Briefing: UN committee finds UK breached Aarhus rights

At a glance

• Friends of the Earth wins an international law case at the UN on the public’s right to have a say on draft laws impacting the environment. This is a big win for people power and democracy.  
• The UN-backed committee found the UK in breach of Article 8 and Article 3(1) of the Aarhus Convention, an important international environmental justice treaty.  
• The UK did not provide for public input into the draft EU Withdrawal Bill, before it was introduced to parliament. And there remains no consistent framework in place to ensure that public input happens on all draft laws that may significantly affect the environment.
• Once confirmed at the “Meeting of the Parties” the ruling becomes binding in international law. If the UK government then implements the case findings, it’s likely they’ll have to change the law, so that there are clear rules for public engagement.
• This case is an example of strategic, full circle campaigning by Friends of the Earth. We were instrumental to the drafting of the Aarhus Convention. And now we’ve taken a case to enforce it, and to safeguard the public’s right to participate in environmental issues. 

Background

The Aarhus Convention is an important international agreement that recognises the right to a healthy environment, gives people the right to access environmental information, participate in environmental decision-making, and access justice on environmental matters. Friends of the Earth lawyers were involved in its drafting in the late 1990s. The UK ratified this treaty in 2005.

In 2017, Friends of the Earth filed a case against the UK government over its approach to preparing the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the legislation which ultimately took the UK out of the EU.  No public engagement or consultation of any kind took place on the draft bill before it entered parliament. We argued that the preparation of this bill in this way breached the Aarhus Convention, given that it plainly could (and, it has turned out, did) have a major impact on the environment and how it’s regulated here in the UK. We argued that the potential for significant effects on the environment was clear, given, for example, that around 80% of environmental law in place at the time of the Brexit Referendum was derived from EU law.

A central part of our case was that just because there had been an EU referendum did not mean that the UK had complied with Article 8. The referendum was a “yes/no” vote. There was not, however, any proper, objectively informed public engagement on the mechanics of leaving the EU, and what this could mean for the environment, let alone a public consultation on a draft law. It was plain to us that after decades of EU environmental legislation and oversight there were going to be significant environmental implications that needed to be understood and considered by the public. No public engagement happened, however, on the draft bill.

Furthermore, we argued that this was an example of a wider systemic problem in the UK. Not only was meaningful public engagement required under Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention whenever draft legislation could have a significant effect on the environment, Article 3(1) also required a clear, transparent, and consistent framework to ensure such a result. There was no such framework in the UK.  

The question of whether public engagement should take place is currently entirely based on political convenience. And as our “Brexit” example showed, sometimes ministers decide that engaging the public is not something they want to do. Our case shows that they need to do so to comply with international law commitments. Furthermore, involving the public improves decision-making and builds public trust.

The committee's key findings

After a lengthy investigation (taking around 8 years), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee upheld Friends of the Earth's complaint. The committee found that the UK government breached two key Articles of the convention:

Article 8 breaches

Failed to engage on the Withdrawal Bill

The committee ruled that the government failed to meet the minimum requirements for public participation when preparing the EU Withdrawal Bill. Specifically, the government:

• Failed to set proper timeframes for public participation during the bill's preparation.
• Did not publish the draft legislation for public review before introducing it to parliament.
• Did not give the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the actual draft bill.
• Failed to explain how public input was considered in the final version.

The committee rejected the government's argument that Article 8 only applies to secondary legislation (that is, laws created by ministers via powers granted to them by an Act of Parliament). They confirmed that it covers primary legislation (legislation enacted by parliament) as well, like the draft Withdrawal Bill, during the period that they're being prepared by government departments.

It also rejected the spurious attempts by the UK to argue that Article 8 somehow interfered with UK constitutional norms and parliamentary process. It was plain that the UK can and does undertake compliant public engagement in advance of introducing draft legislation to parliament when it wants to do so, without this impacting on the UK’s constitutional make-up in any way.

Environmental impact

The committee confirmed that at the time, it was clear that the Withdrawal Bill could have significant environmental effects, including:

• Removing key EU environmental principles from UK law.
• Eliminating the European Commission's role in monitoring compliance with environmental laws.
• Ending the binding nature of European Court of Justice environmental case law in UK courts.
• Giving ministers broad powers to amend environmental laws through secondary legislation without parliamentary scrutiny.

Article 3 breach: no consistent framework

The committee also found that the UK lacks a "clear, transparent and consistent framework" for ensuring public participation on draft legislation that may have a significant effect on the environment. While the government has non-binding guidance documents, the committee noted that these failed to ensure proper public participation on the Withdrawal Bill.

