The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Whatever happened that led a great part of humankind to give the animal kingdom such a lowly status in the overall evolutionary pattern of life on Earth?

How is it that we have subjected millions and millions of our animal cousins to concentration camp conditions so utterly abhorrent that to call their brief time on the planet ‘living’ would constitute a serious misnomer?

One of the critical factors that drove me to develop a mixed organic farming system back in the mid 1970’s, was to give the cows, pigs, sheep and hens that formed the basis of my farming enterprise, the chance to grow up in a setting designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions that these creatures would experience in their native environment.

It is important to recognise that farming is an enclosed agricultural system which has built-in compromises deemed necessary for the controlled raising of both livestock and crops. Within this context we have to be aware that the word ‘natural’ does not accurately describe this scenario, even when the best and most humane principles and methods are applied.

However, those who embark upon an organic farming management practice commit to a set of standards that places strong emphasis on animal welfare as well as forming a close affinity with the soil and the cyclic patterns of nature that underlie rotational, non chemical farming practices.

Under such a system the farmer has the chance to develop a strong affinity with nature and a deep respect for the animals and plants under his or her care. But unfortunately, the great majority of people living in post industrial Westernised societies ingest a daily diet that has little or nothing to do with such a caring approach.

On the contrary, the majority of individuals negotiating their way through 21st century urban and suburban life styles demand cheap, uniform foods that, in order to fulfil the consumers’ supermarket groomed expectations, are grown according to methods that are about as different from ‘natural’ as plastic is to wood.

Enter the factory farm …

Philip Lymbery and Isobel Oakshot, in their book ‘Farmageddon – the True Cost Cheap Meat‘ have gone to great lengths to raise awareness of just how devious and deceptive is the globalised ‘cheap food’ conveyor belt that churns out the Western World’s daily diet.

Philip Lymbery is the director of Compassion in World Farming, a remarkable farmer pioneered organisation formed in 1967 which now has worldwide offices and an equally eclectic swelling membership.

I met Philip on a number of occasions during the 1990’s and recall his quietly profound concerns about the state of our toxic food chain with its heavy reliance upon animals given next to no chance to express their normal psychological needs and fundamental freedoms.

At that time Philip was somewhat sceptical of the Soil Association’s welfare standards for organically raised livestock which I and my colleagues were moulding and refining for publication, seeing any form of commercial farming as synonymous with animal exploitation.

I understood his reticence: too many organisations make unrealistic and sometimes downright untruthful claims for the production methods that they espouse. Who hasn’t seen those adverts depicting perfect looking farmsteads full of ‘happy hens’, smiling cows and contented pigs rooting around in ye oldie traditional farmyards – and then ends by displaying a mass produced product that bears no relationship whatsoever with such scenes.

The hell we inflict on the animals that feed us

During their specially planned world trip that makes up the body of evidence in this book, Philip Lymbery and Elizabeth Oakshot, political editor of The Sunday Times, come across scenes which would incriminate the perpetrators to a lifetime in gaol if the World possessed a justice system that dispensed genuine justice for man and beast alike.

On describing their visit to the hen houses of the UK’s largest egg supplier in Nottinghamshire, the authors state: “The egg farm was a series of giant sheds clad in corrugated iron. Inside were a million hens. Throughout their short seventy two week life span (chickens can live eight to ten years) they would never see daylight.

“They lived in cages around five metres long, known in the business as ‘colonies’. Suspended lights brightened and dimmed at particular times to create the impression of night and day, all geared to regulating the egg-laying process.”

Pigs, suffer a very similar fate to hens and a chapter in the book is devoted to laying bare the tortuous conditions suffered by the great majority of large scale pig farms which supply the main supermarket chains.

In the part of the voyage that takes them to the USA the authors report how, in California, thousands of dairy cows (8,000 in one herd is not unusual) are milked to death in vast purpose built mechanised sheds featuring robotic cow carousels and antibiotic laced genetically modified feeds dispensed by automatic conveyors.

The whole thing working around the clock in what is the ultimate ‘factory farm’ format. The unfortunate animals that must endure this hideous regime are milked-out after just two to three years and sold off into the ubiquitous hamburger trade.

There is an alternative!

By contrast, my organically managed Guernsey herd of forty cows lived an average of fourteen years, very rarely needing any form of vetinary intervention throughout their milking careers.

This is due to the fact that we never pushed our cows to produce maximum yields, always treating them with respect and love while feeding them a diet of home grown grasses and clovers plus other green matter that fulfils the natural needs of herbivorous ruminant quadrupeds.

