Environmental news update – 25 October
Welcome to the latest edition of our weekly Environment Law news update. As ever, we bring you developments, insights, and analysis in the world of environmental law.
NEWS ROUND UP
COP 16 from commitments to action: Can we save nature this decade
Every two years, global leaders convene to address the state of Earth’s biodiversity, negotiating strategies to preserve nature and halt its destruction. This week, representatives from 196 countries are meeting in Cali, Colombia, for the 16th UN Conference of the Parties (“COP16”). This summit is the first major biodiversity-focused meeting since the historic 2022 agreement in Montreal, which aimed to halt ecosystem destruction.
Key Points to Watch at COP16:
1. Reviving the Kunming-Montreal Agreement
The Kunming-Montreal agreement, established in 2022, set 23 targets and four goals to preserve nature by 2030. COP16 will assess whether countries are on track to meet these ambitious goals. Historically, the UN biodiversity process has struggled with underachievement, failing to meet previous targets. This decade aims to break that cycle.
2. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (“NBSAPs”)
Countries are expected to present their NBSAPs, detailing how they plan to meet the global targets. However, initial indications suggest that over 80% of countries may not have these plans ready. The number of NBSAPs submitted by the end of the summit will indicate the seriousness of governments’ commitments.
3. Financial Commitments
During COP15, developing countries highlighted the need for increased financial support to meet conservation targets. Governments agreed to provide at least $30 billion annually by 2030, with an interim target of $20 billion by 2025. New financial commitments from wealthy nations at COP16 will be crucial to gauge the sincerity of these pledges.
4. Digital Sequence Information
A significant issue at COP16 is the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources, known as Digital Sequence Information. Negotiations will focus on establishing a global fund to support this. This agreement could create a new revenue stream for conservation efforts if handled correctly.
5. Indigenous Peoples’ Role
Indigenous communities are prominently mentioned in the targets to halt biodiversity loss, marking a shift towards inclusive decision-making. However, there is scepticism about how these targets will impact land rights and customs.
6. Colombia’s Role and Domestic Peace
As the host, Colombia’s government aims to use COP16 as a platform for promoting peace within the country. Despite ongoing conflicts, the summit’s theme, “Peace with Nature” reflects this ambition.
7. Measuring Success
While some targets, like land protection and finance, are straightforward to measure, others, such as species decline and biodiversity density, are more complex. Ongoing debates will address how to effectively track progress.
Conclusion
COP16 in Cali, Colombia, represents a critical juncture for global biodiversity efforts. As leaders, scientists, and activists gather, the focus will be on transforming ambitious commitments into concrete actions. The success of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework hinges on the collective will of nations to implement their NSBAPs and secure the necessary financial resources.
The summit’s outcomes will be pivotal in determining whether the world can break the cycle of underachievement that has plagued past biodiversity targets. With the involvement of Indigenous communities, the private sector, and technological innovations, there is hope that this decade can indeed be different. The theme of “Peace with Nature” underscores the broader vision of integrating biodiversity conservation with social and economic well-being, aiming for a future where both people and nature thrive.
As COP16 progresses, the world will be watching to see if these global commitments can translate into meaningful, on-the-ground changes that halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The stakes are high, but the potential for positive impact is immense.
New EU rules on wastewater treatment signal divergence with UK approach
The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (“UWWTD”) is one of the main pieces of EU legislation that governs the collection and treatment of wastewater from homes and industry. Its provisions apply in the UK through implementing regulations dating back to 1994.
The EU is due to adopt a revised version of the UWWTD in November – which includes a number of new provisions that will not apply in the UK. New measures include:
- Requiring all wastewater treatment plants that serve over 10,000 people to treat a greater range of pollutants by 2045 – including microplastics and PFAs.
- The introduction of extended producer responsibility for medicinal products and cosmetic products to help cover 80% of the costs of additional treatment needed to remove associated micro-pollutants from wastewater
- The requirement for wastewater treatment plants that serve over 10,000 people to carry out energy use audits, and the introduction of a target for such plants to be 100% renewable by 2045 (subject to some exceptions).
- Stronger obligations on monitoring, inspection and penalties and the introduction of a cross check on the composition of sludge.
The Institute of European Environmental Policy UK (“IEEP UK”) has noted in a recent briefing on the updated EU regime that the introduction of these new provisions, alongside the development of new domestic legislative regimes in the UK, is indicative of the diverging approaches taken by the EU and UK to addressing wastewater treatment and water pollution.
For example, there is no equivalent extended producer responsibility scheme in force in the UK for manufacturers of medicinal and cosmetics products. However, IEEP UK has commented that UK-based producers such products who sell into the EU will be caught by this provision.
While the UK’s 2023 Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan and the new Water (Special Measures) Bill both set out additional monitoring requirements for storm overflows, IEEP has observed that there are many elements of the obligations under the updated EU Directive that are not currently reflected in the UK.
Speaking in relation to the divergence of wastewater governance in the UK and the EU, Ben Reynolds, the director of IEEP UK noted that though dealing with important areas, UK’s Water (Special Measures) Bill “by and large it deals with a separate set of standards to those now raised by the EU’s recent legislation”.
He commented that “In short, this means the wastewater standards across the UK have stood still and are no longer keeping track with other European countries […] Keeping track with these higher standards alongside smarter investment and more resource for enforcement should be on the table”.
The government has published the remit and makeup of a new commission who will be tasked with carrying out a “full review” of the water sector, to “shape further legislation that will fundamentally transform how our entire water system works”. The commission is due to report back by June next year with recommendations on how to “tackle inherited systemic issues in the water sector” and drive economic growth.
