordshire, Kent and Lancashire, and there were a large number of sites which could cause problems to the environment and human health if badly redeveloped.

The risk was not from the land as it was – it was the impact on workers and the public if the substances locked-up in the ground were disturbed, dug up or moved.

In May 1991, following a public consultation, regulations were drafted to implement the new system – to be commenced in April 1992. These were abandoned shortly before this date due to pressure from property developers.

To address the developer’s concerns, following a second consultation period, the regulations were the redrafted – the new guidelines only covering 15% of the land area which the original regulations would have. Despite this, the Department of the Environment still received objections from major developers and landowners.

The Government caves in to pressure

On 24th March 1993 the Government abandoned plans to implement sections 143 and 61 of the Act, and announced that it would begin a review of the powers of regulatory bodies to control the pollution of land.

The exact nature of pressure brought to bear on the Conservative government, causing them to cave into the development lobby rather than protecting public health, was not clear at the time. All we can do today is ask the minister responsible for that decision, Michael Howard – now a member of the House of Lords.

By 1995 the Government was planning to merge various environmental regulators to form a new ‘super-regulator’, the Environment Agency.

That was brought about by The Environment Act 1995. Section 57 of that Act repealed section 143 of the 1990 Act, inserting in its place a new ‘Part IIA’ of the Environmental Protection Act which instituted a new legal framework for dealing with contaminated land.

Section 120 and Schedule 22 of the 1995 Act repealed section 61 of the 1990 Act, taking away the obligation to monitor former landfill sites – meaning that they would be dealt with just like any other types of ‘potentially contaminated land’ even though, arguably, landfill sites are a more hazardous land use.

How can we summarised this new process? That’s best summed up in DEFRA’s 2008 legal definition of land contamination, drawn up by the then ‘New Labour’ government (my emphasis):

“Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force in England in 2000. The Government sees a central aim of the Part 2A regime as being to encourage voluntary remediation of land affected by contamination.”

What does ‘voluntary remediation’ mean in practice?

Around 1997/8 I investigated the redevelopment of the former Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield Lock. Redevelopment was causing nausea and skin rashes amongst nearby residents.

What that ‘remediation’ meant to the developer of the new Enfield Island Village was that at the least contaminated end of the island, where the ‘expensive’ houses were to be built, a metre or two of soil was dug up (which was causing the problems experienced by the neighbours) and replaced with fresh material before the houses were erected.

At the other, most contaminated end of the island, very little soil was removed. Instead a metre of clay was rolled down on the ground surface before the ‘low cost’ social housing was erected.

This is the problem with the framework for contaminated land instituted in 1995. It proceeds on a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ basis. If the local council doesn’t press the issue, the developer need only undertake works which render the site fit for its intended purpose.

Worse still, if a local authority decides that a site presents an imminent risk to the public, it might have to bear the cost of remedial action and try to bill the landowner for the work. Consequently it isn’t in the interests of local authorities to look, just in case they find something – Surrey’s immediate denial in this case being an exemplar of the principle.

If Section 61 had not been repealed in 1995, Surrey County Council would have had to investigate every former landfill in the area and assess its risk to the public (around the periphery of London, that’s quite a lot of sites).

If Section 147 had not been repealed, Spelthorne Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department would have had to keep a detailed register of potentially contaminated sites, and that register would have been available to anyone to view.

There is a repeating pattern of administrative action at work here

Just as in the early 1990s, today the Government and regulators are coming under pressure to water-down environmental regulations, and ‘cut the green tape‘, to allow business to develop more easily.

For example, on the back of a more right-wing economic bandwagon, instituting policies such as ‘fracking’ for shale gas, David Cameron has instructed his aides to get rid of the green crap from policy.

That’s also why this case touched a raw nerve with me. I’ve come across some nasty cases in the past – such as the Rocket Pool estate in Bradley, Wolverhampton, where people living on the edge of a former landfill were becoming seriously ill (a few years later, a number of local people who I worked with on that case had died).

What really annoys me is that, 20 years ago, the consequences of decisions made then were entirely foreseeable – and were made purely for the sake of money over the value of people’s health.

Today, that same blinkered agenda is still driving decision-making. That’s what hit me as I talked to Kye and Nicole in Guildford. My past was catching up with me and it had so much to say about the present.

We can’t be certain that if sections 61 and 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 had not been withdrawn, and the legislation enacted as originally anticipated, that Zane and his family would not have succumbed to the tragedy which befell them in February.

