Tribal people have been forcibly evicted from India’s Kanha Tiger Reserve – home of Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale The Jungle Book – in the name of tiger conservation, according to Survival International.

Evicted tribespeople report that the Forest Department threatened to release elephants to trample their houses and crops if they did not leave immediately.

The area is the ancestral home of the Baiga and Gond tribes, who face a desperate future without their forests. Across India, many more face a similar threat.

The families were harassed for years to leave the reserve. When they were finally evicted, they received no land or help in establishing their lives outside. Months after their eviction, families report that they have received only a fraction of the compensation they were expecting – others have received nothing.

“We got some money, but we are lost – wandering in search of land”, said a tribesperson evicted from Jholar village in Kanha. “Here there is only sadness. We need the jungle.”

All in violation of Indian law

The communities have now been scattered among the surrounding villages. One Baiga man told Survival before the eviction: “They want to give us money. We don’t want money. We want land. Money doesn’t mean anything to us. It comes and it goes.”

In a similar eviction in December 2013, 32 Khadia families were moved out of Similipal Tiger Reserve in Odisha state and were living in dire conditions under plastic sheets. They have not received the compensation they were promised.

In a letter to India’s Tiger Conservation Authority, Survival reports: “Since their eviction, families report having had to ‘scatter’ to different villages; receiving abuse, including racial abuse, from residents of the villages where they are trying to settle; being tricked and cheated by middle men and land agents; and feeling lost, frightened and without means of livelihood or hope for their future.”

It also accuses the Tiger Authority of gross infringements of the tribal peoples legal rights to stay in, live from, and protect their forests as enshrined in both Indian and international law.

As Survival points out in a letter to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has been providing infrastructural support, training and equipment for frontline Forest Department staff:

“The evictions are also illegal under both the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment (2006) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) because the gram sabhas (village councils) of these villages did not give their free, prior, informed consent and people left under duress.

“A vital prerequisite to relocation under both acts is that villagers’ forest rights should be recognised, but this process had hardly begun in these villages, and many people did not even know about the FRA.”

None of the required conditions were fulfilled in Kanha.

The ugly side of conservation

“What’s happening in Kanha epitomizes the ugly side of the conservation industry”, said Survival’s Director Stephen Corry. “Thousands of tourists career through the park in noisy jeeps, clamoring to take photos of the beleaguered tigers. Meanwhile, Baiga communities that have carefully managed the tiger’s habitat over generations are annihilated by forced evictions.

“The irony appears to be lost on the conservationists. If India doesn’t allow the Baiga and Gond to return and prevent further villagers being kicked out, these communities will be completely destroyed. Evicting tribes won’t save the tiger. Tribal peoples are the best conservationists.”

In response to similar heavy-handed and misguided indigenous evictions around the world, Survival has launched its ‘Parks Need Peoples‘ campaign, which challenges the current model of conservation.

The core demands are that conservation programs must stick to international law, protect tribal peoples’ rights to their lands, ask them what help they need in protecting their lands, listen to them, and then be prepared to back them up as much as they can.

What next?

Survival is now awaiting from WWF answers to a number of questions, including what steps WWF-India has taken to oppose forced relocations and “ensure that WWF-India is not complicit in this gross abuse of the rights of the families evicted from Kanha”.

It also wishes to know whether WWF’s activities in the area are consistent with its own promises on indigenous peoples, and ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It has also asked the Tiger Authority to “act with great haste to investigate these illegal evictions, bring to justice those members of the relevant Forest Departments who are responsible for these illegalities and ensure that those who wish to return to their homes in Kanha are assisted to do so.

“We also call on you to enact a moratorium on any further relocations from tiger reserves unless and until it can be assured that all the conditions in the Act will be met in all cases.”

Source: Survival International.

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

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

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

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

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

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribal people have been forcibly evicted from India’s Kanha Tiger Reserve – home of Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale The Jungle Book – in the name of tiger conservation, according to Survival International.

Evicted tribespeople report that the Forest Department threatened to release elephants to trample their houses and crops if they did not leave immediately.

The area is the ancestral home of the Baiga and Gond tribes, who face a desperate future without their forests. Across India, many more face a similar threat.

The families were harassed for years to leave the reserve. When they were finally evicted, they received no land or help in establishing their lives outside. Months after their eviction, families report that they have received only a fraction of the compensation they were expecting – others have received nothing.

“We got some money, but we are lost – wandering in search of land”, said a tribesperson evicted from Jholar village in Kanha. “Here there is only sadness. We need the jungle.”

All in violation of Indian law

The communities have now been scattered among the surrounding villages. One Baiga man told Survival before the eviction: “They want to give us money. We don’t want money. We want land. Money doesn’t mean anything to us. It comes and it goes.”

