In this post we consider the state of the public involvement with fracking-related decisions.
In the case of Third Energy’s KM8 site at Kirby Misperton, the community clearly feels their voice has not been heard. Indeed, 99.2% of the people who responded to a North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) consultation opposed fracking at the site, yet the Council’s planning committee did approve Third Energy’s application in spite of this overwhelming opposition [1]. A legal challenge to NYCC’s decision was rejected in court in December 2016, which led to the set up of the Kirby Misperton Protection Camp close to the affected site [2]. Since the site has become active in preparation for fracking in September 2017, there have been daily demonstrations at the gate as local people and protectors from further afield campaign against the fracking industry and its complete disregard for local democracy.
Scholarly literature on environmental justice highlights the complexity of governance issues regarding energy technologies and megaprojects and questions the fairness of the UK’s decisional process. In particular, a comparative study of the US and UK shale gas governance systems in the context of public participation and social justice led Whitton et al. to write
We conclude that in both countries, despite government and industry engagement rhetoric and associated processes, the public’s influence on shale gas decisions is perceived to be minimal or not at all. We argue that the implications of the observed institutional governance systems, with few opportunities for citizen influence, are developments which inherently lack social justice, procedural fairness, and ultimately, a social license to operate. [3]
The governance issues highlighted for the UK involve clear instances of top-down decision making. After a brief moratorium on fracking following earthquakes presumably triggered by drilling operation in Weeton, Lancashire, in 2011, the coalition government led by David Cameron went ‘all out for shale’ during the Spending Round 2013, with economic incentives targeting oil and gas companies, councils and affected site communities. This policy led to an increase in Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences (PDELs). Following on, legislative reforms leading to the Infrastructure Act 2015 placed decisional powers in the hands of the Secretary of State for large-scale developments deemed of national significance. As part of the Act, changes to trespass laws designed to permit access to underground oil and gas resources (below 300m or 1200m in national parks) without seeking landowners’ permissions were retained despite overwhelming opposition during the consultation process [4], a move creating ‘significant democracy deficits in planning policy’ [5]. Indeed, in October 2016, the national government overturned Lancashire County Council’s refusal to allow fracking at the Preston New Road site [6] and locals have been left with little option but to protest [7]. There have been efforts to engage affected communities via community payback schemes such as the Shale Wealth Fund with a consultation launched in August 2016 [8]. However this is often construed as bribery and as a divisive tactic by those who are opposing fracking in the first place. Besides, this relates to distributive justice (with a procedural element as to how the funds are managed), but not to procedural justice upstream of the decision to frack. As such, it remains insufficient to ensure environmental justice [5].
Whitton et al. [3] contrast the technocratic ‘Decide-Announce-Defend (D-A-D) strategy of expert assessment, closed decision-making, and and public relations mechanisms of information provisions to affected site communities’ with ‘a more democratic and collaborative E-D-D approach (Engage Deliberate Design)’, argueing that the latter is necessary for procedural fairness. The technocratic view insists that it is best for experts to decide, as in theory they know best, and leads to decision being taken behind closed doors between industrials and politicians, away from public scrutiny. However technological choices are not clear-cut and involve much more than technical details, and expert opinions can be divided and biased - unconsciously or consciously, especially when financial stakes are high. Often the public is misinformed and uninformed, and when individual citizens or campaign groups take it upon themselves to do the research, it is quasi-automatically labelled as inaccurate (they are not experts) and biased (they are campaigning) when in contrast industrial lobbies with obvious interests are held to be perfectly respectable and impartial.
Communities faced with fracking developments have used all possible legal avenues of opposition to no avail and are left with little alternative than protest and direct action. They are supported in this by MPs of varied political backgrounds and by the Green Party and its leaders ([9], [10]). In response, there a strong police presence at the sites concerned. The police and crime commissioner for North Yorkshire states that
The police have a legal obligation to facilitate fundamental human rights by supporting and protecting those engaging in peaceful protest, whilst balancing the rights of other parties to go about their lawful business. [11]
However, after visiting the site last October, it is difficult to shake off the idea that the police’s job is to facilitate a corporation’s business against the will of the local community. An academic report on the policing of the peaceful anti-fracking protest and protection camp at Barton Moss, Greater Manchester, between November 2013 and April 2014 is a sobering read and raises concerns relevant to current protest sites [12]. In particular, the researchers conclude
• The nature and scale of the policing operation was found to be disproportionate to the activities of the camp. Policing tactics had the effect of undermining the rights of those protesting peacefully, meaning GMP [Greater Manchester Police] failed in their obligation to facilitate peaceful protest as stated by the European Convention on Human Rights.
• GMP officers – from planning stages to conclusion – prioritised the commercial interests of the fracking company over the right of local residents and supporters to exercise their right to protest [12]
At the end of the report, the first recommendation is to ask for a full, independent public inquiry:
Given the centrality of the right to protest in a liberal democracy, and that fracking and public opposition to fracking continue to be a live issue in the UK, it is in the public interest that these concerns are investigated thoroughly and transparently. [13 p.45]
The report also highlights the misleading and inaccurate portrayal of protesters as troublemakers from outside the impacted community. This is denying the fact that most of those opposing fracking are local citizens who have made the effort to inform themselves. Besides supporters from further afield should be expected since the government considers fracking an issue of national significance.
