National Grid says that the country has the electricity generating capacity to meet the average maximum need over the course of the UK winter.

But this calculation critically depends on the reliability of power stations as well as an accurate assessment of the true generating capacity of each plant.

This article looks at National Grid’s assumptions on power station availability over the next months and casts a somewhat surprised eye on its apparent errors, particularly in calculating the likely output from nuclear stations.

These mistakes – if they are mistakes – may not matter. The Grid has introduced new payments for cutting electricity demand, meaning that the spare capacity margin is around 3.4 GW or 6% of maximum expected demand in the average year.

However what I believe may be its errors over nuclear power reduce this number by at 50% at the very least. It seems strange that the business at the centre of the electricity industry in this country appears to be substantially over-optimistic in its assessment of power supply.

If you don’t like the evidence – ignore it

It seems that National Grid has ignored evidence published by EdF that its nuclear power stations cannot possibly reach the output that the Grid projects over the winter months.

Last year, National Grid estimated that the average availability of electricity generators would be 79.4% of rated capacity over winter 2013/14.

The figures ranged from a low 25% for wind (for obvious meteorological reasons) to 97% for pumped storage plants. For plants subject to the possibility of mechanical or other failure, such as coal power stations, the number tends to be between 80 and 90%.

This year, even in the face of strong, repeated and growing evidence of declining mechanical performance of our ageing power stations, National Grid has increased its estimate of the reliability of the main types of power station, coal, gas and nuclear. Across all power plants, the expected availability rises from 79.4% to 81.8%.

Perhaps this seems a small change. However it raises the amount of capacity the Grid expects to be ready to meet peak winter demand by about 1.7 GW. This is half the buffer that the Grid says will be available on the day of highest demand in the average winter. When margins are tight, apparently small changes really matter.

The striking errors in National Grid’s nuclear forecast

Perhaps most strikingly, National Grid has raised its assessment of the nuclear fleet’s availability, and by more than any other major type of power station. It predicts that 90% of the UK nuclear capacity will be working at the point of maximum demand, up from 84% last year.

In the face of repeated unplanned shut downs at EdF’s plants this year, I can think of absolutely no reason for this enhanced optimism. And, indeed, National Grid’s cheery forecast is not shared by Ofgem, which held its estimate at 81% availability, in its report in mid-summer.

The Ofgem document actually predates the unplanned closures at Hartlepool and Heysham 1 that started a couple of months ago and I doubt Ofgem would be as optimistic today.

I looked at the performance of the UK’s nuclear fleet from early December to mid-February this year. Only for a couple of days did it actually achieve the 90% output that National Grid – based on information from operator EdF – suggested it will for 2014 /2015. Average performance was 81% of potential, in line with Ofgem’s more conservative forecasts for this winter and last.

As I write this, only three of EdF’s nuclear generating units out of 16 (in eight power stations on seven sites) are working to their full rated capacity. A further four are operating at 20% below maximum power as a precaution.

Sizewell (one station but two turbine units) is on a planned refuelling stop. Two other units are suffering from mechanical faults and four are being inspected for a possible problem in their boiler units and will return to operation between now and the end of December – although at a lower output than previously. Another plant is returning to full power after refuelling.

The current state of the UK’s nuclear power stations as at 29^th October 2014

The claimed 90% availability of nuclear plants is impossible

The total nuclear output, including from Wylfa (which is not owned by EdF), is currently (18.00 GMT on October 29^th 2014) around 4.5 GW, or less than 50% of potential capacity. Only three stations (and I cannot even be sure about Wylfa) are working to full capacity).

It certainly seems that National Grid is unrealistic in thinking that 90% of nuclear power will be available at the moment of peak need, which typically happens about seven weeks from today in mid-December.

In fact, we already know that 90% is actually not achievable. The total rated capacity of UK nuclear is – according to National Grid – about 9.6 Gigawatts. Both EdF itself and Ofgem give lower figures, and National Grid surely should have noticed this, although the differences are small.