What we can say, especially given the requirements of section 61 on Surrey County Council, is that it would have been less likely to happen if these sites had been properly investigated 20 years ago.

And today, though their individual case is a sad reminder of Britain’s legacy of past mistakes, it should serve as a red flag over decisions taken today to ‘cut green tape’ – which, with what we know from our recent past, could plague present and future generations.

 


 

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

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on the Free Range Activism website.

 

 




388382

Welcome Sara Magalhaes New SE Updated for 2026

Very welcome, Dr Sara Magalhaes, to the Oikos Editorial Board! Get to know Sara by visiting her webpage and read the mini-interview here:

sara peq11.     What’s you main research focus at the moment?

I work mainly with spider mites, which are herbivorous haplodiploid tiny spider-like creatures. Being easy to rear and with a short generation time, spider mites are easily amenable to experimental evolution, a methodology I find very powerful. With these mites, I ask questions within the general fields of host-parasite interactions (in which mites are either the host or the parasite), sex allocation, and mating strategies. I also do collaborative work on fruit flies, again on these topics.

2.     Can you describe you research career?

I did my undergraduate education at the University of Lisbon, with an Erasmus in Toulouse, then moved to the University of Amsterdam. There, I ended up doing my PhD thesis, under the supervision of Maurice Sabelis and Arne Janssen, and a lot of help from my colleagues Marta Montserrat, Belen Belliure and Maria Nomikou. The thesis concerned mainly the ecological consequences of antipredator behaviour. By the time I ended the thesis, in 2004, I felt the need to address the evolution of traits as well, so I moved to Montpellier to do a post-doc with Isabelle Olivieri. I took the mites with me and did experimental evolution of mite adaptation to novel host plants. I then decided to go back to Portugal, where I did a brief post-doc at the Gulbenkian Science Institute, again with experimental evolution but with bacteria and nematodes. Finally, in 2008, I came back to the University of Lisbon, where I established my own group with spider mites and several really cool students.

Sara3 urticae

Photo: Jacques Denoyelle

Photo: Jacques Denoyelle

3.     How come that you became a scientist in ecology?

I always thought that integrative sciences were more interesting. People that spend their whole lives studying a single molecule still give me the creeps, although I realize that this is also necessary…

4. What do you do when you’re not working?

I used to do lots of different stuff, I was in theatre groups, and danced tango a lot, went to lots of concerts and to the movies, but now that I have small kids my activities have switched to going to playgrounds and kid parties. In the summer, which in Portugal lasts around 6 months, it’s nicer because we go to beach, which everybody loves.

 

Long noses: Shell, GDF Suez, Samsung sweep Pinocchio Awards Updated for 2026





The grand winners of the Pinocchio Awards 2014 were Shell, GDF Suez and Samsung, announced at a celebrity-studded ceremony in Paris.

This year there were nine nominees for voters to choose between, and a new record was set for the number of votes since the Awards began in 2008: over 61,000 in total.

“This demonstrates citizens’ growing outrage about the severe impact multinational corporations’ activities are having on society and the environment”, commented Friends of the Earth France (FOEF) – which organises the Awards with Peuples Solidaires (ActionAid France) and CRID (Research and Information Centre for Development).

‘Most aggressive’ Shell – a richly deserved distinction

Shell won hands down for the Pinocchio award category ‘One for all and all for me!’, with 43% of the vote, for the development of shale gas projects across the entire world – except in Holland, its home country, which is subject to a fracking moratorium.

This prize is awarded to the company “which has the most aggressive policy in terms of appropriation, exploitation or destruction of natural resources.”

While Shell, like other big oil majors, prides itself on conducting its operations in accordance with “ambitious principles”, the reality observed on the ground, particularly in Argentina and the Ukraine, is quite different.

In these countries, reports FOEF, we see “lack of consultation with the population, wells drilled in a natural protected area and on farmland, toxic well-water reservoirs left out in the open, and lack of financial transparency, to name a few examples.”

Number two in the category with 29% of the vote was the French bank Crédit Agricole, for its financing of Mountain-top removal coal mining in Appalachia, USA – providing finance to Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources. Banktrack has published a full dossier on the bank’s activities.

GDF Suez – ‘green bonds’

In the prestigious ‘Greener than green’ category – which rewards the company which has led “the most abusive and misleading communication campaign in regard to its actual activities”, the Pinocchio award was received by GDF Suez with 42% of the vote for its ‘green bonds’, beating EDF and Pur Projet.

