0
Welcome, Dear Reader, back to the Aarhus Blog- surely, by now, at least one of the top 10 blogs on the internet concerned exclusively with the Aarhus Convention’s application in UK law.
It has been a busy Aarhus-related month for us at Landmark, kicking off with our joint event with junior UKELA (sign up to UKELA if you haven’t already!): The Aarhus Convention: A Year in Review.
If you were not one of the many, many thousands of people who attended this important January event in person, then don’t worry: you can catch it all on our world famous YouTube channel: click here to view at your leisure (as usual, don’t forget to subscribe, and smash that ‘like’ button). At the time of writing, a preposterously high number of Aarhus enthusiasts have already watched it (over 60).
This week in Aarhusland we are focusing on the Eleventh meeting of the Task Force on Public Participation in Decision-making under the Aarhus Convention, held in Geneva last month. The Task Force was established by a Meeting of the Parties in 2010 and works to improve the implementation of the Convention's provisions on public participation, including through sharing expertise and good practices, developing recommendations, strengthening civil society and building capacity for public authorities and other stakeholders.
Item 7 of their meeting last month is of particular interest: Public participation in decision-making on emerging technologies.
There has been much talk recently about emerging technologies such as AI, crypto, blockchain, and rechargeable magnetic-clip motion-sensor lights for cabinets and wardrobes (that last one is truly life changing, trust me). But we don’t hear much on the news about the environmental cost of these technologies. For example, if Bitcoin were a country (it already is, and it’s called America- Ed), then its energy consumption would have ranked 27th in the world, ahead of a country like Pakistan, with a population of over 230 million people. That should perhaps give us pause for thought.
Given our government is now promising to turbocharge AI, at a potentially significant environmental cost, should the public be more involved in these decisions, where the carbon cost of unleashing AI might rival some of our biggest development schemes? Is there a gap in the kind of decisions actually covered by the Aarhus Convention- or might such a decision be the kind of activity envisaged in Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention (“Each Party: Shall, in accordance with its national law, also apply the provisions of this article to decisions on proposed activities not listed in annex I which may have a significant effect on the environment”) ?
Alas, the Task Force sidestepped this interesting question, noting simply that “Not much experience was identified with regard to public participation in decision-making on emerging technologies.” Isn’t that rather the point though? Perhaps the Aarhus Convention needs a refresh for the digital age, a world where some of our most environmentally damaging technologies are a far cry from traditional high-emitter industries.
What the Task Force did focus on was the different question of how these technologies can help improve public participation. Less dramatic, perhaps, but also quite interesting. I would certainly benefit from some robotic assistance to help understand the Environment Agency River Catchment data. Though perhaps not a government-funded AI telling me that the data shows that UK rivers are actually all completely fine.
The Task Force noted that these new tools “might foster more inclusive and transparent decision-making processes, allowing stakeholders to better understand complex environmental data” but cautioned that “Privatizing digital infrastructures for public engagement… risks shifting control of democratic processes to corporate entities, while the environmental footprint of emerging technologies must be considered to avoid exacerbating resource depletion and climate impacts.” All valid points.
Overall, the Task Force encouraged Parties to the Convention to “invest in research and pilot projects that apply emerging technologies ethically and sustainably” and to “incorporate environmental sustainability criteria and accountability measures into the procurement, development, and operation of technology-driven participation tools.”
That last recommendation seems eminently sensible to me, and might well be an approach that is suitable for any rollout of these new technologies, not just in the public participation sphere. Before we all sign off on the AI boom, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that we should be fully informed about the environmental cost of it.
However, I suspect I know the government’s answer to the question of whether we should limit the white heat of technology to what can reasonably be produced via solar panels and a heat pump.
And with that as our final thought, I bid you farewell until next time, Dear Reader. I did ask Chat GPT to have a go at this week’s blog, but all it came out with was a focused, informative and professional-sounding piece about the law. The technology is not quite there yet!
This blog post was written by Alex Shattock.
----------------
Authors of the Aarhus blogs
– James Maurici KC – James has been in many of the leading cases on Aarhus costs including: R (RSPB) v SSJ [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691; Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom; Case C-260/11 Edwards v EA; R (Edwards) v EA (No.2) [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 70 and [2013] UKSC 78; and R (Edwards) v EA [2011] 1 W.L.R. 79. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva, cases include: ACCC/C/2010/45; ACCC/C/2010/53; ACCC/C/2011/60; ACCC/C/2011/61; ACCC/C/2012/77; and ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101. He is currently acting for the UK Government on the Brexit communication to the Compliance Committee – ACCC/C/2017/150. He was one of the contributors to the Aarhus Convention: A Guide for UK Lawyers (2015) and he has written and lectured extensively on the Aarhus Convention.
– Jacqueline Lean – Jacqueline has been instructed on a number of matters concerning the Aarhus Convention, including appearing (with James Maurici KC) for United Kingdom before the Aarhus Compliance Committee on two communications concerning the Government’s decision to proceed with HS2 (ACCC/C/100 & 101); representing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Secretary of State in R (CPRE Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1230 in which the Court of Appeal considered the approach to summary assessment of costs at permission stage when an Aarhus costs cap applied; and acting for the Secretary of State in R (RSPB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] Env LR 13, a challenge to the Government’s amendments to the Aarhus costs protections in the CPR (also with James Maurici KC). She is also a contributing author to Coppel’s ‘Information Rights’ on Environmental Information.
– Nick Grant – Nick is a planning and environment specialist. He has featured in many of the most high profile recent planning and environmental law cases, including R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20; CG Fry v SSLUHC [2024] EWCA Civ 730 (due in the Supreme Court in early 2025); R (Clarke-Holland) v SSLUH [2023]EWHC 3140 (Admin) and R (Friends of the Earth) v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 3255 (KB). He has represented the UK twice before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, appearing with James Maurici KC in ACCC/C/2017/150 (the Withdrawal Act case) and unled in the admissibility hearing for ACCC/C/2022/194 (the free trade agreements case).
– Alex Shattock – Alex has been involved in a number of environmental claims including: Friends of the Earth v SSLUHC (the Cumbria coal mine case: acting for Friends of the Earth in the Planning Inquiry and High Court); Cox and Ors v Oil and Gas Authority [2022] EWHC 75 (Admin) (representing Extinction Rebellion activists in a challenge to the Oil and Gas Authority’s Strategy); R (Hough) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1635 (acting for the claimant in an environmental and equalities challenge to the controversial use of Napier Barracks as asylum seeker accommodation); and various environmental litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal for the NGO Rights: Community: Action. He regularly advises individual and NGO clients on Aarhus costs protection.
