Category: Indigenous peoples rights

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Minority rights New Zealand Paris Agreement Right to life Separation of powers

Smith v. Attorney General

Summary:
This case was filed in 2022 and concerns the same plaintiff as the Smith v. Fonterra corporate responsibility case. The plaintiff in these cases is a Māori landowner and spokesperson on climate change for his tribe (iwi). He argued that the climate policy of the New Zealand government had failed to adequately protect the citizens of New Zealand, and especially Māori, against the impacts of climate change. Before the High Court, he submitted that “the Government has taken no or inadequate climate change mitigation measures since it had become aware of the causes and effects of climate change down to the present.” In July 2022, the High Court struck out all of the applicant’s claims. The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal on all counts in December 2024.

Claims made:
The plaintiff’s case is based on three main arguments (expanded from the original submissions, which concerned only the first argument of the three). First, the plaintiff argues that the government breached its common law duty of care to “take all necessary steps to reduce NZ emissions and to actively protect the plaintiff and his descendants from the adverse effects of climate change”, as derived from its authority over the territory of New Zealand, the government’s duty of care, and its responsibility to Māori. Secondly, he alleged a breach of the rights enshrined in sections 8 and 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), concerning deprivation of life and the denial of the right to practise culture. Here the plaintiff argued that the Crown had “failed to put in place an effective legislative and administrative framework properly designed to provide effective mitigation against the climate change risk in accordance with the best available science and New Zealand’s international and domestic legal obligations.” He invoked the protection of his own life, those of his tribe and clan, and those of future generations. Thirdly, he argued that the government had violated the Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, and the consequent fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and those he represents.

Finding of the High Court:
In July 2022, the High Court struck out all three claims. First, it found that the plaintiff’s arguments about the common law duty of care were not based on recognized legal obligations or case-law. It was also considered too far-reaching: “any relief, if it were available, would be an ineffective and piecemeal way to deal with climate change issues. Every person in New Zealand would be entitled to sue the Government under the novel duty.” It noted too that “the courts have neither the technical capacity nor the political mandate to co-ordinate in an integrated way to mitigate the effects of climate change”.

On the second argument, the Court found that the right to life claim was untenable because the plaintiff had not demonstrated a “‘real and identifiable’ risk to the life of a specified individual or even a class of individuals. It is a general threat that may eventuate as a result of the effects of climate change to all New Zealanders.” In addition, the Court was not convinced that it was possible to draw analogies to Dutch law, and specifically the Urgenda case invoked by the plaintiff, meaning that “[t]he decision in Urgenda must be treated with caution”.

Furthermore, on the minority rights claim, the Court held that the plaintiff had not alleged specific breaches of that right, which only entailed positive obligations under exceptional circumstances. It also held that the plaintiff’s case was “based on a claim that an existing legislative and policy framework is inadequate to protect Māori. There is no allegation of opposition or coercion targeting Māori that fits within that exceptional category here.” Accordingly, this part of the case was also declared inadmissible.

Finally, concerning the Tiriti o Waitangi, the Court found that this claim was so broad, and climate change was so complex, that “any fiduciary obligations arising from the Crown would be owed to the public in general. This alone makes the claim untenable”. To be contemplated, such a claim would depend on an underlying duty — here, the duty of care invoked by the applicant — which had already been rejected above, making this claim untenable. In addition, the Court held, “a claim that such a duty is owed to only a subsection of New Zealanders, Māori, as opposed to the public in general, is a further reason that it cannot be tenable”.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:
On 19 December 2024, the Court of Appeal issued its ruling in this case, rejecting the applicant’s appeal on all counts.

On the claim concerning the right to life, the court considered six questions: 
           a)  whether that right includes a right to a life with dignity;
           b)  whether the widespread nature of (climate) effects preclude the applicability of the right to life;
           c)  whether the risks from climate change are sufficiently proximate;
           d)  whether the right to life can impose positive duties on the State;
           e)  whether it is tenable that New Zealand’s regulatory framework breached the right to life; and
           f)  whether reporting orders are tenably available.

On the first question, it found that it was not clearly untenable that the right to life includes a right to a minimum baseline as to the quality of life and is therefore applicable to the potential impacts of climate change.  This, it held, is consistent with international jurisprudence. Throughout, it extensively engaged with international jurisprudence (Billy, Teitiota) and soft-law materials (the HRC’s General comment No 36).

