“Taking governments to court is a significant conservation tool”
OPINION
See you in court!” That’s the message from innovative environmentalists who have had enough of politely requesting politicians and big business leaders to do the right thing.
In conservation, being polite rarely works. Just look at our environmentally criminal water companies to see how profit takes priority over civic responsibilities and moral principle.
It’s not surprising that ever more urgent and alarming environmental threats are forcing conservationists to consider more unorthodox and uncompromising tactics. Which is why holding big corporations and governments accountable – by taking them to court – is becoming an increasingly significant conservation tool.
Climate change litigation is leading the way, against governments, fossil fuel companies and anyone else apparently determined to drive a wrecking ball through international climate commitments.
ClientEarth and its partners Friends of the Earth and the Good Law Project, for example, took the government to court over its inaction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – which did not meet its own legally binding targets. They won. The High Court ruled against the government’s inadequate net-zero strategy and ordered a revised climate plan. (Regrettably, its latest plan has still been deemed insufficient, so the environmentalists will be going back to court.)
Many other conservation issues are finding their way to the courtrooms. The Blue Marine Foundation, for instance, is taking the government to court for ignoring scientific advice on fishing quotas. It claims that, by setting catch limits too high, the government is giving the green light to overfishing. Blue Marine’s challenge will argue that the government is “illegally squandering” a public asset and, in the process, breaking its own post-Brexit rules.
Wild Justice also uses the legal system to fight for the UK’s wildlife. Its successes include (in partnership with the Northern Ireland Badger Group) taking the Northern Ireland Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to the High Court over a proposed cull of up to 4,000 badgers a year (which would have allowed farmer-led groups to shoot free-roaming badgers with rifles). In a judgement handed down in October last year, it was ruled that the decision to allow the cull “wa
