Belcoo Frack Free is concerned to learn that our Council has not made a
formal, well-researched submission to the review of petroleum licensing. In their press release they state they have forwarded some letters from Belcoo Frack Free (letter dated 27th November 2020); however Belcoo Frack Free only met with Hatch on 17th March so it is now much more possible to have a clearer idea about what is entailed with this review.
The letter of November 27th warns the Council about the alarming issues with the Hatch research provision but was not intended to be a submission. It was intended to be a request for Council action in another area - namely the pursuit of a moratorium to be implemented immediately by the Executive. Unfortunately, the Stormont Executive refused to bring forward that moratorium thus making engagement with thie Hatch research in a well thought out manner even more important.
We in Belcoo Frack Free, and other campaigners and activists have warned and also been alarmed at the manner in which 'private meetings' and 'informal meetings' are held around contentious issues in our Council district. On March 8th after the initial Hatch/Department for Economy meeting with the council I wrote a letter on behalf of Belcoo Frack Free requesting future meetings be minuted, recorded and made more transparent. I also requested information from the informal meeting of the 25th February.
We know from bitter experience that any such meetings around petroleum
licensing need be in public. The public are still awaiting the results of the investigation into how the wording around unconventional oil and gas extraction was changed in the draft Local Development Plan. Worryingly the council have not moved since this episode to ensure transparency.
The issue with 'informal meetings' is easy to put in context. The first issue is no one knows who said what or agreed what except through second-hand information. Secondly when meetings are classed as 'informal' they don't produce any formal actions that can be referred to by the public, the councillors and council officials alike as to what was agreed, what the plan of action is, and where lines of responsibility and accountability lie. They offer no scrutiny and they hinder community groups interfacing with the Council because there are no agreed minutes or action plans in the public domain.
We in Belcoo Frack Free, and other campaigners and activists have warned and also been alarmed at the manner in which 'private meetings' and 'informal meetings' are held around contentious issues in our Council district. On March 8th after the initial Hatch/Department for Economy meeting with the council I wrote a letter on behalf of Belcoo Frack Free requesting future meetings be minuted, recorded and made more transparent. I also requested information from the informal meeting of the 25th February.
We know from bitter experience that any such meetings around petroleum
licensing need be in public. The public are still awaiting the results of the investigation into how the wording around unconventional oil and gas extraction was changed in the draft Local Development Plan. Worryingly the council have not moved since this episode to ensure transparency.
The issue with 'informal meetings' is easy to put in context. The first issue is no one knows who said what or agreed what except through second-hand information. Secondly when meetings are classed as 'informal' they don't produce any formal actions that can be referred to by the public, the councillors and council officials alike as to what was agreed, what the plan of action is, and where lines of responsibility and accountability lie. They offer no scrutiny and they hinder community groups interfacing with the Council because there are no agreed minutes or action plans in the public domain.
We understand the Council is saying that there will be further avenues for engagement, but that is to miss the point. This research sets the framework for further engagement. Unless the Council requests the current framework scenarios within the research be changed, then it is quite possible that the Council will be left chosing between scenarios it does not support.
We believe Hatch and the Department will be amenable for a small extension and we stand willing, as are other community groups to help the Council with any submission.
We believe Hatch and the Department will be amenable for a small extension and we stand willing, as are other community groups to help the Council with any submission.
We have the following areas of concern.
1.This research is being used to circumvent a proper public health
assessment which gives adequate force to the precautionary principle.
assessment which gives adequate force to the precautionary principle.
2. The first development scenario must clearly state it assumes the
ending of petroleum licensing and include an assessment of positive
impact of that on communities, on public health, on local economies,
indigenous industries and on climate.
3. The second scenario must be corrected as the business as usual situation is that communities are opposed to petroleum exploration and extraction.
4. Fermanagh and Tyrone are border counties, and engagement with councils across the border on what is a transboundary resource must be instigated by the Department as part of this research.
We deserve so much better than this.
ENDS...