In a similar eviction in December 2013, 32 Khadia families were moved out of Similipal Tiger Reserve in Odisha state and were living in dire conditions under plastic sheets. They have not received the compensation they were promised.

In a letter to India’s Tiger Conservation Authority, Survival reports: “Since their eviction, families report having had to ‘scatter’ to different villages; receiving abuse, including racial abuse, from residents of the villages where they are trying to settle; being tricked and cheated by middle men and land agents; and feeling lost, frightened and without means of livelihood or hope for their future.”

It also accuses the Tiger Authority of gross infringements of the tribal peoples legal rights to stay in, live from, and protect their forests as enshrined in both Indian and international law.

As Survival points out in a letter to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has been providing infrastructural support, training and equipment for frontline Forest Department staff:

“The evictions are also illegal under both the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment (2006) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) because the gram sabhas (village councils) of these villages did not give their free, prior, informed consent and people left under duress.

“A vital prerequisite to relocation under both acts is that villagers’ forest rights should be recognised, but this process had hardly begun in these villages, and many people did not even know about the FRA.”

None of the required conditions were fulfilled in Kanha.

The ugly side of conservation

“What’s happening in Kanha epitomizes the ugly side of the conservation industry”, said Survival’s Director Stephen Corry. “Thousands of tourists career through the park in noisy jeeps, clamoring to take photos of the beleaguered tigers. Meanwhile, Baiga communities that have carefully managed the tiger’s habitat over generations are annihilated by forced evictions.

“The irony appears to be lost on the conservationists. If India doesn’t allow the Baiga and Gond to return and prevent further villagers being kicked out, these communities will be completely destroyed. Evicting tribes won’t save the tiger. Tribal peoples are the best conservationists.”

In response to similar heavy-handed and misguided indigenous evictions around the world, Survival has launched its ‘Parks Need Peoples‘ campaign, which challenges the current model of conservation.

The core demands are that conservation programs must stick to international law, protect tribal peoples’ rights to their lands, ask them what help they need in protecting their lands, listen to them, and then be prepared to back them up as much as they can.

What next?

Survival is now awaiting from WWF answers to a number of questions, including what steps WWF-India has taken to oppose forced relocations and “ensure that WWF-India is not complicit in this gross abuse of the rights of the families evicted from Kanha”.

It also wishes to know whether WWF’s activities in the area are consistent with its own promises on indigenous peoples, and ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It has also asked the Tiger Authority to “act with great haste to investigate these illegal evictions, bring to justice those members of the relevant Forest Departments who are responsible for these illegalities and ensure that those who wish to return to their homes in Kanha are assisted to do so.

“We also call on you to enact a moratorium on any further relocations from tiger reserves unless and until it can be assured that all the conditions in the Act will be met in all cases.”

Source: Survival International.

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

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

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

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

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

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribal people have been forcibly evicted from India’s Kanha Tiger Reserve – home of Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale The Jungle Book – in the name of tiger conservation, according to Survival International.

Evicted tribespeople report that the Forest Department threatened to release elephants to trample their houses and crops if they did not leave immediately.

The area is the ancestral home of the Baiga and Gond tribes, who face a desperate future without their forests. Across India, many more face a similar threat.

The families were harassed for years to leave the reserve. When they were finally evicted, they received no land or help in establishing their lives outside. Months after their eviction, families report that they have received only a fraction of the compensation they were expecting – others have received nothing.

“We got some money, but we are lost – wandering in search of land”, said a tribesperson evicted from Jholar village in Kanha. “Here there is only sadness. We need the jungle.”

All in violation of Indian law

The communities have now been scattered among the surrounding villages. One Baiga man told Survival before the eviction: “They want to give us money. We don’t want money. We want land. Money doesn’t mean anything to us. It comes and it goes.”

In a similar eviction in December 2013, 32 Khadia families were moved out of Similipal Tiger Reserve in Odisha state and were living in dire conditions under plastic sheets. They have not received the compensation they were promised.

In a letter to India’s Tiger Conservation Authority, Survival reports: “Since their eviction, families report having had to ‘scatter’ to different villages; receiving abuse, including racial abuse, from residents of the villages where they are trying to settle; being tricked and cheated by middle men and land agents; and feeling lost, frightened and without means of livelihood or hope for their future.”

It also accuses the Tiger Authority of gross infringements of the tribal peoples legal rights to stay in, live from, and protect their forests as enshrined in both Indian and international law.

As Survival points out in a letter to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has been providing infrastructural support, training and equipment for frontline Forest Department staff:

“The evictions are also illegal under both the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment (2006) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) because the gram sabhas (village councils) of these villages did not give their free, prior, informed consent and people left under duress.

