Ministers opt out of environmental planning

In October 2002, the European Commission highlighted Northern Ireland’s falling compliance of sewage treatment works with EU standards from 53 percent in 2000 to 35 per cent in 2001.

In response, Northern Ireland’s Planning Service recommended that the Executive pass a ban on further developments where current sewage infrastructure was inadequate.

Stormont Parliament building, Belfast, N. Ireland.

But the Minister of the Environment, then Dermot Nesbitt, issued a statement that: “Such an approach, despite the high level of environmental protection that would afforded, would have carried high risk in respect of constraints in economic growth and social progress.”

Professor Sharon Turner, an environmental law professor at Queens University Belfast, explains that: “In the 1970s, Northern Ireland started a steady decline into the Troubles. But by 2000, the European Commission had run out of patience and was no longer prepared to allow Northern Ireland – or indeed the UK – to let the situation continue.”

Review of Environmental Governance launched

In the summer of 2005, a coalition of Non-Governmental Organisations convinced the Minister of the Environment, Jeff Rooker, to put in motion a Review of Environmental Governance.

“That coalition was one of the most successful NGO campaigns I have ever seen,” says Professor Tom Burke, CBE and Chair of the Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland.

Prof Turner and Gordon Bell, the managing director of Liberty IT, were the other two panel members. The independent review began in 2006.

“One factor that was really clear to the panel was that there was an overwhelming lack of confidence in the Government institutions from the people of Northern Ireland,” Prof Burke said.

Prof Burke explains that an independent EPA would allow policy to be separated from delivery and it would bring Northern Ireland into alignment with the rest of the UK.

But the one exception in the support from the public for an EPA was with the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU).

“I never understood what the UFU’s problem with it was; they seemed to have an ideological view that you shouldn’t have an EPA, which was not really based on any analysis,” Prof Burke said.

Stephen Farry, an Alliance party representative, points out that the UUP, Sinn Fein, Alliance and SDLP were all in favour of an EPA. “The only party not in favour of an EPA was the DUP, and the only DUP lobby group against it was the UFU,” he said.

David Ford, the leader of the Alliance party said: “The UFU were concerned that farmers would not have their views taken into account.” He added: “Ian Paisley said these men just want to farm the way they have always farmed, but the world has changed.”

The panel on the Review of Environmental Governance were commissioned while Northern Ireland was still under direct rule from Westminster. But while working on the review for two years, the political situation changed.

Devolution granted to Northern Ireland

McGuinness, George W. Bush and Ian Paisley meeting at Stormont.

History was made on 8 May 2007 when Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness joined forces and signed a pledge to share power.

The power-sharing arrangements were Ian Paisley (DUP) as First minister and Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin) as Deputy first minister. Peter Robinson (DUP) governed Finance and Personnel, Catriona Ruane (Sinn Féin) Education, Arlene Foster (DUP) Environment, and Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin) Agriculture.

The review panel knew that might be problematic for any recommendations they made. “We knew that, quite rightly, when you put the democracy back in, the democratically elected representatives want to have a say.” Prof Burke said.

Minister rejects calls for an EPA

In May 2008, Arlene Foster, the Minister of the Environment, announced that she rejects the calls for an independent EPA. She stated: “I and my party take the role of environmental governance too seriously to externalise the organisation.” She resigned 13 days after her decision.

“The Environment Minister then, went against the will of the majority,” says Lisa Fagan of Friends of the Earth (Northern Ireland).

“I believe there are underlying political and economic issues that the UFU have to answer for regarding the rejection of an EPA for Northern Ireland.” Ms Fagan said.

Tom Burke believes it was unfair to the majority of people in Northern Ireland that one institution had disproportionate power.

“If direct rule had continued, then Northern Ireland would have an EPA. Yes, I’m sure it would have an EPA,” Prof Burke said.

But he adds that this was not the only reason. “I think it was partly the shift from direct rule to Stormont, partly the terms under which portfolios are allocated inside the power-sharing peace and partly the opposition of the UFU.”

Stephen Farry spoke of how the power-sharing dynamics should not depend on the ‘lucky dip’ of which party gets what office.

“Particularly on significant and controversial matters, there should be a collective view, to ensure that all interests represented in government are buying into decisions” he said.

