The United Nations has ramped up its criticism of the UK government’s approach to the Hinkley Point C nuclear project, going as far as to suggest that work on the plant should be suspended.
In August last year, the UN Economic Commission for Europe explained that the UK was in breach of UN rules defining country’s obligation regarding “transboundary environmental impact assessments (EIAs)” of certain activities and projects. The rules are set out in the Espoo Convention, which “lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries”. The UK, they said, had failed to consult neighbouring countries sufficiently with regard to the impact of a potential accident at the Hinkley Point site.
At the time, a spokesperson for what was then the Department for Energy and Climate Change insisted that the government was fully compliant in pushing ahead with the project.
They said: “We are confident that we have met the relevant international requirements in relation to Hinkley Point C. We have world-leading nuclear safety regulations in the UK, which Hinkley Point C would have to comply with.”
In this latest letter, the UNECE noted that the UK government had written to the relevant parties (in December 2016) asking whether or not a notification under the Espoo Convention would be necessary. However, by the time this was asked, works at Hinkley had already begun, presenting two issues. Firstly, the committee said that they are “concerned that the continuation of works at Hinkley Point C might influence the views of the Parties consulted”. Secondly, “if the potentially affected parties considered that a notification was useful and therefore asked to participate in the transboundary EIA procedure, the continuation of works might render the results of the procedure irrelevant”.
“The Committee therefore decided to ask its Chair to write to the United Kingdom inviting it to consider refraining from carrying out works at the proposed activity until it established whether notification was useful.”
Additionally, they said, should it be established that such notification would be useful, and an assessment should be carried out, works at the plant should be suspended “until the transboundary EIA procedure is finalised”.
The UK government has repeatedly insisted that, due to safety regulations already in place, the risk of any “significant transboundary impacts” of the Hinkley plant is negligible.
Similarly, a spokesperson for EDF, the company behind Hinkley, said: “We have carried out all the environmental impact assessments (EIA) required for Hinkley Point C, including assessing any likely significant transboundary impacts. In considering the EIA the UK Planning Inspectorate concluded there was no likelihood of significant transboundary effects.
“The UK supreme court has already rejected a challenge from An Taisce [the Irish National Trust] which claimed that the government should have consulted other member states before making its decision on the development.”
This view is not shared by various other countries including Ireland, Austria, Norway, Iceland and the Netherlands, who have argued that they should have been consulted. The UNECE is on their side, it seems.
Greenpeace director John Sauven told the Guardian that this latest appeal from the UN is indicative of how widespread criticism of Hinkley is becoming.
He said: “Opposition to Hinkley started with knowledgeable energy specialists and environmentalists. It grew to involve a wide array of businesses and media commentators. Now it includes neighbouring countries and a UN body. This letter from a UN body shows the UK still has a mindset of doing what we like without listening to the widespread concerns.”
