The synergies between the Paris Agreement and the SDGs: An opportunity for national governments to achieve key climate targets

Posted on

Dr Noah A. Izoukumor, Member of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group

Introduction

The Paris Agreement (PA) was adopted on the 12th of December 2015.[1] The central aim of the PA is to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels or even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.[2] To achieve this aim, Parties to the PA made individual commitments through their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The ‘NDCs, are actions that Parties to the PA plan to undertake to address climate change’ at the national level.[3] Most of the initial NDCs made commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 2030.[4]

 In 2015, the same year the PA was adopted, the United Nations also adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to replace the Millennium Development Goals.[5] The SDGs are 17 aspirational goals and 169 associated targets. The SDGs are also meant to be achieved by 2030.

In other words, both the PA and SDGs were adopted in 2015, and the targets and obligations were to be achieved by 2030.[6] This raises some critical questions about whether it is possible to align the obligations of the PA with key related SDGs, or is it possible to achieve key SDGs targets that are linked with the PA simultaneously since both targets are meant to be achieved by 2030?  On the contrary, it was argued that how the alignment of the PA with the SDGs is possible considering that the SDGs and the PA are two separate instruments.[7]  In this research blog, the aim is to briefly assess the possibility of the alignment between PA obligations with key SDGs, and the key benefits of such alignments at the national level.

Are there synergies between climate change and the SDGs?  

There is emerging research on the integration of climate change and the SDGs.[8]  Nerini and others elaborated on the possible alignment of climate change and SDGs. They acknowledged that in most countries, climate change and sustainable development remain separated.[9] According to them, ‘capitalizing on synergistic actions can enable both sets of objectives to be met more quickly, efficiently and effectively.’[10] 

Antwi-Agyei and Dougill investigated the alignment of SDGs and NDCs.[11] They examined NDCs submitted by 11 West African states and their link to key SDGs.[12] Their investigation shows the strong commitment of West African countries to food security which can be aligned with related SDGs.[13] They argued that this alignment provides opportunities for national development on the low carbon pathway.[14] 

Also, a critical assessment of the provisions of the PA and the SDGs unveils that there is a synergy between the PA and some of the SDGs. For instance, SDG targets 15.2 and 15:3 deal with combating desertification and sustainable management of all forests. These targets 15.2 and 15:3 of the SDG are related to Article 5 (2) of the PA, which emphasised sustainable forest management practices. Also, SDG targets 7:1 and 7:2 deal with the development of renewable energy. These targets have a direct link with Article 10 (1) (2) Paris Agreement which emphasised the development of technology.

The above examples show that there is a link between the PA and some key SDGs. The implication of the relationship between the PA and the key SDGs is that the achievement of the targets of the PA could lead to the achievement of related SDGs targets. So, the next question is what the likely benefits of the synergies between the PA and the SDGs are.  

The benefits of synergies between the PA and SDGs

The synergies between the PA and key SDGs present an opportunity to collaborate amongst key relevant climate change Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), and SDG implementation agencies.[15] Recent development in countries like Mexico, Colombia, and Vietnam show how MDAs and SDG implementation agencies can collaborate and implement key related targets in both SDGs and PA.

In 2017, three MDAs in Mexico collaborated to implement SDG and NDC targets.[16] The office of the President of Mexico, which is responsible for the SDG implementation, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, and the National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change which are responsible for the NDC support close coordination of SDG and NDC implementation.[17] Also, in Japan, there is a well-coordinated institutional arrangement of SDG and NDC implementation. Relevant institutions for the implementation of SDG and NDC are led by the Global Warming Prevention Headquarters, chaired by the prime minister, including relevant cabinet ministers.[18] In Colombia, an Inter-Agency Commission is established to implement the Post-2015 Development Agenda.[19] In Vietnam, a National Council for Sustainable Development and Competitiveness Enhancement and a working group of the Council were established. These two organisations are to address key achievable SDGs that are linked to climate change.

Again, the nexus between the PA and key SDGs will enable key climate change-related MDAs to match budgets and channel funds to key priority areas such as the energy and forest sectors. This is exactly what the Mexican government did where MDAs were requested to match budget programmes to the top priority areas of SDG and national goals.[20]

However, there are key challenges to the alignment between PA and SDGs. First, climate change instruments and the SDGs agenda have their respective histories and already established implementation agencies in different sectors.[21] This means there are likely issues of functional overlap among ministries while implementing interlinkages. Second, the alignment could lead to a trade-off with perceived unaligned SDGs.[22] This means that national governments may give less attention to SDGs that are not directly linked to climate change obligations, such as SDG 4, which talks about free education.

Despite the likely challenges, it is argued that the benefit of aligning the PA and the SDGs cannot be overemphasised. The alignment presents an opportunity for national government agencies to collaborate, and channel funds to key related targets in both PA and key SDGs. The collaboration will enable both sets of objectives to be met more quickly, efficiently, and effectively.[23] 

References


[1]L Rajamani, ‘The Warsaw climate negotiations: emerging understandings and battle lines on the road to the 2015 climate agreement’(2014) 63(3) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 721-740; L Rajamani, ‘The Durban platform for enhanced action and the future of the climate regime’ (2012) 61 (2) International & Comparative Law Quarterly,  501-518.

[2] Article 2 UN General Assembly, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/ Adopted at the COP 21 in Paris, France, 12 December 2015 FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 accessed 1st April 2022.

[3] FZ Taibi and S Konrad, Pocket Guide to NDCs under the UNFCCC (ECBI 2018) 1-2.

[4] For instance, the EU and its member states committed to a domestic reduction of 40% by 2030. See Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of the EU and its Member States (2015) available at  LV-03-06-EU INDC (unfccc.int)> Accessed  2nd April 2022.

[5]Millennium Development Goals and beyond 2015 < United Nations Millennium Development Goals > Accessed 6th April 2022.

[6] However, net zero emission is possible by 2050 and most countries have updated their NDCs in line with 2050 deadline. See The update of the nationally determined contribution of the European Union and its Member States available at EU_NDC_Submission_December 2020.pdf (unfccc.int) Accessed  7th  April 2022.

