Introduction

The case of Finch (Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council & Ors ([2024] UKSC 20) addresses a pivotal question in environmental law: whether public authorities are mandated to include downstream greenhouse gas emissions, specifically Scope 3 emissions, in their Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) when granting planning consent for oil drilling projects. The appellant, representing the Weald Action Group, challenged the planning permission granted by Surrey County Council for oil extraction at Horse Hill Well Site, arguing that the EIA failed to account for the significant indirect effects of the oil's eventual use as fuel.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court, through the dissenting opinion of Lord Sales, reinforced the interpretation that Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions do not fall within the "indirect significant effects" mandated by the EIA Directive for the project at hand. The court scrutinized Directive 2011/92/EU and the accompanying national regulations, concluding that while direct emissions from the drilling operation must be assessed, the downstream emissions resulting from the oil's use post-extraction are not required to be included in the EIA. This interpretation aligns with prior judgments from both domestic and EU courts, emphasizing a project-focused approach rather than an expansive inclusion of all potential downstream environmental impacts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases to establish the boundaries of environmental assessments:

• Abraham v Wallonia and Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Ayuntamiento de Madrid (CJEU Cases): These cases underscored that only environmental effects closely tied to the project itself should be assessed.
• Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest v Vlaams Gewest: Emphasized the necessity of assessing both direct and indirect effects directly related to the project's operations.
• Greenpeace Ltd v Advocate General and Kilkenny Cheese: Highlighted the importance of a close causal connection between the project and its indirect effects, rejecting the inclusion of remote downstream impacts.

These precedents collectively support a narrow interpretation of "indirect effects," ensuring that EIA processes remain focused and manageable.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal reasoning hinges on the purpose and scope of the EIA Directive. The Directive aims to inform local planning authorities about the environmental impacts directly and indirectly caused by the project to aid in informed decision-making. Including Scope 3 emissions, which are numerous and geographically dispersed, would overextend the Directive's intent, leading to impractical and inconsistent assessments. The court emphasized the principle of proportionality, asserting that the EIA Directive should not impose undue burdens on local authorities or developers by requiring assessments of emissions beyond the project's immediate scope.

Impact

This judgment sets a clear precedent that Scope 3 emissions, representing a vast range of indirect greenhouse gas emissions, are excluded from EIA requirements for specific projects like oil drilling. This limitation ensures that EIAs remain practical and focused but also highlights a gap in addressing the broader environmental implications of fossil fuel extraction. Future cases will likely reference this judgment to argue the boundaries of what constitutes significant indirect effects within EIA processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

An EIA is a process used to evaluate the environmental effects of a proposed project or development, considering both direct and indirect impacts. It helps decision-makers understand the potential consequences before granting permission.

Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 Emissions

• Scope 1: Direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, such as emissions from machinery or vehicles owned by the company.
• Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling consumed by the company.
• Scope 3: All other indirect emissions that occur in a company's value chain, including both upstream and downstream emissions, like the use of sold products.

In this case, Scope 3 emissions refer to the greenhouse gases emitted when the extracted oil is eventually refined and used as fuel.

Principle of Proportionality

This legal principle ensures that the actions of public authorities are appropriate and not excessive in relation to the aims pursued. In this context, it means that the EIA process should be thorough but not overly burdensome.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Finch v Surrey County Council & Ors delineates the boundaries of environmental considerations within EIAs, specifically excluding extensive Scope 3 emissions from mandatory assessments. This interpretation preserves the practicality and focus of the EIA process, ensuring local authorities can effectively evaluate projects without being overwhelmed by the complexities of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, it also underscores the need for complementary measures at national and international levels to address the broader impacts of fossil fuel extraction on climate change.