What the government argued

The government defended its approach by pointing to:

• The 2016 EU referendum.
• General public debate about Brexit.
• A White Paper on withdrawing from the EU that invited feedback (though this didn't contain the actual draft bill).
• Parliamentary scrutiny once the bill was introduced to parliament.

The committee entirely rejected these arguments. They clarified that Article 8 means that public participation must occur on a draft bill during the preparation phase, before it reaches parliament. Not during the parliamentary process itself. The White Paper referred to simply laid out the government’s intentions on withdrawal and didn’t include any draft legislative provisions for comment. The Brexit referendum didn’t satisfy the requirements of Article 8 either. The referendum was about whether to stay in the EU; it didn’t include an invitation for the public to comment on the draft legislation that would bring this about or explain its substantial environmental implications clearly.

The committee's recommendation

Following what is in effect a damning result for the UK, the committee recommends that the UK government: "take the necessary legislative, regulatory or other measures to establish a consistent framework to promote effective public participation during the preparation of draft legislation that may have a significant effect on the environment."

Why this matters

This landmark decision establishes important principles for environmental democracy. If the findings are adopted at the Meeting of the Parties in November 2025, they’ll become binding in the UK under international law and relevant to all 48 signatory states to the Aarhus Convention. The UK has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to the convention and its international law obligations, so it's to be hoped that this will translate into action. That is, in accepting and implementing the committee’s findings.  

Key implications would then be:

• Legal precedent: the findings clarify that governments must provide for public engagement on all draft legislation that may significantly affect the environment. There must be rules to ensure this public input happens on a consistent basis, not just when the government of the day chooses to do so. This could have implications for other complaints filed with the committee. For example, WWF and other groups have a separate, live complaint against the UK regarding trade deals post Brexit, again on the basis of Article 8 and lack of public engagement. Our case win was a prerequisite for their complaint having the chance of succeeding as well.
• Democratic rights: the decision reinforces that meaningful public participation requirements aren’t a tick-box exercise, or something that can be rushed through. They require the public have access to actual draft legislation, that the process has proper timeframes, and that there are genuine opportunities to influence the final outcome.  
• Environmental protection: by requiring engagement on draft environmental laws, the findings help ensure that environmental impacts, both good and bad, are properly considered. And that communities have a voice in decisions affecting their environment. Ultimately, this should lead to better decisions overall for the environment.  If, for example, the government had engaged the public on the draft Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which has been so severely criticised by groups across civic society for its damaging implications for nature, then the draft bill could have been very different and could have had wider public support.  
• Government accountability: the finding that the UK needs a consistent framework means future environmental legislation should be subject to proper public participation requirements. Governments must be able to demonstrate how the views of the public are taken into account. While the ultimate decision over policy remains with the relevant department, increased transparency enables much needed political accountability and should be viewed as an opportunity to build public confidence.

Conclusions and next steps

Friends of the Earth has responded to the committee’s draft findings and welcomed them. The UK government must now respond to these draft findings as well.  

We believe these findings are an opportunity for the UK to show leadership, to strengthen environmental democracy and to ensure communities have a genuine say in environmental decisions that affect them.

Friends of the Earth is working with sector allies to ensure that this case win can have greatest possible impact. This includes liaising with the UK government about the case findings, what they mean and how they can be implemented effectively.  

At the Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention in November 2025, the parties to the convention will vote on whether to endorse the committee’s findings. If they do endorse them, they’ll become binding under international law. The vast majority of the committee’s findings have, historically, been endorsed.  

This case demonstrates the continued importance of the Aarhus Convention in protecting environmental and democratic rights. It shows how civil society organisations can hold governments accountable for meeting their international environmental commitments.

This work has been led by William Rundle (Head of Legal) and Katie de Kauwe (Senior Lawyer).

Further information

Friends of the Earth submitted its communication in October 2017, a copy of which is available on the UNECE website.  

The committee adopted its findings in July 2025 following extensive proceedings including a public hearing in September 2022.  

Friends of the Earth’s external barrister team comprised David Wolfe KC and Toby Fisher, both of Matrix Chambers. David Wolfe KC represented Friends of the Earth at the hearing in Geneva. WWF and [Irish NGO] participated in the hearing as observers and supported Friends of the Earth’s arguments.  

All of our case documents, including our original submission and the UK government’s responses, are available on the UNECE’s website.  

The Aarhus implementation guide provides more information about the provisions of the convention and how they should be implemented. The text of the convention is also available on the UNECE website.

For further information and for media enquiries, please contact the Friends of the Earth press team: [email protected].