On the second question, the Court found that it was not clearly untenable on the grounds that the alleged risk to life potentially affects a large group or all of the population.   

On the third question, again referring to international climate jurisprudence on equivalent rights, and particularly engaging with the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, the Court found that this would be a matter of (scientific) evidence for trial, and that it could accordingly not strike this out at this stage. 

On the fourth question, the Court found – given the context of the climate emergency and the case-law from around the world responding to this challenge — it was not clearly untenable that NZBORA’s right to life requires the government to take protective measures against foreseeable threats to life. 

On the fifth question, on the challenge to the efficacy of the legislative framework responding to climate change, the Court found that it could not second-guess parliamentary policy choices, striking out this claim while referring to the possibility of judicial review of concrete actions taken under the legislative framework.

On the sixth question, it found that the court’s institutional role did not encompass an ongoing monitoring role of the measures the Crown is implementing in response to climate change.

On the right to culture, the court found that it was not clearly untenable that climate change could give rise to a positive obligation to protect against a denial of the right to culture under s20 of NZBORA where a substantial interference amounting to a denial of the right occurs. However, here too the court found that the pleaded deficiencies of the domestic legal framework reflect policy choices that are for Parliament and that it could not review.

As concerns the claim of a breach of te Tiriti, the court found that this was clearly untenable because the domestic legislative framework gives effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty and allows for decisions consistent with Treaty principles.

As concerns the claim that the Crown owes fiduciary duties to Mr Smith, his whānau, Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu, the court found that the claimed fiduciary duty was not comparable to specific fiduciary duties arising between the government and certain Māori due to particular dealings between them.  As a result, the pleaded claim was inconsistent with the nature of fiduciary duties because the response to climate change required a balancing of interests and the government could not act purely in the interests of the pleaded beneficiaries. 

As concerned the claim that there was a novel common law duty in place, relying on the common law public trust doctrine, this doctrine stemmed from the context of access to seashores and navigable waters and was thus too far removed from the extensive duty pleaded in relation to climate change.  The court found that the boundaries of the public trust doctrine are imprecise and fluid, raising a host of conceptual problems in imposing fiduciary or trust-like obligations on the government, and that the doctrine could in any case be displaced by legislation; domestic law did not leave room for its application.

Status of the case:
Appeal to the Court of Appeal rejected 19 December 2024.

Further reading:
The text of the High Court ruling is available here.

The text of the Court of Appeal ruling is available here.

Suggested citation:
High Court of New Zealand, Smith v. Attorney General, [2022] NZHC 1693.

Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Smith v. Attorney General, [2024] NZCA 692.

Categories
Domestic court Indigenous peoples rights Participation rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to water Rights at stake Thailand

Residents of Omkoi v Expert Committee on EIA Consideration et al.

Summary:

On 4 April 2022, members of Kabeudin village, an Indigenous Karen community in Omkoi district, Chiang Mai province, Thailand, filed a lawsuit at the Chiang Mai Administrative Court against the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning and the Expert Committee on Environmental Impact Assessment Consideration. The legal action aims to revoke the alleged flawed environmental impact assessment (EIA) associated with the Omkoi coal mine project by the 99 Thuwanon Company. Residents argue that the coal mine poses substantial risks to long-term health and livelihoods. The lawsuit specifically targets deficiencies in the original EIA, which was executed over ten years ago, lacked meaningful community participation, and contains errors and omissions. Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reportedly identified human rights violations in the EIA in 2020, and recommended a plan revision. If the project proceeds, residents fear it will infringe upon their right to a healthy environment and life-sustaining resources like clean air and water. The lawsuit seeks a transparent and legally compliant new EIA in line with Thai law and international standards. On 23 September 2022, the Administrative Court issued an order for temporary protection, thereby suspending the activities of the coal mining project until a final judgment from the Court is delivered.

Claim:

The residents of Omkoi assert that the EIA for the Omkoi coal mine project, conducted by the 99 Thuwanon Company over a decade ago, is fundamentally flawed and poses a significant threat to the community’s long-term health and livelihoods. The lawsuit seeks the revocation of the alleged outdated EIA and the initiation of a new assessment process characterized by transparency and meaningful community participation. The claim emphasizes that the original EIA lacked adequate opportunities for local engagement, contained errors and omissions, and was previously identified by the NHRC for human rights violations. The residents contend that allowing the coal mine project to proceed would violate their right to a healthy environment and life-sustaining resources like clean air and water.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Chiang Mai Administrative Court of Republic of Thailand.