[7] Paragraph 55. UN General Assembly, transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1.; K. Shamin and R Kibugi, ‘Brief on Sustainable Development Goal 13 on Taking Action on Climate Change and Its Impacts: Contributions of International Law, Policy and Governance’ (2017) 13 McGill Journal on Sustainable Development Law 183.

[8] P Antwi-Agyei and others, Identifying Opportunities for Coherence between the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, and the Sustainable Development Goals:  The Case of ECOWAS Member States (Sustainability Research Institute School of Earth and Environment 2017) 5; The State of The World’s Forest, Forest Pathway to Sustainable Development, (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018) 100-107, available at < http://www.fao.org/3/I9535EN/i9535en.pdf > Accessed 2nd April 2022; Climate Change and SDG Synergy Conference, Background Paper Leveraging Climate Change and SDG Interlinkages: Country Experiences (TERI School of Advanced Studies for UN DESA 2019) available at < https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/22155Background_PaperTERILeveraging_Climate_Change_and_SDG_Interlinkages.pdf > Accessed 2nd April 2022 ; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,  Climate-smart agriculture Sustainable Development Goals, Mapping interlinkages, synergies and trade-off s and guidelines for integrated implementation (Food       and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2019) 84-101 available at<  http://www.fao.org/3/ca6043en/ca6043en.pdf  > Accessed 2nd  April 2022; V Masson-Delmotte,  T Waterfield and others (eds), Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (IPCC 2018)  19 -20, available at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf > Accessed 3rd April 2022.                

[9]  F Nerini and others , ‘Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals’ (2019) 2 (8) Nature Sustainability, 674-680 at 678.

[10] Ibid.

[11] P Antwi-Agyei and A Dougill, How best to align planning for Nationally Determined Contributions and Sustainable Development Goals:  West African Lessons (Sustainability Research Institute School of Earth and Environment 2018) 2.

[12] Ibid .

[13] Such as SDGs 1, 2, 6, 7, 13 and 15. Ibid .

[14] Antwi-Agyei and others (n 11).  

[15] M Bouyé, S Harmeling and NS Schulz , Connecting the dots: Elements for a joined-up implementation of the 2030 Agenda and Paris Agreement (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit 2018) 16; Sustainable Development Goal Knowledge Platform, Global Conference on Strengthening Synergies between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Maximizing Co-Benefits by Linking Implementation across SDGs and Climate Action (United Nations 2019) at 50 available at <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/climate-sdgs-synergies2019 > Accessed 6th April 2022.

[16]  Bouyé and others (n 15).

[17] Ibid.  

[18] Sustainable Development Goal Knowledge Platform (n 15).

[19] OECD, Opening of the Inter-ministerial Commission on OECD Affairs, Opening remarks by Angel Gurría OECD Secretary-General October 2019 – Bogota, Colombia.

[20] Bouyé and others (n 15) 48.

[21]Sustainable Development Goal Knowledge Platform (n 15).

[22] Sustainable Development Goal Knowledge Platform(n 15).

[23] Nerini and others (n 9).  

Translating collective international climate goals into adequate individual state contributions

Posted on

By Marcus Liedtke, member of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group

The recent Glasgow climate conference (COP 26) once again highlighted that the international community falls far short of its ambitious collective goals set out in the Paris Agreement[1] (PA), especially to limit global warming ‘to well below 2°C’[2] and possibly 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.[3]

‘Individuation’ as a central and urgent challenge in international climate change law

A crucial but often neglected question in this regard is how to effectively translate collective international mitigation goals into adequate individual state contributions in order to ensure as far as possible that the collective goal is met.[4] Such a translation – or ‘individuation’[5] – is not only of political but also of legal importance, given that considerable voices[6]  assume that the PA’s long-term temperature goal creates a collective obligation.[7] While 2°C arguably constitute the desired minimum mitigation outcome, the 1.5°C goal forms a mere obligation of conduct.[8] Whether COP 26’s attempts to encourage enhanced immediate collective and individual state action towards closing the emissions gap and limiting global warming ideally even to 1.5°C will prove successful in practice, remains to be seen.[9]

An ‘individuation mechanism’[10] to bridge the gap between individual state ambition and the collective temperature goal should strike a careful balance between competing demands both in terms of practical effectiveness and conceptual design, especially between bottom-up and top-down approaches.[11]

Shortcomings of the Paris Agreement

The PA, recognising different national circumstances, attempts to achieve its long-term objective primarily based on bottom-up nationally determined contributions (NDCs).[12] However, despite some improvements resulting from the supplementary 2018 Paris Rulebook,[13] the current rules are insufficient to incentivise states to closely align state-level ambition with the collective temperature goal.[14] The PA especially contains only vague self-differentiation criteria[15] and does not ensure appropriate comparability, reliability and reflectiveness of NDCs, so that these tend to be self-centred and uncoordinated.[16] The transparency framework[17] and compliance mechanism[18] are unable to compensate these deficits in the bottom-up architecture.[19] The rules governing the global stocktake[20] which is to take place every five years,[21] by contrast, offer some potential to use it as an individuation mechanism.[22] This would, however, only lead to ex-post adjustments of individual state contributions and depend on the political willingness of states.[23]

Previous approaches

While the PA so far falls short of its collective goals in practice,[24] both the Framework Convention (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol (KP) at least partly effectively achieved their key targets.[25] This did, however, not result from a convincing individuation mechanism. On the contrary, the UNFCCC’s predominantly bottom-up approach[26] and the KP’s top-down emission reduction targets[27] – unlike the PA –[28] display a strong bifurcation between developed and developing countries and thus address only a small share of global emissions.[29]

Lessons from the European Union

To resolve its joint contribution under the PA into member state commitments, the European Union (EU) has to conduct a similar exercise to the one required at global level.[30] It relies upon a comprehensive legal framework to ensure adequacy, coherence and achievement of its ambitious collective and member state-level climate goals.[31] As the EU approach – balancing top-down[32] and bottom-up[33] elements of individuation – has enabled it to so far mostly effectively meet its collective targets,[34] it can in many regards inspire an individuation mechanism for the PA. Under the Effort Sharing Regulation, for instance, the collective EU 2030 mitigation target enshrined therein is broken down into individual minimum state contributions.[35] While it is upon EU member states themselves to decide how to achieve these,[36] the regulatory framework also envisages corrective action plans[37] and a critical dialogue with the European Commission on individual mitigation action.[38] Further lessons from the EU include enhanced individuation over time,[39] transparency,[40] depoliticisation of the process,[41] and well-designed flexibilities.[42]