The glorious unpasteurised milk and cream that resulted was eagerly purchased by the local community and I seldom needed to go further than ten miles to complete my sales round.

Farmageddon also plunges into the fish farming phenomena; another form of concentration camp where fish are kept in intense confinement with high rates of mortality and where sea lice proliferate leading to a catastrophic decline of wild fish stocks.

‘The illusion of cheap food’ is smashed to smithereens as the reader is taken behind the largely closed doors of a ruthless global multinational industry supplying the World’s largest supermarket chains and industrial food giants.

To the authors’ credit, they never sensationalise the shocking scenes they witness, preferring to simply convey the facts and expose the reality of a brazenly exploitive empire conveniently sanitized and dressed-up as a caring, quality controlled production system bringing you, the consumer, everything you could ever wish for and all in the air conditioned convenience of your local hypermarket food dispenser.

Fortunately, the reader is guided towards both personal and more general solutions, under such headings as “how to avoid the coming crisis” and “consumer power – what you can do”. They are both pragmatic and realistic guides for the perplexed – sensibly encouraging readers to buy ‘local’ from producers one comes to trust and respect. Not wasting food by over-buying and avoiding over-eating meat products.

Human health is recognised as being dependent upon soils, animals and plants being treated as vital living organisms whose optimum growth is achieved by using natural ingredients and through the adoption of a caring, loving attitude, that is the antithesis of the subhuman battle ground that epitomizes the twenty first century factory farm.

All in all, I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants a grounded, undiluted account of the machinations of the global food industry and its devastating affect on the lives of millions of sentient beings, including ourselves.

The book: ‘Farmageddon – the True Cost Cheap Meat‘ is written by Philip Lymbery and Isobel Oakshot and published by Bloomsbury.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, broadcaster and activist. He is currently the President of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. His most recent book ‘In Defence of Life – A Radical Reworking of Green wisdom’ is published by Earth Books. Julian’s website is www.julianrose.info.

The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Ancient grassland at Rampisham could be saved following a government decision to put an ‘hold’ notice on the West Dorset Council’s planning consent for a huge solar farm, writes Martin Harper.

From 1939 until its closure in October 2011, the array of over thirty radio masts at Rampisham Down in Dorset broadcast the BBC World Service.

In these 70 plus years the masts transmitted daily news of a world that was changing dramatically. However, beneath the masts, within the security fences, something precious remained, protected from the changing world outside.

Free from the wholesale farm intensification all around, the grassland around the masts remained untouched save for the attentions of a few sheep to stop it scrubbing over.

And in this ‘unimproved’ state, the grassland remained rich in plant species – species that most of us would nowadays have to make a special journey to find: species with names redolent of an England now passed – sweet vernal grass, sheep’s fescue and hawkweeds, quaking oat grass, pignut and bedstraw.

These sorts of grasslands are often of ancient origin, dating back up to 7,000 years to the times of the first forest clearances. And they come in numerous flavours. At Rampisham botanists describe the grassland as ‘lowland acid grassland’, and ascribe it the code ‘U4’ due to the very particular mix of species. U4, an unappealing title for this plant community, is, to say the least, rare with only 3-4,000 ha in the UK. And Rampisham has one of the largest areas of this type in the country.

A suitable site for 120,000 solar panels?

Rampisham (pronounced ‘Ransom’) was sold by the BBC in 1997 to a management buyout, then sold on in 2001 to Vosper Thornycroft who subsequently were taken over by Babcock International Group.

Then in December 2012 an application was submitted by British Solar Renewables to construct on the Down a “40MW solar park following demolition of 32 of 35 existing masts and towers … “.

The proposal involves the erection of some 119,280 photovoltaic panels mounted on steel frames fixed by short driven piles. These assemblies are to be arranged in rows along an east-west axis, with the panels facing south. It is proposed that approximately 40.5ha of the site (56%) will be covered in this way, leaving 33ha undeveloped.

Unauthorised building work began on site in January 2013, which the local planning authority stopped, but sadly some damage had already been caused to the site.

At the same time, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the site was thoroughly surveyed. As a result, the national significance of the grassland, to date hidden behind security fences, was revealed. It was thus notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest in August 2013.

With this, Rampisham became part of our national network of precious wildlife sites, sites that are as the nature equivalent of protected buildings, the likes of Stonehenge or our great cathedrals. Its designation meant, or at least, should have meant, that it be given special consideration when faced with a threatening development.

The principle, as reiterated in the recently produced National Planning Policy Framework, is crystal clear: “proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest … should not normally be permitted.

“Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.”

