Quarterly Comment by Trinity Chambers: Trinity Chambers,Newcastle

Surrey Heath BC v Robb [2020] 7 WLUK 60

The claimant local authority had been granted an interim injunctive against the defendant under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 following their unlawful development and occupation of the site in green belt with 33 caravans. The trial was listed for August 2020, and the defendant sought an adjournment of the instant hearing on the basis that they needed to attend in person, but COVID-19 restrictions prevented them from doing so. The court refused to allow the adjournment and held that the injunction should continue as there was more than an arguable case that there had been a serious breach of planning control and very special circumstances were required to justify use of green belt land in this way. It held that damages were not an adequate remedy. The court held that the injunction served a legitimate public interest and there was no evidence of concern over the welfare of the children.

https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I46EBDB60C08F11EABD72D0D37F0899E8/View/FullText.html

R v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2020] EWCA Crim 827; [2020] 7 WLUK 20

A UK-based waste management company appealed against its conviction for two offences of illegally exporting household waste to China contrary to the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulation 2007 reg. 23. The court held that the correct categorisation of a consignment of waste was to be determined at the place that it began its export journey, and therefore if the level of contamination of the waste meant that it was prohibited from exportation under reg. 23 then the prohibition applies even if treatment of the waste at its destination would reduce the level of contamination to within the limits of reg. 23 and even if the waste met the legal requirements of the country of destination.

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/827.html&query=(title:(+r+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+biffa+))+AND+(title:(+waste+))

Information Commissioner v Poplar Housing Association and Regeneration Community Association [2020] UKUT 182 (AAC); [2020] 6 WLUK 487

This case concerned the first respondent Poplar’s failure to disclose environmental information requested under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Information Commissioner appealed against a tribunal decision that Poplar was not a public authority within the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Poplar is a private limited company that provides housing and is involved in joint ventures with private developers to deliver a proportion of investment in new housing. The court held that when applying Fish Legal v Information Commissioner [2015] AACR 33, Poplar could not reasonably be regarded as an administrative authority. In doing so, the court rejected the second respondent’s submission that if the definition of public authority did not encompass the modern State’s privatisation and outsourcing, the availability of environmental information would be unduly constrained contrary to the objectives of European Directive 2003/4 and the Aarhus Convention. The court held that this was too broad and not in accordance with Fish Legal and that the mere existence of statutory regulation of the body concerned did not convert a service provider into a public authority, but that it was a matter of context the effect of the regulatory scheme in question.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f073ad63a6f4004158f18b9/GIA_1078_2019-00.pdf

R (oao Swire) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 1298 (Admin); [2020] 5 WLUK 329

The claimant applied for judicial review of the secretary of state’s decision that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required for a proposed residential development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The claimant’s grounds were that the secretary of state had misinterpreted and misunderstood the Environmental Impact Regulation 2017 and his decision that the proposed development was unlikely to have significant effects on the environment simply because all such effects were, in his view, likely to be eliminated by mitigation measures that would be secured by planning conditions, was unlikely. The court granted the application and held that a planning authority could not rely on conditions and undertakings as a surrogate for the Environmental Impact Assessment process. It held that it could not be assumed that mitigations measures would be successful and the secretary of state did not have sufficient evidence that they would be successful.

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1298.html&query=(title:(+swire+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+secretary+))+AND+(title:(+of+))+AND+(title:(+state+))

R (oao of Clientearth) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2020] EWHC 1301 (Admin); [2020] 5 WLUK 330

This case concerned a challenge to the secretary of state’s decision to uphold the grant of planning permission for the construction and operation of two gas-fired generation units against the recommendation of her examining panel. The panel had recommended that the consent be withheld and said that there is a distinction between the need for energy in general and the need for any particular proposed development. The secretary of state agreed that the proposed development would have significant adverse environmental impacts through greenhouse gas emissions but concluded that this was outweighed by the fact that it would meet a national need. The court refused the application and held that the panel had misinterpreted national policy on the assessment of ‘need’ for the development and the secretary of state had been entitled to conclude that the need outweighed the substantial adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development.