Suggested citation:

Residents of Omkoi v Expert Committee on Environmental Impact Assessment Consideration and the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Chiang Mai Administrative Court of Republic of Thailand, Black Case Sor. 1/2565 (4 April 2022).

Last updated:
15 January 2024.

Categories
Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Participation rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health South Korea

Kang et al. v KSURE and KEXIM

Summary:
In March 2022, four individuals, including one Korean national and three Australian nationals from the indigenous community of the Tiwi Islands, filed a complaint before the Seoul District Court. The complaint specifically targets two public Korean debtor corporations—Korea Trade Insurance Corporation and Korea Export Import Bank—by challenging their financial support for the Barossa gas field development project. This fossil gas reserve initiative, led by SK E&S Co., Ltd. (a South Korean conglomerate), Santos Ltd. (an Australian oil and gas corporation), and Jera Co. (Japan’s largest power company), is located off the coast of Australia’s Northern Territory, near the Tiwi Islands. The applicants oppose the project, highlighting potential irreversible environmental, legal, and financial risks. The plaintiffs argue that endorsing the Barossa Gas Project would violate their constitutional rights to health and a healthy living environment. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from supporting the project.

Claim:
The claim underscores the environmental risks associated with the Barossa Gas Project, projecting an annual emission of 15Mt of CO2 and potential harm to the marine ecosystem, including endangered sea turtles, and indigenous communities. Legal risks involve insufficient consultation with indigenous communities and a potential dispute over control of the gas field given its location within the Indonesian exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Financial risks are tied to the project’s inconsistency with climate goals, an anticipated decline in fossil gas demand, and underdeveloped carbon capture and storage technologies. The plaintiffs base their claim on constitutional environmental rights, Tiwi Islanders’ property rights, and the South Korean National Finance Act. They emphasise the deficiencies in the consultation and assessment processes for the proposed Barossa pipeline in a habitat protection zone near the Tiwi Islands. The central issue revolves around whether the Tiwi Islanders were adequately consulted and if environmental and climate impacts were sufficiently assessed for the Barossa project.

Links:
The complaint is accessible for download below (in the original Korean).

20220323_16485_petitionDownload

Status of the case:
Pending.

Suggested citation:
Kang et al. v. KSURE and KEXIM (South Korea, Seoul District Court), pending case filed on 23 March 2022.

Last updated:
12 December 2023.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court France Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health

Envol Vert et al. v Casino

Summary:

This case revolves around the nexus of climate change and human rights abuses. Various NGOs, representing the plaintiffs, initiated legal proceedings in March 2021 against the French supermarket giant, Casino. The allegations stem from the company’s activities in the cattle industry in Brazil and Colombia, facilitated through its subsidiaries Grupo Pão de Açúcar and Grupo Éxito. Despite Casino’s commitment to eradicating deforestation and complying with Brazilian national law, the lawsuit contends that the corporation is culpable for environmental degradation, human rights violations, and threats to human health and safety in the mentioned regions. Specific accusations include biodiversity loss, depletion of carbon stocks, land seizures, violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights, and instances of slavery and forced labor. The plaintiffs argue that Casino’s vigilance plans, mandated by the French duty of vigilance law, lack substance and are insufficient. Consequently, they seek court orders compelling Casino to establish and implement a comprehensive vigilance plan, along with compensating Brazilian Indigenous groups for damages resulting from the company’s failure to fulfil its duty of vigilance.

Claim:

The plaintiffs assert that Casino, through its operations in the cattle industry in Brazil and Colombia, is responsible for environmental harm, human rights violations (including land seizures, violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights, slavery, and forced labor), and threats to human health and safety. They contend that Casino’s vigilance plans, mandated by the French duty of vigilance law, lack substance. Seeking legal intervention, the plaintiffs aim to compel Casino to establish and implement a comprehensive vigilance plan, identifying risks arising from the group’s activities. Additionally, they request compensation for Brazilian Indigenous groups, arguing that Casino’s failure to uphold its duty of vigilance resulted in the loss of opportunity and moral damage. Casino rebuts these claims, asserting that its vigilance plan aligns with legal requirements and deeming the plaintiffs’ requested measures unreasonable under the duty of vigilance law. The core issue involves determining whether Casino violated the French duty of vigilance law through its involvement in cattle-industry-induced deforestation.