While solar panels can even be beneficial for wildlife in places, that’s definitely not the case here. The ‘special interest’ of Rampisham Down arises from the exposed nature of the site, open to wind, rain and the fierce summer sun. The shade and shelter created by the panels would substantially alter the habitat and damage the rare and precious ecosystem.

West Dorset’s disgraceful decision

However, on 15th January 2015, West Dorset Council’s Planning Committee voted to approve the application by British Solar Renewables to build a solar farm on Rampisham Down. Reacting to the news the Wildlife Trusts described the decision as both “astonishing” and “perverse”. Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscapes for the Wildlife Trusts said:

“The protection and recovery of the natural environment should be at the heart of all planning decisions. This Council’s decision goes against the statutory obligations of local authorities to protect important designated wildlife sites for future generations. This is simply the wrong place for this development and Rampisham should be protected not destroyed.”

Although the RSPB had not been directly involved in Rampisham to this point, this would set a terrible precedent for future development and it was immediately clear to us that this decision needed challenge.

As with wind farms the RSPB is in principle supportive of renewable energy developments. But as with wind farms our line is simple – they must be built in the right places, and must avoid damaging sensitive wildlife sites.

So it comes as very welcome news that Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary for Communities and Local Government, has made his admirably swift decision to put West Dorset Council’s grant of planning permission on hold, with an ‘Article 25’ notice “not to grant planning permission on this application without specific authorisation.”

This now gives him time to consider whether to call in the application to a public inquiry. And as far as I’m concerned, there’s only one reasonable outcome – of course it has to be called in.

The planning system is not working!

But Rampisham Down is not the only SSSI at risk following a perverse planing decision. Indeed the Rampisham case has remarkable parallels with another case currently close to our hearts – the threat looming over Lodge Hill in Kent. Here too is a site that has what could be described as ‘urban’ elements – though in this case military infrastructure rather than radio masts.

It is a site where the activity of its old owners had historically lent protection. It is a site that was sold off, a site that then had a proposed development, but on investigation linked to the application was found to be of huge wildlife interest, and thus declared a SSSI by Natural England. And it is a site where, despite its newfound protected status, a planning application was approved by the local council – Medway, in the case of Lodge Hill.

Both these cases strike to the core of issues involving the planning system and the protection of our best wildlife sites. As shown above, the planning framework is clear – there should be a presumption against development on SSSIs and development should only proceed when the benefits significantly outweigh the costs.

I am unable to understand how these developments are compatible with the Government’s stated ambition to pass on the natural environment in an enhanced state to the next generation when everyone knows that nature conservation starts with existing protected areas.

Indeed, the Government has a commitment, through its own biodiversity strategy, to improve the condition of our SSSIs – for 50% to be in favourable condition by 2020.

The RSPB believes both of these cases are of national importance, because of what the decisions to date reveal about attitudes towards SSSIs. If they were to go ahead, they would also set a terrible precedent for future development.

As such they should both be called in, and their cases heard at a public inquiry before a decision made by the Secretary of State. This would be consistent with the will of Parliament that just ruled out fracking operations on SSSIs, national parks and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’.

Urgent action: support the Wildlife Trusts e-action to call on Eric Pickles to ‘call in’ the Rampisham Down planning application. And be quick: we only have until the end of today Thursday 5th February, to make our voices heard.

Martin Harper is Conservation Director of RSPB. He blogs on the RSPB website.

More information: visit the Wildlife Trusts pages, or read more from Tony Whitehead on our Saving Spaces blog. Also Miles King’s blog provides some useful background and an independent view on the decision to approve Rampisham.

This article is an updated version of a post on the RSPB blog.

The EU’s recently published Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) proposals for the chapter on food safety and animal welfare – under negotiation this week – is a regulatory train crash in which governments will abrogate their powers to remote international bodies and committees of trade experts.

The proposed text, an analysis by Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) reveals, will undermine existing health and safety regulations in both the EU and the US with potentially disastrous results for food safety and animal welfare on both sides of the Atlantic.

With the release of the document, says FOEE, “it is now clear that the over-riding objective is the maximization of trade.” The regulatory powers of national governments are to be shifted from the EU and national and state governments to a new ‘trade committee’, removing their ability to set higher standards.

There is the also the new prospect of novel foods including GMOs, cloned animals, and nano materials being introduced after minimal health and safety checks – while provisions for animal welfare are non-binding.

Food standards in both the EU and the US will have to be those established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – and its industry-dominated Codex Alimentarius Commission – preventing the adoption of more demanding standards anywhere within the trading bloc.