“A vital prerequisite to relocation under both acts is that villagers’ forest rights should be recognised, but this process had hardly begun in these villages, and many people did not even know about the FRA.”

None of the required conditions were fulfilled in Kanha.

The ugly side of conservation

“What’s happening in Kanha epitomizes the ugly side of the conservation industry”, said Survival’s Director Stephen Corry. “Thousands of tourists career through the park in noisy jeeps, clamoring to take photos of the beleaguered tigers. Meanwhile, Baiga communities that have carefully managed the tiger’s habitat over generations are annihilated by forced evictions.

“The irony appears to be lost on the conservationists. If India doesn’t allow the Baiga and Gond to return and prevent further villagers being kicked out, these communities will be completely destroyed. Evicting tribes won’t save the tiger. Tribal peoples are the best conservationists.”

In response to similar heavy-handed and misguided indigenous evictions around the world, Survival has launched its ‘Parks Need Peoples‘ campaign, which challenges the current model of conservation.

The core demands are that conservation programs must stick to international law, protect tribal peoples’ rights to their lands, ask them what help they need in protecting their lands, listen to them, and then be prepared to back them up as much as they can.

What next?

Survival is now awaiting from WWF answers to a number of questions, including what steps WWF-India has taken to oppose forced relocations and “ensure that WWF-India is not complicit in this gross abuse of the rights of the families evicted from Kanha”.

It also wishes to know whether WWF’s activities in the area are consistent with its own promises on indigenous peoples, and ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It has also asked the Tiger Authority to “act with great haste to investigate these illegal evictions, bring to justice those members of the relevant Forest Departments who are responsible for these illegalities and ensure that those who wish to return to their homes in Kanha are assisted to do so.

“We also call on you to enact a moratorium on any further relocations from tiger reserves unless and until it can be assured that all the conditions in the Act will be met in all cases.”

Source: Survival International.

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

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

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

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

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

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribal people have been forcibly evicted from India’s Kanha Tiger Reserve – home of Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale The Jungle Book – in the name of tiger conservation, according to Survival International.

Evicted tribespeople report that the Forest Department threatened to release elephants to trample their houses and crops if they did not leave immediately.

The area is the ancestral home of the Baiga and Gond tribes, who face a desperate future without their forests. Across India, many more face a similar threat.

The families were harassed for years to leave the reserve. When they were finally evicted, they received no land or help in establishing their lives outside. Months after their eviction, families report that they have received only a fraction of the compensation they were expecting – others have received nothing.

“We got some money, but we are lost – wandering in search of land”, said a tribesperson evicted from Jholar village in Kanha. “Here there is only sadness. We need the jungle.”

All in violation of Indian law

The communities have now been scattered among the surrounding villages. One Baiga man told Survival before the eviction: “They want to give us money. We don’t want money. We want land. Money doesn’t mean anything to us. It comes and it goes.”

In a similar eviction in December 2013, 32 Khadia families were moved out of Similipal Tiger Reserve in Odisha state and were living in dire conditions under plastic sheets. They have not received the compensation they were promised.

In a letter to India’s Tiger Conservation Authority, Survival reports: “Since their eviction, families report having had to ‘scatter’ to different villages; receiving abuse, including racial abuse, from residents of the villages where they are trying to settle; being tricked and cheated by middle men and land agents; and feeling lost, frightened and without means of livelihood or hope for their future.”

It also accuses the Tiger Authority of gross infringements of the tribal peoples legal rights to stay in, live from, and protect their forests as enshrined in both Indian and international law.

As Survival points out in a letter to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has been providing infrastructural support, training and equipment for frontline Forest Department staff:

“The evictions are also illegal under both the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment (2006) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) because the gram sabhas (village councils) of these villages did not give their free, prior, informed consent and people left under duress.

“A vital prerequisite to relocation under both acts is that villagers’ forest rights should be recognised, but this process had hardly begun in these villages, and many people did not even know about the FRA.”

None of the required conditions were fulfilled in Kanha.

The ugly side of conservation

“What’s happening in Kanha epitomizes the ugly side of the conservation industry”, said Survival’s Director Stephen Corry. “Thousands of tourists career through the park in noisy jeeps, clamoring to take photos of the beleaguered tigers. Meanwhile, Baiga communities that have carefully managed the tiger’s habitat over generations are annihilated by forced evictions.

“The irony appears to be lost on the conservationists. If India doesn’t allow the Baiga and Gond to return and prevent further villagers being kicked out, these communities will be completely destroyed. Evicting tribes won’t save the tiger. Tribal peoples are the best conservationists.”

In response to similar heavy-handed and misguided indigenous evictions around the world, Survival has launched its ‘Parks Need Peoples‘ campaign, which challenges the current model of conservation.

