A significant threshold has been crossed by renewable energy as analysts report that the sectorʼs size last year reached double the level it was at just 10 years earlier.

Growing fastest of all was solar energy, whose installed capacity was 68 times greater than a decade ago. Wind capacity had multiplied eight times over.

And between 2013 and 2014 the renewable energy surge caused an important ‘tipping point’ in fossil fuel emissions: even though both the global economy and energy use grew, there was no matching rise in emissions of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas targeted in efforts to restrain global warming.

The report by REN21, a global renewable energy policy network, says the result is an example of sustainable development. Despite the worldʼs annual 1.5% increase in energy consumption in recent years and 3% GDP growth last year, 2014ʼs CO₂ emissions were unchanged from 2013ʼs total of 32.3 billion tonnes.

The reportʼs authors say this decoupling of economic and CO₂ growth is due to Chinaʼs increased use of renewables and to efforts by OECD countries to promote more sustainable growth, including by increased energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.

“Renewable energy and improved energy efficiency are key to limiting global warming to 2C and avoiding dangerous climate change”, says Arthouros Zervos, who chairs REN21.

Distorting subsidies

Solar, wind and other technologies, including large hydro-electric schemes, used in 164 countries added another 135 Gigawatts last year to bring the worldʼs total installed renewable energy power capacity to 1,712 GW. This was 8.5% up on 2013, and more than double the 800 GW of capacity recorded in 2004. One GW can power between 750,000 and one million typical US homes.

The authors say the sectorʼs growth could be even greater were it not for more than US$550 bn paid out in annual subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. They say the subsidies keep the prices for energy from these fuels artificially low, encouraging wasteful use and hindering competition.

Christine Lins, executive secretary of REN21, says: “Creating a level playing field would strengthen the development and use of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Removing fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsidies globally would make it evident that renewables are the cheapest energy option.”

By the end of 2014, renewables comprised an estimated 27.7% of the worldʼs power generating capacity – enough to supply an estimated 22.8% of global electricity demand.

The amount of electricity available from renewables worldwide is now greater than that produced by all coal-burning plants in the US. Coal supplied about 38% of US electricity in 2013, compared with around 50% in the early 2000s.

Solar photovoltaic capacity has had a rapid 68-fold growth, from 2.6 GW in 2004 to 177 GW in 2014, while wind power capacity has increased eightfold, from 48 GW in 2004 to 370 GW in 2014. Employment in the sector is also growing fast, with an estimated 7.7m people worldwide working directly or indirectly on renewable energy last year.

Renewables investment outpacing fossil fuels

New investment globally in renewable power capacity was more than twice that of investment in net fossil fuel power capacity, continuing the trend of renewables outpacing fossil fuels in net investment for the fifth year running.

Renewables investment in developing countries was up 36% from the previous year, to $131.3 bn. It came closer than ever to overtaking the investment total for developed economies, which reached $138.9 bn in 2014 – up only 3% from 2013.

China accounted for 63% of developing country investment in renewables, with Chile, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey each investing more than $1bn. By dollars spent, the leading countries for investment were China, the US, Japan, the UK and Germany.

Leading countries for renewables investments relative to per capita GDP were Burundi, Kenya, Honduras, Jordan and Uruguay. But REN21 points out that more than a billion people – 15% of humanity – still lack access to electricity, and the entire African continent has less power generation capacity than Germany.

The report says that off-grid solar PV has “a significant and growing market presence”, and other distributed renewable energy technologies are improving life in remote off-grid areas.

However, it stresses that this growth rate is still not enough to achieve the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) goals of doubling renewable energy and energy efficiency, and providing universal access for all by 2030.

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

On June 14 2015, the Financial Times ran a story under a striking but entirely accurate headline: “French reactor problems cast doubt on UK nuclear power plant”.

That article also reported a question that Jonathan Reynolds MP, Labour’s climate change shadow minister, had written to Amber Rudd MP, the new Energy Secretary:

“I am asking you today to admit the (Hinkley C) project will not proceed and inform Parliament what your alternative energy strategy will be.”

Reynolds is correct: the Hinkley Point C (HPC) project is paralysed with at least five severe problems, any one of which would prove very difficult to overcome. Add them together and the project appears doomed.

Areva actions speak volumes: it has halted all site preparation at Hinkley Point C (HPC), dismissed all the workers and closed their offices there. And Areva very recently announced that it will test to destruction the steel dome already constructed and destined for HPC’s reactor pressure vessel.

This means a new HPC dome would have to be recast adding another 2 to 3 years and even more uncertainty to the project. In reality, it’s an implicit acknowledgement by Areva that HPC is unlikely ever to be built.

A litany of disasters

HPC’s construction costs are extremely high – £24.5 billion in 2014 and rising. To sweeten the deal the previous Government had to propose a construction finance guarantee of £10 billion (the FT said £16 billion) towards them. But still, mo one is coming forward with the cash.

The one possible exception is the mooted participation of Chinese Government agencies. But this will only occur if the Chinese Government controls important aspects of the project, and thus a part of UK energy policy: this is unlikely to prove palatable to the UK population.