“This trade agreement is a Trojan Horse that will threaten our food safety and environment”, says Adrian Bebb, Food and agriculture campaigner with FOEE – echoing the ‘Trojan horse’ theme at today’s boisterous demo at the European Commission in Brussels, organised by FOEE and Global Justice Now

“Trade officials whose primary objective is to increase trade and boost corporate profits will have first say over future food safety rules. A trade agreement is not the place to decide about our food safety.”

Based on the available text, warns FOEE, “we fear that TTIP is likely to restrict efforts to build healthier, fairer and more sustainable food systems on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Or as Renée Vellvé of GRAIN puts it: “There is nothing in here that will advance the interests of consumers, small farmers or public health.”

Maximizing trade at all costs

The clearly stated purpose of the TTIP agreement is to facilitate trade “to the greatest extent possible”. Article 2.1 of the proposed chapter on food safety, plant and animal health and welfare, recognises governments’ rights to “protect human, animal or plant life and health” in their territories.

But it appears that regulatory authorities will in fact be unable to realize this right, given the emphasis on increasing trade between the EU and the US, and because each and every regulation must be justified as “least trade restrictive”.

Under Article 13, even countries’ rights to inspect food and agricultural imports at the port of entry – a key measure which has been used to safeguard public health – will be limited to “exceptional cases”, e.g. to check for “regulated pests”.

And under Article 8, in nearly all cases those checks will be carried out by the exporting country. Any attempt by the importing country to re-inspect imports would be banned as “redundant” (Article 8).

And while Article 3 of the text requires countries to “avail themselves of the resources necessary to implement the chapter” , there is no requirement to ensure the more extensive resources needed to protect human, animal or plant life and health. As FOEE observes, “Trade appears to have more of a priority than safety.”

As for rules on food safety, plant and animal health and welfare, these can be challenged by investors and governments who think they are too exacting – but not by members of the public concerned their failure to adequately protect human, animal or plant life and health.

Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Director of Internal Strategies at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, fear that the proposals will effectively put a stop to efforts taking place in many countries to create safe and sustainable food production and supply networks.

“People in many states are rebuilding their food systems from the ground up”, she says. “The proposals in the SPS chapter could create new obstacles to cut that process short.”

Shifting power from governments to trade experts

Under Article 18 of the text, the EU proposes that responsibility for initial decisions on food health and safety will be transferred away from national governments and agencies to a wholly unaccountable joint EU-US management committee, made up of trade and regulatory experts and, potentially, industry representatives.

The proposal appears to match the demands put forward by the US biotech lobby organisation, BIO, to US trade representatives in May 2013. And of course, trade experts tend to see safety rules as technical trade barriers rather than as reflecting the needs and demands of society.

Under this system, for example, any review of safety procedures for GMO crops in the EU would be considered by the trade committee first, before undergoing an impact assessment, and comprehensive consultations with national governments in the European Union.

“Trade experts are likely to see measures to introduce or extend moratoria on products as barriers to trade”, points out FOEE. “This would put at risk existing protection measures, such as the moratorium on several growth hormones, scheduled for review.”

Local standards will be over-ruled

There are concerns that the Commission’s proposal will undermine measures introduced at the local, US state, or EU member state level intended to raise standards – measures which have historically led to standards being increased across the board.

Under Article 6, any new rules set at the EU or federal level in the US, would apply throughout the territory, apart from zones with known plant or animal diseases. So EU countries and US states would be unable to pass more stringent regulations to make up for deficiences in EU / US regulations as they now can. In many cases, progress on higher standards starts at the local level and builds upwards.

“This threatens to undermine even existing rules designed to raise standards”, says FOEE, “such as measures to ban small cages for battery hens in California or to reduce antibiotic use in the farming sectors in France and Denmark.”

This could also make it more difficult to restrict imports should conditions or enforcement standards change in the future.

Novel foods – a free for all


The EU’s proposals will affect regulations on ‘novel’ foods or food ingredients, such as foods derived from cloning, genetic modification or synthetic biology.

The purpose of the draft proposal, in Article 7.1, is to ensure that regulations should be applied so as to minimize negative effects on trade “while ensuring the fulfilment of the importing Party’s requirements”.

As such, any new products being brought to market (“new trade”), which are not covered by existing rules, could escape regulation as any new regulation could be seen as a ‘barrier to trade’.

“This would undermine all existing efforts at regulating new technologies like nanotechnology, synthetic biology, animal cloning and genetically engineered animals”, says Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst for Emerging Technologies at the Center for Food Safety. “These technologies need careful and precautionary reviews before they are used in our food, not a free trade pass to avoid review.”

