The High Court has confirmed the legality of the National Adaptation Programme (NAP), rejecting a legal challenge by campaigners who are now considering an appeal.
- Campaigners Kevin Jordan and Doug Paulley, with Friends of the Earth, argued that the NAP violates multiple laws, including the Climate Change Act and human rights protections.
- The court found that while the NAP is lawful, it failed in aspects of equality law, acknowledging the plan’s neglect of marginalised groups.
- Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment and stated that the national adaptation plan remains inadequate and needs strengthening.
- The government vows to improve its approach to climate resilience while acknowledging the court’s ruling on the NAP’s legality.
The High Court has confirmed the legality of the National Adaptation Programme (NAP) following a legal challenge from activists who argue that the government’s plan is insufficient to address climate change risks. The NAP, intended to enhance infrastructure resilience over five years, was criticised by campaigners for not meeting legal standards and failing certain groups.
Kevin Jordan, whose house succumbed to coastal erosion, joined forces with Doug Paulley and Friends of the Earth to contest the NAP. Paulley, who faces challenges exacerbated by extreme heat, emphasized the plan’s shortcomings in addressing the needs of disabled individuals. Their legal argument contended the NAP violated the Climate Change Act, inadequately measured policy risks, failed equality assessments, and infringed on human rights due to ineffective provisions for heat and erosion threats.
The court, while dismissing the case, concurred with the equality law breach, noting the NAP’s insufficient consideration of vulnerable populations. This aspect highlighted the plan’s failure to account comprehensively for the needs of marginalised groups within the adaptation strategies outlined.
Friends of the Earth criticised the plan’s inadequacy, describing it as a failure not only to the environment but to communities worst hit by climate impacts. They assert that a more robust plan is essential, demanding immediate enhancement of these policies.
Responding to the judgment, the government welcomed the NAP’s legality affirmation, yet committed to refining its climate resilience strategies. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) suggested future plans to bolster the national response to climate risks.
This case underscores the ongoing tension between governmental climate policies and the demands of activists for more comprehensive protection measures.