Another serious problem is that the proposed French constructor AREVA is technically bankrupt and the project owner, French utility Electricité de France is in severe financial difficulties. Both are 84% owned by the French state.

To support HPC the previous Government offered huge operational tariffs – an inflation proofed £92.50 per MWh guaranteed for 35 year, about double the current wholesale tariff for UK electricity. Since then most renewable energy (RE) tariffs have fallen well below this and continue to decrease, in some cases rapidly.

This has given the Austrian and Luxembourg governments and various RE utilities solid legal grounds to challenge the UK’s proposed massive state aid to Hinkley C. This is likely to take 2 to 4 years: even then the Austrian Government has stated it will appeal against any positive decision. Nothing can happen until all these cases are decided: ie, a delay of at least 4 or 6 years.

The four other EPRs under construction in the world are suffering serious technical problems with consequent long delays, budgets spiralling out of control, and legal counterclaims. The two EPRs under construction in Europe (Finland and France) may in fact prove impossible to construct.

The French nuclear regulator, ASN, has announced a “very serious” finding that reactor pressure vessel domes / bottoms of EPR reactors made by Areva at Le Creuset in France are faulty and may need to be replaced.

This includes those for Hinkley C which have already been built at Le Creuset, and will likely need to be recast. And as already noted, Areva will test to destruction one of the two EPR domes destined for HPC – an implicit acknowledgement that the project is doomed.

Similarly, French nuclear inspectors at ASN and IRSN recently warned EdF about multiple faults in crucial safety valves in the Flamanville nuclear reactor – the same model DECC plans to use.

Turning a blind eye to reality

Although Jonathan Reynolds is accurate in his analysis, it remains to be seen whether the Government or the Labour Opposition hierarchy will take notice of these listed realities.

For example, on June 25, DECC Minister Andrea Leadsom stated that EDF anticipated HPC would start in 2023, and that the Government were committed to the next wave of new nuclear projects, hoping to meet 35% of UK power needs from nuclear by 2028. This statement clearly bears little or no relationship to objective reality: charitably speaking, it’s about saving face.

As for the Opposition, in recent years Labour has had very bad form on nuclear, so Reynolds’ letter, though welcome, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Let’s examine the matter.

Not many are aware that in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the Labour Party and TUC were anti-nuclear – both weapons and energy. Indeed, up to around 2006, the Labour Government was unenthusiastic about nuclear – preferring renewables and demand reduction measures. The famous 2003 Energy White Paper was quite definitely so.

However in May 2006, this policy was changed overnight by the now disgraced former Prime Minister Blair: he announced that nuclear power was “back with a vengeance”. The precise reasons for his change are unknown. Certainly the reasons he proffered (security and global warming) didn’t stand a moment’s scrutiny.

Whatever the reason, Blair’s volte-face was unopposed by the Labour Party. One contributory factor for Labour’s acquiescence was the evisceration of the Labour-affiliated environmental group SERA (formerly anti-nuclear) orchestrated by Blair supporters in the early 2000s.

Blair’s ‘whiter than white’ government

Another contributory factor needs to be more openly discussed: corruption and/or sleaze (see endnote 1). Since 2006 and indeed before then, there has been a sordid story of senior Labour politicians benefitting personally or via their families from corporate nuclear largesse.

These are listed in the 2014 book (and Ecologist article)  by the former Deputy Chair of the Lib-Dems, Donnachadh McCarthy – The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought.

McCarthy’s list is not exhaustive; other examples could have been cited. Nuclear corruption / sleaze was not limited to the Labour Party, as McCarthy indicts some Lib-Dem and Tory politicians as well, but the Labour list is larger and has a longer history.

To be fair, the noughties (2000s) were a rotten time for moral behaviour in England. During those years, most MPs, the House of Commons, BBC senior management, the Metropolitan Police, the Murdoch press empire, all banks, most insurance and finance companies, various University Vice-Chancellors, junior members of the Royal family, and several large corporations were caught up in corruption scandals of one sort or another.

It often seemed that senior members of the Establishment had gone on a feeding frenzy. Moral standards in politics were rock bottom – even worse than in the 1880s and 1890s, but this provides little excuse for the Labour Party’s behaviour, re nuclear largesse. Just because others act immorally provides no justification for you to do so.

Baleful effect of political power

But there’s another phenomenon: the baleful effect of political power. It seems there’s an iron nuclear law: the closer to political power you are and the longer you have it, the more you become pro-nuclear.

The recent political history of the UK is littered with examples of goodish politicians who were strongly anti-nuclear out of office, becoming strongly pro-nuclear once they reach office. Robin Cook, Peter Hain, Chris (now Lord) Smith, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey come to mind.

Look at the mind-boggling apostasy of the Lib Dems who threw away their decades-long principled opposition to nuclear for a few years of shared political power! It makes you wonder.