Last May, this French energy giant proudly announced that it had issued the biggest “green bond” ever made by a private company, collecting 2.5 billion Euros from private investors to finance its so-called clean energy projects.

However, on closer examination, no clear social or environmental criteria were associated with these ‘green’ bonds, and the company has not published a list of the projects it has financed.

It could even be using this money for destructive projects, such as large dams, like the one in Jirau (Brazil) that the company mentioned as an example. Furthermore, GDF Suez is continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels.

Running up with a 31% share of the vote was the French parastatal energy giant EDF, recognising its construction of the Kolubara B 750MW coal-fired power station in Serbia – in direct contradiction of its declared “ambition for a diversified and decarbonised energy mix”.

Samsung – ‘dirty hands, full wallet’

Finally, with 40% of the vote, the Pinocchio award for the category ‘Dirty hands, full wallet’ – which honours the company with the most opaque policy at the financial level, in terms of lobbying or in its supply chain – was given to Samsung.

The award reflects the company’s “disgraceful working conditions in its product-manufacturing factories in China: excessive working hours, pitiful wages and child labour, to cite just a few examples.”

Despite repeated inquiries and questioning civil society, as well as the filing of a complaint in France, this technology market-leader persistently denies these accusations.

“The company should face up to reality and implement some practical measures to improve working conditions for Chinese factory workers and put an end to these violations of human rights”, says FOEF.

It was closely followed by French oil company Perenco, with 31%, for its oil drilling in DRC Congo characterised by “the pillage of natural resources, financial opacity, environmental destruction and repression of dissent in local communities.”

A powerful tool in holding corporations to account

By condemning numerous violations against human rights and the environment, the Pinocchio Awards have grown in importance since they were established in 2008, and they help put pressure on companies to make them change their practices.

The scale of the event and its role in the public debate surrounding CSR this year has forced all companies nominated for an award to speak out publicly on the facts that have been reported about them.

Juliette Renaud, Corporate Accountability Campaigner at Friends of the Earth France, says: “Just a year ago we were celebrating the proposal of a bill on the due diligence of multinational companies – but pressure from lobby groups kept the government inactive on the subject, and this law has still not been voted or even discussed in Parliament.

Fanny Gallois, Campaign Manager at Peuples Solidaires, added: “By setting concrete facts against companies’ grand speeches, the Pinocchio Awards are showing this year again that these loopholes are allowing companies to operate with impunity in France and throughout the world.”

 


 

The Pinocchio Awards are organised in a media partnership with Basta!, the Multinational Observatory and Real World Radio, who have published informative articles and interviews on each of the nominees.

More information: Prix Pinocchio.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




386949

The great Hallowe’en pumpkin rescue Updated for 2026





An estimated 18,000 tonnes of pumpkin was sent to landfill sites in the UK last Hallowe’en, which is why new the environmental organisation Hubbub has launched the #pumpkinrescue campaign to inform people about the amount of edible food that gets sent to landfill.

New research by Populus shows that nearly two thirds (64%) of people throw their pumpkins away once Halloween is over. More than half (52%) of those who buy pumpkins would welcome more recipes to decrease waste.

18,000 tonnes of pumpkin is the same weight as 1,500 double decker buses – and if made into pumpkin pie it could make 360 million portions!

It’s a shocking fact that demonstrates how much edible food is thrown away throughout the country, at a time when an estimated 5.8 million people are living in deep poverty.

In the UK we throw away over 7 million tonnes of edible food and drink from our homes each year, according to WRAP. Wasting edible food costs the average UK family £60 a month, and when food is sent to landfill it emits harmful greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.

Glowing pumpkins of the night,
Ours to eat! Not just to fright …

To encourage consumers to think about the food they throw away and teach them new skills to combat waste, Hubbub has launched the #pumpkinrescue campaign and is hosting the Oxford Pumpkin Festival – which continues until 9th November.

Local restaurants, farmers, retailers, food banks, school children and students will all be involved in a series of events – including an outdoor mini food festival, communal soup making, immersive performances and cooking workshops.

There’s also a tweetathon using #pumpkinrescue today, Friday 31st October.

As my colleague Trewin Restorick, Hubbub‘s founder and CEO, says: “Hallowe’en is increasingly popular in the UK, but we seem to have ignored a crucial part of the US tradition: cooking with pumpkins rather than throwing them in the bin. With household food budgets under pressure, and 18,000 tonnes sent to landfill each year, it’s time we rescued the pumpkin.”