This decision continues to have an impact on Northern Ireland’s environment. For example, Northern Ireland Water (NIW) was granted permission to open a sewage treatment works that provides only primary treatment of sewage before it is pumped into the North Channel. By the time the plant opens, the new Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive will require any sewage works serving over 2000 people to apply secondary treatment.

Ms Foster has yet to respond to many questions sent to her regarding this matter.

The Digital Economy Act (DEA), which will come into effect over the next 12 months, will make the targeting of internet users who breach copyright laws more likely. But flaws in technology that allow criminals to hijack Internet connections may wrongly force service suspensions and fines on innocent users.

Currently, it is the copyright holders who must uncover the identity of those who breach their copyrights. If a user offers a song or film for free, through peer-to-peer file sharing, the unique address of their Internet connection, or Internet provider (IP) address, is visible. The copyright holders then have to obtain a court order for the Internet service provider (ISP) to identify the customer.

A peer-to-peer system of nodes

Under the DEA, an ISP must issue warning letters to suspected infringers, suspend Internet connection to repeat infringers, and may be criminally liable to a maximum of £50,000.

BitTorrent, one of the most common peer-to-peer file sharing protocols, said: “As a result [of the DEA] everybody will have to stop online sharing, providing the entertainment industry with the possibility to net billions.”

Andrew Heaney, telecommunications provider TalkTalk’s director of strategy, said: “What the Digital Economy Bill proposes is to place a burden of responsibility on the person owning the internet connection.”

Despite the fact that often more than one person uses the same IP address; the most computer savvy copyright thieves can cover their tracks by hijacking other connections. This has wrongly identified hundreds of people, according to Deborah Prince, the head of Legal Affairs at Which?, a consumer advocacy organisation.

File sharing has become a serious problem for the music and film industry. The new act will ensure the ISP takes responsibility to stop copyright theft, and aims to stimulate the UK’s digital economy. Thus 189 out of 236 MPs passed the bill on 8 April .

It has been dubbed as the right idea, but wrong approach. “You have to prove it wasn’t you who pirated that film, otherwise you risk being disconnected,” Heaney told the Guardian.

Prince added, “We urge the estimated five million people in the UK who have unsecured wireless networks to secure their connections immediately. This will stop them from being wrongly blamed for any illegal activity.”

Legal and moral issues on climate science have made a splash in 2010. This week, a leading climate scientist is suing Canada’s National Post for libel. In the UK, a climate scientist recently lodged a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the Sunday Times. The parliamentary inquiry into the behaviour of climate scientists also received ample coverage. But what legal issues surround these cases, particularly in light of the growing campaign for libel reform?

Simon Lewis, a researcher in human-induced climate change at the University of Leeds has filed a 31-page official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).

Lewis complains that an article published in the Sunday Times breaches the PCC Editor Code of Practice Point One, Section i, which states “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”

The issue is that, in the article by Jonathan Leake, Lewis’ name was apparently used to back up a claim that the science behind the IPCC report was unsubstantiated where it refers to global warming wiping out 40 per cent of the Amazon Rainforest.

This year's controversy surrounding the IPCC report began in 2009 when email were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (pictured). Image credit: ChrisO

But Lewis said that this claim in the IPCC report is “basically correct, but poorly written.” Thus he maintains that his name and the science were misrepresented.

After the complaint was filed, the Sunday Times left a voicemail for Lewis stating, “It has been recognised that the story was flawed.”

Lewis says that, “The Sunday Times should simply take the piece down and issue a retraction and apology.”

The paper has, so far, only changed the online article title, from ‘UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim’, to ‘The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim’.

There is no legal obligation to be truthful as long as the reputation of the subject is not adversely affected. So, if the article drove an impression to the readers about Lewis’ integrity, he may have grounds to sue for defamation. But, if the paper could then, for example, prove the statement to be true, it may be covered by the defence of justification.

However, Lewis went to the PCC, not the courts. The PCC does insist on a moral obligation for journalists to be truthful. Thus, possible outcomes of this case are that the PCC will insist the Sunday Times editor take action such as publishing a correction or an apology.

George Monbiot is doubtful of this. “Good luck to Lewis, but as the PCC’s treatment of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal suggests, he’s likely to find himself shut out of another closed world – journalism – in which self-regulation manifestly doesn’t work,” Monbiot said in a recent blog post.

In Canada, Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria, has taken his case to the next level. He is suing the National Post for libel after they refused to remove online articles that will, according to Weaver, “poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming,” he recently told the Guardian.