As Hanson points out, nanomaterials, which are increasingly being used for food-related products, or foods derived from new techniques for genetic modification in plants or animals, could be traded in the absence of regulation specific to those technologies.

Also novel foods imported into the EU from the US would face minimal safety checks, as the US lacks regulations for novel food, warns FOEE: “The US does not regulate the new kinds of genetic engineering of plants, animals and microbes being introduced through synthetic biology, unless plant pests are involved.”

And any new regulations imposed at any level could be interpreted by investors as a ‘barrier to trade’, providing an opportunity for legal action under the proposed Investment Settlement Dispute Mechanism.

The threat is a very real one – the American Chemistry Council has already urged the US Trade Representative’s Office to indicate that it would challenge at the WTO and EU requirement to label nanomaterials as a ‘barrier to trade’.

And we are already feeling the effects as regulators hasten to be ‘TTIP-ready’. The EU is currently watering down regulations for novel foods, allowing offspring from cloned animals (including live animals, embryos or semen) to be imported.

A clear example of TTIP’s chilling effect on future legislation is evident in the Commission’s refusal to extend the proposed ban on cloned animals to descendants of clones because it would hinder the negotiation process. Moreover cloned animals, while restricted in the EU, are not tracked in the US, so it is possible that they could enter the food supply.

This is of particular concern as the long-term consequences of cloning are as yet unknown; it is however known that animals bred to maximise production can have serious health problems.

Animal welfare – a race to the bottom


There are also concerns that the wording in the EU’s proposals – which recognise in Article 17.1 that animals are sentient beings, thus are able to suffer and feel pain and fear – is so weak that it may will animal welfare standards at risk.

Moreover it is immediately followed by Article 17.2, which proposes an alignment of regulatory standards between the two regions – which is next to impossible given the differences in existing legislation.

“While the US has no federal animal welfare legislation except rules on the slaughter of livestock”, argues FOEE, “the EU has a series of regulations and directives covering different species at all stages of the farming process.”

In particular the wording on “collaboration to further develop good animal welfare practices” is non-binding – and there is nothing in the text to suggest that products from animals raised under significantly lower welfare standards (e.g. eggs from battery hens) could be barred from import.

This means that competition from farmers operating to lower standards in the US  could force European farmers to demand lower welfare standards in the E, since there are no requirements that either party comply with animal welfare laws of the partner with the highest levels of protection as a condition for trade.

There is nothing in the draft to suggest that the EU might be able to positively influence and advance animal welfare standards – as has been claimed.

Olga Kikou, European Affairs Manager at Compassion in World Farming, is clear as to the likely outcome: “References to an alignment of regulatory standards in the proposed SPS chapter have reinforced claims that TTIP will be detrimental for animal welfare and will lead to further intensification in the sector.”

The proposal does includes plans for a ‘working group’ on animal welfare – but the provisions mentioned in the text are unenforceable. It is more likely that increasing pressure from agribusiness will result in further intensification of animal farming.

Enforcing flawed, industry-dominated WTO international standards

The EU draft re-emphasises that the TTIP agreement comply with the World Trade Organisation agreement on food safety, and agricultural plant and animal health (WTO SPS), which recognizes as authoritative standards set by the international Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Under TTIP’s Article 7.7, new rules agreed by Codex must be adopted in EU and US regulation within 12 months, unless either the US or EU registers ‘reservations’ to the specific threshold decided at the Codex meeting.

So in effect, TTIP would force both the EU and the US to accept the Codex standard, unless a ‘reservation’ had been formally registered. Also, it’s not clear that ‘reservations’ already raised about existing Codex rulings, due to concerns about the evidence used to set the standards, will continue to apply.

And once the EU or US has adopted a Codex standard, it must maintain that standard, even if new scientific evidence shows the Codex standard inadequate to protect human health. “Codex is slow to request international risk assessments based on new science, and it cannot develop a new standard without such risk assessments”, explains FOEE.

In addition, “The EU proposal appears to accept that once a Codex standard for a food has been fixed, the EU and US would lose their right to opt for stricter thresholds, even if new evidence of risks becomes available.” Indeed, under Article 7.7, the EU and the US could be bound by internationally agreed standards “even where clear evidence suggests a threat to public health.”

As FoEE concludes, “This trade agreement is a Trojan Horse that will threaten our food safety and environment. Trade officials whose primary objective is to increase trade and boost corporate profits will have first say over future food safety rules. A trade agreement is not the place to decide about our food safety.”

 

---

 

FOEE report: ‘How TTIP undermines food safety and animal welfare‘.

EU proposals for the chapter on food safety and animal welfare.