Links:

The case document can be found below.

20210302_13435_complaintDownload

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the French Saint-Étienne Judicial Court.

Suggested citation:

Envol Vert et al v Casino (Saint-Étienne Judicial Court), filed 2 March 2021.

Last updated:

11 December 2023.

Categories
Australia Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to education Right to health Right to life Right to subsistence/food Uncategorized

Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia

Summary:

In October 2021, Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) filed a complaint with three Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This complaint was made on behalf of five young individuals residing in Australia and pertains to the ‘human rights harms’ caused by the Australian government’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and its perceived inaction regarding climate change. EJA alleges that the Australian government is breaching international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, and various United Nations instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Claim:

The claim in this case asserts that the Australian government’s actions, particularly its NDC and its inaction on climate change, violate international agreements and human rights obligations. The complaint argues that these actions infringe upon several United Nations instruments, including the Paris Agreement, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The complainants contend that the government’s contributions to climate change potentially violate fundamental rights, including the right to health, life, family relations, an adequate standard of living, education, freedom from violence or exploitation, and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. They also assert that these actions disproportionately impact young people, First Nations peoples, and individuals with disabilities, thus violating their rights as recognized in international law. The claim in the petition urges the Special Rapporteurs to intervene by seeking clarification from the Australian government regarding the alignment of its NDC with its human rights obligations and its consistency with a 1.5-degree climate pathway. It also requests an explanation of how the government’s NDC decision-making process has engaged young people in Australia. The claim further calls on Australia to establish a 2030 emissions reduction target that complies with its human rights obligations, especially regarding the rights of young people and the complainants.

Links:

The complaint is accessible for download here and below.

20211025_14762_complaintDownload

Status of the case:

Pending.

Suggested citation:

Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia, United Nations Special Rapporteurs, 25 October 2021 (United Nations).

Last updated:

03 November 2023.

Categories
2022 Class action Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights New Zealand Right to life Self-determination

Smith v. Attorney-General

Summary:

In March 2022, a prominent Māori landowner and advocate for tribal climate concerns took a significant step by bringing a case before the High Court of New Zealand. The central argument of the case was that the government had violated fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life and minority rights, due to its inadequate response to climate change. The plaintiff’s core contention was that successive governments had consistently failed to address the severe consequences of climate change, with a particular emphasis on its disproportionate impact on the Māori community.

Initially, the case centred on a single cause of action, which involved the government’s breach of duty to take all necessary steps to reduce New Zealand emissions and actively protect the plaintiff and his descendants from the adverse effects of climate change. Later, following a court order issued by Justice Johnston in May 2020, the plaintiff expanded the case to include two additional distinct causes of action. These additional claims were based on alleged violations of the rights to life and the rights of minorities as outlined in sections 8 and 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the government’s failure to act in accordance with its obligations as stipulated in the Treaty of Waitangi (one of New Zealand’s founding documents, agreed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori leaders). The Court eventually dismissed all three claims.

Claim:

The plaintiff’s claim was multi-faceted, asserting that the government’s actions, or lack thereof, constituted violations of human rights, particularly the right to life and minority rights, with a focus on the Māori population. The claim included allegations concerning the breach of duty, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Decision:

On July 15, 2022, the Court rendered a decision in favour of the government, dismissing all three claims presented by the plaintiff. The Court found the plaintiff’s common law duty of care claim untenable, reasoning that it failed to define specific legal obligations and exceeded the boundaries of incremental development of new duties. Moreover, the Court asserted that the creation of an effective remedy, such as court-monitored monitoring, would necessitate an institutional expertise, democratic participation, and accountability beyond the capabilities of the court process alone.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion regarding the right to life, deeming it untenable due to the absence of substantial evidence indicating a ‘real and identifiable’ threat to individuals or groups. Instead, the Court viewed climate change as a general threat impacting all New Zealanders due to its broad-reaching consequences. The Court further noted that the plaintiff’s argument concerning the breach of minority rights lacked merit since the relevant regulations primarily prohibited the Crown from infringing upon minority rights rather than imposing positive duties.