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1303.html&query=(title:(+clientearth+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+secretary+))+AND+(title:(+of+))+AND+(title:(+state+))

R (oao of National Farmers Union) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2020] EWHC 1192 (Admin); [2020] 5 WLUK 143

The claimants applied for judicial review of the secretary of state’s decision to issue a direction to Natural England under section 16 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requiring it not to grant any badger culling licences in Derbyshire before May 2020. The reason for this direction was that the secretary of state intended to consider the relationship between culling and vaccination to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis, and her covering letter referred to badger vaccination projects within the county and the need to respond to the Godfray independent review of the bovine tuberculosis eradication strategy. The claimants submitted that the direction (1) amounted to an unlawful departure from policy; (2) frustrated the claimant company’s legitimate expectation about what matters would be taken into account in the licence application and that it would obtain a licence if the requirements were met; (3) was Wednesbury unreasonable. The court refused the application and held that the secretary of state was entitled to depart from policy and had made a political judgement, having regard to the county’s badger vaccination programme, its vocal anti-culling lobby and the risk of fallout if a vaccinated badger was killed by mistake, and her conclusion was not irrational.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1192.html

Mustafa v Environment Agency [2020] EWCA Crim 597; [2020] 5 WLUK 23

A company director appealed against his conviction for an offence contrary to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 reg. 38(1)(a) and reg. 12(1)(a). The company had registered itself as exempt from requiring an environmental permit, but the Environment Agency had found that the level of waste was in excess of that allowed in order to exempt. The court dismissed the appeal and held that by going above the exemption threshold the operation was no longer an exempt facility and at that point needed an environmental permit in order to lawfully operate despite remaining on the register of exempt facilities.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/597.html

Wandsworth LBC v Persons Unknown [2020] 7 WLUK 264

The claimant local authority had been granted an interim injunction prohibiting persons unknown from organising, attending or participating in gatherings involving the playing of amplified music in the prescribed area following activities over the weekend of 20–21 June which it argued had amounted to a public nuisance. The court had also imposed restraints on fires and barbecues, the sale of alcohol and food, the leaving of litter and damage to trees with a power of arrest attached (except for leaving litter) applied to extent an interim injunction and power of arrest. The claimant local authority applied for an extension to the injunction and the power of arrest until June 2021. The court granted the extension to the injunction and held that there was a continuing sufficient, real and imminent risk that similar events would continue in the absence of the relief. It also held that any interference with European Convention of Human Rights freedom of assembly and freedom of expression was necessary and proportionate in the interests of the affected residents. It held that applying the American Cyanamid principles, there was significant issue to be tried, damages were not adequate or enforceable and the balance of convenience was in favour of the interim injunction continuing, but that continuing it until 2021 was tantamount to a final injunction and it would instead be reviewed in March 2021. The court also held that it was not appropriate for the other restrictions to continue and that conditions for a power of arrest in the Police and Justice Act 2006 section 27(3) were not met.

https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I2FD4C7F0C83411EAB6159CF976E5713C/View/FullText.html

Hackney LBC v Persons Unknown [2020] EWHC 1900 (QB); [2020] 7 WLUK 270

The claimant local authority had been granted an interim injunction prohibiting persons unknown from gathering and participating in various antisocial activities in the prescribed area. The claimant now sought to extend the order for a year with some minor amendments. The court had doubts about the legal merits of the claimant’s underlying claim and concerns about the appropriateness of the local authority using a private law claim for injunctive relief, combined with a power of arrest, to add to the relevant statutory powers that it and the police already have. It held, however, that it was not appropriate to resolve those doubts in the context of an application for interim relief and granted a limited order for a short time period pending trial in October 2020 at which those issues could be considered in depth.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1900.html

R (oao Garland) v Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs [2020] EWHC 1814 (Admin); [2020] 7 WLUK 150

This case concerned an application under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 paragraph 12 of Sch. 15 to quash a Surrey County Council Footpath order which changed the status of sections of the highway from footpath to bridleway and which had been confirmed by an inspector at a public inquiry. The court dismissed the claim and held that the inspector had been correct to conclude that uncertainty over whether the section in question confirmed to relevant design standards was immaterial to his decision whether to change its status and that the applicant’s criticisms of the inspector’s decision did not amount to error of law.

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1814.html&query=(title:(+garland+))

Hillingdon LBC v Persons Unknown [2020] EWHC 1718 (QB); [2020] 5 WLUK 248

The applicant local authority applied for an interim prohibitory injunction against persons unknown who were remaining on and occupying its land and establishing an encampment for the purpose of protesting against HS2. The injunction sought was in two parts: (1) forbidding persons unknown from remaining on and occupying the land, particularly in two camps; (2) a cessation of the land being used by persons unknown for the purpose of protesting. The court had limited the number of people who could attend the hearing due to concerns that the technology would fail if there were too many participants. The local authority recognised that many people had emailed the court wishing to be joined in the proceedings as defendants and agreed that the second part of the application could be adjourned but not the first part. The court held both parts of the application be adjourned so that the local authority could serve all persons unknown who had indicated a desire to be joined as defendants.