DEFRA to Develop Binding Clean Air Strategy Amid EU’s Stricter Air Quality Standards
The UK’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (“DEFRA”) has announced plans to develop a comprehensive Clean Air Strategy with legally binding targets, following the EU’s adoption of stricter air quality standards. This move highlights a growing policy divergence between the EU and the UK, whose air quality regulations have remained largely unchanged for 15 years.
The European Council recently approved a revised Ambient Air Quality Directive, setting stricter standards to be met by 2030. In contrast, the UK continues to use limits from a 2010 version of the legislation, which are less protective. Despite acknowledging that air pollution contributes to 43,000 deaths annually in the UK, the government has yet to update its regulations to match the new EU standards.
For instance, the EU’s new annual mean concentration target for nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”) is 20 micrograms per cubic metre (“μg/m³”), half of the previous target still used in the UK. NO2 is a significant pollutant linked to respiratory conditions like asthma. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) recommends an even lower target of 10 μg/m³, updated in 2021.
Regarding particulate matter, the EU has set a 20 μg/m³ annual mean concentration target for PM10 (particles with a diameter of 10 micrometres or less) and a 10 μg/m³ target for PM2.5 (particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less). The UK’s limit for PM10 remains at 40 μg/m³, though it has legislated a 10 μg/m³ target for PM2.5 by 2040. Scotland has set more stringent targets of 18 μg/m³ for PM10 and 10 μg/m³ for PM2.5.
Ben Reynolds, director of the green think tank IEEP UK, noted that the EU’s adoption of tougher standards has highlighted the UK’s lack of progress in updating its air quality regulations. He also pointed out that the revocation of parts of the National Emissions Ceilings Regulations 2018 has created “a gap in accountability”.
Ben Turner, principal air quality consultant at SLR Consulting, emphasized that Brexit was seen as an opportunity to create independent rules, but warned against neglecting public health. He highlighted that air pollution is the largest environmental risk to public health, potentially costing the NHS and social care system £5.3 billion by 2035. He also noted:
“With the Autumn Budget looming, the government is focused on the economy. However, air pollution has extensive and interconnected effects on both the economy and public services,”.
The new EU Directive also grants citizens the right to compensation if their health is harmed by air quality limit exceedances. Turner urged the UK government to follow suit and reinstate its commitment to establishing a legal right to clean air, as proposed in the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, also known as ‘Ella’s law’.
Jemima Hartshorn, founder of Mums for Lungs, called on the UK government to align its legislation with the WHO’s recommendations, emphasizing the need to protect British children from the harmful effects of air pollution.
DEFRA has committed to cleaning up the air and protecting public health, with plans to review its air quality targets as part of a rapid review of the Environmental Improvement Plan.
Government faces legal action over Drax carbon capture plans
The UK government is facing legal action over its decision to approve Drax’s carbon capture plans, which involve burning biomass and capturing the resulting carbon emissions.
The Drax Project, spearheaded by Drax Group, aims to integrate Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (“BECCS”) technology at two of the four biomass units at its North Yorkshire power station. This initiative is designed to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from biomass energy production. The project is expected to remove up to 8 million tonnes of CO2 annually, which in principle should contribute to the UK’s net-zero targets.
The Lifescape Project, supported by the Partnership for Policy Integrity, has filed for a judicial review, arguing that the government’s Biomass Strategy is unlawful and undermines efforts to achieve net zero by 2050.
They argue that the strategy, which relies on BECCS, is flawed and claim that burning biomass, such as wood pellets, is not truly carbon-neutral. They claim that the process could lead to increased forest destruction and biodiversity loss, as in Lifescape Project’s opinion the wood pellet industry is logging ecologically sensitive forests, further questioning the environmental impact of the strategy.
The case also provides that the government’s strategy contradicts advice from its own advisory panel, which found that only biomass from newly afforested areas might provide climate benefits.
Lifescape Project’s position also flag doubts about the long-term viability and efficiency of BECCS technology, suggesting that it may not deliver the promised environmental benefits.
Legal claim against London Borough for not designating a site a contaminated land
“Clear The Air In Havering” group issued a claim against the London Borough of Havering’s decision not to designate the Launders Lane site in Rainham as contaminated land. The group argues that the site is affecting air quality and local residents’ lives by reoccurring underground fires.
They claim that the council in making their decision failed to apply the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance properly, they did not adopt a structured approach to risk assessment, relied on flawed air pollution data as well as inconclusive evidence in relation to groundwater contamination, and failed to adequately consider the impact the site has on the physical and mental health of local residents.
The smoke emitting from the site has also affected two nearby schools. Furthermore, the site is classed as one of the highest-emitting methane sites in the UK, contributing to the formation of ground level ozone and particulate pollution, further affecting residents ‘health.
The council had previously issued but then withdrew an abatement notice, relying on verbal commitments from the landowner, DMC (Essex) Ltd and giving up their means to force the landowner to take action.
The Group argues that if the site is designated as contaminated, the council and Environment Agency would be legally required to clean it up. The council, however, maintains that the site does not pose significant risks under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under this act, the site can be considered “contaminated” if it has the risk of “significant harm” through skin contact, consumption of food grown on the site or the contamination of the local watercourse. The council stated that a contaminated land report made it clear that:
“[…] there is a high risk from inhalation to anyone who is directly on the site when a fire is occurring, and also for ground gases to affect anyone using the site in the future, if it is redeveloped for housing or industrial use. Otherwise, the other risks are very low-moderate and, considering the current use of the land, are not significant”.
The co-founder of the group commented that this step is paramount in protecting the residents. It will prevent the council from continuing to ignore the reality of this dire situation. The claim has received support from Law for Change, a fund focused on access to justice for impact cases as well as raised funds via a CrowdJustice campaign. They pledge to do everything they can to help the local community and believe they have strong grounds to succeed in this challenge.
Leader of the council refused to comment due to potential legal action but expressed understanding for the residents’ concerns.
