My passion for wildlife was stimulated in my teenage years, mainly thanks to my Mum (a biology teacher) who made me look at the world differently and being inspired by writers such as Paul Colinvaux. This early interest developed into biological research in my 20s, when I did practical conservation work in places such as the Comores and Mongolia.
Today, any free time I have I spend pottering around the flatlands of East Anglia or escaping to our hut on the Northumberland coast looking for wildlife and castles with my wife and children.
I studied Biological Sciences at Oxford and Conservation at UCL, and worked at Wildlife and Countryside Link before spending five years as Conservation Director at Plantlife.
I joined the RSPB as Head of Government Affairs in 2004, became Head of Sustainable Development in 2006, before becoming Conservation Director in 2011.
The UK Government that has said it wants to maximise the economic development potential of shale gas.
Yet, this is also a government that, laudably, wants our generation to be the first that passes on the natural environment in a better state to the next.
And this is a government that has committed to tackle climate change by halving UK greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2027.
Given that fracking has potentially significant environmental consequences, how do we reconcile these seemingly competing objectives?
The Prime Minister is a strong advocate of fracking and believes our regulatory regime is fit for purpose. He has said, “There is no reason why the process should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage, if properly regulated. And the regulatory system in this country is one of the most stringent in the world... We cannot afford to miss out on fracking”. More recently, Owen Paterson went a step further, declaring that he “would like to see shale gas exploited all over rural parts of the UK”.
Given the scale of a commercial fracking industry, we thought it would be useful to do more to understand the environmental risks and to assess the current regulatory regime. This is timely because the Government is currently consulting on its Strategic Environmental Assessment of the draft licensing round for onshore oil and gas.
To address these issues, we joined forces with fellow countryside conservation charities the National Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, the Angling Trust, the Salmon & Trout Association, and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust. Today we are publishing the fruits of this collaboration: a review of the evidence for potential impacts in this country that has been peer-reviewed by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and Are we fit to frack? – a summary of the evidence and ten recommendations to improve how the industry is regulated.
Photo-shoot to launch the report with representatives from the NGO coalition, Tessa Munt MP (Lim Dem), Alan Whitehead MP (Lab) and Zac Goldsmith MP (Con)
Our review, which was largely based on experience in the US to date and spatial analysis to identify potential risks here in the UK, concluded that there are serious risks associated with commercial-scale fracking.
These are particularly significant for the water environment, both because of the risk of water contamination but also because of the impact of significant water use in areas already vulnerable to water-stress.
But wildlife is also at risk to habitat loss, fragmentation and disturbance as a result of the infrastructure requirements of a commercial-scale shale gas industry (from increased noise directly from the fracking process but also from enhanced transport activity).
This latter point is critical. A commercial-scale industry will require many drill sites across the countryside; based on the most recent estimates for the Bowland shale in the North of England, for example, Andrew Aplin of Durham University calculates that 33,000 wells would be needed for full commercial exploitation. That’s anything between 1375 and 5500 separate drill sites.
Finally, we make an assessment of the carbon intensity of electricity from shale gas and assess its compatability with UK Government climate change commitments. We conclude that it is hard to justify large-scale investment in extracting UK shale gas. We argue that further independent evidence is needed to address the impacts of commercial shale gas exploitation - in the absence of carbon capture and storage - on climate change.
Shale gas drill site Southport. Photo credit: Cernan Elias (Alamy)
What’s the solution?
After reviewing the evidence we examined the Government’s approach to regulating the industry. Our conclusion is that it is not currently fit for purpose. It does not offer the level of protection we would all expect for wildlife and our countryside. We have put forward 10 proposals that we believe would significantly address this. They are based on the principles of fully understanding the risks, preventing needless harm, the polluter pays and ensuring full transparency and monitoring of the industry.
As a starting point, we are calling for the most special parts of our countryside to be protected through the creation of shale gas exclusion zones. These zones would cover protected areas, nature reserves and other important sites, including land that we and partner organisations own/manage, which alone amounts to approximately 4% of UK land. In our report you can see the proposed exclusion zones overlaid with existing licenses for onshore oil and gas extraction and areas that Government are ‘minded’ to license later this year. The overlap is considerable: 89 RSPB nature reserves, 634 National Trust sites and 251 internationally important protected areas lie within the potential license zones.
Our view is that we need a clear steer from government that these sites are not up for grabs. These special places should be excluded from fracking. This would send an important signal to the industry that ‘going all out for shale’ must never be at the expense of a far more precious resource – our natural heritage.
