It’s a legal victory for climate activists. On Thursday, February 27, the British Court of Appeal rejected plans to expand London’s busiest London’s Heathrow Airport. Justice has ruled it illegal, failing to take into account, in the development of the project, the United Kingdom's climate commitments made in the framework of the Paris Agreement of 2015 aimed at containing global warming. The decision could bury the project unless the Supreme Court rules in favor of Heathrow Airport, which immediately appealed. In any case, it could inspire other legal remedies against airport construction or expansion projects, such as those of Roissy or Nice.
The Heathrow expansion is under fire from critics of environmental movements, who denounce the increase in pollution and noise pollution that the project would cause. The construction of a third runway, which received approval from the previous government in 2018, would see around 700 additional aircraft landing in west London, in addition to the 1,300 that land there daily. With this colossal project, worth 14 billion pounds sterling (16 billion euros), the airport's ambition is to eventually welcome 142 million passengers per year, compared to 81 million currently.
The project has been challenged in court by the mayor of London, several districts in the west of the capital, as well as NGOs, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. They had been dismissed at first instance, in May 2019, the courts considered that the project was legal, and had appealed the judgment.
Thursday, the court of appeal ruled on the form and not on the substance. "The Paris agreement should have been taken into account by the secretary of state (transport) in the preparation of the national policy statement supporting this project, and an explanation should have been given on how it was taken into account, which was not the case ", notes the judge. In other words, this means that the impact of the airport extension on greenhouse gas emissions should have been assessed.
Page Contents
Abandonment of "Government Responsibility" Project
However, the court did not wish to rule on the "Merits" of the Heathrow expansion or, on the contrary, on the abandonment of the project. "These matters are the sole responsibility of the government", she says. His decision to judge the project illegal as it stands does not mean that it is "Necessarily incompatible" with the British commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the government and the airport must seriously review their copy so that it is now found to be compliant.
"Heathrow judgment is absolutely revolutionary for climate justice", said Will Rundle, head of the Friends of the Earth legal service in England.
“It has broader and exciting implications for putting climate change at the heart of all planning decisions. "
"We think we can take it, reacted, conversely, a spokesman for Heathrow Airport. In the meantime, we are ready to work with the government to find a solution to the problem raised by the court. " Director General of Infrastructure John Holland-Kaye has consistently championed the virtues of enlargement to support economic growth and trade after Brexit. He said in a Bloomberg interview on Wednesday that refusing to extend Heathrow would be a "Financial suicide", the end of the ambition of the "Global Britain" advocated by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and would amount to "Cede control to the French" by taking advantage of Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle Airport.
Boris Johnson’s government has no plans to file an appeal. Secretary of State for Transportation Grant Shapps reported it in a Tweet just after the Court of Appeal's decision.
" The expansion of the airport is essential to increase our connectivity. But we also take our environmental commitments very seriously. This government will not appeal today's decision, it being understood in our "manifesto" (government program) that any extension of Heathrow is decided by the industrialists (airport operators). "
Boris Johnson under pressure before COP26
Does Boris Johnson Only Have a Choice? The Prime Minister has promised to make climate one of his priorities, while the United Kingdom is to host Glasgow in November the 26e World Climate Conference (COP26), the largest since the Paris Agreement in 2015. The adoption by the British government of a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, as well as the actions of civil disobedience carried out by the Extinction Rebellion movement, increasing pressure on the Prime Minister.
Besides a few days before the start of a very high-risk negotiation with the European Union (EU), Downing Street repeats that there is no question of waging a war on the lowest bidder with Europe on environmental standards. Boris Johnson also opposed the expansion plan when he was mayor of London, even going so far as to say in 2015 that he was ready to "Lie down in front of the bulldozers" to prevent the site from starting. And in December, he expressed " doubts " on the ability of promoters to preserve air quality and limit noise pollution. Johnson is elected from the constituency of Uxbridge (north-west London) which, like a handful of others, would have been seriously affected by the proposed expansion.
If the Heathrow expansion project is not formally abandoned, experts and the British media were already wondering, Thursday, on other solutions to relieve congestion in a mega-city with saturated infrastructure. London City Airport is impossible to expand, having been built almost in the middle of the city, east of the City. Regional airports (Manchester, Birmingham) will remain underserved until the HS2 high-speed train has been built. Its green light has just been given by Downing Street, but it will not be operational before 2030. As for Gatwick airport, thirty minutes by train to the south of London, it already has a second runway emergency landing, and a third could be considered. But after the judgment on Thursday, the project would be subject to the same environmental constraints as Heathrow.
"A breach at the French level"
The Paris agreement had already been invoked in several judgments, notably that of the Urgenda case, in which the Dutch state was finally condemned, in December 2019, to reduce its CO emissions2. But this is the first time that the international climate treaty has been set up against an airport project. The aviation sector, which accounts for almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, is experiencing exponential growth.
"This is a major decision, which strengthens the binding nature of the Paris agreement and makes it operational: it can be used by national judges to prevent climate change projects", analyzes Marta Torre-Schaub, director of research (CNRS) at the Institute of Legal and Philosophical Sciences of the Sorbonne.
The British judgment will serve to "Open a breach at the French level", also wants to believe Chloé Gerbier, coordinator of the legal group of the association Notre affair à tous, involved in three of the thirteen collectives mounted in France against airport extensions.
