1. The document discusses concerns about the UK government's approach to regulating hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for shale gas. There are criticisms that the existing regulations have shortcomings and that environmental impact assessments are inadequate. 2. The author argues the government has resisted stronger, more integrated EU regulation that could help address public concerns about fracking. Instead, the UK pushed for a weaker non-binding recommendation. 3. It is suggested the government prioritizes economic growth over environmental protection in its energy and planning policies. This could bias decisions on fracking applications in favor of developers.

1. Response to http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-hasty-dash-to-frack.html#comment-form
1. Are Regulations Sufficient
I approach this issue from a precautionary principle. Thus from the existing suite of regulations
affecting oil and gas industry there has been identified a series of shortcomings as I stated in my first
post: underground risk assessments, methane emissions, cumulative impact. My source for this is
the 2012 report to the European Commission DG Environment
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf
In my mind it makes sense to look at the environment and health issues that fracking raises and have
regulatory interventions/procedures that deal collectively with this. Hence a directive fulfils that role
as as seen by the Water Framework Directive subsidiarity, partnership working and collaboration can
be essential parts of that. It was significant that the UK lobbied to have the favoured EU Directive
rejected in favour of a reduced and weakened Recommendation which is not legally binding for
member states. Yes there is a prospect of further interventions but that equally plays out on a
political stage. Why start with a compromise that weakens the regulatory environment within which
fracking decisions take place?
The further dimension to this is that many of the environmental safeguards as secured through EIA
procedures have been seriously critiqued in terms of their efficacy and objectivity given that EIAs are
undertaken by consultants under the employ of the developers themselves. Barker and Jones 2013
highlight the varying performance of 35 Environmental Statements across the oil and gas sector. This
builds on the conclusions of Glasson et al 2005 p340 who identify the following weaknesses in
process.
“ • has a non-existent or weak follow-up process, lacking surveillance and enforcement of
terms and conditions, effects monitoring, etc.;
• does not consider cumulative effects or social, health and risk factors;
• makes little or no reference to the public, or consultation is perfunctory, substandard
and takes no account of the specific requirements of affected groups;
• results in EA reports that are voluminous, poorly organized and descriptive technical
documents;
• provides information that is unhelpful or irrelevant to decision-making;
• is inefficient, time consuming and costly in relation to the benefits delivered; and
• understates and insufficiently mitigates environmental impacts and loses credibility”
More contemporary critiques highlight the same problems; see my Scott et al 2013 p42 assessment
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900613000214
2. Is Government reducing environmental safeguards
My post was on the way government energy policy is being developed. The first point was that it was
not coherent in any way and there was an energy policy vacuum which enabled lurches (not dashes
actually; ironically not even my own title to the piece) from one favoured energy source without any
clear strategy.

2. The government are not reducing the environmental safeguards per se but they are diluting the
voices who are in charge of defending those safeguards. By raising the status of economic growth.
They are openly resisting calls for more integrated regulation that deals with fracking process per se.
Their reluctance to embrace a more integrated EU Directive in my view is counterproductive as it
might actually help overcome many public concerns. Like you I agree that we have two extreme
camps; those who see fracking as the end of the earth and those who see it as the saviour of our
energy gap. Like you I agree this is a pantomime debate and it is no good at all to have a debate on
those terms.
The wider narrative within which all policy is being developed is, in my view, relevant to shale gas as
much as you want to focus on that alone. Sorry you can’t look at it in isolation. The government
priority is clear; economic growth is seen as the number one priority and given that it can trump
environmental and social interests in planning decisions when matters are of national interest that
matters. Currently social and environmental matters are poorly accounted for in planning decisions.
Our current work for government as part of the National Ecosystem Assessment follow on project
illuminates this problem (www.eatme-tree.org.uk).
It is therefore important that government and decision makers see the environment not just as a
constraint but as an opportunity space with benefits. To do this we need to change the way we use
tools and assess the environment in the decision making process itself. As I discussed previously, the
current tools are not fully fit for purpose eg EIAs.
Economic growth is embedded into the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) and has been a
clear driver for the way all government agencies operate in practice. This drives a culture of short
termism in response to economic austerity, but in so doing, impacts upon the work of its
environment agencies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency. Much of my
arguments are here http://blogs.birminghampost.co.uk/news/2012/10/the-castration-of-the-
quangos.html highlighting the way government ministers and departments impact on the delivery
and voice of such agencies.
The other issue here is the government rhetoric of localism which clearly espouses the value of
locally-driven planning decision making and a removal of central government interventions. In cases
like fracking there is a very clear disregard of that idea begging the question of whether localism is
anything more than a government soundbite and only to be promoted when it is the kind of localism
they want to see. This is actually relevant here as opposition to shale gas is widespread. They cant
have their localism cake and sweep it under the carpet when they don’t agree with it.
In my previous post I referred to the EU NATURA 2000 review. This is important as the government
commissioned it on the basis that they were convinced that such designations (Special Areas of
Conservation) were harming economic development. The findings challenged this assertion. For
example Natural England receives around 26,500 land use consultations annually; of these, they
‘object’ to less than 0.5% of these on Habitats Regulations grounds (par 28).
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69513/pb13724-
habitats-review-report.pdf
3. The loaded government dice for planning decisions.

3. This culture ties in with the ‘loaded dice’ point I made in my response to you. If the government
publicly state that case for something is unassailable and it is in the national interest that we go
ahead that sends a very strong signal to a planning inspector and developers. Armstrong in 1985
did an excellent anatomy of the public inquiry process for Sizewell B where a 2.5 year inquiry was
‘hijacked’ when, just before it started, the government stated then the case for nuclear power was
unassailable. Many of the arguments that were being advanced were based on dangers and health
risks etc but the government pronouncement made in my view the inquiry decision a forgone
conclusion.
We have a similar position now which puts planning inspectors in a difficult position particularly
when the secretary of state has the final say. I would argue that the fracking issue will go to inquiry
due to developers wanting to circumvent local authority decision making under the provisions of the
growth and infrastructure act allowing government to decide.
Summary
1. The government has no overall coherent energy policy which enables lurches from one
energy source to another based on political whims and opportunism.
2. There is government resistance to an improved regulatory environment which actually might
help overcome public concern.
3. There is a government rhetoric of localism which suggests local people might be able to
influence what happens in their area but it only works if they follow government policy.
4. There are academics who have expressed similar concerns over fracking policy to me who
are far more eminent and distinguished in their field of energy than me. Prof Paul Ekins
http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable-resources/2013/08/07/ukerc-blog-the-fracking-battle-no-
way-to-conduct-energy-policy/ also has written a blog post. Furthermore an emerging
academic concern is the ways estimates of reserves are distorting the energy debate. Eg
Glade et al 2013 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213004416
5. I actually want to be convinced that shale gas/oil is the way forward. That is still my
position.