Many people have asked why this occurs, ie why do many Governments and politicians support nuclear power despite it being grossly uneconomic, undemocratic, unsustainable and unethical, and with severe problems of weapons proliferation and waste disposal? And it’s an ineffective and uneconomic way to reduce CO₂ emissions as well.

It’s a good question which is difficult to answer. In my view, there are many factors one of which may be the pervasive silent influence of nuclear ‘priesthoods’ on civil servants and Ministers. This is according to the analysis of Robert Jungk in his seminal 1979 book The Nuclear State.

Nowadays the UK priesthood consists of senior scientists / managements in Electricité de France, Magnox Electric, NDA, DECC, CoRWM, COMARE, MOD etc who share the same mind-set, and whose expertise and knowledge of the arcane, highly specialised subjects of nuclear physics, nuclear fission, radiation, radioactivity, etc… vastly exceeds that among civil servants and politicians.

According to Jungk, the fact that nuclear scientists and managers exclusively possess this specialised scientific knowledge, the secret formulae and the scientific jargon endows them with the high status, exclusivity and self-importance associated with a priesthood.

Perhaps it’s relevant that the two top politicians in the past 40 years who succeeded in checking the agendas of their nuclear scientists are scientists themselves. Former US President Jimmy Carter (1976-80) who stopped the commercial reprocessing of US nuclear fuel in 1982 was a US Navy nuclear chemist.

And the present German Chancellor, Dr Angela Merkel, who succeeded in diverting Germany’s energy policies away from nuclear towards the renewables, albeit after initial resistance, is a particle physicist.

If so, what’s the lesson for us? The Government and Labour Party need to listen not only to the nuclear scientists from DECC, NDA, EdF etc who are bound to be uncritically supportive of all things nuclear, but also to well-informed scientists knowledgeable about nuclear matters but who have critical insights.

Such scientists do exist: over 60 critically-minded UK scientists on these matters are contained in various UK email lists, but their views have been systematically ignored by UK Governments in recent years.

Labour politicians – sitting on the fence?

Recently, several Labour politicians have spoken out in defence of nuclear power. Caroline Flint MP, the Labour shadow energy secretary, turned mind somersaults by stating that she was opposed to nuclear subsidies, but that HPC’s £16 billion subsidy package was not a subsidy.

Baroness Worthington, Labour’s Energy spokesperson in the Lords has recently written that she supports nuclear for “moral and ethical” reasons. Several scientists have taken her to task for such patent nonsense.

But even she has been getting the wobbles over Hinkley C, as she revealed at the Ecobuild conference in March, saying that the project’s high price was having a “massive destabilising” effect on the energy market. “Intervention in the market has dented confidence, for a contract which has yet to be signed. We have become over-obsessed with the delivery of one project.”

And despite Labour hype, on May 10 2015, Damian McBride, former advisor to Gordon Brown, revealed that Ed Balls had been warned by Treasury mandarins that the costs for Hinkley Point C were “frighteningly out of control”. Balls would have reviewed the spiralling costs with a view to scrapping the project had Labour won the election and he had become Chancellor.

This has not happened, indeed Balls is no longer even an MP. So what’s Labour’s attitude now? It’s hard to say as there are conflicting signals.

One possible influence is the trade union movement: jobs. But does Labour – especially New Labour – give a fig what the unions think? Lip service or worse – condescension – is often the state of their relationship. Two large unions, Unite and GMB, are strongly pro-nuclear, but several others are less convinced and several union-academic initiatives have recently started up seeking to steer unions away from nuclear towards the undoubted jobs bonanza in renewables.

These initiatives point to Germany with over 440,000 direct jobs in renewable energy (RE), compared to fewer than ~30,000 RE jobs and ~20,000 in the nuclear sector here. Many Labour Party and union officials are aware of this but are reluctant to speak out.

Nuclear hegemony in England and Wales

To be fair to them, it’s hard to push against the nuclear hegemony – the political and cultural dominance or authority of nuclear interests – that exists in England and Wales (E&W). As well as Labour and the big unions, the other main political parties, almost all of the media, the civil service, the MOD, the BBC, Royal Societies, Research Councils, and almost all universities in E&W support nuclear power.

Even the anti-nuclear Pugwash group is pro-nuclear energy in the UK (but not abroad of course): its founder members are no doubt turning in their graves. It sadly even extends to the UK’s Guardian newspaper: most of its editors routinely spike stories which question nuclear power and they have repeatedly refused to carry Comment is Free articles opposing nuclear developments

One result is that organisations which opposed nuclear power in the past, eg environmental groups such as Greenpeace UK, Friends of the Earth (E&W) and Medact refrain from campaigning against nuclear in England. Note that for FoE (E&W) the reluctance stems from their HQ. Several local FoE groups continue to campaign strongly.

This reluctance does not exist among their sibling organisations in other countries – Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Europe and FoE subsidiaries in most other countries. And, in a telling fact, Scottish environmental groups, including FoE Scotland and WWF Scotland, remain staunchly anti-nuclear.

Why? There is no nuclear hegemony in Scotland as the Scottish Government is formally opposed to new nuclear power stations.