Designing an effective individuation mechanism

A key feature of an effective individuation mechanism for the PA should therefore be a regular constructive dialogue on the consistency of the states’ individual mitigation ambition with the long-term temperature goal and more precise collective interim goals.[43] To this end, a scientific body should determine and publish a fair-share range of individual ambition in line with the collective temperature goal,[44] preferably based on the criteria of mitigation capacities, environmental integrity and intergenerational equity.[45] Another independent body should then regularly assess the adequacy of current individual contributions in that light.[46] Where states wish to deviate from its recommendations, they should publicly state their reasons to facilitate institutional, public and political scrutiny and peer pressure.[47] The constructive dialogue would thereby largely preserve the bottom-up dynamic of the PA, while creating additional top-down incentives for more regular and objective equity reflections.[48] It could thus well complement a strengthened global stocktake.[49]

Furthermore, states still struggling with capacity limitations should be allowed to use limited flexibilities.[50] To encourage also developing countries to make an as ambitious contribution as possible and avoid delaying of mitigation action, these flexibilities should, however, only be available as a last resort.[51] This would especially require that the respective state cannot deliver its full adequate contribution otherwise, even after exhausting available support which developed countries should provide as part of their fair share.[52]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the most promising way to translate collective international mitigation goals into adequate individual state contributions in order to ensure as far as possible that the collective goal is met would be a constructive dialogue between states and an independent body based on suitable equity criteria. Further refinement of the international legal framework thus seems necessary.

This blog post builds upon the author’s LLM dissertation submitted in 2021.[53]


Spotlight: Collaboration is key to boost social mobility

Posted on

Guest blog by Karl Brown FRSA, UWE Bristol Law alum and Faculty Advisory Board member.

I am a Commercial Property Partner in the Bristol office of national law firm Clarke Willmott LLP. I am proud to not only be Bristol born and bred but also very proud of my Jamaican heritage. My parents came to the UK in the early 1960s from Jamaica and my dad was a plasterer and my mum was a nurse. The example of my parents gave me a good work ethic but also a desire to make positive change by boosting social mobility and diversity in our professions. I found it very difficult to get a training contract (and ended up making over 100 applications) but through a combination of determination and also mentoring I eventually managed to get a training contract.

My personal experiences mean giving back to young people from less privileged backgrounds is important to me and is why I became a social mobility ambassador for the Law Society in 2016. In my role as a social mobility ambassador, I have given various careers presentations both in-person (pre-pandemic) and also online to show young people from underrepresented backgrounds that they can with the right attitude and work ethic have a career in law.

I firmly believe that it is only through collaboration between the business world and education institutions that we have any chance of reaching out to young people from a range of different backgrounds and inspiring them to try and achieve their desired careers.  This is why I was very proud in 2015 to be a founder member of the Bristol Learning City Partnership Board working alongside headteachers from schools in Bristol to try to formulate policies that work both for schools and also local business. And it is also why in my current role on UWE Bristol’s Faculty of Business and Law Advisory Board I always try and give the perspective of the business world when discussing ideas/proposed policies for the faculty. These roles have also I think made me a better solicitor and business leader as they have increased not only my range of soft skills but my understanding of how the world of business can best attract and develop talent.

Collaboration between businesses within a sector is also key if positive change is to be brought to that sector. I founded the Bristol Property Inclusion Charter (“the Charter”) in 2019 to boost diversity and inclusion in the Bristol property sector. Through research and also through my own networking as a property solicitor, I could see that the Bristol property sector was not as diverse as it could be given the wider diversity in the Bristol population. Another driver in my desire to bring positive change to the property industry was having seen my dad who like many other west Indian immigrants and immigrants from other countries in the past found a skilled trade in the property industry which enabled my dad and others to not only make a positive contribution to the UK economy but also to give a good start in life to their children.

The Charter has seven objectives which in summary include trying to open up opportunities in the Bristol property sector and collaboration to bring transformative change. The running of the Charter is through the Bristol Property Inclusion Commission which I founded in early 2020 and I sit on the commission as Chair alongside representatives from other parts of the property industry. In 2016 the Charter had about fifteen signatory companies/organisations but today we have sixty-six which include YTL, Live West, Bristol City Council, Avison Young, Redrow, Galliard Homes, Grainger plc and Elim Housing.

I would just conclude by making a confession. If you speak to my wife she will tell you that I am an avid follower of the news and in particular love watching CNN. It was watching CNN last year that I saw someone mention an old African proverb and as soon as I heard it I thought I would use it in speeches and articles. The proverb is “If you want to go fast go alone. If you want to go far go together.” If we work together then I firmly believe we can bring positive change to professions such as law and also to sectors such as property.

The UN Climate Change Conference 2021 in Glasgow – Success or Failure?

Posted on

Guest blog by Christina Schroeder, member of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group

The UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26) took place from 31 October to 12 November 2021, with more than 120 world leaders and over 40,000 registered participants attending.[1] The target of the conference was to accelerate actions to implement the goals of the Paris Agreement[2] and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.[3]

During COP26, countries reaffirmed the Paris Agreement goal limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees and reaching net-zero around mid-century.[4] This year’s extreme natural events also gave the conference more significance, with impacts of global warming becoming more obvious with floods, heat-waves and fires.[5] Before COP26, many countries updated their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for more climate protection.[6] The European Union, for example, entered these negotiations with several objectives such as cutting emissions, providing climate finance to developing and vulnerable countries with targeting 100 billion dollars per year, but also getting an agreement on the Paris rulebook for fixing transparency and reporting requirements.[7]

Against this background, the decisions taken at COP26 were accordingly viewed critically.

Many hoped for transformation to implement the goals of the Paris Agreement rather than the improvement discussed within COP26.[8] The Climate Conference in Glasgow should not be seen as a failure, but also not as a big success comparable to Paris.[9] Still, some important decisions in the fight against climate change were made. An important political, as well as climate policy decision, was the announcement of a collaboration between China and the US to reduce their emissions.[10] Another important decision was the agreement between more than 100 countries to reduce their methane emissions by 30% until 2030, as well as another agreement concerning the regeneration of forests made by over 100 countries having a total of 90% of the world’s forests together.[11] The global coal to clean energy transition also found big support from more than 40 countries during the negotiations.[12]

Progress can be determined, especially regarding the long-term view with credible delivery plans. Net-Zero target is an important part of this plan. At the last COP in Madrid in 2019, only 16% of the global GDP was covered by Net-Zero target, whilst now around 90% of global emissions are covered by this Net-Zero target with limiting climate warming to 2 degrees within potential reach.[13] Especially the Net-Zero target was supported in Glasgow for long-term efforts.[14] These decisions may be important, but they fell short of the expectations of many, also because many criticisms remained unresolved within COP26.

The final text of the COP26 includes further actions to curb emissions, more frequent updates on progress, and the idea of funding for low- and middle-income countries.[15] Nevertheless, there is a lack of stronger commitments to reduce emissions. The countries only agreed to phase down and not phase out coal[16], which seems disappointing in regard to the Paris Agreement’s goals.

Another point of criticism is the failure to agree on loss and damage finance. This includes supporting low- and middle-income countries with their pathway to decarbonisation, resilience, energy access, and economic growth at the same time.[17] The issue of climate finance is especially crucial for low-income countries being directly exposed to climate change and damages resulting from emissions they did not create.[18] Climate finance is important for helping these countries moving towards clean energy and away from fossil fuels as the cheapest way to keep energy costs down.[19] This means, in particular, that the vulnerable countries have to wait until COP27 where the issue of loss and damage finance should be progressed.[20]

There were less efforts on the short-term view for cutting emissions, although actions taken within the next 10 years are crucial, and an additional focus on near-term emission reduction would have been important too.[21] The NDCs are core to the COP framework and the immediate focus has also to be placed on countries strengthening their 2030 targets as the next few years would be the decisive period to reach the Paris Agreement’s targets.[22]

Apart from the political decision-making level, the climate summit was also very present in the media. Indeed, public awareness is necessary to achieve climate protection; therefore, results achieved during the climate change summit and reactions to it worldwide are important.  China as one of the big polluting countries in the world seemed to have ignored the sense of urgency.[23] In the US, President Biden is now trying to speed up climate change related measures by creating awareness amongst the citizens.[24] Russia still only aims to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, and as a fossil fuel superpower Russia is not willing to cut methane emissions up to 30% by 2030.[25] India as a developing country is taking initiatives to support the reduction in emissions, and also emphasising the urgency of climate change by announcing the goal of reaching Net-Zero by 2070.[26] Brazil’s largest problem contributing to climate change remains the deforestation of its immense rainforest; but the current political regime is not willing to take actions as President Jair Bolsonaro did not even show up to the climate summit.[27]

Following COP26, in addition to the decisions taken, it can be noted that there is still a long way to go to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Countries are facing different problems starting off with political unwillingness for climate protection, not creating enough awareness amongst their citizens and also local circumstances such as poverty hindering the efforts to curb climate change . Nevertheless, if all the short-term and long-term commitments are implemented, it may still be possible to reach the targets set in Paris Agreement.[28]


[1] United Nations Climate Action, ‘COP26: Together for our planet’ <https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/cop26 > accessed 5 January 2022.

[2] Paris Agreement, 22 April 2016, in force 4 November 2016, C.N.92.2016. Treaties-XXVII.7.d (2015 Paris Agreement).

[3] General Assembly, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration), Rio de Janeiro 3-14 June 1992, A/CONF.151/26.

[4] United Nations Climate Action (n 1).

[5] Alejandra Borunda in National Geographic, ‘COP26 nears conclusion with mixed signals and frustration’ 12 November 2021 < https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/cop26-conclusion-mixed-signals-and-frustration> accessed 4 January 2022.

[6] Ibid.

[7] European Commission Press Release 13 November 2021 ‘COP26: EU helps deliver outcome to keep the Paris Agreement targets alive’ < https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6021> accessed 4 January 2022.

[8] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full?’ 17 November 2021 <https://institute.global/policy/cop26-review-glass-half-full> accessed 5 January 2022.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Acciona ‘Conclusions From COP26: The Challenge of Doing Away With Coal’ <https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/cop26-conclusions/?_adin=02021864894> accessed 4 January 2022.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full? (n 8).

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ehsan Masood, Jeff Tollefson ‘COP26 hasn’t solved the problem: scientists react to UN climate deal’ 15 November 2021 < https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03431-4> accessed 4 January 2022.

[16] Acciona ‘Conclusions From COP26: The Challenge of Doing Away With Coal’ (n 10).

[17] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full? (n 8).

[18] Ehsan Masood, Jeff Tollefson ‘COP26 hasn’t solved the problem: scientists react to UN climate deal’ (n 15).

[19] Ibid.

[20] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full? (n 8).

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] BBC ‘COP 26: How the world is reacting to the climate summit’ 06 November 2021 <https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59036722> accessed 5 January 2022.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Alejandra Borunda in National Geographic, ‘COP26 nears conclusion with mixed signals and frustration’ (n 5).

Stifling Access to Sanitation through Privatisation of Public Facilities in Ghana: The Cases of Human Rights and Dignity

Posted on

Blog by Dr. Felix Nana Kofi Ofori, REACT Humanitarian Network, Oxford, UK. Former PhD student, Bristol Law School, UWE Bristol.

Human well-being, now and in the future, depends on a healthy environment characterised by access to safe sanitation in society. [1] This blog examines the challenges confronting majority of Ghanaians whose access to sanitation, is hindered by privatisation and limited provision of public facilities; and where these are available, they are exorbitantly expensive thereby stifling and violating the dignity and human rights of the people. [2]

Access to sanitation as a right, evokes controversies in international human rights jurisprudence compared to the conventional rights. However, it is no secret within the Ghanaian society, that majority of the citizenry in cities, regional centres, including the remotest communities of the country, lack access to sanitation. [3] Fundamentally, lack of access to sanitation is a violation of the human rights and dignity of Ghanaians; as enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), [4] as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), in 2010).[5] However, under Ghana’s liberalisation and privatisation agenda, which was promoted by the IMF/World Bank[6], majority of public toilet/latrine facilities in the country were privatised with a view  to enhance the efficient management and provision of services for the people. Furthermore, since all human rights are interdependent there is little doubt that access to sanitation is critical to achieving human dignity which is at the fore-front of protecting human health.[6a] [6b]

As society evolves so the ambit of rights grow to protect and promote the welfare and dignity of peoples globally, and particularly in this context, Ghana. Sanitation is crucially one area in which the dignity of most Ghanaians is violated because of the failure of successive governments to establish facilities to protect this right. [7] In its preamble, the United Nations Charter provides that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. [8] Thus, there can be no realisation of human rights without respect for human dignity; therefore, sanitation should be given critical priority by the government in allocating budgetary and physical resources to ensure that Ghanaians gain access to effective sanitation services. The duty to establish sanitation and hygiene facilities in Ghana as other countries, spans three obligations- availability, accessibility and affordability. [9] 

First, availability means that the government establishes public sanitation facilities within reasonable distance of the people’s reach; whilst, ensuring that poorer communities are not denied access to sanitation for want of paying. [10] Second, accessibility, is defined by the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme and Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene, as a standard 30 minutes time for someone to go to and return from a sanitation facility. [11] Also, it is the responsibility of the government and local authorities to ensure that children and persons with disabilities coupled with the location of the sanitation facilities do not impede access to such services. Third, affordability, as a human rights criterion, requires that “access to sanitation facilities and services be made reasonably affordable to all peoples, especially in the poorer part of cities and deprived communities of a county”. [12] Whilst the UNDP sets a threshold of 3 per cent, that by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is 4 per cent and that by the Asian Development Bank is 5 per cent respectively. [13] Despite the above established thresholds, the government and public agencies responsible for sanitation services in Ghana, continue to violate the right to sanitation; by failing, to adopt creative strategies to ameliorate any hardships pricing mechanisms impose on the people regarding access to sanitation services.

Strategically, the World Bank plays vital roles in the development of nations, especially Ghana, by offering financial and policy directions to help them improve their socio-economic services of which sanitation constitutes an integral part. Privatisation of water and sanitation services is one area in which the World Bank’s strategic guidance had created mixed consequences in Ghana. The World Bank opines that private participation in the sanitation services is beneficial to the state and its people because it introduces efficient and judicious management of services; and it secures the requisite funding to repair and maintain old infrastructures. [14] Conversely, larger parts of communities in cities and town throughout Ghana practise open defecation due to limited or non-availability of sanitation facilities. [15] The majority view is that privatisation not only stifles access to sanitation in further violation of the people’s dignity, but also breaches established obligations of governments to protect access to sanitation, as enshrined in International human rights law. [16] This resonates with the premise that economic and political expediencies coupled with national policies cannot be deployed by the government and its agencies to commit blatant illegalities concerning the implementation of privatisation agenda.

Primarily, the right to sanitation is considered as a private responsibility enjoining the individual to build his/her own latrine or pay to connect to the sewerage system; however, where individuals cannot afford to pay for this responsibility, the state has to bear this duty in two respects. First, the State should adopt the necessary measures such as tariff schemes or subsidies to ensure that services are affordable; and second, implement practical framework and enabling environment to guarantee access to sanitation. [17]

Copious evidence suggest that privatisation stifles access to sanitation which in turn undermines the human rights and dignity of Ghanaians, especially those in poorer communities, who lack the financial backing to either build or pay for sanitation services. The right to sanitation is an enshrined human right obligation of governments in the international community, including Ghana, requiring that access is protected and promoted without citing arguments of economic, social or political expediencies. Although Ghana has finite resources like other states, it is obliged to allocate portion of its budgetary resources to ensure that access to sanitation and hygiene facilities are progressively realised in accordance with international and constitutional mandates. Similarly, the duty to protect access to sanitation extends to supervising the implementation of privatisation contracts without compromising the dignity and human rights of Ghanaians.

References

[1] <www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/WaterAndSanitation/SR/Water/Pages/Progressiverealization.aspx. >Accessed December 13, 2021.

[2]Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (General Assembly Resolution 70/1, para. 5).

[3] UNICEF Ghana: “Water, Sanitation and Hygiene” < https://www.unicef.org/Ghana/Water-Saniation-and-Hygiene> Accessed December 14, 2021.  

[4] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1966) UNTS, Art. 2 (1)

[5] Special Rapporteur on Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, Caterina de Albuguerque, Report, Mission to Egypt, 50, UN. Doc.A/HRC/15/31/Add.3 (Jul. 5, 2010).

[6a] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969),  Adopted May 23, 1969, entered into force on January 27, 1980, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155,p 331.

[6b] The World Bank-FAQ-World Bank Group Support for Water and Sanitation Solutions<https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/brief/working-with-private-sectors-to-increase-water-sanitation-access > Accessed December 14, 2021.

[7] Gould, C. and Brown, C. Sanitation Challenge for Ghana Dignified City Award (Stage 2), May 2020, IMC Worldwide.

[8] The Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, UN, New York (1997) 3.

[9] A/HRC/45/10, “Progressive Realization of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation” Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, September 14- October 2, 2020.

[10] A/HRC/45/10, Ibid. see note 9, para. 35

[11) Ibid. see note 9, para. 37

[12] Ibid. see note 9, para. 39

[13] A/HRC/30/39, Report of the Special Rapporteur  on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation: Addendum, para. 25.

[14] The World Bank –FAQ – World Bank Group Support for Water and Sanitation Solutions < https://www.worldbank.org/en/topics/water/brief/working-with-private-sectors-to-increase-water-sanitation-access-> Accessed December 14, 2021.

[15] The World Bank, Ibid.

[16] Winkler, T.I., The Human Right to Sanitation (2016), University of Pennsylvania Journal of International, Vol.37 (4) 1331-1406.

[17] Eide, A., Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights- Textbook, 9, 24 (Asbjorn Eide, Catarina Krause and Allan Rosas eds, 2nd ed., 2001)

Alumni spotlight: Choo Dee Wei

Posted on

Guest blog by LLB alumni, Choo Dee Wei.

I commenced the LLB (Hons) degree with HELP in 2001. It was a twinning-programme with UWE Bristol. My final year i.e. my 3rd year was in UWE itself. This was in 2003. Thereafter I undertook the Bar Vocational Course and was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 2005. I was admitted as an advocate & solicitor of the High Court in Malaya in 2007.

I wouldn’t trade my learning experience for anything in the world. UWE has provided lessons both in real life and in a classroom setting.

Without it, it is doubtful that I would be where I am today.

These lessons have brought me to this moment in time. Over a decade in practice and now managing and running my own firm comprising associates, pupils, staff, paralegals and interns. That aside, it remains important and vital to continue to develop and nurture young students to become great practitioners. Hence being involved in numerous events and sessions of such nature.

Choo Dee Wei
Present: Principal of Messrs. Choo Dee Wei
Graduated: LLB(Hons) 2003, UWE BVC 2005

Outstanding Student Representative of the Year

Posted on

Congratulations to LLB (Hons) Law student, Danielle Newton, for receiving the title of ‘Outstanding Rep of the Year’ for the Business and Law faculty. We caught up with Danielle about her journey as part of our Student Spotlight 2021.

Why did you want to become a student rep?

“My initial interest came after my first year at the university. Once my confidence grew, I wanted to be a voice for those who went unnoticed, the students who find it difficult to say how they feel and bring to light any issues they are having. I have been that type of student for years and I know exactly how it feels. I knew during a pandemic that the student representative programme could be the perfect asset for getting to know peers and staff alike. I felt the need to still maintain that contact irrespective of all the restrictions we were facing in the world. My hope was to make certain that my faculty’s year felt like a community!

Overall, Student representatives are of significant importance in encompassing the idea of acting on behalf of one body to promote change and success for all.”

What have you gained as a student rep?

“I have developed exceptional communication skills through volunteering as a student representative. The role itself relies on gaining feedback from peers to better establish a reliable working environment. Thus, I actively communicate with staff members and students to be a voice of reason and representation. All of this has been a great topic for conversation in recent interviews.

The most thoroughly rewarding part of the role was being able to make change for my cohort. Whether that be a deadline change, timetable change, teaching addition etc. Any small amount of change would bring with it great satisfaction. Alongside this, the programme gave me the opportunity to speak to various people. I have made many friends despite the virtual restrictions consequently adding to my university experience as a whole.”

What were the challenges you faced over the past year?

“It comes as no surprise that it has been an unprecedented year and with that came many challenges both in and out of university. I found adapting to virtual life hard. Communicating with lots of people in my role but never seeing faces was very strange! I recently came onto campus and have spotted a few of my lecturers who probably wouldn’t know who I am.

The main challenges lied with the shift in academic year dates. This change in schedule was difficult for students to adapt too – myself included. However, it has all been a learning curve and all the students and staff have worked exceptionally hard to try and get the most out of the academic year.”

What have you learnt?

“Foremost what I have learnt from my university experience is the power afforded to those who try hard and persevere to succeed. It may seem a silly concept but, what breaks away from those students who are academically gifted and those who try hard is that university doesn’t discriminate. One of my favourite quotes that I would think about when I competed in Athletics was “all men are created equal, some work harder in pre-season.” This concept is similar for university and you will be recognised for your efforts.

I felt like a slow burner here. I wasn’t academically gifted and I was so shy when walking onto campus for the first time. I had convinced myself I would drop out in the first 5 minutes. But I kept going and once I was ready, I was able to make the most out of my university experience. My advice would be, seize every opportunity given to you, don’t take life too seriously, enjoy the small things and most of all remember – fast success builds your ego but, slow success builds your character.”

Students launch legal directory to help aspiring lawyers

Posted on

Lawtask is an online legal directory designed to help future lawyers bridge the gap between leaving university and securing their first positions in their legal careers. Lawtask allows students to gain professional skills and experience, in their pursuit of a legal career. This is achieved through the consolidation of relevant and practical opportunities and resources.

Set up in 2020, Lawtask was founded by Alessia Cucciniello, recent UWE Bristol Law graduate, and Kieran Woodhouse, LPC LLM student at UWE Bristol. Both have ambitions of becoming solicitors and have also been involved with the UWE Bristol Law Society, with Kieran being elected Vice-President.

Formed during the Covid-19 pandemic, Lawtask was a response to the competitive legal sector that students are faced with when leaving University. Alessia and Kieran launched Lawtask to enable law students to stand out through providing knowledge sharing and useful tools to give students a great place to start in the pursuit of their legal careers.

“Our aim was to bridge the gap between graduating university and securing your first legal job. There are plenty of resources out there to choose from, and our aim was to collect them in an easily accessible platform that could help students gain essential skills to stand out.”

Alessia

They explored the concept of virtual learning and discovered the huge variety of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) that applied to legal students. These courses demonstrate transferable skills and a drive to seek personal improvement that employers are truly looking for.

“One thing we realised when searching for these and other relevant experiences, was that there is no single place for law students to discover the opportunities open to them. This then sparked the concept for Lawtask.”

Kieran

The platform is still in its early stages, however, the pair have seen great success so far. The feedback they have received from both students and staff at UWE has been hugely positive and led to consistent audience growth and user interaction.

“Our hope for the future is to be able to grow and provide more opportunities for students. We would like to expand our platform and start offering real work experience that graduates can use on their job applications, in order to truly help them succeed. We are still working on this, but we hope that we will be able to do this very soon.”

Alessia

“My ultimate hope for Lawtask is that it becomes the norm for law students to consider looking outside the traditional scope of experience and learning and that Lawtask can be a place that can guide people to something beneficial for them.”

Kieran

We asked them both for their advice to current students and here’s what they said:

“My advice to current students is to make good use of all the resources and opportunities offered by UWE and engage with the societies. Not only this will enhance your student experience, but it might also give you essential skills that you will carry with you and shape your future career.”

Alessia

“In my personal experience, so many people emphasise their degree being the absolute evidence of their ability to do anything and so often people forget the importance of personal development. With that in mind, my advice would be to take the opportunities that you have available to you either within your subject or elsewhere because now is the time to explore them. Who knows, you may find a whole new career aspiration.”

Kieran

You can visit Lawtask here.

My student representative journey at Bristol Law School

Posted on

Blog by Sarah Barnes, Bristol Law School LLB (Hons) recent graduate, as part of the FBL Student Spotlight 2021.