More significantly, 90% of the National Grid figure is slightly more than 8.6 Gigawatts. But, according to EdF’s own public statements, 8.6 GW is unattainable at any point this winter.

• Heysham 1, Unit 1, is said by EdF to be out until the end of December, past the point of likely peak demand. This reduces maximum output by about 0.6 GW.
• As Heysham 1, Unit 1 returns to service, the second unit at Hinkley Point B moves offline, cutting power by almost 0.5 GW. So even if peak demand occurs in January, there won’t be additional capacity to meet it.
• The other unit at Heysham and the two units at Hartlepool are subject to a 20% restriction on output when they return to service at some point during November or December. This cuts maximum output by just under 0.5 GW.
• The working power stations at Hinkley Point and Hunterston are also subject to precautionary power reductions of about 20%. This reduces potential output by about 0.5 GW.

In total, EdF’s fleet can only produce a maximum of 1.6 GW less than their rated output, or about 8.0 GW. This means that the availability of UK nuclear during winter 2014 / 2015 can only be 85% of the maximum potential, much less than the central National Grid assumption of 90%.

This is before any additional mechanical or electrical problems. The reality is that nuclear output at critical times is, if recent experience is any guide, likely to be little more than 7 GW.

A real prospect of winter blackouts may lie ahead

This reduces the UK’s spare capacity at winter peak by about 1.6 GW, cutting the safety margin by about 50%. A more conservative view of the reliability of gas and coal power stations would have an effect similar in size.

If these numbers are correct, National Grid is being too optimistic in its Winter Outlook and the true position is that a typical winter will bring the UK far closer to power cuts than the company admits. A colder than average winter will make the UK’s position worse.

National Grid hasn’t responded to my written questions on Tuesday afternoon about the overstatement of nuclear availability and other issues.

Chris Goodall is an expert on energy, environment and climate change. He blogs at Carbon Commentary.

This article was originally published on Carbon Commentary.

A YouGov poll showing the Green Party has more support than the Liberal Democrats raises yet more questions as to why the party is being excluded from a planned series of debates ahead of next year’s election.

If the decision to exclude the party was questionable before, it is even more so now. The Greens are quickly gaining ground and deserve to be taken seriously.

But more importantly, bringing the party in will make this a real debate, not just a Q&A with four white men who can only be differentiated by the colour of their ties.

The BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 will run three debates between party leaders next year and will allow UKIP leader Nigel Farage to take part in one of them. Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, however, will not be included in the line-up.

The party has threatened legal proceedings and a petition calling for Bennett to be given a place has been signed by nearly 200,000 people.

The BBC argues the Greens have neither the past or present support to justify giving Bennett a place on the debate stage in front of a national audience.

They note, however, that they “will continue to keep any new evidence of increased support for the Green party under close review”. This latest poll would appear to be just such a piece of evidence.

The Greens have become a genuine political force

Politically, the Greens of 2014 are not the Greens of 2010. They are making serious gains in public opinion that could translate into significant electoral victories.

Peter Kellner of YouGov has referred to the Party as a ‘wildcard’ shaking up the election. He suggests a “two-headed protest vote” is emerging, with UKIP and the Greens as the driving force. For this reason, alone, the Greens have a legitimate case to be allowed into the debate.

It is no longer possible to simply dismiss the Greens as a fringe party. They are building a broad coalition of support that is progressively situating them as a legitimate political force.

Even David Cameron, admittedly for his own strategic reasons, acknowledged this changing reality. He has acknowledged the absurdity of including UKIP but not the Greens in the debate when each has a sitting MP, stating: “I can’t see how you can have a party in that has an MP in parliament, but not another party.”

Just as importantly, Bennett’s inclusion would do much for adding a different kind of voice to these proceedings, especially as the other three leaders are all white males.

A true alternative to neo-liberal austerity

There is, though, a more fundamental reason for greening the debate. The Green Party offers a real ideological and policy alternative to the similarly pro-market and neo-conservative platforms of the other three major parties.