https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IB699DFD0BFA811EAA4D5BB73C2205C71/View/FullText.html

Hillingdon LBC v Persons Unknown [2020] 7 WLUK 196

The local authority applied for an interim injunction to prevent named defendants and persons unknown from trespassing and causing a nuisance on its land which adjoined the construction site for HS2. The defendants argued that they were doing no more than exercising their right to protest against the HS2 project and there was a strong public interest in their protest. They submitted that their use of the land was reasonable and that a prohibition would be an unacceptable interference with their European Convention of Human Rights Article 10 and Article 11 rights. The local authority submitted that it was responsible for ensuring the appropriate use of the land by members of the public. The court granted the application and held that the three part American Cyanamid test had been satisfied. It also held that the protestors’ European Convention of Human Rights were not absolute and that the injunction did not prevent the defendants and others protesting on the land provided that they complied with the law.

https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IDB907CB0C6AE11EAB7109DEEEEA4AF37/View/FullText.html

Hackney LBC v Persons Unknown [2020] 6 WLUK 273

The claimant local authority applied to extent an interim injunction granted against persons unknown until 8 June 2021. The interim injunction had been granted prevented the gathering in the prescribed area for the purpose of organising, attending or participating in gatherings which involved in the playing of amplified music, depositing waste or other items on the land such as to cause a nuisance or annoyance and the causing of damage. The court held that the American Cyanamid requirements had been met and granted the extension, but held that the injunction would be discharged on 1 February 2021 unless by that date the local authority had applied for summary judgment or for directions for a final hearing in the matter in order to prevent the interim injunction from being used as a mechanism to preserve the position and to not progress the matter until a final hearing.

https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I00C5EE00B4A011EA87A1A29A7135729E/View/FullText.html

MacBean v Scottish Water [2020] 5 WLUK 412 2020; 2020 G.W.D 18-259

A homeowner raised an action against Scottish Water seeking a declaratory of nuisance, together with interdict and damages, in relation to a waste water treatment plant which was located down an embankment from his property. The case was put out of order as the pursuer was held not to have established a continuing actionable nuisance as while the emission of offensive odours persisted, they were irregular, faint, transient and only occasionally went on to his property.

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotCS/2020/2020_CSOH_55.html&query=(title:(+macbean+))

R (oao Fisher) v Durham CC [2020] EWHC 1277 (Admin); [2020] 5 WLUK 293

The claimant sought to quash a noise abatement notice served on her by the defendant local authority pursuant to section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1999. The claimant had a neurological disorder which caused her to make involuntary sounds and to shout and scream loudly, often late at night, and which caused her neighbours serious distress. She argued that the decision to serve the notice was unlawfully discriminatory in that it was unfavourable treatment by reason of her disability contrary to section 15(1)(a) and section 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010. She claimed that it breached the local authority’s public sector equality duty, breached the European Convention of Human Rights Article 14 and was irrational. A preliminary issue arose as to whether the claimant should be permitted to pursue her challenge by way of judicial review, given the existence of a potentially adequate remedy in the form of a statutory appeal to the magistrates under section 80(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The court held that it was appropriate for the judicial review to proceed as to require the claimant to pursue a section 80(3) appeal would delay matters, which would not be in anyone’s interests, and it was not clear whether all aspects of the claimant’s argument could be pursued on a section 80(3) appeal. The court also held, however, that the local authority’s decision did not amount to unlawfully discriminatory treatment, it was a last resort and a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of abating a statutory nuisance and not contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It further held that the public sector equality duty did not require the local authority to elevate the claimant’s wished above her neighbours’ right to live in peace.

www.bailii.org /cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1277.html&query=(title:(+fisher+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+durham+))

European Commission v Republic of Finland, Case C 217/19, 23 April 2020

In this case, the European Commission sought a declaration that, by recurrently granting authorisations for spring hunting of male common eiders in the province of Åland since 2011, the Republic of Finland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(4) and 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds. Under this directive, Member States must ensure, inter alia, that the hunting of protected species of birds does not jeopardise conservation efforts. Article 7(4) allows for hunting where it ‘complies with the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species of birds concerned and…is compatible as regards the population of these species’. Article 9(1)(C) further permits the ‘capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers’. The Republic of Finland contended that the Eider population was stable/fluctuating, and therefore it was not an endangered or disappearing species. Furthermore, it submitted that they had complied with the requirements of ‘judicious use’ and ‘small numbers’ in Article 9(1)(c). Rejecting the Republic of Finland’s arguments, the Court granted the declaration.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=225525&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9961594

AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri., Case C 15/19, 14 May 2020

This request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation Articles 10 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. The request arose out of Italian proceedings between the applicant (the company responsible for the collection and landfill of solid urban waste in the municipality of Rome) and the respondent (the operator of the Malagrotta landfill site in Lazio) regarding the increase in costs connected with the respondent’s obligation to provide aftercare of that landfill site. Originally, the parties contracted for the respondent to provide 10 years of aftercare. However, the above directive imposed a minimum aftercare period of 30 years. In essence, the question was whether the respondent should be subject to the obligations under the directive or under the contract. The court held that Articles 10 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste must be interpreted as not precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law to the effect that a landfill site in operation at the date of transposition of that directive must be subject to the obligations arising under that directive, in particular the obligation to extend the aftercare period following the closure of the landfill, without it being necessary to make a distinction according to the date of storage of the waste or to provide for measures to limit the financial impact of that extension in respect of the holder of the waste.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=226494&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9961594

Darment Oy v European Commission, Case T-739/18, 28 May 2020

By this application, the applicant sought the annulment of a decision by the European Commission penalising the applicant for exceeding its allocated quota for placing bulk hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) on the EU market. The case concerned Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Under these Regulations, the Commission must determine a maximum quantity of HFCs that could be placed on the market annually (both in bulk or in equipment pre-charged with HFCs) and determine quotas for producers and importers. If a producer or importer exceeds their quota, their next annual quota is reduced by 200 per cent of the amount they exceeded the previous quota by. Under the Regulations, producers or importers who have been allocated a quota may ‘transfer’ it for use by another producer or importer (in the case of bulk HFCs) or ‘authorise’ another producer or importer to use it (in the case of equipment pre-charged with HFCs).

In this case, the applicant (who would place bulk HFCs on the EU market) had accidentally been authorised to use the quotas of two Estonian companies (for equipment pre-charged with HFCs), rather than having those quotas transferred to it (for placing bulk HFCs on the EU market). When the Estonian companies realised the error, they informed the Commission. However, the Commission refused to rectify the error, stating that the ‘transfer’ of a quota and the ‘authorisation’ to use a quota were not interchangeable, and penalised the applicant for breaching its quota. The applicant complained that the Commission had imposed this penalty based on data, the erroneous nature of which had been notified to it in good time.

In summary, the court held that the Commission had failed to show reasons precluding the correction of the HFC registry. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case, the Commission could not, without infringing Article 25(2) of Regulation No 517/2014, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration, impose a penalty on the applicant without examining carefully and impartially all the matters brought to its attention. The Commission’s decision was therefore annulled.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=226884&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9961594

Syndyk Masy Upadłości ECO-WIND Construction S.A. w upadłości anciennement v Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach, Case C-727/17, 28 May 2020

This request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 1(1)(f) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, Article 15(2)(a) of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market and of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. The request arose out of proceedings in Poland involving a wind turbine development, planning permission for which was refused. The referring court was uncertain whether Polish law regarding the location of wind turbines, in particular a requirement of a minimum distance between wind turbines and residential buildings, was compatible with EU law. In short, the court ruled that the above Directives did not preclude a national law requiring that the installation of a wind turbine is subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between it and buildings of a residential function, provided that this does not lead to a purely marginal use of wind generators, and providing the legislation is necessary and proportionate in light of the Member State’s mandatory national targets for the use of renewable energy under Directive 2009/28.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=226861&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9961594

A and Others v Gewestelijke stedenbouwkundige ambtenaar van het departement Ruimte Vlaanderen, afdeling Oost-Vlaanderen, Case C-24/19, 25 June 2020

This request for a preliminary ruling arose out of Belgian proceedings regarding a decision to grant development consent to an electricity company to install and operate five wind turbines on a site near to the applicants. The referring court requested a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. These articles relate to the need for an environmental assessment to be carried out for all plans and programmes relating to, inter alia, energy. In the proceedings, the applicants alleged that the circular/order of Belgian law under which the wind turbine project was approved infringed these articles as it did not require the project to undergo an environmental assessment. In essence, the court was asked whether a circular/order fell within the scope of Article 2(a) (and thus would require an environmental assessment under Article 3(a)) and, if so, whether the referring court could maintain the effects of the development consent. The court ruled that a circular/order did fall within the scope of Article 2(a) and therefore an environmental assessment should have been carried out. Where it appears that an environmental assessment within the meaning of Directive 2001/42 should have been carried out prior to the adoption of the order and circular on the basis of which a consent, which is contested before a national court, was granted for the installation and operation of wind turbines with the result that those instruments and that consent do not comply with EU law, that court may maintain the effects of those instruments and that consent only if the national law permits it to do so in the proceedings before it and if the annulment of that consent would be likely to have significant implications for the electricity supply of the whole of the Member State concerned, and only for the period of time strictly necessary to remedy that illegality. It was for the referring court, if necessary, to carry out that assessment in the main proceedings.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=227726&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9961594