Additionally, the Court clarified that claims based on the Treaty and fiduciary obligations were not valid, as they hinged on the same general duty initially put forth in the first cause of action, which the Court had already rejected as unsound. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s contention that this duty was owed exclusively to the Māori population, rather than the wider public, further undermined its validity.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

Judgment

Suggested citation:

Michael John Smith v. The Attorney-General, [2022] NZHC 1693 (15 July 2022), The High Court of New Zealand.

Last updated:

20 October 2023.

Categories
2023 Colombia Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Participation rights Right to culture Self-determination Uncategorized

Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Another v. Ministry of Environment and Others (Pirá Paraná Case)

Summary:

On July 15th, 2022, the Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council, in collaboration with the Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of the River Pirá Paraná, initiated a ‘tutela’ proceeding against private corporations and Colombian authorities. This expedited legal procedure is only available when regular mechanisms are deemed inadequate to ensure the protection of the plaintiffs’ rights. The legal action arises from concerns related to the Baka Rokarire project, particularly its carbon credit initiatives, within the Indigenous territory situated in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, located in the Vaupés region. The central issue at hand is the potential violation of Indigenous fundamental human rights, including self-determination, self-governance, and the preservation of cultural diversity and integrity. The claimants argue that the individual who represented the Indigenous community in the project lacked proper legitimacy, while public authorities allegedly failed to safeguard Indigenous rights throughout the project’s registration and development. Private companies are accused of neglecting human rights due diligence standards and deliberately excluding Indigenous authorities from the decision-making process.

Claim:

The plaintiffs argue that the Baka Rokarire project, especially its carbon credit initiatives, violate their fundamental human rights as Indigenous people. Importantly, the lawsuit filed by the Pirá Paraná community does not contest land ownership rights but instead focuses on preserving the integrity of the territory, which holds great cultural and ancestral significance for Indigenous populations. Their primary concern centers around the absence of genuine Indigenous representation in the project’s agreement. Furthermore, they accuse public authorities of failing to fulfill their responsibilities in safeguarding Indigenous rights during the project’s registration and execution. Private companies involved are accused of neglecting human rights due diligence standards and intentionally excluding Indigenous authorities from the project’s development. The main argument is that the potential negative impact on Indigenous rights justifies legal intervention.

Decision:

Initially, based on the subsidiarity of the tutela mechanism, the Judicial Court deemed the case inadmissible, citing that the plaintiffs could have pursued other available legal avenues. The court’s rationale was that the tutela mechanism was not the suitable course of action in this instance, as there was no clear evidence indicating the presence of irreparable damage in the case. The Administrative Tribunal upheld this decision. However, in April 2023, a significant development occurred when Colombia’s Constitutional Court took the unprecedented step of reviewing the case. This marks the first-ever evaluation of a case involving the voluntary carbon market, potentially setting a legal precedent that will delineate the boundaries of activities permitted within territories inhabited by Indigenous communities in carbon credit projects. The Constitutional Court’s review will also encompass an examination of whether the tutela mechanism is the appropriate means for challenging these projects, especially concerning Indigenous rights. This decision to review represents a noteworthy opportunity to provide clarity regarding Indigenous rights and cultural preservation within the context of carbon offset initiatives.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Constitutional Court of Colombia.

Last updated:

05 October 2023.

Categories
Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property Russian Federation

Ecodefense and Others v. Russia

Summary:
In 2022, the NGOs Ecodefense and Moscow Helsinki Group, together with a group of individual plaintiffs representing Fridays for Future and the Sami and Itelmen indigenous people, brought an administrative action before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation seeking to declare the Russian Federation’s climate legislation invalid. They argue that the current measures are not in line with the temperature targets under the Paris Agreement, noting that Russia is currently the fourth biggest global carbon emitter. They submit that Russia is accordingly in violation of its own constitution, as well as of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on 16 September 2022.

Key arguments:
The plaintiffs invoke a number of human and constitutional rights, arguing that their right to life, to health care, to a healthy environment (which is recognized by the Russian Constitution), to the protection of land and other natural resources as the basis of the life and activities of indigenous peoples, and to the protection of young people and future generations (based on the principle of equality). They also invoke the prohibition of torture and the right to home, private life and property as well as the prohibition of discrimination and the right to an adequate standard of living.