“Pumpkin Rescue aims to help consumers think about the food they throw away – providing recipes and new skills to help tackle food waste.”

The #pumpkinrescue manifesto

To support the launch of #pumpkinrescue, Hubbub has launched a five-point manifesto, which calls on communities, retailers and the Government to take action to end food waste.

  1. All supermarkets to make publicly available the amount of food waste they create and detail what happens to it.  These figures should be independently verified and consistent so that the public can accurately compare supermarket performance.
  2. All supermarkets to ensure safe and healthy surplus food is redistributed to those on low incomes and to actively work with charities to make this happen.
  3. English local authorities to follow the lead set by the rest of the UK and increase domestic food waste collection provision from a fifth to all households by 2020.
  4. Government to increase their investment in the Love Food Hate Waste campaign which is successfully cutting food waste.
  5. To increase consumer awareness of the benefits of freezing food that would otherwise be thrown away saving them £250 a year and reducing domestic food waste by 47%.

And with many households simply not knowing how to turn all their Hallowe’en pumpkins into delicious edible form, we are promoting these fantastic #pumpkinrescue recipes to help you get the most out of them. Enjoy!

Ainsley’s Spiced Pumpkin Cake

Ingredients: 250g plain flour / 1 tsp bicarb of soda / 1 tsp cinnamon / ¼ tsp ground cloves / 1 ½ tsp ground ginger / ½ tsp allspice / Pinch of salt / 150g soft brown sugar / 60g softened butter / 1 large egg / 150g molasses or black treacle / 120ml boiling water / 200g pumpkin flesh

For the pumpkin puree, cut the pumpkin into quarters, then peel and cut into chunks. Place in a large saucepan, cover with water, bring to the boil and cook for 20 minutes or until tender. Drain, cool, then puree in a food processor or mash with a potato masher.

Preheat oven to 180°C/350°F/Gas 4. Grease and line a 20cm/8inch deep cake tin. Sift flour, bicarb, ginger, spices and salt into a large bowl. Stir the molasses / treacle into the boiling water until well combined, then stir in 200g of pumpkin puree.

Beat together the butter and sugar until pale, add the egg and continue to beat until light and fluffy. Gradually mix in the pumpkin and egg mixture into the dry ingredients until well combined. Do not over mix.

Pour into the cake tin and bake in the middle of the oven for 45-50 mins or until an inserted skewer comes out clean. Cool on a wire rack and serve with custard or coconut custard. Serves 8.

Recipe provided by Ainsley Harriet.

Rubies’ Pumpkin Chutney

Ingredients: 750g 1cm diced pumpkin / 500g sugar / 400ml cider vinegar / 1 large onion, chopped / 2 tsp dried chilli flakes / 1 tsp paprika / 80g fresh ginger / 1 tsp cinnamon powder / 150g sultanas / 400g apple, peeled and 1cm diced / 1 tbsp oil / handful of pumpkin seeds (optional)

Put the oil in a pan with the chilli flakes, cinnamon, fresh ginger (and pumpkin seeds if adding). Heat through being careful the spices don’t burn.

Add the chopped onion and cook through for 5 mins, then add the vinegar, sultanas and sugar. Stir until boiling and the sugar dissolves. Add the pumpkin and apple and cook until the chutney is thick and the pumpkin is cooked through (this could take 2 hours). 

Taste and vary spices according to your liking, then jar in to dry, clean jars and start decorating your label! Happy Pumpkin preserving!

Recipe provided by Rubies in the Rubble.

Tom’s Pumpkin, Ricotta and Ginger Tarts

Pumpkin Puree: 200g of rough dice pumpkin / 25g of shallots / knob of butter / 150ml of double cream / 10g of ginger, grated / 1 pinch of salt / 3 pinches of pepper

Pastry: 125g plain flour / 1 pinch of salt / 55g butter, cubed / 2-3 tbsp cold water

Pumpkin & Ricotta: 100g of 2cm dice pumpkin / 15mls of olive oil / 2 sprigs of picked thyme / 1 pinch of salt / 3 pinches of pepper / 100g ricotta cheese

Filling: 50g crème fraiche / 50ml whole milk / 50ml double cream / 2 eggs

Puree: Peel and de-seed the pumpkin and cut into a rough dice. Sweat off the shallots in the butter, then add the squash and ginger and gently cook for approximately 5 minutes in an oiled pan. Add the cream and cook until the pumpkin is tender, then strain off the cream and blend the squash to a puree – add back some of the strained cream if needed to give it a smooth consistency.