These findings highlight the lack of dialogues between the industry, politicians, and other stakeholders. The former repeat their PR discourse - the process is safe, adequate regulations are in place, and the region will benefit - and remain deaf to the concerns of the local populations and environmentalists. Prospects are downright scary, with threats to democracy and the environment exemplified by giant company Ineos taking preventive action against potential protests [14] and beginning the year by announcing its plans to frack under the North York Moors National Parks [15].
I have argued in my previous post that rolling out fracking is not ethical, and I am now arguing that the process leading to the decision to frack was unethical in the first place because it shunned the views of key stakeholders. To remedy this, it is essential to involve impacted communities in the decision process. This is challenging, first because as Whitton et al. [3] emphasize, the term ‘community’ does not refer to a homogeneous group, but to a diversity of stakeholders with different interests. Besides, the notion of ‘affected community’ is difficult to frame in the case of fracking as, for example, any instance of water or soil pollution could have widespread consequences, and climate change impacts can be felt on the other side of the planet. A real dialogue need involve transparency, honesty and accountability from industrials and politicians, thus a high level of professional ethics not achieved to this day, as well as engagement and education of all stakeholders and ordinary citizens concerned, and respect for their understanding and point of view. Such a dialogue would require genuine open-mindedness and a real effort to understand others’ and crucially one’s own motivations.
Finally, if a social license from the ‘community’ is to be meaningful, then a refusal to deploy a technology must be a genuine possibility. I argued in my previous post that fracking should be an easy case in that respect: it is too dangerous and it is not needed. There are however other situations where challenges are to be met: for example what to do with nuclear waste and how are the risk managed, for the waste is there and still being produced. Scholarly work from social scientists is addressing those issues and offering possible and fair solutions (see e.g. references in [3], [16]). These studies should be pointed out to industrials and politicians, and as I will keep arguing in this blog, to engineers and engineering students.
____________________________
[1] Frack Free Ryedale, No social License: 99.2% against fracking at KM8, www.frackfreeryedale.org. [Online]. Available: http://frackfreeryedale.org/km8nosociallicence/ [last accessed: Jan. 5th 2018]
[2] R. Hayhurst, “Anti-fracking camp set up near Kirby Misperton shale gas site”, Drill or Drop, 21st December 2016. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2016/12/21/anti-fracking-camp-set-up-near-kirby-misperton-shale-gas-site/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[3] J. Whitton et al., “Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and United States: Opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice”. Energy Research & Solcial Justice 26 (2017) pp. 11-22
[4] United Kingdom. Department of Energy & Climate Change. Consultation outcome: Underground drilling access. 23rd May 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/underground-drilling-access [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[5] M. Cotton, “Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning”. Local Environment, 22:2 (2017) pp. 185-202
[6] R. Hayhurst, “Breaking: Government approves Cuadrilla’s Lancashire fracking plans at Preston New Road but Roseacre Wood on hold”, Drill or Drop, 6th October 2016. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2016/10/06/breaking-government-approves-cuadrillas-lancashire-fracking-plans-at-preston-new-road-but-roseacre-wood-on-hold/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[7] R. Hayhurst, “Three Lancs councillors join 13-person anti-fracking lock-on protest at Cuadrilla’s shale gas site”, Drill or Drop, 3rd July 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/07/03/three-lancs-councillors-join-13-person-anti-fracking-lock-on-protest-at-cuadrillas-shale-gas-site/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018 - I strongly recommend watching the video]
[8] United Kingdom. HM Treasury. Consultation outcome: Shale Wealth Fund. 8th August 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/shale-wealth-fund [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[9] R. Hayhurst, “Green Party backs peaceful direct action against fracking in Lancashire”, Drill or Drop, 18st September 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/09/18/green-party-backs-peaceful-direct-action-against-fracking-in-lancashire/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[10] R. Hayhurst, “Police drag Green Party co-leader from N Yorks fracking site”, Drill or Drop, 10th November 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/11/10/police-drag-green-party-co-leader-from-n-yorks-fracking-site/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[11] Julia Mulligan, Police and Crime Commissioner North Yorkshire, https://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk. [Online]. Available: https://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/how-can-we-help/common-problems/fracking-kirby-misperton/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[12] The University of York News & Events. “Call to action to improve protest policing”. 23rd February 2016. [News item] The University of York. Available: https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2016/research/protest-policing-report/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]
[13] Gilmore J. et al., “Keep moving! Report on the policing of the Barton Moss Protection Camp, November 2013 - April 2014”, Centre for the Study of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion, Liverpool John Moores University Centre for URBan Research (CURB), University of York. 12th February 2016. Available: https://curbyork.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/bm_final_170216_email.pdf
[14] R. Evans, Fracking firm wins extension to ‘draconian’ protest injunction, The Guardian, 23rd November 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/23/fracking-firm-wins-extension-to-draconian-protest-injunction [last accessed: Jan. 5th 2018]
[15] J. Leake, Ineos Shale to frack in North York Moors, the Heartbeat national park, The Guardian, 31st December 2017. Partly available: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ineos-shale-to-frack-in-north-york-moors-the-heartbeat-national-park-056dqwmgg [last accessed: Jan. 5th 2018]
[16] M. Cotton, Ethics and Technology Assessment: A Participatory Approach. SAPERE volume 13. Springer, 2014.
