The human right to a dignified life is fundamental, and there is a clear link between protecting this right and protecting the environment. But the environment has no voice, and so depends on citizens for its protection.

We want to ensure that communities are properly informed about and consulted on developments, so that public authorities and developers make good decisions, that work for people and the environment.

Laws are already in place that require these things happen; however when public authorities and developers fail to consult or properly take into account the views of people and communities, or where they break environmental laws, there is very little opportunity to challenge what's happened.

In fact, the odds are so stacked against the ordinary citizen who wants to challenge an environmentally damaging decision or act, that going to court to defend a healthy and clean environment has become a luxury that effectively only the very time and money rich can afford.

That's why we need new laws, and changes to existing laws, to create a credible threat to public authorities and developers, so that they know that if they don't follow best practice in consulting and working with communities, those communities can take them to court. Evidence from other countries indicates that this 'credible threat' of legal action leads to better decision making.

We don't want to see the courts flooded with cases. We just want to see good, fair, inclusive decision making, that properly takes account of the needs of communities and the environment.

Why is it so difficult to challenge poor decisions?

In the first place, you have to know that a decision has been made or development planned that might threaten the environment, and what environmental damage it might result in. European law requires that communities be properly informed and consulted about developments in their area, but there are countless cases where communities feel this hasn’t been the case.

If you think you have a legal basis to challenge the decision or development you have to find a lawyer who is prepared to help you. If you manage to find a lawyer, you will then have to find the money to prove to the court that you can pay both your costs and - in case you lose - the other sides costs as well, even if they are a multi-million company. This means taking an enormous personal risk.

Finally, you have to prove you have ‘standing’, or the right to have your case heard by the courts. Traditionally, laws on standing have been interpreted very strictly, to the extent that individuals couldn't take a case unless they had a strong private interest, such as an adjecent proprty . Communities and NGOs have also found it almost impossible to take cases to court. However, as a result of our recent intervention in a case at the highest court in the land - the UK Supreme Court - we have changed the rules on standing, and seen a much broader test introduced! Find out more about our campaign sucess.

If you manage to overcome all these hurdles, there is very little prospect that the merit of the decision making will be looked at by the courts, as they tend to focus simply on whether 'due process' has been followed.

What needs to happen?

We believe that individuals and environmental organisations should have the right to challenge decisions that will have a serious impact on the environment and that neither lack of information and expertise, nor excessive costs should prohibit them from doing so.

These rights are already enshrined in an international treaty - the Aarhus Convention - that Scotland is obliged to implement. However, the Scottish Government and legal system have yet to fully comply with it, so we are working with the Scottish Parliament and legal stakeholders to ensure that the Aarhus Convention is properly implemented in Scotland.

We are campaigning to ensure:

• that the process of challenging breaches of environmental law or poor decision making is free or inexpensive, so that people and communities aren't put off taking action by the threat of huge costs
• that people, communities and NGOs are able to take cases to court if they demonstrate 'sufficient interest' in the issue, or are acting in the collective interest of people and the environment
• that the merit, or substance of decisions can be examined by the courts, not just whether due process has been followed
• that public legal education is improved, and the court system made more user friendly, so that people learn to recognize problems and injustices which may have a potential legal solution, and aren't put off by an archaic system

What you can do

Read our 'Access to Environmental Justice Explained' briefing or our detailed policy briefing.

Please support our Access to Environmental Justice campaign and donate today.

Download Tipping the Scales, our report on Scotland's compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

Find out more about environmental justice.

Find out more about the Aarhus Convention and how it affects Scotland.