Pastry: Put the flour and salt in a large bowl and add the cubes of butter. Rub the butter into the flour until you have a mixture that resembles breadcrumbs. Stir in just enough cold water to bind the dough. Wrap the dough in clingfilm and chill for 10-15 mins.

Pumpkin and Ricotta: Peel and dice the pumpkin, place in a large bowl, dress with olive oil, thyme and seasoning, place on a large tray and cover with foil. Cook at 160°C until tender. Crumble the ricotta and leave to one side until ready to assemble.

Main filling: Whisk all the ingredients together in a large bowl.

To assemble: Line 4 individual tart tins with the pastry, then pour 1tbsp of puree in each tin and spread it around the pastry bottom using the back of a spoon. Sprinkle the pumpkin and ricotta over the top of the puree, then pour in the filling. Add the final small spoonful’s of the pumpkin puree on top and garnish with the thyme. Bake the tarts in the oven at 160°C for 15 minutes.

Recipe provided by Tom Aikens / Tom’s Kitchen.

 


 

Gavin Ellis is one of the Founders of Hubbub. Previously Gavin was Senior Client Manager at Global Action Plan, one of the UK’s leading environmental charities. There he led major environmental behaviour change campaigns with clients such as Sainsbury’s, Telefonica and Unilever. Prior to that Gavin was Marketing Manager at Global Action Plan. He also set up the UK’s first online carbon calculator and the UK’s first environmental lifestyle magazine Ergo.

Twitter: @hubbubuk

More pumpkin recipes on these Facebook group pages:

 




386191

Oil palm explosion driving West Africa’s Ebola outbreak Updated for 2026





The growing Ebola virus outbreak not only highlights the tragedy enveloping the areas most affected but also offers a commentary on they way in which the political ecology in West Africa has allowed this disease to become established.

The narrative goes that the virus appeared spontaneously in the forest villages of Guinea in December 2013. But this is debatable given that there is evidence of antibodies the Ebola virus in human blood from Sierra Leone up to five years before.

Previously only one case of Ebola had been reported in the region, and it was the Ivory Coast strain of the virus. The strain detected in the blood samples is of the more virulent Zaire strain of Ebola, the same strain responsible for the current epidemic.

After months of very little concerted action it’s clear that the disease is now seriously in danger of spreading out of control.

The real drivers of Ebola in West Africa – poverty and oil palm

The global health community has declared it a crisis of international importance, which has led the host nations to implement draconian preventions strategies, tantamount in some places to martial law in terms of surveillance, quarantine, border controls and other logistical aspects of control. But this is too little, too late.

There are several mechanisms through which the virus may have emerged, and it is unlikely that this latest outbreak was spontaneous.

It is poverty that drives villagers to encroach further into the forest, where they become infected with the virus when hunting and butchering wildlife, or through contact with body fluids from bats – this has been seen with Nipah, another dangerous virus associated with bats.

The likelihood of infection in this manner is compounded by inadequate rural health facilities and poor village infrastructure, compounded by the disorganised urban sprawl at the fringes of cities.

The virus then spreads in a wave of fear and panic, ill-conceived intervention and logistical failures – including even insufficient food or beds for the severely ill.

Take for example the global palm oil industry, where a similar trend of deep-cutting into forests for agricultural development has breached natural barriers to the evolution and spread of specific pathogens.

The effects of land grabs and the focus on certain fruit crop species leads to an Allee effect, where sudden changes in one ecological element causes the mechanisms for keeping populations – bats in this case – and viruses in equilibrium to shift, increasing the probability of spill over to alternative hosts.

Palm oil’s relentless march at the expense of forests and health

This is not unheard of; the introduction of fruit tree crops in cleared forests and agricultural expansion in Malaysia was associated with the emergence of Nipah virus. Bats feeding on fruit trees infected pigs in pens, which provided a vector for the virus to humans.

Another example is with vector-borne diseases such as the Japanese Encephalitis, a virus carried by wild birds which expanded its range due to growing rice and pig farming.

Chikungunya and Dengue Fever viruses exploited deforestation for secondary epidemiological cycles, which increased at the forest edge until the virus was able to adapt to secondary hosts and expand globally.