Support for Low Carbon Power

A briefing paper published on the 8 April 2020 discusses the Government’s primary mechanism for supporting new low carbon power infrastructure known as the contract for difference scheme. The contract from difference scheme guarantees a set price for electricity that generators receive per unit of power output.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8891/

Renewable energy breaks UK record in first quarter of 2020

‘Substantial increase’ in wind and solar power helped to generate 47% of Britain’s electricity in the first three months of the year.

www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/25/renewable-energy-breaks-uk-record-in-first-quarter-of-2020?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

UK’s net zero pledge: what has been achieved one year on?

This article considers the UK Government’s progress on the net zero pledge. The UK was one of the first to enshrine in law a net zero target for CO_2. The UK Government has however only taken little action on ‘net zero’. The Government has consulted on bringing forward the phaseout of petrol and diesel cars from 2040 to 2035, set aside £800m for carbon capture and storage and now plans to double the UK’s international climate finance funding from £5.8bn to £11.6bn. The practical measures do little according to key stakeholders. The Government has made little progress on key fronts with billions spent to bail out airlines, carmakers and oil companies without any ‘green strings’ attached to the bail outs. There is little strategy on key issues such as home heating. There has been, as some in the article describe, ‘foot dragging’ from the Government.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/24/uks-net-zero-pledge-what-has-been-achieved-one-year-on?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

Fisheries: UK – EU Future Relationship Negotiations

On the 19 June 2020, the House of Commons published a briefing paper on the UK and EU negotiations on fishing. The UK’s position is that fisheries and trade should not be linked: there should be a separate fisheries agreement that would provide a framework for fishing opportunities and access to waters to be negotiated annually.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8927/

George Eustice speech on environmental recovery: 20 July 2020

Environment Secretary George Eustice has set out his vision for a green recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. The speech includes an announcement that the Government will be investing a further £4m in a two-year pilot to bring ‘green prescribing’ to four urban and rural areas that have been hit the hardest by COVID-19. There is no further explanation of this project. The Government will be publishing a paper setting out its approach to environment issues through the new Environment Bill. The Government also intends to appoint a Chair of the Office for Environmental Protection.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/george-eustice-speech-on-environmental-recovery-20-july-2020

Brexit: Energy and Climate Change

On the 19 June 2020, the House of Commons published a briefing paper on the UK and EU negotiations relating to key energy and climate change policy.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8394/

COP26: The International Climate Change Conference, Glasgow, UK

The House of Commons briefing paper published on 2 April 2020 covers the lead up to the conference; the Government’s ongoing preparations; and key Parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder commentary.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8868/

Australia’s environment laws: how do they work and what needs to be done to fix them?

The article states that a ten-yearly review of Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act comes at time of growing crisis. The Act is a crucial part of Australia’s environmental legislation. It seeks to conserve and protect marine environments, world heritage sites, wetlands and threatened species. This article reports that the Act is failing to meet its key objective of protecting and conserving the environment. The latest edition of the Australian Government’s report found that threats were still increasing and the decline of ecosystems has continued. The Australian National Audit Office was ‘scathing’ in its criticism of the Government’s administration of the Act. This is coupled with cuts to the department overseeing the implementation and administration of the Act. The article asserts that there have been identifiable problems such as poor monitoring of endangered species, major delays in listing threatened ecosystems and species, failure to develop or implement recovery plans and so on. The laws also do not address the effects of climate change.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/30/australias-environment-laws-what-are-they-and-how-are-they-changing?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

Coronavirus: UK has legal duty to review air pollution targets, say lawyers

A public letter from lawyers acting on behalf of the ‘Good Law Project’ and ‘Mums for Lungs’ states there is growing evidence of a link between air pollution and the impact of COVID-19. This, the letter asserts, means the government has an obligation for formally review the Clean Air Strategy and produce a public report on its progress in order to satisfy its obligations under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/16/coronavirus-uk-has-legal-duty-to-review-air-pollution-targets-say-lawyers?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco