In R. (on the application of Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the claimants applied for judicial review of the third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) published by the defendant Secretary of State.
NAP3 was published under Section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires the Secretary of State to lay out programmes before Parliament detailing the government’s objectives for climate change adaptation, the proposals and policies to meet those objectives, and the timescales for their implementation. The Act also mandates that the UK’s net carbon account for 2050 be at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline.
The claimants, including an environmental campaign group and individuals directly affected by climate change, argued that the goals in NAP3 did not comply with the statutory duty under Section 58, either through ordinary statutory interpretation or when read in light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The claimants argued that the risk reduction goals in NAP3 did not comply with the Section 58 duty, whether interpreted using ordinary principles of statutory construction or by applying the Human Rights Act 1998, which required the court to read and give effect to Section 58 compatibly with the ECHR.
They also argued that the Secretary of State failed to properly consider the risk to the delivery of the policies and proposals, a central requirement under the Climate Change Act 2008.
The claimants believed that there was inadequate consideration of the equality impacts of NAP3 before its publication and the decision to adopt NAP3 breached their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The court held that Section 58 did not prescribe how ambitious the objectives had to be, only that they needed to address the risks identified in the most recent climate change report. The term “addressing” did not mean “eliminating” or “minimising” the risks.
The court found that the interpretation of Section 58 fell within the UK’s margin of appreciation under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, meaning the objectives set out in NAP3 were legally sufficient.
The court also noted that while the obligations in Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 were more stringent, the objectives under Section 58 did not need to be quantified. The preparation process for NAP3 was deemed rational. In addition, the claims under the Human Rights Act failed.
Mr. Justice Chamberlain, who presided over the case, stated that "the Government’s current approach to climate adaptation is insufficient to meet the statutory obligations and fails to protect those most at risk from the impacts of climate change".
This case underscores the importance of comprehensive and effective climate adaptation strategies to safeguard both the environment and vulnerable populations.
The court refused the application.
