There was widespread agreement yesterday that frack-free zones to protect the nation's most special places are common sense and should be central to the good regulation of the shale gas industry. That’s one of my conclusions from the reaction to the publication of our report Are we fit to frack? yesterday.
You can read the evidence report, which was peer-reviewed by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and our policy recommendations here. Both were produced by a partnership including the RSPB, the National Trust, WWT, the Angling Trust, the Salmon & Trout Association, and the Wildlife Trusts.
You can also get an overview of the reaction in the press and on social media on our storify page. We were particularly happy that many commentators and leading politicians from across the political spectrum demonstrated that they understood that fracking poses serious environmental risks and that Government is not doing enough to address them.
It was, however, disappointing that the industry shrugged off our recommendations, claiming that they “are already in place in the UK or are in the process of being put in place”. If that were the case then why have 99 protected areas and 24 RSPB nature reserves already been licensed for fracking and other oil and gas activities? Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph has some advice they should perhaps listen too - “If it were wise, the fracking industry would embrace these sensible proposals for better regulation”.
At the launch event of the reports in London yesterday, the Department for Energy & Climate Change indicated that if people want frack free zones then they should ask for them as part of the current consultation on the 14th licensing round, which closes in two weeks time. We and our partners will be calling for frack-free zones to cover the sites that are most valuable for the natural environment, and the RSPB will be encouraging our members to do the same thing.
We were also challenged by some to extend our proposed frack free zones to include areas that are important for communities, or for local wildlife. This is a fair challenge; we have specifically dealt with impacts on our most special nature sites from a national and even international perspective in this report. But the principle of frack-free zones is a sound one and there is nothing stopping others putting forward other sites where they have reason to do so.
If you want to support our call for frack-free zones to protect our most special sites, or if you have other suggestions for places that should be protected, let Government know by March 28th. Make sure you tell me about it too – here or on Twitter (@harryhuyton).
A final challenge that was put to us yesterday was would we support fracking if our recommendations were implemented?
Our report is quite clear that there are two tests that fracking must pass: the protection of the natural environment, and of our climate. Our recommendations focus on the first test; this is where we and our conservation partners have the most experience to draw upon. But we are quite clear that the jury is still out on what shale gas extraction means for our climate. The International Energy Agency have warned that 2/3rds of proven fossil fuels need to remain in the ground if we are to keep our climate safe. In this context it’s hard to see how accessing a whole new source of fossil fuels is compatible with this Government’s commitment to keeping climate change to below an average increase of 2o Celsius.