Do you think the UK is fit to frack? Do you think Shale gas Exclusion Zones are a good idea?
It would be great to hear your views.
Yesterday I referred to the challenges migrant birds face when cross the Mediterranean. Today, I want to return to the threats on their breeding grounds here on the UK and once again ask for your help.
In January this year, I wrote about our ongoing battle to save the (now protected) nationally important population of nightingale at Lodge Hill in Kent (see here).
Disappointingly – but as predicted – the Ministry of Defence and their delivery partner, Land Securities, submitted a revised Outline Planning Application at the end of February to build around 5,000 homes on this nationally important site for nightingale.
If this proposal were to succeed, not only would it result in the loss of the only designated site for nightingale in the UK, but it would also seriously undermine the Government’s flagship planning policy – the National Planning Policy Framework.
To recap, a few things to bear in mind about Lodge Hill and this proposal...
Yesterday, many of you said that you would help encourage the UK Government to end trapping of migrants on a British Military Base in Cyprus. Today, you can also help protect an important migrant population at home. Please respond to the Council’s consultation on these plans. With your help, we can send Medway Council the message that it’s completely unacceptable to build on this protected site. Instead they should look for appropriate alternatives to meet their housing needs.
The updated planning application comprises a staggering five boxes of papers, but this short consultation only runs until 15th April, so please write your letter as soon as you can. For further details of how to get involved go the ‘How you can help’ page here.
Many thanks for your continued support.
...not traditionally the time for environmentalists to get out the bunting.
We tend to hope rather than expect the Chancellor of the day to recognise that a healthy environment underpins our prosperity and that it pays to invest in nature.
Having looked at the detail from today's Budget, I think that the bunting can stay in the cupboard for another year.
The day before the Prime Minister meets his European counterparts to discuss the EU plan to tackle climate change up to 2030, the Chancellor sent the wrong signals to industry about our much needed shift to a low carbon economy. Tax breaks for energy intensive industries were preferred to investment in more energy efficient manufacturing while a freeze in the carbon tax floor price led to fears that energy generation from coal (which we have campaigned to end) would remain economic for longer.
Recent debates about the need to restore our natural capital and deal with predicted extreme weather events brought about by climate chaos seem to have little impact on overall Treasury thinking.
...the cost of this winters floods is over £1 billion. The Treasury has found a further £140 million, “to repair flood defences that have suffered damage in the recent severe flooding”. That money gets us back to the position we were in before being flooded but does not even begin to cover the £500 million per year funding gap identified by the Climate Change Committee. And no mention of the need to address unsustainable land management through better targeting of the £15 billion of subsidies being given to farmers over the next seven years.
It is not as if the political classes are ignorant of the need for action to address unsustainable use of our natural resources...
...last week, with little fanfare, the Natural Capital Committee (NCC) which reports directly to Treasury stated that many of nature's free public services (eg clean water, carbon storage, flood protection and inspiration) are at high or very high risk. The NCC suggests a 25 year plan to restore our natural infrastructure and we understand that the Prime Minister has looked favourably on this proposal.
So, while the Chancellor today said they would soon announce (grey) infrastructure spending for the rest of the decade, what a great opportunity to address investment plans for green, natural infrastructure. That would help reconcile our socio-economic and environmental needs and might even force me to get out the bunting.
As all political parties wrestle with the challenge of building up to 200,000 new homes a year by 2020, the first test of whether the UK Government gets the need to link the green with the grey will be at Ebbsfleet.
My colleague, Simon Marsh cautiously welcomed the announcement for Ebbsfleet Garden City in our Saving Special Places blog here. An Urban Development Corporation will be set up with £200 million to deal with the investment risk concerns which have held up private finance at this site to date. This is a sensible way to support a scheme of this size. It is largely brownfield and already has infrastructure connecting it to London and beyond.
So, the Government has an opportunity to show how to develop truly sustainable communities - communities that we want our children to grow up in. The original garden city vision was to bring the country into the town. Today, we could go further. Let's put high quality green space at the heart of the design of the new city - green space that could be managed for wildlife, help buffer existing protected areas and encourage people to have contact with nature on their doorstep. I understand that there are also serious flood risks to tackle but if this new city can deal with these issues, it could provide a blueprint for how our new homes should be built over the next decade.
What was your verdict on the Budget? What would make you get out the environmental bunting?