On this basis, the plaintiffs argue that the existing Russian climate policy measures are not only incompatible with domestic law, but that they also violate Russia’s international legal obligations under the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the ECHR. The plaintiffs also contest the emphasis on carbon absorption (and not GHG emissions reductions) in the current Russian strategy, which they argue does not suffice to do Russia’s “fair share” to keep global warming below the Paris Agreement’s targets of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius.

Status:
Pending

Further information:
A summary of the plaintiff’s submissions in this case is available via ClimateCaseChart.com.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Ecodefense and Others v. Russia, pending case, submitted on 11 September 2022.

Last updated:
4 August 2023

Categories
Australia Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Right to property

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v. Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors

Summary:

The case concerns the applications by Waratah Coal Pty Ltd. (WC) for a ‘mining license’ and an ‘environmental authority’ under the Australian mining regulation and environmental protection legislation. These would allow it to mine coal in areas of the Galilee Basin, including parts of a protected area under the nature conservation law.  

The case reached the Land Court of Queensland on account of objections by environmental groups to WC’s applications. The Land Court of Queensland’s role was to provide a recommendation to the governmental authorities responsible for deciding on the applications after reviewing their merits (considering the compatibility of the proposed project with the environmental laws in Australia). However, the Court also found that the human rights implications of the coal mining project were relevant. The justification for this was that the court was directly bound by the Human Rights Act 2019 to not make a decision that is incompatible with human rights.

In its lengthy judgment, Court concluded on the basis of the evidence available to it and the interests at stake that it could not recommend the approval of WC’s applications.

Claims:

The objectors to WC’s applications raised several contentions in regards to the local and global environmental impacts of allowing coal mining in the Galilee Basin (including its contribution to climate change), as well as interference with private property rights. WC refuted these contentions and found that several issues raised by the objectors were irrelevant to the decision of their applications.  

In regards to climate change, WC disagreed that the emissions produced by foreign consumers of the mined coal are a relevant consideration. It argued that approving the mining of coal does not entail approving its combustion, and that the responsibility for the emissions from the latter falls on importing countries which decide to do so.  WC also argued that the mine will make no difference to total emissions because it would displace lower quality coal with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  

Decision:

The Court framed its recommendation as pertaining to the specific coal mining project in question rather than coal mining in general. It was not convinced by the evidence put forth by WC with respect to the adequacy of its plans of offsetting the environmental impacts which would follow from the coal mining project.

In relation to climate change, the Court found that the mitigation of climate change was amongst the public interests which needed to be considered in the balance against the public interest considerations in support of the project (such as economic development). While the Court acknowledged that the project itself would not necessarily put Australia over its greenhouse gas emissions budget or lead to an exceedence of the temperature limits set by the Paris Agreement, Australia’s limited carbon budget and the risks of exceeding the 1.5° and 2°degree C temperature limits, and Queensland’s intention to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, were strong factors which supported the refusal of the project. 

The Court rejected WC’s contentions in regards to foreign emissions from the combustion of the coal mined by WC, finding that not considering them would be inconsistent with the public interest criterion in the environmental protection legislation.

The Court found that the human rights to life, protection of children, culture of First Nations People, privacy and home, property, and the enjoyment by certain groups of rights without discrimination were engaged by the coal mining project. In its assessment, the project constituted a ‘limit’ to these rights owing to its causal link with climate change which, in turn, affects the enjoyment of these rights. The Court concluded that the economic and other public interest benefits of the project were not sufficient to justify the limitation of human rights which would result from the project.

Links:

For full judgment of 25 November 2022, see here.

Suggested case citation:

Land Court of Queensland, Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, 25 November 2022, President Fleur Kingham.

Last updated:

03 August 2023.

Categories
Brazil Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to culture

PSB et. al. v. Brazil (Amazon deforestation)

Summary:

On 11 November 2020, seven political parties with representation in Brazil’s National Congress brought an action against the Brazilian government before the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil. The petition sought the effective implementation of the public policy to combat deforestation in Brazilian Amazon, viz. the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of the Legal Amazon Deforestation (PPCDAm). The petition is in the nature of an Allegation of Disobedience of Fundamental Precept (ADPF). The ADPF claimed that the government’s actions and omissions in relation to the protection of forests in the Amazon, including within Indigenous Lands and Federal Conservation Units violates constitutional rights and prevents Brazil from fulfilling its climate targets assumed under the Paris Agreement and transposed into national laws.  