Are things changing for the better?

There are signs the worm is turning. In November 2014, the former Government Chief Scientist, Sir David King, who had strongly supported nuclear, stated that Britain “might well” be able to do without nuclear power altogether, and that the real priority should be on renewables, and developing ways of storing electricity so as to be able to depend on intermittent sun and wind.

After Fukushima, many banks and international financial institutions turned their backs on nuclear preferring to invest in the renewables. Indeed, the Government and Labour Party are unaware that nuclear power is in decline in the rest of the world. This decline is accelerating: even Russia has been cancelling its nuclear power plans.

As well as the above FT article, other commentators are now pointing to the dire situation at HPC. For example the Sunday Times recently reported “a growing chorus calling for Hinkley to be scrapped.”

The defeat of almost all Scottish Labour MPs (only one remains) at the May election by Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs has changed Westminster for the better. For many people, the election of 56 centre-left SNP MPs was a ray of hope in an otherwise disappointing election, despite the racism-tinged hostility of the media and the Labour Party towards the SNP.

Their MPs election has injected much-needed fresh thinking into Westminster about nuclear (and other) issues, as the SNP is strongly anti-nuclear.

A final word goes to the indefatigable Labour MP, Paul Flynn. Despite his mobility disability, and despite strong hostility from his Party leadership, he has for years – along with his equally indefatigable researcher (and Ecologist author) David Lowry – consistently opposed the Government’s and Labour’s nuclear obsessions in Parliament.

On June 18, 2015 in Parliament, Flynn stated: “Nuclear power was promised as an energy source that would be too cheap to meter. It is now too expensive to generate. If we were planning a nuclear policy from scratch, would we choose to do a deal with two French companies, one of which is bankrupt, while the other, Electricité de France, has a debt of €33 billion? Would we also collaborate with countries with dreadful human rights records – China […] or Arabia where people are executed on the street?”

In conclusion, the Labour Party needs to take a fresh look at the dire situation with Hinkley Point C, and more widely at its ill-conceived and out-of-date love affair with nuclear power. The Leadership election offers just such an opportunity.

Much depends on who the next Leader will be, and it’s interesting that Jeremy Corbyn MP, who is opposed to all things nuclear, obtained the support of 36 Labour MPs to reach the ballot paper for the leadership election.

Dr Ian Fairlie is not a member of any political party. Between 1975 and 1989, he was a researcher at the TUC. For more information, refer to www.ianfairlie.org

1

London has suffered yet another bunch of brutal cyclist killings, with 3 cyclists being killed over the last two weeks.

The latest tragedy took place right in the heart of the city at the historic Bank junction in front of the Bank of England.

This has struck a raw chord of anger among cyclists and unusually not one but three major protests have been organised at the junction by various groups.

These culminate tonight in a major Die-In and Vigil in honour of the latest two deaths of Ying Tao, 26, a financial services worker, and Clifton James, 61, a mechanic. Up to a thousand cyclists, pedestrians and motorists are expected to attend, with many London mayoral candidates also supporting the protest.

The first of the three deaths, that of physiotherapist Esther Hartsilver, 32, had already been honoured by a large Die-In at Camberwell Green where she was killed just a week previously.

The UK’s peaceful cycling revolution has begun

Protestors tonight will again lay down on the road with their bikes and bring the city to a silent prostrated symbolic tribute to the fallen. Organisers have called for this to be a dignified peaceful silent roar that goes out loud and clear around the world, from this iconic historic junction.

We need and we want and we will have our peaceful beautiful cycling revolution now! Indeed it is already under way.

The first protest event at Bank junction was a flash-mob organised by LCC on Wednesday morning, which brought the junction to a halt for a minute’s silence, with hundreds of cyclists attending at 8.30am.

The second protest led to some amazing scenes at the Bank junction on Friday night by the Bank of England, when the monthly informal Critical Mass cycle ride with over 600 cyclists, halted at the site of the tragic killing of Ying Tao. It brought the traffic on all seven major roads meeting at this terrible junction to a halt for nearly thirty minutes.

The whole junction was filled with cyclists and they did a bike-lift in her honour. A young man grabbed the Stop Killing Cyclists placard that one of the attendees had brought with him and feeding off the raw emotions of the crowd, climbed a tall pole in the middle of the junction and attached it there, to loud cheers!

A demand from all the people of London

A high level executive from one major City of London accountancy firm said over 100 of their staff had already committed to coming to the Die-In. Recently married, Ying Tao had been a management consultant with PWC.

This reflects the fact that thousands of City staff now cycle to work, as these educated young professionals know it is the healthiest and most economical way to travel to work in the City. Over one third of the traffic at Bank junction at rush hour is now cyclists – yet absolutely no safe infrastructure is provided.

The situation is equally dire in the suburbs, for example in Harrow where Clifton James, killed by a speeding car just minutes from his home, worked as a mechanic. Likewise in ‘outer city’ areas like Camberwell, where Esther Hartsilver, a physiotherapist at Kings College Hospital, was killed by a groceries lorry on Denmark Hill.

