Accessibility Tools

Web Accessibility plugin by DJ-Extensions.com

On the Ground

Explore our work with partners, globally and locally, to tackle social and economic injustice using a human rights lens.

UK Court puts a halt to Heathrow runway expansion project, on climate grounds

UK Court puts a halt to Heathrow runway expansion project, on climate grounds

UK Court puts a halt to Heathrow runway expansion project, on climate grounds

 

In a significant victory for climate activists, the Court of Appeal in London has found that the UK government’s failure to take into account ‘its own firm policy commitments on climate change under the Paris Agreement’ was ‘legally fatal’ to the decision to add a third runway to Heathrow airport. Whilst the Court did not determine that the construction of the third Heathrow runway would be incompatible with the UK’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, the decision does clearly indicate that for all future nationally significant infrastructure projects, the UK government must take account of the Paris Agreement and consider whether the project is consistent with those commitments.

See our summary of the case here:

R (Friends of The Earth) v. Secretary of State for Transport and Others ([2020] EWCA Civ 214)

On 27 February 2020 the Court of Appeal in London ruled that the failure of the UK government to take into account ‘its own firm policy commitments on climate change under the Paris Agreement’ was ‘legally fatal’ to the decision to add a third runway to Heathrow airport. 

The expansion of Heathrow has been vociferously opposed by environmental activists on the grounds that it will lead to around 700 extra flights per day, greatly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The appeal was brought by several local authorities, the Mayor of London, and the environmental groups Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Plan B Earth.

The critical question before the court was whether the government’s ‘Airports National Policy Statement’ (ANPS), which supported the expansion of Heathrow, had been lawfully produced [para. 2].

Under Section 5 (7) and (8) of the Planning Act 2008, policy statements for nationally significant infrastructure projects must give reasons for the policy they set out and include an explanation of how the policy ‘takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change’ [para. 38].

The Paris Agreement had not been taken into consideration. As such, one of the key questions that the Court had to answer was whether the Government’s commitment to the Paris Agreement could be considered government policy on climate change, which the Secretary of State was required to take into account [para. 222].

In answering in the affirmative, the Court placed weight on ‘the solemn act of the United Kingdom’s ratification of that international agreement’ as well as a number of ‘firm statements re-iterating Government policy of adherence to the Paris Agreement by relevant Ministers.’ [para. 228].

Given the dualist nature of the English legal system, ratification of international treaties such as the Paris Agreement does not change domestic law. The judgement means that the executive must comply with the will of the UK Parliament, as expressed in the Planning Act, to have government climate policy taken into account. [230]

The Court concluded that ‘the Paris Agreement ought to have been taken into account by the Secretary of State in the preparation of the ANPS, but was not’ [para. 283].

Whilst this decision does not mean that the third Heathrow runway is incompatible with commitments under the Paris Agreement, the national airport policy statement will have no legal effect until the Secretary of State reconsiders it in accordance with the requirement to take climate policy, including the Paris Agreement, into account [para. 280].

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, confirmed that the government will not appeal against the ruling. Boris Johnston, the Prime Minister, infamously commented in 2015 that he would ‘lie down in front of those bulldozers and stop the construction’ of a third runway at Heathrow.

As a result of this decision, the Paris Agreement will need to be considered whenever a UK National Policy Statement is created or reviewed. This has significant ramifications for future infrastructure policy-making, which will need to factor in an assessment of consistency with the Paris Agreement and the UK’s targets and goals under that Agreement.

Will Rundle, head of legal at Friends of the Earth said that: ‘This judgement has exciting wider implications for keeping climate change at the heart of all planning decisions. It’s time for developers and public authorities to be held to account when it comes to the climate impact of their damaging developments.’

Heathrow Airport have confirmed that they will challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

 

See the court’s summary of the judgement here.

See the full judgement here.

Summary by: Tom Bagshaw, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Related Articles

Contribution to the Women and Gender Constituency Submission on the Operationalisation of the Belém Antalya Mechanism (BAM)

Contribution to the Women and Gender Constituency Submission on the Operationalisation of the Belém Antalya Mechanism (BAM)

Macarena Cano Muñoz
We Contributed to Regional Discussions Across Latin America and the Caribbean Connecting the UN Tax Convention with Climate Finance

We Contributed to Regional Discussions Across Latin America and the Caribbean Connecting the UN Tax Convention with Climate Finance

Macarena Cano Muñoz
Just Transition Negotiations at COP: How We Arrived and How We Left Belém

Just Transition Negotiations at COP: How We Arrived and How We Left Belém

Martín Pintus

SITEMAP

TAKE ACTION

NEWSLETTER

Don´t miss any updates!
SUBSCRIBE
Image

Social Media:

