Revealed: The law you’ve never heard of that stops Britain building – and it’s not even British

The Aarhus Convention: A Powerful yet Controversial Tool for Environmental Activism

The Aarhus Convention, an international agreement named after the Danish city of Aarhus, has become a focal point of contention in the UK. This little-known law, designed to empower individuals and organizations to challenge environmental decisions, has been increasingly used by green activists to delay major infrastructure projects. Around 80 cases a year are brought under the convention, which caps legal costs for claimants at £5,000 for individuals and £10,000 for organizations. Without this cap, unsuccessful claimants would face potentially crippling legal fees, making it inaccessible for many to challenge decisions they believe violate environmental laws. However, critics argue that this system is being abused, leading to significant delays and costing taxpayers millions of pounds annually in legal fees. Developers also face additional costs running into hundreds of millions due to project postponements.

Government Frustration and the Label of "Lawfare"

The use of the Aarhus Convention has sparked frustration within the UK government, with Downing Street accusing activists of using the legal system to hinder progress on critical infrastructure projects. The term "lawfare" has been coined to describe this practice, implying that the legal system is being weaponized to obstruct development. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has personally criticized this approach, labeling some campaigners as "NIMBYs and zealots" (Not In My Backyard). A recent example is Andrew Boswell, a former Norfolk councillor, who has been at the center of several high-profile legal challenges, including a carbon capture and storage project on Teesside. The delays caused by these challenges have cost the project £100 million every three months, according to Sky News.

The Environmental Movement’s Perspective: Holding the Government Accountable

Environmental activists and lawyers argue that the Aarhus Convention is a vital tool for holding the government and corporations accountable for their environmental commitments. Campaigners like Andrew Boswell insist that they are not mere obstructionists but are instead ensuring that the government adheres to its own climate change laws. Boswell, who has lost several cases but continues to challenge projects, argues that without the cost protections of the Aarhus Convention, individuals and small environmental groups would not be able to afford to take on powerful entities. He and others believe that the convention is crucial for upholding the Climate Change Act and ensuring that the government meets its carbon reduction targets.

The Impact on Infrastructure Projects and the Economy

The delays caused by Aarhus-related legal challenges have significant implications for major infrastructure projects, many of which are intended to support the UK’s transition to a greener economy. For instance, the Teesside carbon capture and storage project, which aims to reduce emissions from a gas-fired power station, has been held up by legal challenges. This project, majority-run by BP, is seen as a key component of the UK’s net-zero strategy. However, campaigners like Boswell argue that the project does not adequately address environmental concerns, and they are using the Aarhus Convention to challenge its approval.

Similarly, cases brought under the convention have scuppered other major projects, such as the expansion of Heathrow Airport and the development of oil wells near Gatwick and in Lincolnshire. These challenges have led to accusations that environmental activism is stifling economic growth and job creation, particularly in regions like Teesside, where development is seen as crucial for local prosperity.

The Role of Legal Firms and the Broader Implications

Law firms specializing in environmental and human rights cases, such as Leigh Day, have become key players in the use of the Aarhus Convention. Carol Day, a lead environmental lawyer at Leigh Day, estimates that around 80 cases are brought annually under the convention, many of which involve projects of significant environmental and economic importance. While this number may seem small, the cases often have far-reaching consequences, shaping the direction of major infrastructure developments and setting legal precedents.

One notable case was brought by Sarah Finch, a self-employed writer, who successfully challenged the approval of an oil well near Gatwick. Her victory in the Supreme Court established that carbon emissions from fossil fuel projects must be considered in planning decisions. This ruling has since been used to block other similar projects, demonstrating the powerful legacy of individual actions enabled by the Aarhus Convention.

Calls for Reform and the Future of Environmental Litigation

The ongoing debate over the Aarhus Convention has sparked calls for reform from both political and business leaders. Teesside Mayor Ben Houchen, a Conservative, has argued that the system needs fundamental change to prevent activists from halting economic growth and job creation. He emphasized that the current system allows too many challenges, causing unnecessary delays and undermining democratically made decisions. Similar sentiments have been expressed by business groups and developers, who argue that the UK’s slow legal process is already a significant barrier to investment.

Even some within the environmental movement acknowledge that the convention may be open to abuse, though they argue that it remains a necessary tool for holding power to account. As the UK grapples with the challenges of climate change, the balance between environmental accountability and economic development will continue to be a contentious issue. While reforming the Aarhus Convention may be politically complex, given its status as an international treaty, the debate highlights the broader tension between activism, governance, and growth in the 21st century.