Stop Killing Cyclists announced that the event will call for London’s Mayor to summon an emergency ‘Killer Tipper’ Summit to deal with this plague killing London’s cyclists. Seven of the eight cyclists killed already in 2015 have been killed by left-turning trucks.

The other major demands for the protest include:

• Close Bank junction to motorised traffic and make it into a beautiful people-friendly square at the heart of the City.
• City of London Corporation to drop its long-standing official opposition to protected cycle lanes.
• Compulsory CCTV for the left hand side of all Tippers/HGVs to eliminate blind spots – it should not be the responsibility of pedestrians or cyclists to memorise the design defects of dangerous motor vehicles.
• Ban on Tipper Trucks in central London during morning and evening rush-hours.
• TfL and City of London to allocate 10% of transport budget to cycling infrastructure.

This really is the moment when everybody, the Corporation of London, Stop Killing Cyclists, LCC and pedestrian campaigners can all unite to ensure that these awful brutal killings are brought to an end.

The City of London, Transport for London and all the other dinosaur London Boroughs responsible for cyclist and pedestrian safety must pull their fingers out – and enable London to become the 21st century city that most of its residents aspire to – safe, clean and beautiful for humans!

Protest: Bank Die-In tonight, Monday 29th June 2015 at 5:30pm, outside the Bank of England, Bank Junction, City of London, EC4N 8BH. See also the event page on Facebook. Protesters are asked to bring candles and placards.

Donnachadh McCarthy is a founder of Stop Killing Cyclists, a member of Occupy Democracy, co-organiser for Occupy Rupert Murdoch Week, a former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, and author of ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘. He can be reached via his website 3acorns. Follow on Facebook.

More: Stop Killing Cyclists website and Facebook.

Twitter: Hashtag #StopKillingCyclists

Councillors have rejected Cuadrilla’s application in a decisive 9:3 vote this morning, with two abstentions.

This was a huge rejection of the advice of their own officers, who had warned that a rejection would be ‘unreasonable’ in planning terms, putting the Council at risk of financial penalties, and even received the backing of David Manley QC in their view.

But yesterday two independent legal opinions from senior barristers were published which gave the opposite viewpoint, as reported on The Ecologist. And this advice appears to have been decisive in the refusal.

The Conservative councillor Michael Green, who abstained last week, said before the vote that following the new legal advice “we are in a position where if we so wish we can take the decision [to refuse] knowing it isn’t unreasonable for us to do so … I have come to the conclusion this morning I will be voting in support of refusal.”

According to John Williams, a consultant at Poyry Management Consulting, “Many expected the decision to be reluctantly approved by Councillors, following the legal advice that had previously been received. New advice received this morning seems to have given the Councillors the justification they needed to reject the proposals.

“Where does this leave us? The expectation must be that Cuadrilla will appeal this decision – they have nothing to lose from doing so. However, this decision is a serious setback for shale gas in the UK and many must be wondering if it can ever reach production phase.”

A victory for democracy and common sense

Reacting to today’s decision by Lancashire councillors to reject a planning application to frack at Preston New Road in Little Plumpton, between Preston and Blackpool, Friends of the Earth north west campaigner Furqan Naeem, said: 
 
“People in Lancashire and across the UK who have been tirelessly campaigning against fracking will breathe a sigh of relief today – safe in the knowledge that this dirty industry that risks health, quality of life and the climate, has been stopped in its tracks once again.
 
“In the teeth of massive pressure from Cuadrilla and Westminster, Lancashire’s brave county councillors have voted to protect their citizens and the local environment – the winners today are democracy and the people of Lancashire. 
 
“Both Cuadrilla and the Government must respect Lancashire’s decision and not try to force unpopular fracking on these communities.  Many polls show that the public wants renewable energy, not fracking – and the clean energy and long term jobs it provides.
 
“The stakes for local people, for democracy and for the environment could not be higher. Though all three emerge as victors today, the fight against fracking and dirty energy is far from over.”

But Cuadrilla expressed itself “surprised and disappointed” at the decision, adding: “We remain committed to the responsible exploration of the huge quantity of natural gas locked up in the shale rock deep underneath Lancashire.

“We will now take time to consider our options regarding an appeal for Preston New Road, along with also considering appeals for  the planning applications recently turned down, against Officer advice, for monitoring and site restoration at Grange Hill, and last week’s decision to refuse the Roseacre Wood application.”

We must not underestimate the importance of this decision

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who was herself arrested at Balcombe in August 2013 while protesting against an exploratory fracking operation, said the decision was a “fantastic victory for the people of Lancashire, and the campaigners who have fought so hard to increase awareness of the dangers of fracking.

“Today’s decision proves that, in spite of all the Government’s efforts to force through fracking, local communities can prevent it from going ahead.

“Lancashire County Councillors have today set a strong example of how democracy should work – with elected politicians listening to the concerns of the people they represent. I hope the refusal of this application will open the government’s eyes to the huge opposition to fracking in this country, and help to persuade them that clean, renewable energy is where we must invest.