Log in

Climate and Environmental Justice

We have advanced rights-based and gender-transformative transition frameworks through research that centres the lived experiences of women and marginalised communities on the frontlines of extractive energy policies, promoting climate and energy frameworks attentive to the social and care-related impacts of transition pathways. We have developed a clear vision for a gender-just transition, firmly rooted in gender and human rights norms, establishing both the legal basis and the direction for the transformative changes our planet and societies urgently need. In particular, the ‘Guiding Principles for Gender Equality and Human Rights in the Energy Transition’, a collective effort built through online consultations, an in-person workshop and multiple rounds of revision with activists, practitioners and experts from around the world, outline a transformative vision for reshaping global energy systems through a human rights and gender equality lens.

Our work recognises that the climate emergency is both an existential threat and an opportunity to reimagine societies built on social, gender, economic and environmental justice. We ground our advocacy in feminist and intersectional principles, prioritising the agency and perspectives of communities in the Global South who have contributed the least to the climate emergency yet face its most devastating consequences. Central to our approach is the understanding that energy is not merely a commodity but a fundamental human right; essential for dignity, health, education, work and the realisation of countless other rights. We challenge approaches to the energy transition that risk replicating the harmful patterns of fossil fuel extraction and, instead, advocate for transformative policies that ensure human rights and gender equality as central to building climate-resilient societies rooted in dignity, justice and planetary well-being.

What's next?

We will continue to challenge approaches that treat energy transition as merely a technical shift, instead positioning it as an opportunity to reimagine economies and societies rooted in dignity for all, with particular attention to communities in the Global South who have contributed least to the climate emergency yet are most exposed to its worst effects.

We will connect community-level evidence and the lived experiences of those on the frontlines of extractive policies to national reform and global norm-setting, breaking down silos between human rights, gender, and climate movements, and advancing a shared vision that recognises just transitions as not only fundamental to achieving climate-resilient and sustainable societies, but as transformative pathways that advance social and gender equality, redistribute power and resources equitably, and ensure that energy systems serve the public good rather than profit.

We will mainstream rights-based and genderjust transition priorities in key multilateral spaces (particularly, within the Just Transition Work Programme and the to-be-developed Just Transition Mechanism, within the UNFCCC) to guarantee that just transitions are advanced at all levels.

We will also translate our work, through strategic advocacy, into at least two concrete policy wins, whether promoted, adopted, implemented, or scaled, in priority countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, or Kenya), ensuring these policies align with human rights standards, centre gender equality, and reflect the needs and views of affected communities.

We will build momentum for the progressive recognition of the right to sustainable energy to shift dominant narratives away from purely extractive solutions that sideline gendered impacts, community participation, and Global South perspectives.

Economic Justice and Climate Finance

Our work has transformed the global discussion on fiscal policy in a more just, emancipatory and sustainable direction. Our approach has combined both high-level, expert contributions within decisionmaking circles, with bold, impactful work on narrative change with the general public.

We have been instrumental in the inclusion of human rights as a guiding principle of the future United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, a multilateral instrument with the potential of raising approx. USD 492 billion per year in public revenues currently foregone to global tax abuse. In the process leading to the ‘Compromiso de Sevilla’ decided at FfD4, we proposed and succeeded in creating a specific human rights workstream within the Civil Society Financing for Development Mechanism, which was critical to ensure that explicit commitments on the matter were included in the negotiating outcome. In a context of cutbacks in multilateral institutions, we have amplified the capacities of technical experts, providing rigorous technical support and leveraging our influence to ensure the enactments of groundbreaking standard-setting instruments, such as the 2025 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Statement on Fiscal Policy and Human Rights, and the first ex oficio hearing on the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on Fiscal and Economic Policies to Address Poverty and Structural Inequality, leading to an upcoming thematic resolution on the matter. We have also bridged the silos between multilateral tax discussions and climate finance debates, promoting ambitious financing commitments to increase international and domestic resource mobilisation during COP 28, 29 and 30.

At the regional level, our engagement with fiscal cooperation platforms such as the Platform for Fiscal Cooperation of Latin America and the Caribbean (PTLAC), where we are member of its Civil Society Consultative Council, and the African Anti-IFFs Policy Tracker, for which we participated in the pilot mission in Ivory Coast together with Tax Justice Network Africa (TJNA), have been critical in cementing a growing engagement between tax administrations and ministries of finance with international legal experts, exploring actionable and transformative initiatives, such as the taxation of high-net-worth individuals, beneficial ownership registries and corporate countryby-country reports, to be implemented at the international level.

