Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee meeting Feb 2026: The Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders and the UK

This article was originally published on wiglaw.co.uk

Prior to the discussion of a communication alleging that the UK government is guilty of a systemic failure to implement the statutory nuisance regime, on 23 February 2026, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee will consider developments in relation to the Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders.

The Special Rapporteur’s role is “to take measures to protect any person experiencing or at imminent threat of penalization, persecution, or harassment for seeking to exercise their rights under the Aarhus Convention”.

The immediate task will be to finalise Special Rapporteur referral procedures. See here. 

The first referral made by the Rapporteur consists of three “letters of allegation” against the United Kingdom. See here.

The allegation concerning Mr Shaw, a protestor with Just Stop Oil and other groups, includes complaints about being held on remand for 113 days and harsh bail conditions.

The allegation in respect of M25 protestors complains about the combined use of civil and criminal proceedings, disproportionate penalties, excessive costs, the use of custodial remand and prison sentences for peaceful environmental protesting, harsh bail conditions, delays in criminal trial and the willingness of the police to disclose police records for use in civil proceedings.

In the allegation as to Dr Hart, the rapporteur states that “I do not see how subjecting Dr. Hart to professional disciplinary action for his peaceful climate activism … is reasonable, proportionate or pursues a legitimate public purpose”.

The government’s brief response is that the allegations do not engage Art.3(8) of the Convention at all. “There is no right to civil disobedience set out in the Convention. … the laws of the United Kingdom make provision for legitimate environmental protest and public participation.”

As discussed in my post yesterday, DEFRA has written separately to the Committee with its “profound concern” that there should be a standardised formula for consultation before Acts of Parliament are laid before Parliament, leading to an enforceable right before the Courts. The Committee had taken an “expansionist approach” in respect of decision 2017/150.

This, then, is the background to the alleged failure in implementing the statutory nuisance regime, an issue to be explored here over the next couple of days.