“The Green Party will keep campaigning until fracking is banned in the UK, and the Government commits to taking real action to tackle climate change.”

It’s also a depressing day for the strongly pro-fracking Government and its energy secretary Amber Rudd. Making it all the more galling, Conservative councillors on Lancashire’s Development Control Committee voted 3:1 to reject the application, in line with their Labour colleagues who voted 5:2.

That’s a powerful warning, if there ever was one, that Conservative controlled local authorities up and down the country will be no ally to the government when it comes to fracking on their turf.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Lancashire councillors have every right to refuse fracking application‘.

Event: Ecologist editor Oliver Tickell and writers Paul Mobbs and Julian Rose will be speaking at Resurgence summer camp: 30 July – 2 August, at Green and Away, near Worcester. See here for programme details and bookings.

Councillors have rejected Cuadrilla’s application in a decisive 9:3 vote this morning, with two abstentions.

This was a huge rejection of the advice of their own officers, who had warned that a rejection would be ‘unreasonable’ in planning terms, putting the Council at risk of financial penalties, and even received the backing of David Manley QC in their view.

But yesterday two independent legal opinions from senior barristers were published which gave the opposite viewpoint, as reported on The Ecologist. And this advice appears to have been decisive in the refusal.

The Conservative councillor Michael Green, who abstained last week, said before the vote that following the new legal advice “we are in a position where if we so wish we can take the decision [to refuse] knowing it isn’t unreasonable for us to do so … I have come to the conclusion this morning I will be voting in support of refusal.”

According to John Williams, a consultant at Poyry Management Consulting, “Many expected the decision to be reluctantly approved by Councillors, following the legal advice that had previously been received. New advice received this morning seems to have given the Councillors the justification they needed to reject the proposals.

“Where does this leave us? The expectation must be that Cuadrilla will appeal this decision – they have nothing to lose from doing so. However, this decision is a serious setback for shale gas in the UK and many must be wondering if it can ever reach production phase.”

A victory for democracy and common sense

Reacting to today’s decision by Lancashire councillors to reject a planning application to frack at Preston New Road in Little Plumpton, between Preston and Blackpool, Friends of the Earth north west campaigner Furqan Naeem, said: 
 
“People in Lancashire and across the UK who have been tirelessly campaigning against fracking will breathe a sigh of relief today – safe in the knowledge that this dirty industry that risks health, quality of life and the climate, has been stopped in its tracks once again.
 
“In the teeth of massive pressure from Cuadrilla and Westminster, Lancashire’s brave county councillors have voted to protect their citizens and the local environment – the winners today are democracy and the people of Lancashire. 
 
“Both Cuadrilla and the Government must respect Lancashire’s decision and not try to force unpopular fracking on these communities.  Many polls show that the public wants renewable energy, not fracking – and the clean energy and long term jobs it provides.
 
“The stakes for local people, for democracy and for the environment could not be higher. Though all three emerge as victors today, the fight against fracking and dirty energy is far from over.”

But Cuadrilla expressed itself “surprised and disappointed” at the decision, adding: “We remain committed to the responsible exploration of the huge quantity of natural gas locked up in the shale rock deep underneath Lancashire.

“We will now take time to consider our options regarding an appeal for Preston New Road, along with also considering appeals for  the planning applications recently turned down, against Officer advice, for monitoring and site restoration at Grange Hill, and last week’s decision to refuse the Roseacre Wood application.”

We must not underestimate the importance of this decision

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who was herself arrested at Balcombe in August 2013 while protesting against an exploratory fracking operation, said the decision was a “fantastic victory for the people of Lancashire, and the campaigners who have fought so hard to increase awareness of the dangers of fracking.

“Today’s decision proves that, in spite of all the Government’s efforts to force through fracking, local communities can prevent it from going ahead.

“Lancashire County Councillors have today set a strong example of how democracy should work – with elected politicians listening to the concerns of the people they represent. I hope the refusal of this application will open the government’s eyes to the huge opposition to fracking in this country, and help to persuade them that clean, renewable energy is where we must invest.

“The Green Party will keep campaigning until fracking is banned in the UK, and the Government commits to taking real action to tackle climate change.”

It’s also a depressing day for the strongly pro-fracking Government and its energy secretary Amber Rudd. Making it all the more galling, Conservative councillors on Lancashire’s Development Control Committee voted 3:1 to reject the application, in line with their Labour colleagues who voted 5:2.

That’s a powerful warning, if there ever was one, that Conservative controlled local authorities up and down the country will be no ally to the government when it comes to fracking on their turf.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Lancashire councillors have every right to refuse fracking application‘.

Event: Ecologist editor Oliver Tickell and writers Paul Mobbs and Julian Rose will be speaking at Resurgence summer camp: 30 July – 2 August, at Green and Away, near Worcester. See here for programme details and bookings.

This is a crucial week for millions of African farmers – the week in which, under the guise of ‘plant protection’, they may lose the right to use their ancient seed heritage to grow the food crops on which the continent depends.