Why I became a representative

I had always wanted to be a representative during my time at UWE Bristol but I felt a bit nervous to do so. However, when I saw the opportunity to become a Law Lead Department Representative I knew I had to apply. I enjoy helping people and I wanted to enable student voices to be heard throughout their time at UWE.

What I gained and learnt

I have learnt so much at UWE, more than I ever would have if I went anywhere else. Firstly, I gained a lot of confidence. I was always a little nervous to speak out for example in lectures, but being in this role I have had to overcome this as I have had to network lots. Luckily I have met lots of friendly and lovely people and such a variety of staff and students across the University.

I also gained team working skills by working with other Lead Department Representatives and staff, and was able to communicate news to them and resolve issues that arose.

On my course, I have learnt so much such as negotiation and mediation. I have also helped to advise real clients through the UWE Bristol Law Clinic. The experiences I have gained have been invaluable.

The challenges I faced

I have faced the challenge of studying from home over the past year. It was a big change from being in the lecture theatres and workshop rooms to being in your bedroom! I overcame this change by ensuring I organised my time, created a suitable study space and also tried to get more involved than I ever did before to ensure that being online did not negatively affect my studies.

The importance of Student Representatives

It is really important to represent students so that they feel that they are being listened to. Furthermore, by having this role, we are the middleman in speaking to lecturers about what students believe is working and what they feel may not be working as well. This role was highly important whilst having blended learning this year as new ways of learning had different levels of effectiveness.

As a Representative, I was able to communicate feedback from students to the staff and helped adapt the module to suit the students’ needs.

My advice

If you are considering becoming a representative, do it! Apply now! Fear can always try to eat you up, but you never know that you may get the role you really want. You have to be determined and resilient to achieve great things. Being a representative has really helped my leadership and team working skills in order to try my best and help the law students at UWE.

The staff here at UWE are always willing to do their best to help you. As a representative, I had meetings weekly with staff and that was truly invaluable. We were able to communicate what was happening on both sides and we would be able to resolve issues much quicker by working together.

Environmental crises in Nigeria and extraterritorial judicial achievements: A wake-up call for Nigerian courts?

Posted on

Written by Cleverline T Brown, Doctoral student, member of Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group.

The decisions of extraterritorial courts have left much to be desired about the efforts of the judiciary at the national level to assert itself in the fight to tackle environmental crises. While access to court has been one of the notable barriers to securing environmental justice in Nigeria, alternative pathways have been established through which litigants find access to courts in furtherance of environmental justice which they would otherwise have been deprived of. One such pathway is the recourse to foreign courts. Nigerian courts can draw some lessons from the stance of foreign courts in dealing with environmental cases.

Notable cases decided in foreign jurisdictions

Three notable cases were decided in the last year that may have possibly marked a turning point in the way environmental cases are resolved. However, the Nigerian courts do not seem to be taking the cue as quickly as they need to, considering the volume of environmental cases pending or likely to be instituted.

Vedanta Resources Plc. and Another (Appellants) v Lungowe and Others (Respondents)

In this case,[1] the UK Supreme Court held that UK courts can assume jurisdiction in certain circumstances, over cases instituted in UK Courts by non-UK citizens against both foreign subsidiaries and the UK parent company in cases of human rights violation outside of the UK.[2] The Appellants vehemently opposed unsuccessfully, the institution of the case in the UK Court on grounds of jurisdiction and their willingness to submit to the jurisdiction of the Zambian Court. The opposition was rejected by the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that a parent company should take responsibility for harms caused by its subsidiaries and affirmed that England is the right jurisdiction to hear the claim because substantial justice is guaranteed where the claimants have access to appropriate legal representation which is unlikely in a Zambian Court.[3]

Okpabi and Others (Appellants) v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another (Respondents),

The UK Supreme Court, in this case,[4]held that the polluted Ogale and Bille communities can sue Royal Dutch Shell as a parent company to Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) because it owed the communities a common law duty of care and raised a real and triable issue since it exercised significant control over material aspects of the operations of its subsidiary SPDC in the communities.[5] It is contended that this decision implies that rural communities who have suffered environmental harm due to the activities of multinational corporations can bring an action in the original jurisdiction of their parent companies.

Milieudefensie Voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) & Others v Royal Dutch Shell PLC[6]

In this case, Milieudefensie, six other organisations including Greenpeace and over 17,000 co-plaintiffs sued Royal Dutch Shell in an attempt to stop it from causing climate change.[7] The plaintiffs claimed that Shell is breaching its legal duty of care by causing climate change across the globe and undermining the ambition of the Paris Agreement[8] and demanded that Shell must remedy this unlawful situation by aligning its corporate activities and investment decisions with the global climate targets. This case is significant in the sense that it has attempted to force climate action through the court. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are first, that as a multinational and worldwide operating company, Shell accepts legal responsibility to amend its corporate strategy and investment decisions and to align them with the global climate change objectives laid down in the Paris Agreement by following the global emission reduction pathway of the IPCC. Second, that Shell immediately starts reducing its CO2 emissions to at least 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, and to net zero in 2050. Only if Shell follows this emission reduction pathway, can it truly contribute to preventing catastrophic climate change. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.

Resorting to extraterritorial jurisdiction: some concerns

While the option to seek access to courts in extraterritorial jurisdictions in environmental cases, guarantees access to appropriate legal representation and substantial justice,[9] it raises some concerns. First, prospective litigants must ensure that all other local remedies have been exhausted before they can approach some foreign courts.[10] While this would have been an opportunity for the national courts to play a stronger role, some of the challenges of the national courts would make this effort almost fruitless; for example, court delays, lack of specialised judges etc.[11]  Second, high cost of litigation in foreign courts and jurisdictional challenges as some courts may not have the power to hear and determine some cases.[12] Third, it is argued that the continuous reliance on this pathway robs the national courts of the opportunity to assert themselves and create lasting judicial precedence and case law.

Is this a wake-up call for the Nigerian courts?

Nigerian courts must take a cue from the stand of foreign courts in environmental cases and give better audience and remedies to victims of environmental harm in Nigeria,[13] especially from foreign court decisions with impact in Nigeria. This will serve to strengthen environmental laws in Nigeria and encourage institutional structures in their implementation functions. The stand of the Nigerian courts can serve to strengthen the law, policy statements and ultimately support the efforts at effective regulation of the environment and petroleum sector operation.