The core demands are that conservation programs must stick to international law, protect tribal peoples’ rights to their lands, ask them what help they need in protecting their lands, listen to them, and then be prepared to back them up as much as they can.

What next?

Survival is now awaiting from WWF answers to a number of questions, including what steps WWF-India has taken to oppose forced relocations and “ensure that WWF-India is not complicit in this gross abuse of the rights of the families evicted from Kanha”.

It also wishes to know whether WWF’s activities in the area are consistent with its own promises on indigenous peoples, and ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It has also asked the Tiger Authority to “act with great haste to investigate these illegal evictions, bring to justice those members of the relevant Forest Departments who are responsible for these illegalities and ensure that those who wish to return to their homes in Kanha are assisted to do so.

“We also call on you to enact a moratorium on any further relocations from tiger reserves unless and until it can be assured that all the conditions in the Act will be met in all cases.”

Source: Survival International.

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

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

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

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

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

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribal people have been forcibly evicted from India’s Kanha Tiger Reserve – home of Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale The Jungle Book – in the name of tiger conservation, according to Survival International.

Evicted tribespeople report that the Forest Department threatened to release elephants to trample their houses and crops if they did not leave immediately.

The area is the ancestral home of the Baiga and Gond tribes, who face a desperate future without their forests. Across India, many more face a similar threat.

The families were harassed for years to leave the reserve. When they were finally evicted, they received no land or help in establishing their lives outside. Months after their eviction, families report that they have received only a fraction of the compensation they were expecting – others have received nothing.

“We got some money, but we are lost – wandering in search of land”, said a tribesperson evicted from Jholar village in Kanha. “Here there is only sadness. We need the jungle.”

All in violation of Indian law

The communities have now been scattered among the surrounding villages. One Baiga man told Survival before the eviction: “They want to give us money. We don’t want money. We want land. Money doesn’t mean anything to us. It comes and it goes.”

In a similar eviction in December 2013, 32 Khadia families were moved out of Similipal Tiger Reserve in Odisha state and were living in dire conditions under plastic sheets. They have not received the compensation they were promised.

In a letter to India’s Tiger Conservation Authority, Survival reports: “Since their eviction, families report having had to ‘scatter’ to different villages; receiving abuse, including racial abuse, from residents of the villages where they are trying to settle; being tricked and cheated by middle men and land agents; and feeling lost, frightened and without means of livelihood or hope for their future.”

It also accuses the Tiger Authority of gross infringements of the tribal peoples legal rights to stay in, live from, and protect their forests as enshrined in both Indian and international law.

As Survival points out in a letter to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has been providing infrastructural support, training and equipment for frontline Forest Department staff:

“The evictions are also illegal under both the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment (2006) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) because the gram sabhas (village councils) of these villages did not give their free, prior, informed consent and people left under duress.

“A vital prerequisite to relocation under both acts is that villagers’ forest rights should be recognised, but this process had hardly begun in these villages, and many people did not even know about the FRA.”

None of the required conditions were fulfilled in Kanha.

The ugly side of conservation

“What’s happening in Kanha epitomizes the ugly side of the conservation industry”, said Survival’s Director Stephen Corry. “Thousands of tourists career through the park in noisy jeeps, clamoring to take photos of the beleaguered tigers. Meanwhile, Baiga communities that have carefully managed the tiger’s habitat over generations are annihilated by forced evictions.

“The irony appears to be lost on the conservationists. If India doesn’t allow the Baiga and Gond to return and prevent further villagers being kicked out, these communities will be completely destroyed. Evicting tribes won’t save the tiger. Tribal peoples are the best conservationists.”

In response to similar heavy-handed and misguided indigenous evictions around the world, Survival has launched its ‘Parks Need Peoples‘ campaign, which challenges the current model of conservation.

The core demands are that conservation programs must stick to international law, protect tribal peoples’ rights to their lands, ask them what help they need in protecting their lands, listen to them, and then be prepared to back them up as much as they can.

What next?

Survival is now awaiting from WWF answers to a number of questions, including what steps WWF-India has taken to oppose forced relocations and “ensure that WWF-India is not complicit in this gross abuse of the rights of the families evicted from Kanha”.

It also wishes to know whether WWF’s activities in the area are consistent with its own promises on indigenous peoples, and ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It has also asked the Tiger Authority to “act with great haste to investigate these illegal evictions, bring to justice those members of the relevant Forest Departments who are responsible for these illegalities and ensure that those who wish to return to their homes in Kanha are assisted to do so.

“We also call on you to enact a moratorium on any further relocations from tiger reserves unless and until it can be assured that all the conditions in the Act will be met in all cases.”

Source: Survival International.

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

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

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

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

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

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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