By stewartb

The Herald headline states that the UN body ‘IS PROBING’. The information from the complainant, the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) states that it IS URGING the UN body to intervene. These are two quite different things: we have yet to find out if the URGING will bear fruit.

The ERCS statement quoted in the main blog post has this: ‘In October 2021, the governing institutions of the Convention required the Scottish Government to act ‘as a matter of urgency’ to ensure access to justice is no longer ‘prohibitively expensive’ and address its breach of the Convention’s Article 9 Access to Justice requirements.’

This seems to be the relevant document recording the judgements made at the 7th Session (Geneva, 18-10 October 2021) of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) – ‘Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters’. (relates to the Aarhus Convention)

Source: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/ECE_MP.PP_2021_2_Add.1_E.pdf

What is notable from a quick read is how many countries plus the EU that the ECE finds fault with. Specifically in its section on the UK – ‘Decision VII/8s Compliance by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with its obligations under the Convention.’

‘Decision VI/8k: Endorses the findings of the Committee with respect to decision VI/8k that:
(a) While welcoming the progress made in that direction, the Party concerned has not yet met the requirements of paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (d) and 4 with respect to England and Wales;
(b) While welcoming the progress made in that direction, the Party concerned has not yet met the requirements of paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (d) with respect to Scotland;
(c) While welcoming the significant progress made in that direction, the Party concerned has not yet met the requirements of paragraph 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) with respect to Northern Ireland’

There are multiple other clauses in a similar vein over several pages, a minority referring specifically to Scotland.

The ERCS statement in the blog post uses the phrase ‘as matter of
urgency’. The phrase appears in most if not all the ECE judgment statements. In the section on the UK. it refers to acting on decision Vi/8k. Firstly, it is directed at the ‘Party‘ to the relevant Convention namely the UK government and secondly the specified decision relates to matters identified in all four constituent nations of the UK. Scotland is NOT being made out to be an exceptional rogue here! The Scottish Government and Scottish ministers are nowhere mentioned nor is Scotland’s judiciary.

The Scottish Civil Justice Council has recently published two briefing papers on research relevant to this matter (see its web site):

‘RESEARCH: ON THE TYPE OF CASES SEEKING A PROTECTIVE EXPENSES ORDER, Issued: 30 September 2024′

‘RESEARCH ON THE COST CAPS USED IN PRACTICE: within Protective Expenses Orders – Issued: 30 AUGUST 2024′

Interesting reads for background to nature and scale of the issues here. However, notably, both documents contain similar paragraphs on ‘next steps’:

‘AARHUS CONVENTION – uploading this research to the SCJC website will assist DEFRA when collating the “2nd progress report on the UK Plan of Action” (As the formal mechanism for Aarhus updates6 to the UNECE).

‘AARHUS CONVENTION – the publication of this research paper will inform DEFRA when collating the “2 progress report on the UK Plan of Action” .