14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
THE NGO PERSPECTIVE<br />
Harry Huyton (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)<br />
In March 20<strong>14</strong>, the Royal Society for the Protection of<br />
Birds (RSPB) published a review of the ecological <strong>risk</strong>s<br />
associated with hydraulic fracturing for shale gas in the<br />
United Kingdom, along with a number of recommendations<br />
to address these <strong>risk</strong>s. The review was based on literature<br />
principally concerned with hydraulic fracturing in the<br />
United States, which we interpreted and applied to the UK<br />
situation.<br />
The key <strong>risk</strong>s to the natural environment that we<br />
highlighted were: water demand in areas under water<br />
stress, causing low river flows; water contamination as a<br />
result of well-casing failures and surface spillages; pollution<br />
incidents as a result of waste handling and disposal; and<br />
the loss, fragmentation and disturbance of wildlife habitats.<br />
All of these <strong>risk</strong>s increase significantly at the commercial<br />
extraction phase, but they are manageable if an effective<br />
policy and regulatory framework is put in place.<br />
Crucially, we also argued that this framework should be<br />
precautionary, given that the environmental impacts of the<br />
industry in the United States have been poorly studied, and<br />
because the geological and environmental conditions in<br />
the United Kingdom are quite different. Our assessment is<br />
that we do not currently have an effective and sufficiently<br />
precautionary framework.<br />
It has been a source of frustration that the public and<br />
political debate about fracking in the United Kingdom has<br />
become so polarized that a discussion about <strong>risk</strong>s and<br />
responses has been effectively impossible.<br />
The scope and approach taken by the Strategic<br />
Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the current licensing<br />
round for onshore oil and gas illustrates this. An SEA<br />
is an important policy tool that theoretically allows the<br />
environmental impacts of a plan or programme (and its<br />
alternatives) to be assessed, and improvements or mitigating<br />
measures to be identified and recommended. In practice<br />
they have too often become bureaucratic exercises that<br />
have little bearing on the policy, and this SEA was no<br />
exception.<br />
For example, no meaningful lower-<strong>risk</strong> alternatives were<br />
assessed. In fact, one alternative — reducing the licensing<br />
area by screening out the most ecologically vulnerable<br />
sites — was explicitly rejected on the grounds that it went<br />
against the overarching aim of “comprehensive exploration<br />
and appraisal of UK oil and gas resources and the economic<br />
development of identified reserves”. In effect, any response<br />
to environmental <strong>risk</strong>s that result in any restriction on the<br />
industry was ruled out from the start.<br />
The public cares deeply about the countryside and<br />
the wildlife that we share it with. That means they<br />
expect government to be diligent and precautionary in<br />
understanding and addressing <strong>risk</strong>s, through open and<br />
responsible debate and by applying tools like SEA. If <strong>risk</strong>s<br />
are instead downplayed, branded as myths or simply ignored,<br />
the opportunity for <strong>evidence</strong>-based debate and progress by<br />
mutual consent is quickly lost.<br />
The public and political<br />
debate about fracking in<br />
the United Kingdom has<br />
become so polarized that<br />
a discussion about <strong>risk</strong>s<br />
and responses has been<br />
effectively impossible.<br />
81