Environmental complaints bodies work in high gear – but only in Sweden and Denmark – Dagsavisen
– The control of the administration in matters of importance to the environment is well taken care of through the system we have today. This means that you can complain to the administration or try cases before the courts and other control bodies such as the Civil Ombudsman and the Office of the Auditor General, says Eide.
Truls Gulowsen, leader of the Nature Conservation Association, strongly disagrees.
– The legal status of nature is unfortunately weak in Norway, mainly due to highly regarded legislation in the environmental field, says Gulowsen.
– This political government and discretion-based system means that the administration to a very small extent overrides its own decisions. Unfortunately, the “normal” right of appeal through the administration often proves to be a dead end.
Going to court is also not something anyone can afford, Gulowsen points out.
– The wolf case recently cost the environment more than 450,000 kroner, in addition to the risk of being convicted of the other party’s costs, if you were to lose. The climate search goal costs several times as many.
Labor and Social Democrats voted no
Today, there are complaints boards mostly in Norway, such as package travel, parking and patient injuries. Many, both environmental organizations, lawyers, parties and others, have called for and environmental appeals board in addition.
Twice this has been voted on in the Storting, most recently in 2019, without the proposals from SV and MDG gaining a majority. Both the Labor Party and the Socialist People’s Party were among the parties that voted against on both occasions.
Nevertheless, this did not prevent Sps Åslaug Sem-Jacobsen from asking the then Minister of Climate and Environment Sveinung Rotevatn (V) the following questions in 2020:
– Why does Norway not have an independent appeal body for environmental issues similar to what is found in Sweden and Denmark?
– As it has reached the administration is free to decide how much weight the consideration for the environment must have in relation to other considerations and interests, Sem-Jacobsen pointed out.
The answer to Rotevatn appears almost like a blueprint of what Espen Barth Eide now says to Dagsavisen:
– I believe that control of the administration’s decisions of significance to the environment is taken care of through the usual system for administrative complaints and review of cases before the courts and other bodies such as the Civil Ombudsman and the Office of the Auditor General.
[ Slik blir norsk natur spist opp ]
Handled 3,000 cases
But in Sweden and Denmark, the appeals bodies for environmental issues have more than enough to hang their fingers on.
The Swedish National Courts Administration states that their version of this, the “land and environmental courts”, decided over 3,000 cases last year. In addition, there are over 1,700 cases that have not yet been made.
– The cases that are processed are both cases where the court is the first instance of appeal and appealed cases where the court reviews an authority’s decision, Marie Gerrevall states.
She is a judge at the Land and Environment Court in Växjö, which is one of a total of five courts in Sweden.
These courts deal with, among other things, complaints concerning the Swedish Environment Act and the Planning and Building Act.
– Who can appeal cases to you?
– Both private individuals and companies, associations and other organizations have the right to complain, Gerrevall answers.
– Does it cost anything to process a complaint?
– Those who appeal a decision to the Land and Environment Court pay no fee to the court. It also does not normally impose any liability for legal costs in appeal cases in accordance with the Environmental Act and the Planning and Building Act.
[ Hyttebygging med mye attåt truer naturen ]
Handled 1,800 cases
From the House of Boards in Denmark, Dagsavisen is informed that the Danish Environmental Complaints Board, the «Environment and Food Complaints Board», dealt with approximately 1,800 cases in 2021.
In a normal year, about 1,400 cases are processed. The reason for the reduction last year is a goal of getting a share that is on hold.
A wide range of cases are dealt with by this tribunal, everything from environmental approvals and environmental assessments of plans and projects, to decisions on the protection of ancient monuments, coastal protection and decisions under the Watercourses Act.
– Who can appeal cases to you?
– The Environment and Food Complaints Board handles complaints from private individuals, public authorities, foundations, associations, companies and organizations, answers head of administration Søren Kaack Hansen.
– Does it cost anything to process a complaint?
– In connection with the submission of a complaint, as a general rule, a complaint fee must be paid. The appeal fee is 900 Danish kroner for private individuals and 1,800 Danish kroner for companies and organizations. There are a few exceptions to this and the appeal fee is refundable in some cases.
[ Har kommet kort i kartleggingen av natur ]
– Is well protected
– 2022 can be nature’s year, Espen Barth Eide wrote in an article in Dagens Næringsliv in January. Reference was made to several forthcoming UN meetings which could have a major impact on nature.
– Nature and the environment are becoming increasingly important, and it is very important to have good schemes to ensure that the laws and regulations in this field are well taken care of in the meeting with other interested parties, says Eide to Dagsavisen.
As he assesses it, there is no shortage of such “good schemes” today.
– Norwegian nature and the environment are already well protected by a number of lovers and other initiatives, says Eide.
– An environmental complaints board will have to adhere to this framework in the same way as the administration does today, he points out.
– This also applies to different interests that must weigh each other. Neither the administration nor any environmental appeals board can adopt other and stronger instruments than those that follow from regulations and budget decisions.
– We therefore believe that the normal scheme in the state administration should continue to be to appeal to the superior body and not to a separate appeals board.
[ – For hver dag haster det mer å stanse tapet av natur ]
– Can amount to millions
Lawyer Tine Larsen, who among other things works with environmental law, is of a different opinion. She has believed that Norway needs a parallel to what they have in Sweden and Denmark. Today’s appeal options are not good enough, as Larsen assesses.
– An administrative law appeal is not decided by a sufficiently independent body, and an appeal to the Civil Ombudsman does not appeal to an effective review, because the ombud’s statements are not binding on the administration, Larsen points out.
– The courts, on the other hand, are independent and the decisions are binding, but the costs of litigation can amount to millions, and it is often prohibitively expensive for environmental organizations. Environmental cases are therefore to a small extent tried in the courts, she continues.
Larsen also points to the so-called Aarhus Convention in his argument for the establishment of an environmental appeals board. This convention has been ratified by both Norway and almost 50 other countries.
– Norway today does not comply with the convention’s obligation that it must also be possible for all people to have environmental cases tried by a review body which is independent, efficient and not prohibitively expensive, Larsen states.
[ Fortviler over at nedgangen i antallet fuglearter fortsetter ]
– Affordably expensive
Truls Gulowsen in the Nature Conservation Association is also involved in the Aarhus Convention.
– The friendliness of Aarhus does not require the establishment of separate boards, but that we have the right to have decisions made for the environment by a competent review body “without this being prohibitively expensive”, he points out.
– When it comes to normal legal proceedings, it is our opinion that this is actually «prohibitively expensive». These costs, in addition to the fact that the case may risk arbitrary treatment of a right that does not know environmental law or environmental problems, since such cases are very rarely promoted in court, make the threshold for judicial review of environmental cases very high in Norway.
– We therefore believe that there is every reason to both establish a separate environmental appeals board in Norway and take measures to ensure that judicial review, whether in a tribunal or ordinary court, does not become prohibitively expensive, Gulowsen concludes.
Stay up to date. Get a daily newsletter from Dagsavisen