3. Remedies

7. POTENTIAL FUTURE APPLICATIONS

The future application of non-pecuniary remedies in climate and environmental litigation across the 17 focus countries reveals a global shift towards more nuanced, preventive, and rights-based legal remedies that reflect the unique legal, economic and social contexts of each country.

In Australia, as seen in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v. Woodside Energy Ltd . and ACCR v. Santos , there's a move towards using declarations and injunctions to enforce environmental laws and influence corporate behaviour, rather than seeking monetary compensation. Similarly, in Canada injunctions and declaratory relief can be used as highlighted in the case of La Rose et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen . As such, the Netherlands, seen through landmark cases like Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell , is likely to continue with its forward-looking injunctive remedies, imposing specific environmental obligations not only against the State, but also against private companies. France shows a similar trend through cases like Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total  that suggest a continuing emphasis on preventive actions, compelling companies to change practices to mitigate environmental harm. In Poland, as shown in ClientEarth v. PGE GiEK  and Greenpeace Poland v. PGE , points to a growing emphasis on preventive injunctions in environmental litigation. Italy, through cases like Greenpeace Re: Common et al. v. ENI, shows an inclination towards ensuring corporate compliance with environmental laws, and promoting sustainable behaviours. In Germany, through cases like Lliuya v. RWE AG , it is expected to continue evolving towards proactive measures against environmental harm under its tort law and civil code.

China, with its developing framework, is likely to explore new remedies, such as ecological environment restoration via carbon sinks as seen in Shunchang County People's Procuratorate v. Wu Yuechang . Kenya's approach, particularly in Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others , signals a future of non-pecuniary reliefs under its Climate Change Act and constitutional provisions. Similarly, Brazil's approach, exemplified by IBAMA v. Madeira Nova Aliança Ltda. , utilises its legislative framework to safeguard collective rights, including the environment and public health.

In contrast, Nigeria's cautious approach, as in Jonah Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd and Others, suggests a future of balancing environmental protection through recognition of protecting rights against ecological degradation. India, as highlighted in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others (Oleum Gas leak case) , demonstrates a potential for continued judicial activism with remedies focusing on preventive, restorative, and behavioural directives that the government needs to comply with. The Philippines, with its comprehensive legal tools like the reliefs in a Citizen Suit in the Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes, et al . case and the Writ of Kalikasan in Indigenous Cultural Communities of BICAMM Ancestral Domain v Office of the Secretary of the DENR , is likely to see an expansion in the use of such innovative remedies that entail preservation and protection.

The UK, considering the ClientEarth v. Shell's Board of Directors  case, is poised for more targeted injunctions and specific performance orders in contract cases. Lastly, the United States, with cases is expected to continue utilising injunctions, potentially in more innovative applications.