SCOTLAND can lead the world in assessing the public health impact of unconventional gas extraction, including fracking, according to Stirling University.
The Scottish Government’s moratorium on unconventional gas extraction (UGE) processes which include fracking, coal bed methane and underground coal gasification, will continue until it publishes a full report on the technology. But new research at Stirling suggests there are serious problems in making that assessment.
In their paper published in New Solutions health journal, Professor Andrew Watterson and Dr Will Dinan of the university have outlined the complexities such an assessment presents and how Scotland can set the benchmark for other nations.
Watterson, head of the university’s Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, said: “Scotland could be the testing ground for a pioneering, international approach to health impact assessment of UGE by governments as we don’t have any previous extraction projects in Scotland, meaning it won’t be a retrospective approach.
“And crucially, the assessment proposed by the Scottish Government, which should adopt a cautious approach, will examine not just an individual application, but take a nationwide perspective. Public health, energy development and global climate change are now all in the mix.
“The majority of previous assessments have been conducted on behalf of the UGE industry by paid commercial consultants. This presents a serious scientific, technical, legal, ethical and democratic challenge for governments. Communities can rarely afford to commission these assessments and may consider them biased when commissioned by vested interests.
“Equitable and ethical principles are urgently needed to ensure the integrity and probity of the emerging regulatory system and to address concerns about what appear to be unregulated practitioners.”
The research, published yesterday in New Solutions, examined existing health impact assessments from across the world, including reports from various UN and EU agencies.
It studied the scientific research conducted so far, looking at exposures and potential effects of materials used in the fracking process and possibly released by the process in the short, medium and long term.
Co-author Dr Will Dinan, a lecturer in Communications and expert on lobbying and transparency, added: “It is vital any assessment is independent, rigorous and transparent. Hiring experts to influence planning and regulation is a well-tried tactic and structural advantage exploited by the oil and gas industry in seeking licences to operate.”
In the paper Watterson and Dinan point out that Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) can be one-sided.
They state: “Communities can rarely afford HIAs in the planning process and may consider them biased when commissioned by vested interests.
“The oil and gas industry uses these techniques for its own ends. Hiring experts – be they specialist consultants, researchers, lobbyists, ex-government officials, or regulators – to influence planning and regulation is a well-tried tactic and structural advantage exploited by industry in seeking a licence to operate. Equitable and ethical HIA principles are urgently needed in the UK in relation to unconventional gas to secure the integrity and probity of the emerging regulatory system and address concerns regarding unregulated practitioners.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here