The Federal Supreme Court decided in favour of the petitioners and ordered the Federal government to resume the PPCDAm, and strengthen the governmental organs linked to the socio-environmental agenda. The effect of this order was stopped on account of another judge of the Federal Supreme Court seeking a review of the decision.  

Facts of the case:

The petitioners earmarked 2019-2020 as the relevant period for the purposes of the ADPF, since this period is allegedly marked by unprecedented attacks on Article 225 of the Brazilian Constitution which guarantees the right to an ecologically balanced environment. The petitioners alleged that the government abandoned and stopped enforcing the PPCDAm. They further alleged that the government has explicitly refused to cooperate with monitoring agencies and authorities for inspection and control of the use of forests (including the Brazilian Environmental Protection Agency); frozen the financing for the public policy for combating deforestation; and increased environmental deregulation. By way of evidence, the petitioners relied on statistics demonstrating an increase in deforestation notwithstanding a drastic reduction in notices of violations and cease-and-desist orders relating to forest conservation laws. They also relied on budget data of the main agencies which are entrusted with the execution of the public policy on combatting deforestation, and evidence pointing to the non-cooperation of the military in enforcement action.  

Claims:

The petition alleged violations of constitutional rights, viz. the right of present and future generations to an ecologically balanced environment (Article 225), which they argue includes a derivative ‘fundamental the integrity of the climate system or a fundamental right to a stable and secure climate’; rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands (Article 231); and cultural rights (Articles 215 and 216). The petitioners also argued that the government’s lack of transparency about implementation of the PPCDAm, its campaign to discredit agencies and institutions which provide data and information on the environment, including Federal agencies, and its denial of deforestation and climate change constitute violations of the right to information.  

The Attorney General argued against the admissibility of the action on multiple grounds, viz. (i) that the action does not concern a constitutional issue and is rather a matter of administrative law, since the reliefs (administrative measures) requested by the petitioners do not directly follow from the text of the Brazilian Constitution; (ii) that admitting the case would run counter to the subsidiarity principle enshrined in the procedural law of the Federal Supreme Court, which requires that it should avoid admitting actions in the nature of an ADPF when there are other effective means of remedying the damage; and (iii) that the procedure for control of constitutionality is not suitable for allowing broad examination of evidence. The Attorney General further refuted the statistical evidence raised by the petitioners arguing that the reduction in number of notices of violations and cease-and-desist orders was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. On the merits, the Attorney General contended that the Federal Government had the prerogative to modulate its administrative strategies in line with the legal framework.  

Decision:

On 6 April 2022, Minister Cármen Lúcia of the Federal Supreme Court issued a decision in favour of the petitioners. She rejected the contentions of the Attorney General, deciding that there is no doubt as to the constitutional nature of the issues raised in the action; that a review of the Federal government’s actions in relation to the problem of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, which has negative repercussions for the climate, falls within the Federal Supreme Court’s jurisdiction; and the examination of evidence is not practically difficult (owing to the sufficiency of the information provided by governmental agencies and amici curae). The decision notes that non-compliance by Brazilian state organs with commitments under international environmental treaties amounts to a violation of the environmental duties emanating from the Constitution. Reading the principle of non-retrogression into Article 225 of the Constitution, the decision identifies acts of the Federal Government which were contrary to such principle.  

Relief:

The Court declared that the situation regarding the illegal deforestation of the Amazon rainforest and the omissions of the Brazilian State in relation to its protective functions was unconstitutional. It ordered the Federal Government to present a detailed plan for the implementation of the PPCDAs and effective protection measures relating to the Amazon forest and the rights of indigenous peoples and other inhabitants in protected areas, within 30 days from the decision. The decision also lists concrete benchmarks and targets that the Federal Government’s plan ought to be based on and seek to achieve.  

Status:

Immediately following Minister Cármen Lúcia’s decision, Minister André Mendonça of the Federal Supreme Court requested a review of that decision, which effectively blocked the decision. As a result, the effect of the decision requiring the Federal Government to take certain actions within a set date stands suspended. The case is still pending before the Federal Supreme Court.  

Links:

Petition (accessible via Climate Case Chart: Portuguese, Unofficial English translation).

Decision (in Portuguese).

For further procedural information, visit Supremo Tribunal Federal.  

Suggested citation:

Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, PSB et al. v. Brazil, case ADPF 760, decision of 6 April 2022.

 Last updated:

03 August 2023.