The policy is being driven through an opaque, little known body, the African Regional Intellectual Property Association (ARIPO), whose Diplomatic Conference opens today at the plush Mount Meru Hotel in Arusha, Tanzania. 

In meetings taking place over the coming week, ARIPO plans to adopt the highly contested draft ARIPO Plant Variety Protection Protocol (ARIPO PVP Protocol), which guarantees the rights of commercial seed breeders while cancelling farmers traditional rights to save seed, grow crops from traditional seed varieties developed by our ancestors over countless generations, and sell or exchange such seeds.

In addition to severely restricting farmers rights to saving, sharing, selling, and planting seeds and propagating material, the Protocol facilitates biopiracy. The seed industry can take the seed DNA from ARIPO member African countries, manipulate it in a laboratory, and then claim intellectual property rights to DNA developed over centuries by African farmers.

This IPR grab has potential to be one of the largest resource thefts in human history. Seed diversity would disappear and African farmers would be forced to buy back their own seeds every planting season.

Forcing Africa open to seed exploitation

The PVP Protocol is based on the 1991 Convention of UPOV, the Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales or International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which provides for “breeders rights” to seeds and other germplasm based on conditions of novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability, providing the essential legal foundation for the commercialization of the seed sector, including the introduction of GMO crops.

The first three days of the meeting will be dedicated to technical matters involved with the final drafting of the PVP Protocol among representatives from the 19 ARIPO member states. Then on Thursday ministers will gather to conclude the political discussions.

But that’s about all that African civil society has been told. We do not know which ministers will represent their countries. In the absence of any consultations in the ARIPO member states, we have no idea what they are going to say on our behalf. And we can only wonder – why is this whole thing shrouded in such secrecy?

The answer is, surely, to exclude public participation and limit opportunities for civil society to organise agains the PVP Protocol. African farmers have rejected moves to adopt UPOV-inspired measure in national legislation, for example in Ghana where the controversial Plant Breeders’ Bill was overwhelmingly rejected!

By adopting these measures at a transnational level, we believe governments are trying to evade their democratic accountability and impose these measures as a fait accompli. If ARIPO passes the UPOV PVP Protocol, it enters into force after being ratified by four member states.

Being presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ package it precludes discussion, debate and amendment in national parliaments circumventing the normal democratic processes that would apply to legislation in the member states.

Shining light on a murky, unaccountable process

But the very fact that a conference whose decisions have such far-reaching consequences is taking place almost in the dark, means that its very exposure can scuttle the attempts. That is why it is important to talk about this and raise the murmurs into a thunder!

Fortunately, thanks to Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), Association for Plant Breeding for the Benefit of Society (APBREBES), African Centre for Biodiversity (ACBio), and various farmers’ associations, the word is spreading fast.

For more than 50 years UPOV has strengthened the rights of the seed industry internationally at the expense of farmers rights, particularly through its 1991 Convention. It has ignored the needs of developing countries, putting the right to food at risk.

Like many recent trade agreements it is more about protecting and consolidating corporate profits than it is about trade or development.  It has systematically excluded farmers from its deliberations.

The 19 ARIPO member states are Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, where the secretariat is based. Among them are some of Africa’s least developed countries.

Three of the ARIPO states, including Ghana, are being pushed to spearhead the process because they are already at some stages of passing a PVP on their own, or have already passed it. Ghana could make a powerful difference by opposing the Protocol. Zambia too is feeling strong pressure to oppose it.

The unlawfulness of ARIPO seed grab exposed

In its haste to hand over Africa’s seeds to commercial intrests, ARIPO has circumvented or ignored numerous international conventions and legal instruments, as has been revealed by AFSA – exposing the fraudulent nature of the process:

• ARIPO has failed to comply with Article V of the 1976 Lusaka Agreement establishing the ARIPO (Lusaka Agreement), which requires ARIPO to consult with the AU and UNECA. Such failure to consult raises serious questions about the validity of the draft PVP Protocol.
• The process adopted by ARIPO is flawed in that there has been inadequate consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing farmers and the general civil society, as required by international law, particularly that outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
• ARIPO has furnished incorrect information to ARIPO Member States, and that Member States did not give a mandate that the UPOV Council should examine the draft ARIPO PVP.
• ARIPO furnished incorrect information to ARIPO member states about adequate consultation with relevant stakeholders.
• The provision of incorrect information by ARIPO constitutes gross negligence on the part of ARIPO, in the light of the UN International Law Commission’s 2011 Articles on the responsibility of international organisations and the International Law Association’s 2004 Final Report on Accountability of International Organisations.
• ARIPO has not adequately facilitated a process whereby the right to food for all is fully taken into account. In an African context, where such a high proportion of farmers depend on farm-saved seeds, and where the legislation and institutions for curbing anti-competitive practices might differ between countries, this is an unforgivable and unwarranted omission.
• ARIPO’s adoption of the least flexible approach in the realm of plant breeders’ rights, as set out in the draft ARIPO PVP Protocol, represents a protection regime that goes further than UPOV 1991, hence it is correct to describe it as ‘UPOV 1991+’. This is disconcerting, given that currently no sub-Saharan African State is bound by UPOV 1991.

