Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK without an independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). An independent panel, commissioned under direct rule by Westminster, reviewed environmental governance in Northern Ireland and recommended an EPA. But devolution returned to Northern Ireland, and the Environment Minister rejected the calls for an EPA. She resigned 13 days after announcing her decision.
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.
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
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 defence of journalism and climate science in 2010
By Aine Gormley
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.
[Translate]