There is a peculiar distinction in British environmentalism that has separated beauty from wildlife. These two features of the natural world have been championed by different NGOs and even command distinct designations. I blame Romanticism. It's never made sense to me - the pleasure and inspiration I draw from beautiful places and amazing wildlife are intrinsically linked.
And now, for no rational reason, the UK Government has chosen to provide different levels of protection to beauty and wildlife from the new development bête noir - fracking.
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are aptly named. There are 46 in Britain, some remote like the Isles of Scilly, the wonderful Northumberland coast (home to my family's hut), some right on the edge of urban England, like Cannock Chase—snapped here by @jimpanda as part of our winter photo competition.
AONBs are protected under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The law should guard against development that threatens adverse impacts on AONBs. Adverse impacts normally include effects like loss of tranquillity from lighting, noise, or traffic; abrupt change of landscape character; and loss of biodiversity.
Fracking could have all these effects and more.
While acknowledging the risks to climate change targets, the Are we fit to frack? report also documented a range of damage that fracking could inflict through exploratory and commercial drilling and associated activities, including development and transport infrastructure, water over-abstraction and pollution and noise and light interference. This potential for destruction is alarming and, in response, on 28 July 2014 the Government published new guidance to rule out shale gas exploration in AONBs, National Parks and World Heritage Sites except in exceptional circumstances.
That is a welcome step. But of course, beauty isn’t only skin deep.
While the Government decided to strengthen the protection of these landscape sites where the damage would be obvious, it failed to offer similar safeguards for our finest wildlife sites, where the effects are potentially even more devastating.
Take chalk streams, for example. England is home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams. They are prized fisheries and home to protected species such as salmon and sea trout, which need clean water to thrive.
Many of our chalk streams are designated as protected sites for their wildlife, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and fall within the area where Government could shortly award licences to frack.
Yet the Government did not see fit to offer additional protection for SSSIs at the same time as AONBs.
English chalk streams are extremely vulnerable to pollution, as well as extra demand for water. In the Chilterns alone there are nine chalk streams, all suffering from low flows as a result of over-abstraction
The Chilterns Conservation Board has raised concerns over the compatibility of shale gas extraction with conserving these special places. Water abstraction strain and contamination from leakage may happen out of sight below ground, but the risk to these habitats should not be ignored.
There are many other examples: 85% of the global population of pink-footed geese spend winter in the UK. Two of the four main over-wintering sites for pink-footed geese lie within possible shale gas extraction zones.
The Government tells us that protected sites like SSSIs, local wildlife reserves or Natura 2000 sites designated by the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, do not need extra protection—mostly because they are already covered by planning guidance and legal defences. There are two main problems with this point of view.
First of all, the same applies to AONBs and the other landscape sites that the Government saw fit to offer extra guidance for last year. Of course, the damage to SSSIs caused by pollution in our streams, or draining dry of sensitive habitats, may not be as visible as new roads and wells in a National Park. But should we really leave our most sensitive sites open to development, just because the damage isn’t so obvious?
Second, there are worrying signs that the safeguards that we have relied on for so many years are now under threat. How can we rely on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) when the Government is even countenancing allowing a 5,000 home development at Lodge Hill, the UK’s most important site for nightingales and building a solar farm on Rampisham Down SSSI in Dorset? The paper protection provided by the NPPF is looking on shaky ground.
In the long term, is it even safe to rely on the European Directives, when some Members of the House of Commons are so eagerly awaiting a review (which is always code for weaken) and the European Commission President Juncker seems set to oblige?
Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is like nothing we’ve seen before in this country. The infrastructure is bigger, the wells penetrate further, and the amount of water needed could be significant. 18% of the UK’s SSSIs, 13% of our Special Areas of Conservation and 14% of our Special Protection Areas are covered by the current licensing round, but only a small portion of the gas available would be lost by ruling them out.
If this goes ahead, can we really expect to improve on the 1/3rd of SSSIs in favourable condition today, to meet our target of 50% by 2020? Are we willing to put our most precious wildlife at risk? It’s common sense to issue guidance that gives industry some certainty and rules out our most precious sanctuaries for wildlife.
On Monday 26 January, the Infrastructure Bill goes to Report Stage in the House of Commons.
This is the last chance for the Government to rule out fracking in protected areas as part of this bill. There are encouraging signs: MPs from all sides of the House—Tom Greatrex MP, Norman Baker MP, and Sir John Randall MP—have tabled amendments that would effectively stop fracking in the protected places it could hurt the most. I hope that the when the time comes, Parliament will recognise how deeply, and how precariously, the beauty of our natural world runs in this country and rule out fracking in our most wonderful wildlife sites.
Miles - I agree. We are working with DWT on this.
Pip - great to hear from you and glad that you are a member!
I am slightly surprised by your comments about RSPB and renewables. I/we have been attacked many times for failing to campaign against renewables! See for example here - www.rspb.org.uk/.../why-energy-matters-to-the-rspb.aspx
The reason we get involved in the energy debate is twofold...
...because how we generate energy has an impact on the greenhouse gases that are emitted which affects climate change which threatens wildlife.
...and because any development which has risks and uncertainty for wildlife, is something that the RSPB will inevitably be concerned about. Our report, which we produced with National Trust et al, last year clearly laid out risks (based on evidence we were able to garner) as well as offering options for future regulatory system - some of which are now being adopted by Government. Strengthening protection for our finest wildlife sites - for example by excluding them from the current licensing round - would seem a smart thing to do for nature.
On the Severn barrage - alas again I shall have to beg to differ. See here for our position www.rspb.org.uk/.../the-barrage-of-severn-barrage-plans-continues.aspx
I don't wish to scaremonger - I am simply trying to highlight how public policy can been amended to benefit wildlife. This is something that the organisation has a long track record in doing, going back to our Victorian roots.
I have an open mind on fracking. I am interested in the science and have seen zero evidence for the scaremongering put about by articles like this. I am an RSPB member, Green Party ex member and local official and passionate about renewable energy.
You cannot have it all ways! The RSPB is campaigning against renewables and because renewables like wind turbines on shore and tidal barrages have been attacked as anti wildlife, the energy industry is going for the next invisible source on fossil fuel in fracking for methane.
I would much prefer the former, many many more beautiful, majestic wind turbines and a Severn tidal barrage. The wild life will EASILY adapt to that one, but you cannot eat your cake and still have it, The UK needs long term energy security, or your lights will go out in a few winters time as 4 nuclear power stations reach their end of life.
Fracking is NOT an RSPB issue, so please stop scaremongering!
PIP, Norfolk
Thanks for mentioning Rampisham Down Martin (note spelling.)
I have written a number of posts about Rampisham which you can find on my blog www.anewnatureblog.wordpress.com. Here is a link to the latest one http://wp.me/p3vKib-ud
We need to act quickly and collectively to ask the Secretary of State to call in this planning permission, as we did with Lodge Hill.
One really wonders why nature conservationists are constantly having to battle against this Government, not on minor matters but on matters with serious implications for nature. One is forced to conclude,rightly or wrongly, that their good words towards wanting to protect nature really mean very little and that below the surface they regard nature as just" getting in their way" and something not to be taken seriously.
With the big fall in the price of oil it is going to mean that fracking projects are far less profitable and in some cases not viable. Let's hope this works in favour of nature and reduces the "gung ho" attitude of this Government and the companies towards fracking and persuades them to rule it out in all our wildlife sites.
redkite