Bennett would provide a different political perspective to the pro-austerity, pro-war and anti-immigration agendas that are likely to be pushed by the others.

Indeed, this is a point that Bennett, herself, has continually made but that remains largely overlooked. In this spirit, she recently wrote:

“Policies such as bringing the railways back into public hands, saying that the profit motive has no place in healthcare, that the poor and disadvantaged must not be made to pay for the fraud and errors of the bankers with the failed policy of austerity have extremely high levels of support. Only the Green Party is supporting these policies.”

These concerns are even more pressing now the Labour Party can be seen echoing the positions advocated by the Tories and UKIP.

Ed Miliband has now placed Labour firmly in the anti-immigration camp, directly challenging Cameron on this issue. He publicly declared that dealing with immigration “is at the top of Labour’s agenda” promised that there would be a crackdown on immigrants within weeks of his party winning power.

Similarly, while UKIP is gaining popularity as the outsider party its economic policies are quite similar to those of the Conservatives – they are perhaps even more austerity-driven.

Behind its populist facade, UKIP wants to eliminate progressive taxation, dramatically reduce spending back to levels before New Labour’s 1997 victory and stimulate employment by lowering business taxes and loosening regulation.

We need a true debate of ideas – not just the usual ding-dong

Democratic change is more than just an incumbent losing. It is also using elections to transform a country’s values and policies. By including the Greens, these debates would come closer to the ideal of having a space for exchanging different ideas about the direction the UK should take.

Without Bennett, it is four leaders arguing almost identical points using different language. It would undoubtedly make for compelling television, but contain little substantial value.

Elections are usually won and lost on pragmatic decisions by voters about which candidate is the least bad and including the Greens in these TV debates would not change that.

But while it would have limited electoral effect, greening the debate would at least provide the forum for a more genuine contest of ideas concerning what is good for the UK in the 21st century and beyond.

Peter Bloom is Lecturer in Organization Studies, Department of People and Organisation at The Open University. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

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

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 31^st 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:

• Oxford Pumpkin Festival
• Kitchen Counter-Culture

The UK is faced with extreme energy development that will utilise all three ‘fracking’ technologies: Shale Gas/Oil, Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG).

Currently exploration licences cover a relatively small area of land, but roughly a third of the British Isles is being offered to fracking companies as part of the 14th onshore licensing round.

A new report released today by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation highlights a number of potential human rights impacts for UK citizens should fracking development proceed beyond the exploratory stage.

The human rights implications of extractive activity are being increasingly discussed on the international stage, as concerned citizens demand global leaders take action to modify the excesses of human consumption and consumerism.

The report’s concluding section alludes to issues beyond its scope which we elaborate on here; specifically the violations of civil and political rights that both exploratory and production phases of fracking development will likely entail.

Interviews, online surveys and correspondence with local campaigners have returned a wealth of personal testimony that dispels any suggestion that fracking development’s problems are limited to environmental and human health concerns.

The anti-fracking movement is the fastest growing social movement in the UK with currently over 180 local groups, up from around 30 in 2013. This inconvenient fact poses a problem for a government wanting to go ‘all out for shale’. How has the state reacted so far?

Nationally coordinated suppression?

To date there have been over 400 arrests of peaceful protestors, and data from Balcombe and Barton Moss is suggestive of a nationally coordinated attempt to suppress opposition to shale gas extraction at the expense of domestically and internationally recognised rights.

This campaign has been interpreted by those within the anti-fracking movement as akin to the state response to the 1984-5 Miners’ Strikes through the use of political policing and intimidation of protestors.

Civil and political rights have been primarily infringed by the response of Greater Manchester Police and Sussex Police to peaceful protest at exploratory drilling sites, exhibited most commonly through protestors attempting to delay the arrival of equipment by walking in front of delivery lorries.

The resultant interactions between police and protestors have prompted concerns over the prioritisation of fracking development’s alleged ‘economic benefits’ and provision of short-term ‘energy security’ over the rights of individuals and local communities.