These are our demands!

More and more organisations are becoming aware and are adding their voices to the call by AFSA’s demands:

1. The draft ARIPO PVP Protocol should be immediately revised in order to comply with the more flexible effective sui generis requirement of TRIPS Article 27.3(b), as well as including provisions that recognise farmers’ rights and facilitate the right to food. This revision should be based on a much broader consultation process and by making use of experts from outside of the plant breeders’ rights sector.
2. The ARIPO Secretariat should review the information that was provided during the presentation of the draft ARIPO PVP to its member states, and correct any information that is found to not have been adequately substantiated or adequately clear in its content.
3. The governments of Ghana and Tanzania, both of whom are in the process of adopting legislation based on UPOV 1991, should commission an independent sustainability impact assessment of the draft plant breeders’ rights, where the social impact is understood as encompassing human rights impacts.ⁱ The assessment should be presented to the respective national parliaments.
4. ARIPO should request the African Union and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa to undertake an assessment in order to identify how the many recent initiatives for enhancing the productivity in the African agriculture can foster publicly initiated participatory breeding and strengthen public extension services.
5. ARIPO should consider how the many studies on effective sui generis systems for plant varieties can be made available to its member states.

We must now put all possible pressure on our governments to hear the voice of Africa’s people, and in particular the small scale farmers across the continent on whom we depend for our daily food.

Ali-Masmadi Jehu-Appiah is Chairperson of Food Sovereignty Ghana. He contributed this article in his personal capacity.

Twitter: ‪#‎PlantBreedersBill‬ ‪#‎ARIPO‬ ‪#‎PVP‬ ‪#‎UPOV‬

More information

• APBREBES Updates on Plant Variety Protection, Issue #15, 26 June 2015: http://www.apbrebes.org/…/newsletter-apbrebes-updates-plant…
• APREBES Newsletter, June 2015.
• Zambia: ‘Government urged NOT to sign Protocol on Protection of new Plant Varieties‘.
• ‘The ARIPO PVP Protocol Is A Tool For The Foreign Takeover Of Ghana’s Agriculture‘.

Independent Queen’s Counsel legal advice shows that Lancashire’s Councillors can refuse Cuadrilla’s fracking application tomorrow (Monday 29th June) morning.

According to Richard Harwood QC the Lancashire planning officers’ advice to councillors points out that the application will “cause demonstrable harm”.

Thus there are grounds on which the Lancashire County Council (LCC) could “reasonably” refuse Cuadrilla’s application – and defend their decision if the company appeals.

Specific grounds on which LCC councillors could refuse the application include:

• The proposal does not accord with the Fylde Borough Local Plan because drilling for oil and gas is not one of the activities permitted in rural areas;
• The fracking would breach two specific policies of Fylde Borough council;
• Noise levels will be higher than before especially at night, causing disturbance to peoples’ sleep;
• Glow from lighting at night will breach relevant standards.

The LCC Development Control Committee should also consider other views beyond that of its own planning officers, says Harwood, including the objection of the District planning authority, expert advice assembled by objectors, and views submitted by local people.

Moreover, he added, “it is far from clear” that Lancashire County Council’s legal adviser took account of all of this information when giving his last minute advice to councillors in secret.

‘You have to give permission’, say officers

Officers’ unpublished advice to the Council was that it should refuse permission for the Roseacre site, and this is what councillors decided to do on Friday last week.

But they left the decision for the Preston New Road site until tomorrow, after officers advised that there were no valid grounds for refusal. The LCC also commissioned its own legal opinion, from David Manley QC, which concluded that while a refusal would be legal, it could be seen as “unreasonable” and cause financial penalties to be imposed on the Council:

“While a refusal which is not backed by substantial objective evidence cannot be described as unlawful, it nonetheless can readily be described as unreasonable in planning terms. If a refusal based on DM2 (or any other generalised policy) were to be issued, it is highly likely that the Applicant will appeal.

“In the absence of clear evidence to gainsay the views of the various consultees (noted above) and the Case Officer, there is a high risk that a costs penalty will be imposed upon the Council.”

The advice concludes by warning that in the event of refusal and a consequient appeal, councillors would be required to give evidence in person, since their officers would be unable to do so for procedural reasons, and “I anticipate that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a reputable independent planning consultant to defend LCC’s position.”

Harwood insists: refusal would be reasonable!

But Harwood is equally certain that the officers’ advice is deficient: “In particular there is a need to consider noise impacts in the round, in that drilling involves a continuous 24/7 industrial noise which at times will be well above other noise levels … Were residents to have their sleep disturbed harm to health would result.”

He also emphasises that “planning decisions are made by politicians rather than experts or lawyers and … the balance of benefits and harm is ultimately a political decision. Whether a particular impact is aceptable has a large measure of political judgment to it.”