3. Remedies

6. HURDLES AND CHALLENGES

While non-pecuniary remedies are increasingly used in climate litigation, the effectiveness and application of these remedies are influenced by a variety of factors, including the specific legal traditions, the balance between environmental protection and economic development, and the willingness of the judiciary to engage with complex and evolving environmental issues. In countries like Nigeria and China, where economic considerations are paramount, there is a cautious approach to imposing non-pecuniary remedies. For example, in Nigeria, courts are hesitant to issue injunctions against oil and gas companies, as seen in the case of Allar Irou v Shell BP Development Company (Nigeria) Ltd,  due to concerns about hindering major sources of national revenue. This reflects a tension between environmental protection and economic interests.

In contrast, countries like the Netherlands and Germany, with more established legal frameworks for environmental protection, face different challenges. In Germany, a key challenge is proving causation and the lawfulness of corporate behaviours under existing legal obligations, as highlighted in Lliuya v. RWE AG.  In Japan, there is a high threshold for proving concrete danger and causation, as well as judicial cautiousness in admitting new rights. This can be seen in the case of Citizens' Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al. 

In the Philippines, while there is a strong commitment to environmental protection as shown in cases like Indigenous Cultural Communities of BICAMM Ancestral Domain v Office of the Secretary of the DENR,  Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes et al. , the challenge lies in the effective implementation and enforcement of these legal tools.