The analysis of interview data indicates that through these actions the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, liberty and security of person, a fair trial, and respect for a private and family life, have been threatened or violated through the use of unnecessary or excessive force, unlawful arrests, covert surveillance of protestors, and intimidation of members of the Anti-fracking movement.

Each of these rights is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the UK is legally bound to observe.

Police Violence and arrest quotas

Police interaction with anti-fracking protesters at both Balcombe and Barton Moss involved the use of violence, forcible removal of individuals from the protest site without arrest, and kettling.

Interview respondents described how they were “kicked and pushed and punched”, “pushed and shoved in the back”, “pushed off the road by the police”, and “shoved in the back repeatedly”. Police behavior was described as “brutal”, “violent”, “thuggish”, “rough”, and “very, very aggressive”, resulting in interactions in which a bone got broken.

The use of physical violence was widely reported amongst interview and survey respondents, indicating unlawful police activity at both Balcombe and Barton Moss that directly impacted upon the ability of anti-fracking protestors to realise one of their fundamental civil and political rights.

This violence was accompanied by other forms of unlawful activity to inhibit anti-fracking protest activity at both sites.

References were made in several interviews to the concept of arrest quotas, whereby police would carry out specific numbers of arrests over consecutive days.

At Barton Moss, throughout the autumn and winter of 2013, one interview respondent recalled how “there were five arrests every day”, and that “Officers were heard to say ‘We need one more arrest’.”

The same respondent believed that the use of arrest quotas was “almost certainly planned in advance”, and designed as “a long term plan” which would ensure that “eventually everyone would be arrested”.

More explicitly, the respondent explained how such patterns of arrests effectively worked, as “you’re arrested, you get bailed, next time you get arrested in breach of bail. Over a period of time, such a cycle would decrease the effectiveness of the protest camp’s actions and increase the likelihood of its disbandment.”

Arrests were also described as “clearly random”, “quite random”, and “completely random”, with one respondent expressing the most telling sentiment, that: “there was a risk that at any time you could be arrested”. Such arrests were believed to be used as a way of “undermining people’s morale”.

Spurious arrests

In addition to arrest quotas and arbitrary arrests, allegations were made by an interview respondent of arrests being knowingly made on unlawful charges by Greater Manchester Police.

At Barton Moss, delivery lorries travelled down Barton Moss Lane to reach the IGas drilling site, a designated private road with footpath access for the public. The respondent described how police made arrests on Barton Moss Lane for “the crime of obstructing a public highway”, an entirely unlawful charge given that the road is private and therefore does not constitute a public highway.

Significantly, the respondent described how, at a court hearing of individuals charged with the crime of obstruction of a public highway in November 2013, “a solicitor informed the court that Barton Moss Lane was a private road which has public footpath access”, but Greater Manchester Police “continued to make arrests. under that crime until […] February.”

This meant that, as expressed by the respondent, “for nearly three months they continued to arrest for a crime that wasn’t a crime”.

Many arrests appear to have been made under what were somewhat spurious claims. For example, interview respondents detailed how at both Balcombe and Barton Moss, while escorting delivery lorries to the exploratory drilling sites, protestors were arrested for “obstructing a police officer” if they fell over.

These arrests were justified under the premise that “if you fall down in front of a police officer you are obstructing him from moving down the road”. Such interactions between police and protestors prompted frustrations, but also fears.

Monitoring of Communications

Several interview respondents raised concerns of police surveillance of email accounts, telephones and social media.

Although, as one interview respondent indicated, such activities are “difficult to prove”, other interview respondents were insistent in their belief of surveillance activity, stating that “We knew that they were monitoring our Facebook pages, our emails and our phones”, and “I have no doubt that they were bugging certain people’s phones” and “keeping a close eye on people’s Facebook pages”.

Concerns for some anti-fracking protestors over the security of information were such that one interview respondent described how, when important details about protest action required discussion, the individuals involved would “get together and speak about it rather than using [social] media.”