At the local level, our interventions in fiscal reform debates in Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Nigeria have contributed to shaping legislative outcomes in a more progressive, rights-compliant direction.

As for our leadership in narrative change, we have a measurable track record in delivering tailored, innovative campaigns which have decisively expanded economic justice constituencies by appealing to a broader tent. In Latin America and the Caribbean, we created the ‘Date Cuenta’ campaign, coordinating over 40 organisations across civil society to deliver plain language, innovative messaging connecting progressive fiscal reforms to the financing of health, education and social protection. ‘Date Cuenta’ generated over 55 original campaign messages that were tailored to the realities of seven priority countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Honduras) and disseminated in Spanish, Portuguese and English. In doing so, we convened more than 65 online co-creation workshops with partners, coordinating a unified communications strategy which combined digital outreach, press and media coverage, and collaboration with influencers. Ultimately, ‘Date Cuenta’ resulted in more than 60,000 interactions on social media, coverage in major regional and international media outlets, including El País, Deutsche Welle, Bloomberg and France 24, and the participation of at least 63 social media influencers through 58 dedicated publications. In collaboration with Fundación Gabo and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, we also organised a two-day workshop in Bogota with 20 journalists from 13 countries, building a regional network trained in a human rights-based approach to fiscal policy that has since generated published media coverage on outlets such as La Diaria, Ciper, El Diario Ar and Milenio. Through ‘Date Cuenta’ and our regional advocacy, we strengthened civil society engagement in key processes, including the Financing for Development track and FfD4, co-organised highlevel dialogues with states and civil society from Latin America and Africa.

What's next?

We will shape the UN Tax Convention and its Protocols so they embed human rights principles, and we will stay engaged through follow-up processes (including the expected Conference of the Parties) to support effective implementation. We will keep linking tax and climate finance so that new resources mobilised through fiscal cooperation are channelled to adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage, in line with UNFCCC commitments.

Public Services for Care Societies

We have translated participatory research into accountability and policy outcomes.

In Ivory Coast, our work with Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains and affected communities since 2023 exposed how privatisation and lack of accountability restrict access to quality healthcare. It contributed to the closure of 1,022 illegal private health centres, an executive instrument strengthening the regulation of private hospitals across the country, and the creation of a permanent complaints management committee in healthcare through a bylaw issued by the prefect of Gagnoa. Partners engaged through this process also advanced concrete improvements at facility level: members of the Gagnoa Midwives Association who took part in the participatory action research pooled resources to renovate the neonatal unit of the Regional Hospital, and the Director of the Gagnoa General Hospital launched an action plan to expand services and improve patient reception, with the facility receiving the award for best hospital in the country in 2025.

In Kenya, our research with the Mathare Education Taskforce documented the absence of public schools and the expansion of private provision, evidencing impacts on households and caregivers and strengthening demands for free, quality public education. This work contributed to stronger community agency and collective organisation, alongside ongoing strategies ranging from communications to litigation to secure a public school in the area, some involving GI-ESCR and others led independently.

Across Africa, this work is complemented by a multi-country study examining the human rights implications of austerity in education and health, including how regressive fiscal policies, rising debt burdens and persistent underinvestment undermine the financing and delivery of public services.

In Latin America, from 29 November to 2 December 2021, over a thousand representatives from over one hundred countries, from grassroots movements, advocacy, human rights, and development organisations, feminist movements, trade unions, and other civil society organisations, met in Santiago, Chile, and virtually, to discuss the critical role of public services for our future. Following the meeting, the Santiago Declaration on Public Services was adopted to demand universal access to quality, gender-transformative and equitable public services as the foundation of a fair and just society.

We are currently advancing work on care systems, linking public services and fiscal justice through integrated research, advocacy and communications, including a regional campaign framing care as a collective responsibility requiring sustained public investment.

What's next?

In Ivory Coast, we will evaluate and strengthen the complaints management committee and position it as a replicable model for other health facilities. In Kenya, we will support the Mathare community to co-design a model public school for Mabatini and Ngei wards, grounded in human rights standards. Building on our multi-country austerity study, we will drive national advocacy on financing for education and health: advancing reforms in Ghana; launching a fiscal policy and public services financing agenda in Kenya through the CESCR process and targeted coalition work; and, in Nigeria, using the new tax acts in force since 1 January 2026 to catalyse a national accountability campaign for adequately funded, quality public services. In Latin America, we will amplify locally led care pilots across 8 countries and turn lessons into influence—advancing care policies that strengthen care organisations, protect care workers’ rights, support unpaid caregivers, include disability and family networks, and redistribute care more equitably.