There are some positive signals from the Nigerian judiciary. In the case of Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC),[14] the Nigerian Supreme Court removed the locus standi barrier by granting NGOs the right to sue without exhibiting specific injury to them. Prior to this decision, NGOs and third parties lacked the locus standi to sue where sufficient interest was not established.[15]

While this is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done at the national level and examples are plentiful. For instance, the European Commission is finally ready to consider a new law to hold businesses accountable for their impact on people and the planet.[16] These rules on ‘mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence’ would require all companies, from fossil fuel giants and agribusiness to fashion retailers and electronics makers, to establish effective policies to make sure human rights and the environment are not being harmed in their global operations and supply chains.[17] In the Netherlands, Urgenda[18] sued the Dutch government to force them to reduce CO2 emissions in the country.[19] Urgenda succeeded on appeal when the Supreme Court of the Netherlands emphasised the duty of the state to protect its citizens by reducing CO2 emissions as soon as possible.[20] In Germany, it has also been held by the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany that the provision of the Federal Climate Change Act of 2019 is at variance with fundamental rights because they lack specificity for emission reduction beyond 2031.[21] In addition to the Supreme Court decision on locus standi of NGOs and third parties, the Nigerian judiciary could act suo moto and be proactive in contesting legislative provisions or policies of government that are incompatible with fundamental rights. Considering the volume of actions arising from the petroleum sector, the judiciary needs to play a far more important role in ensuring environmental justice.

Conclusion

Local communities are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of environmental decisions of multinational corporations.[22]  Oftentimes, it takes a long time for victims of environmental harm to get relief because of the many obstacles of access to courts and remedies. However, the audience and remedies that prove elusive in Nigerian courts are found in foreign courts. Considering the achievement by foreign courts and the effort of other national courts at holding perpetrators of environmental harm accountable as discussed above, Nigerian courts could use this opportunity to reassert themselves in environmental law cases before it. This is a wake-up call for Nigerian courts to rise to the occasion and improve on their judicial precedents regarding environmental law decisions. Since judicial decisions and statutory interpretations form part of the law, this can further strengthen the environmental legal framework of Nigeria and also solve the problem of access to courts and remedies.


[1] Vedanta Resources Plc and Anor (Appellants) v Lungowe and Others (Respondents) [2019] UKSC 20.

[2] The UK Supreme Court rationale for this decision was that considering some factors such as competence, capacity and integrity of Zambia’s justice system, evidence abounds that the Zambian claimants would almost certainly not get access to justice if the claims were pursued in Zambia.

[3] TV Ho, ‘Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others’ (2020) 114(1) The American Journal of International Law 110, 113; PT Sambo, ‘Vedanta Resources PLC and Konkola Copper Mines PLC v Lungowe and Others [2019] UKSC 20′ (2019) 2(2) SAIPAR Case Review 5.

[4] Okpabi and Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Anor [2021] UKSC 31. On appeal from [2018] EWCA Civ 191.

[5] E Ojeda, ‘Transnational Corporate Liability Litigation and Access to Environmental Justice: The Vedanta v Lungowe Case’ (2021) 6(3) LSE Law Review 223, 224.

[6] Milieudefensie Voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) & Ors v royal Dutch Shell PLC ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339.

[7] ‘Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell PLC’ (2021) <https://climate-laws.org/geographies/netherlands/litigation_cases/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc> accessed 9 June 2021.

[8] Milieudefensie, Friends of the Earth Netherlands. ‘Notice Letter Shell’ (2021) <https://en.milieudefensie.nl/news/noticeletter-shell.pdf> accessed 26 May 2021.

[9] See Vedanta Resources Plc and Anor v Lungowe and Others [2019} UKSC 20; Okpabi and Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Anor [2021] UKSC 31. On appeal from [2018] EWCA Civ 191; Milieudefensie Voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) & Ors v royal Dutch Shell PLC ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339.

[10] Article 50 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

[11] These challenges usually negatively impact the justice delivery in such cases.

[12] Ojeda (n 5) 224; S Varvastian and F Kalunga, ‘Transnational Corporate Liability for Environmental Damage and Climate Change: Reassessing Access to Justice after Vedanta v Lungowe‘ (2020) 9(2) Transnational Environmental Law 323, 330; EO Popoola, ‘Moving the Battlefields: Foreign Jurisdictions and Environmental Justice in Nigeria’ <https://items.ssrc.org/…environments/moving-the-battlefields-foreign-jurisd…> accessed 19 August 2019; Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v. Nigeria, ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09; RULING No: ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10.

[13] As exhibited in the three landmark judgments outlined in this writing.

[14]  (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt.1666) 518.

[15] See Oronto Douglas v Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited & Ors (1998) LPELR-CA/L/143/97 Law Pavilion Electronic Law Report- Court of Appeal.

[16] S Kotanidis, ‘Parliament’s Right of Legislative Initiative’ (2020) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646174/EPRS_BRI(2020)646174_EN.pdf> accessed 8 June 2021.

[17] Austrian Chamber of Labour (AK), ‘What is Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence?’ (2021) <https://www.enforcinghumanrights-duediligence.eu/en/what-is-due-diligence> accessed 27 May 2021.

[18] An organisation for innovation and sustainability that promotes the sustainability of Netherlands in conjunction with companies, governments, social organisations and private individuals.

[19] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands [2015] HAZA C/09/00456689.

[20] KJ De Graaf and JH Jans, ‘The Urgenda Decision: Netherlands Liable for Role in Causing Dangerous Global Climate Change’ (2015) 27(3) Journal of Environmental Law 517, 527.

[21] Bundesverfassungsgericht, ‘Constitutional Complaints Against the Federal Climate Change Act Partially Successful’ (2021) <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2021/bvg21-031.html;jsessionid=BDDC5CCCCC30DD7A5791EAC6A0ECA022.1_cid377> accessed 8 June 2021.

[22] S Varvastian and F Kalunga, ‘Transnational Corporate Liability for Environmental Damage and Climate Change: Reassessing Access to Justice after Vedanta v Lungowe‘ (2020) 9 (2) Transnational Environmental Law 323, 324.

Back to top