According to the lawsuit, the articles make defamatory claims because readers are lead to believe that Weaver conceals scientific data and is driven by a corrupt pursuit to gain government funding.

Complaints to publishers, such as those from Lewis, seem to be occurring more often. But Weaver’s case appears to be the first lawsuit to be filed between a climate change scientist and the media. So is it likely to be the first of many?

Like the UK, libel laws in most of Canada are more plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in the US. The New York Times Co v Sullivan (1964) case in the US altered the libel laws so that the publisher was only at fault if false information was published out of malice.

The "McLibel" two were involved in the longest running libel case in UK history. Image credit: Spanner Films

In the UK, a paper can be sued for publishing something even if the public has a right to know. It is only considered in defences such as the Reynolds defence, which originated from the Reynolds v Times Newspapers (1999) case. This allows a series of factors to be considered in defence of the publication, such as the urgency of the matter and the tone of the article.

Another defence that the public’s right to know is considered is in the defence of fair comment. But this can be difficult to prove. Clive Coleman, a BBC legal affairs analyst said, “In defending a libel action the difference between a statement of verifiable fact and one of opinion can be crucial.”

But this month saw a historic ruling from the UK Court of Appeal when it was decided that Simon Singh, who was being sued for libel, had the right to use the defence of fair comment, which the judges clarified as honest opinion.

The charity Sense About Science published this button in support of Simon Singh’s case.

Robert Dougans, Singh’s lawyer, said, “the judgment is clear that not only should the courts be ready to find that a statement is honest opinion, but that scientists should be able to engage in debate and research without facing expensive litigation.”

But Singh was defending his own journalism. Whereas Weaver and Lewis have built a case against the actions of journalists.

Perhaps the contrast between these legal and moral issues in science journalism highlights the need for trained science journalists reporting on scientific issues. Or perhaps they highlight the need for libel reform so that scientists and journalists (and those dabbling in both) are able to act in the public interest.

In the wake of his victory, Singh announced that our politicians must act on libel reform. All three major political parties have now pledged reforms of the libel law in their General Election Manifestos.

The border between Shoreditch and the City of London was showered with ash this morning after a fire took hold of a restaurant and office block at about 0400 GMT.

More than 100 fire-fighters arrived in 20 fire engines to tackle the flames at the four-storey building on Tabernacle Street in London’s financial district. The thick smoke could be seen as far away as Liverpool Street Station and Hackney.

London Fire Commissioner, Ron Dobson said, “This was a complicated fire, spreading rapidly through different premises and onto a bitumen-covered roof, creating huge plumes of smoke across the city and presenting very difficult firefighting conditions for the crews attending.”

Bitumen, used in roofing tar, is mostly composed of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Some of the PAHs emitted from buring bitumen are carcinogenic to humans. Research has further shown that exposure to bitumen fumes and aerosols may contribute to DNA damage.

“This incident yet again highlights the need for our fire safety work to prevent the fire risk and disruption these incidents have on our capital,” Mr Dobson added.

A UK water company has been permitted to pump more than a million litres of untreated sewage effluent into the North Channel every day, starting in summer 2011.

Northern Ireland Water (NIW) can avoid laws that other parts of the UK obey because it has no independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Northern Irish environment agency is run by the government. The agency objected to NIW’s proposal for a sewage works serving 5,680 people, allowing the government-owned company to provide only primary treatment of the sewage.

Primary treatment removes solids but not toxic waste. Normally, sewage works in England and Wales that pump into the sea for populations over 2,000 must also apply secondary treatment.

But Edwin Poots, the Northern Ireland environment minister, a member of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), had the final say. He chose to reject the opposition to the proposed works, and construction will begins later this autumn.

Alliance Party member Sean Neeson has warned that population growth means the agreed level of treatment is unlikely to meet future requirements from the European Commission. “This will leave only two options: a further upgrade or heavy fines, to be paid by ratepayers,” said Mr. Neeson.

In May 2008, the then-Environment Minister Arlene Foster declined the chance to bring in an independent EPA. Ms. Foster said: “I and my party take the role of environmental governance too seriously to externalise the organisation”. She resigned 13 days after her decision.

Tom Burke, who chaired the 2008 Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland, said that because of Northern Ireland’s fragmented institution, he was not surprised that NIW is allowed to pollute the environment more than other UK water companies.