Seemingly to confirm fears of surveillance, another respondent described how a list of press contacts on an email account were “scrambled”, preventing messages from reaching the majority of the list’s recipients.

The use of covert surveillance has prompted fears of how intelligence gathered by Greater Manchester Police and Sussex Police has been shared nationally, with explicit reference made by one interview respondent to the Domestic Extremist Unit.

Another correspondent reported having been visited at home by two members of the Counter Terrorism and Domestic Extremism Unit after filming at a potential drilling site. The visit, according to the two “officers”, was made on the request of a local police force who in turn received their request from the firm’s “security personnel”.

It seems that behind such examples of close cooperation and coordination between ‘fracking’ firms, the state and police forces lies a specific intent to intimidate and deter individuals involved in protest or related activities.

Democratic freedoms eroded

The explicit violations of rights in the context of anti-fracking protests fit within a wider discussion of democracy, and concern the right to public participation, which is protected in matters of environmental impact by the Aarhus Convention.

The increasing opposition to fracking, evidenced in the growing plethora of local campaign groups across the UK, indicates governmental failure to adequately respond to local and national concerns over the human rights implications of fracking or provide sufficient opportunities for public participation in decision making.

Both interview and survey respondents have expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of governmental consideration of public concerns, stating variously that “The government are not listening to people”, “the government refuses to engage and consult with the public”, “The government is ignoring the will of the people”, and “we have never been consulted”.

These comments indicate a deeper concern with the denial of citizen participation in a democratic society, with survey respondents describing how “democracy appears to be disregarded completely”, and that the process of introducing fracking in the UK “is eroding our democracy”.

With specific respect to public opinion, one survey respondent described how, when the application for exploratory drilling was made by Cuadrilla in Balcombe, and the local council requested residents’ opinions, “899 letters against it […], 5 for and they still went for it”.

This example demonstrates a particular disregard for the individuals living in proximity to exploratory sites, and indicates how individuals have become disillusioned with official avenues of complaint.

Fundamental rights are at risk

Not all anti-fracking activity in the UK has been ‘lawful’ as such, and has included the occupation of Cuadrilla’s offices in Blackpool and the blockading of roads to exploratory drilling sites.

Although instances of direct action which technically violate domestic law are not protected by international human rights legislation, these events indicate the extent to which individuals are sufficiently disillusioned with governmental policy to consider and undertake ‘illegal’ action.

Acts of both civil disobedience and peaceful protest will occur with increasing frequency as local communities realise the extent of the extractive industry’s impact.

This indicates the vital nature of further human rights based research into the planning, implementation and infrastructure of fracking development, and the need for genuinely independent human rights impact assessments for all communities before any extractive activity begins in the UK.

The civil and political implications of fracking development in the UK will only intensify as anti-fracking protests proliferate alongside exploratory activity.

The rights violations described above must therefore prompt both public awareness and governmental response to the reality that fracking development can no longer be considered in separation from the civil and political sphere, as personal testimony indicates the extent to which fundamental rights of UK citizens who oppose governmental policy are at risk.

As the report concludes, “for the UK Government to proceed with fracking without adequate assessment of the human rights position would amount to a serious failure of responsibility.”

The report: A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom is launched today.

Also on The Ecologist:

• ‘Fracking – human rights must not be ignored!‘ by Anna Grear
• ‘Fracking – why are human rights being ignored?‘ also by Damien Short.

Jess Elliot is a Research Associate at the Human Rights Consortium, School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Damien Short is a Reader in Human Rights at the School of Advanced Study, University of London and Director of the School’s MA programme in Understanding and Securing Human Rights, Human Rights Consortium and Extreme Energy Initiative.

This article is an extended version of one originally published today on The Conversation.

For further information on violations of civil and political rights in the context of anti-fracking protests in the UK, please look out for the forthcoming Short et al, 2014, International Journal of Human Rights, December 2014.

The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

The report: ‘Cheap has a high price‘.

The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

The report: ‘Cheap has a high price‘.