3. Remedies

The current application of non-pecuniary remedies in climate and environmental litigation across 17 countries, shows a diverse and evolving landscape in climate and environmental litigation. As such, the use of non-pecuniary remedies has underscored the differing degrees of judicial activism and environmental stewardship across the globe, thus, reflecting each country's unique legal and economic contexts in addressing the challenges of climate change and environmental degradation.

The Philippines stands out for its commitment to holistic environmental protection through innovative legal tools like the Reliefs in a Citizen Suit, Writ of Kalikasan, Writ of Continuing Mandamus, inter alia, in cases like Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes, et al. , Indigenous Cultural Communities of BICAMM Ancestral Domain v Office of the Secretary of the DENR , and Concerned Residents of Manila Bay vs. MMDA, et al . respectively. The Supreme Court, in the Manila Bay case, issued a continuing mandamus directing several government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay with a concomitant duty to report on compliance at regular intervals. In the Resident Marine Mammals' case, the Supreme Court granted reliefs in a citizen suit to nullify a service contract to protect the marine environment against harmful activities. In Indigenous Cultural Communities, a writ of kalikasan was issued in favour of indigenous cultural communities against the harm of mining activities.

Countries like the Netherlands and Germany exhibit a forward-thinking approach, leveraging injunctions and declaratory relief to enforce corporate and state accountability for environmental protection. This is illustrated in landmark cases like Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands,  where the court ordered the Dutch State to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. As such, in the case of Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell case , where the court ordered Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. The court established a non-pecuniary obligation on a private corporation and not just the state, demonstrating the court's willingness to impose direct environmental responsibilities on corporate entities. In the German case of Lliuya v. RWE AG  the claimant is seeking to hold RWE AG responsible for a share of the costs for protective measures against flooding from a glacial lake, a consequence of climate change allegedly linked to RWE AG's activities. Australia and the United Kingdom also demonstrate the use of remedies like injunctions and declarations in their varying degrees, particularly focusing on corporate conduct and policy compliance. In Australia, this can be seen in the case of Australian Conservation Foundation Inc (ACF) v. Woodside Energy Ltd. , where the claimants sought declarations that the Scarborough Gas Project falls within the scope of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), and in the case of ACCR v. Santos , wherein the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) sought declarations that Santos engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and declaration against future misleading claims.

Contrastingly, in countries like Nigeria and China, economic considerations heavily influence legal outcomes, and therefore there is a more cautious approach to imposing non-pecuniary remedies. In Nigeria, this can be seen in the case of Allar Irou v Shell BP Development Company (Nigeria) Ltd.  wherein the court refused to issue an injunction on the grounds that 'it will amount to asking the defendants to stop operating in the area [...]. However, in the case of Jonah Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd and Others,onah Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd and Others, the court granted various declaratory reliefs against the continuous gas flaring by oil and gas corporations, seen as inconsistent with constitutional rights to life and dignity.

Meanwhile, countries like Japan and Poland are navigating their unique challenges in establishing legal grounds for environmental litigation, with a cautious approach to granting injunctions and a growing emphasis on preventive injunctions, respectively. Countries like Brazil and India show a proactive judicial stance in environmental protection, using a variety of legal mechanisms to uphold rights to a healthy environment, as seen in Brazil's IBAMA v. Madeira Nova Aliança Ltda  case. And in India, the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others (Oleum Gas leak Case)  led to the evolution of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism and the development of the Absolute Liability Principle. In this case, the Supreme Court issued various directives to regulate industries causing environmental harm, demonstrating a non-pecuniary approach focused on preventive and remedial actions.