Beginning with the domestic perspective, Kyle Lischak (Head of UK at ClientEarth) focused on two complaints to the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). The first concerned the use of particular pesticides on sugar beet crops, which are potentially harmful to bees. In 2023 and 2024, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) granted emergency authorisation to use these pesticides. ClientEarth made a complaint to the OEP, which is now investigating whether DEFRA applied the precautionary principle correctly and whether it complied with its nature conservation obligations when granting emergency authorisations. This precautionary principle states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, a lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (1992 Rio Declaration, to which the UK is a signatory).
The second complaint to the OEP concerned manure spreading causing nitrogen pollution in rivers. Although the OEP has not yet undertaken an investigation, it found that the Environment Agency had potentially failed to properly assess environmental impacts on protected conservation sites before allowing farmers to exceed manure spreading limits. Drawing on his experience of working on these two complaints, Kyle emphasised the importance of implementing and enforcing the existing legal protections, as well as ensuring the cost of bringing environmental claims is not prohibitive.
Moving to the international angle, Zoë Leventhal KC (a barrister at Matrix Chambers) primarily focused on a judgment from Ecuador’s Constitutional Court in 2021 (Caso Bosque Protector “Los Cedros”, 1149-19-JP/20). It concerned permits for mining in the Los Cedros forest. In Ecuador, the rights of nature are enshrined in the constitution. The Court held that the mining in the forest would violate the rights of nature and therefore declared the mining permits were null and void. It also ordered the mining company to fund the restoration of the parts of the forest that had been damaged to date. She also highlighted a number of other environmental judgments from around the world e.g. the Bangladeshi Supreme Court’s judgment in 2019 upholding the rights of the Turag River (Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v Secretary of the Ministry of Shipping, No. 13989 of 2016); UN Human Rights Committee’s decision in 2022 that Australia had failed to adequately protect the Torres Islanders against the adverse impacts of climate change (Daniel Billy and others v Australia, No. 3624/2019); and the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in 2024 that Switzerland had failed to take sufficient action to address the effects of climate change (KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland, No. 53600/20).
Finally, moving to the realm of imagined judgments, Dr Helen Dancer (senior lecturer at the University of Sussex, accompanied by her co-editors Drs Bonnie Holligan and Helena Howe) presented her new anthology, 'UK Earth Law Judgments: Reimagining Law for People and Planet'. This reimagines eleven judgments from an Earth law perspective, putting the rights of nature in central focus. The judgments cover diverse areas of law, including public, employment, company, tort and planning law.
For example, Helen reimagined the case of R (Packham) v Secretary of State for Transport, The Prime Minister and HS2 Limited ([2020] EWHC 829 (Admin); [2020] EWCA Civ 1004). This concerned the environmental impact of building a railway. The High Court held that the government’s decision to continue with the project was lawful and the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. Helen suggested that the courts could have found that the decision to continue building the railway was irrational (and therefore unlawful) on the basis of the woodland that would be lost, the greenhouse gases that would be emitted by the project up to 2050 and the impact this would have on future generations.
Following these thought-provoking speeches, there was an engaging Q&A session, raising questions such as the limitations of judicial review and the extent to which the law should take account of non-human interests. Perhaps this year’s Law Reform Lecture may inspire students and pupils to think about how English and Welsh law could be reformed and submit an entry to the Bar Council’s Law Reform Essay Competition. Please do share the details of the competition with students and pupils who may be interested.
Watch the recording of the lecture
Read barrister Paul Powlesland's blog 'Right of Nature: a 21st century legal revolution'