Certainly the complexity of the agro-ecological changes in West Africa warrant scrutiny. Guinea’s new agriculture is in an early stage of development, identified by the World Bank as the highest investment potential for industrial agriculture.

As global markets shift – and tariffs and taxes on multinational companies are removed, farmers with small land holdings are faced with a choice: either sell off or scale up to meet the competition. Forests are one of the first casualties.

A breakdown of traditional governance

Alongside this subtle effect is the dismantling of traditional governance, violence under colonial, neo-colonial and more recent kleptocratic governments and the economic movements of people towards urbanisation.

Such turbulence, poverty, the influx of refugees from neighbouring wars and crumbling health systems have all created an ecosystem in which the natural friction that prevents Ebola from gathering pathogenic momentum has been all but eroded.

Any international response can do little to remedy these contributing factors. In fact the response has been little more than a recognition of the complete failure of neo-liberal development strategies to contain the virus.

The ‘success’ of the Ebola virus is fundamentally based on the sociological factors and population biology of those it infects. But the data required to test the hypothesis – detailed records about what people eat, where they go and how they interact – is presently unavailable.

Instead research has focused on virus hunting, and with little success: more than 40,000 samples have not yet conclusively determined where the natural reservoir of Ebola lies.

All the while, the socio-ecological factors that are critical to the spread of any disease are ignored.

 


 

The report:Did Ebola emerge in West Africa by a policy-driven phase change in agroecology?’ is published in Environment and Planning.

Richard Kock is Professor of Wildlife Health and Emerging Diseases at the Royal Veterinary College. He received funding from DFID to explore gaps and opportunities in the treatment or prevention of zoonoses in emerging livestock systems. Funding is current from EU through BBSRC on an emerging livestock viral disease in Africa – specifically PPR virus in wildlife populations.

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

 

 




386058

Oil palm explosion driving West Africa’s Ebola outbreak Updated for 2026





The growing Ebola virus outbreak not only highlights the tragedy enveloping the areas most affected but also offers a commentary on they way in which the political ecology in West Africa has allowed this disease to become established.

The narrative goes that the virus appeared spontaneously in the forest villages of Guinea in December 2013. But this is debatable given that there is evidence of antibodies the Ebola virus in human blood from Sierra Leone up to five years before.

Previously only one case of Ebola had been reported in the region, and it was the Ivory Coast strain of the virus. The strain detected in the blood samples is of the more virulent Zaire strain of Ebola, the same strain responsible for the current epidemic.

After months of very little concerted action it’s clear that the disease is now seriously in danger of spreading out of control.

The real drivers of Ebola in West Africa – poverty and oil palm

The global health community has declared it a crisis of international importance, which has led the host nations to implement draconian preventions strategies, tantamount in some places to martial law in terms of surveillance, quarantine, border controls and other logistical aspects of control. But this is too little, too late.

There are several mechanisms through which the virus may have emerged, and it is unlikely that this latest outbreak was spontaneous.

It is poverty that drives villagers to encroach further into the forest, where they become infected with the virus when hunting and butchering wildlife, or through contact with body fluids from bats – this has been seen with Nipah, another dangerous virus associated with bats.

The likelihood of infection in this manner is compounded by inadequate rural health facilities and poor village infrastructure, compounded by the disorganised urban sprawl at the fringes of cities.

The virus then spreads in a wave of fear and panic, ill-conceived intervention and logistical failures – including even insufficient food or beds for the severely ill.

Take for example the global palm oil industry, where a similar trend of deep-cutting into forests for agricultural development has breached natural barriers to the evolution and spread of specific pathogens.

The effects of land grabs and the focus on certain fruit crop species leads to an Allee effect, where sudden changes in one ecological element causes the mechanisms for keeping populations – bats in this case – and viruses in equilibrium to shift, increasing the probability of spill over to alternative hosts.

Palm oil’s relentless march at the expense of forests and health

This is not unheard of; the introduction of fruit tree crops in cleared forests and agricultural expansion in Malaysia was associated with the emergence of Nipah virus. Bats feeding on fruit trees infected pigs in pens, which provided a vector for the virus to humans.

Another example is with vector-borne diseases such as the Japanese Encephalitis, a virus carried by wild birds which expanded its range due to growing rice and pig farming.

Chikungunya and Dengue Fever viruses exploited deforestation for secondary epidemiological cycles, which increased at the forest edge until the virus was able to adapt to secondary hosts and expand globally.

Certainly the complexity of the agro-ecological changes in West Africa warrant scrutiny. Guinea’s new agriculture is in an early stage of development, identified by the World Bank as the highest investment potential for industrial agriculture.

As global markets shift – and tariffs and taxes on multinational companies are removed, farmers with small land holdings are faced with a choice: either sell off or scale up to meet the competition. Forests are one of the first casualties.

A breakdown of traditional governance

Alongside this subtle effect is the dismantling of traditional governance, violence under colonial, neo-colonial and more recent kleptocratic governments and the economic movements of people towards urbanisation.

Such turbulence, poverty, the influx of refugees from neighbouring wars and crumbling health systems have all created an ecosystem in which the natural friction that prevents Ebola from gathering pathogenic momentum has been all but eroded.

Any international response can do little to remedy these contributing factors. In fact the response has been little more than a recognition of the complete failure of neo-liberal development strategies to contain the virus.

The ‘success’ of the Ebola virus is fundamentally based on the sociological factors and population biology of those it infects. But the data required to test the hypothesis – detailed records about what people eat, where they go and how they interact – is presently unavailable.

Instead research has focused on virus hunting, and with little success: more than 40,000 samples have not yet conclusively determined where the natural reservoir of Ebola lies.

All the while, the socio-ecological factors that are critical to the spread of any disease are ignored.

 


 

The report:Did Ebola emerge in West Africa by a policy-driven phase change in agroecology?’ is published in Environment and Planning.

Richard Kock is Professor of Wildlife Health and Emerging Diseases at the Royal Veterinary College. He received funding from DFID to explore gaps and opportunities in the treatment or prevention of zoonoses in emerging livestock systems. Funding is current from EU through BBSRC on an emerging livestock viral disease in Africa – specifically PPR virus in wildlife populations.

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

 

 




386058

FoE sues to keep Devon’s wild beavers free Updated for 2026





Friends of the Earth has taken the first formal legal steps to a Judicial Review that could prevent the Government from capturing a family of beavers living in the wild in Devon, and placing them in captivity.
 
In papers submitted to the court this week the environment campaign group is seeking to challenge licences issued by Natural England (NE) to capture the animals, which were filmed on the River Otter earlier this year.

According to the Government department responsible for wildlife, Defra, the beavers should be captured to test them for the exotic tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis.

But according to FoE, it is “highly unlikely” that they are infected. And in any case, it is possible to test and release them within a day, as is currently done in Scotland.

Release your evidence!

FoE has also sent a letter to Natural England demanding that it reveal whether, and how, it considered the application of the Habitats Directive, and demanding the release of the risk assessment which was carried out, within 14 days.

NE had previously asked FoE to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. However the process is a slow one and FoE would not have received the information in time to challenge the beaver capture licences, which were issued without publicity on 24th July.

The lack of cooperation from NE effectively forced FoE into taking legal action. In its letter the campaign group writes: “We have grave concerns about the conformity of the decision-making process by your authority with the requirements of the Habitats Directive …

“Natural England has granted a licence, seemingly under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive which will have the effect of extinguishing the existing wild population of beaver (a European protected species) in this part of England.

“The beaver self-evidently is not in favourable conservation status and there is therefore no power to rely on the Article 16 derogation. In any event, alternative solutions (including testing and immediate release) have not been considered. Therefore no derogations can apply.

“Further, before any derogation can be applied, a precautionary approach to the conservation of the species must be undertaken. This has not occurred. The decision on its face is therefore unlawful.”

Let the beavers be!

Friends of the Earth campaigner Alasdair Cameron said:  “At a time when our wildlife is facing an unprecedented crisis, the Government should be taking steps to protect and expand the range of key native species like the beaver – not removing them from our rivers.

“We know that beavers can bring many benefits, such as boosting fish stocks, improving biodiversity and helping to prevent flooding – as well as injecting a little more joy into our landscape.

“These animals have been living and breeding in Devon for years, Ministers should work with the local community to find a sensible solution that allows them to remain in the wild.
 
“This is an opportunity to create a richer, better environment for ourselves and our children, where we can experience the beauty of animals that are an important part of our ecosystems.”

Beavers are a native species once found right across England, which were driven to extinction several hundred years ago. In recent years several populations have been re-established in Scotland.

Wildlife experts, including Natural England itself, have indicated that their reintroduction would bring many benefits to the English countryside.

 

 


 

Email the Minister: Keep Devon’s beavers in the wild.

 




385865