Welcome to the Landmark Climate & Environment Law Blog!

We know – it’s the Christmas gift you were truly hoping for. Forget the knitted socks, the latest gadgets, and the artisanal jam you’ll never open. What you really wanted under the sustainably-sourced tree this year was fresh commentary on environmental case law developments, climate litigation trends and regulatory updates.

So grab a mince pie and settle in. Because nothing conjures up the festive spirit like a careful analysis of the footnotes.

The launch of the Landmark Chambers Climate and Environmental Law Blog comes at an important moment. Climate change is no longer a distant threat analysed in academic reports or international conference halls. It is a rapidly unfolding reality reshaping domestic law, public policy, how we think about human rights and the everyday decisions of public authorities. Environmental law, once often viewed as a specialist niche, has become one of the most dynamic and consequential areas of legal practice. This blog aims to explore that evolving landscape, providing insight and commentary on the cases, legislation, and policy developments that will define the next decade.”

We’ve launched this blog to time with the important publication of DEFRA’s Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 (EIP 2025), which promises to provide a “roadmap for restoring England’s environment over the coming years” by setting out “measurable commitments across every priority – from cleaner air and water to thriving wildlife and resilient landscapes”.

In the run-up to Christmas, we will be spotlighting each of the Ten Goals for environmental improvement set out in the EIP and wrapping things up with our reflections on the plans for delivery.

We hope you enjoy!

This blog was written by Natasha Jackson and Margherita Cornaglia.

--------------------------------

The EIP: 10 Days of the 10 Goals

EIP 2025 was published on 1 December 2025 and is the third EIP to be issued under the Environment Act 2021.

It is clear from first blush that EIP 2025 is more than just a periodic refresh. It follows DEFRA’s 2024 rapid review of the previous EIP and advice from the Office of Environmental Protection in September (see: https://www.theoep.org.uk/repo...), both of which identified the need for clearer commitments, enhanced monitoring and stronger delivery capability. The EIP 2025 is DEFRA’s response.

The EIP sets out 10 Goals for environmental improvement (with the overarching goal to ‘restore nature’) and presents 13 Development Plans for achieving them. It presents a new series of benchmarks and accountability tools against which decisions can now be judged going forward, inviting consideration as to whether decision-makers have had proper regard to the EIP, whether public bodies’ actions align with statutory or interim targets, and the sufficiency of monitoring, reporting and delivery.

We will take you through the EIP 2025 step-by-step over the coming blog posts. But by way of introduction, we’ve kicked off with an overview on the background of the EIP and its legal effect.

The Legal Duty to Prepare an EIP

The Environment Act 2021 obliges the Secretary of State to prepare, maintain and review an EIP, setting out how the Government will “significantly improve the natural environment in England”: s.8, EA 2021. That plan must be for a period not shorter than 15 years, and the Secretary of State must report on the implementation of the plan annually: ss.8-9, EA 2021. The Act also establishes legally binding long-term targets and requires five-year interim targets, annual progress reports, and application of environmental principles to policymaking.

The EIP 2025 is therefore not merely policy: it is the central mechanism through which ministers intend to discharge statutory obligations concerning air, water, biodiversity and waste/resource efficiency.

EIP 2025: Structure and Purpose

The updated EIP is organised around ten long-term goals, grouped into five thematic chapters, supported by:

1. Statutory long-term and interim targets under the Environment Act;
2. 13 delivery plans, each setting out how specific goals or statutory targets will be achieved;
3. A strengthened evaluation and monitoring framework; and
4. Annual progress reporting obligations.

Although many commitments are carried forward or clarified from earlier plans, some new elements – such as tighter Particulate Matter (PM2.5) targets, a new PFAS (forever chemicals) action plan, and significant new funding for landscape-scale nature recovery – would seem to reflect evolving environmental pressures and political priorities.

But as we will explore through the coming blog posts, clear questions arise as to whether the planning goes far enough (especially when considered as-compared to measures and targets adopted by the EU/USA), is rapid enough, or engages fully with creative solutions to environmental improvement.

The 10 Goals

EIP 2025 identifies ten Goals for improvement, targeted at restoring nature and enhancing environmental quality, the circular economy and resource efficiency, environmental security and access to nature. Each of these Goals will be the focus of an individual instalment in this series, so stay tuned for more detailed analysis.

Goal 1: Restored nature. Including commitments such as 30by30, habitat creation targets, statutory species abundance targets, woodland and hedgerow expansion, a strengthened protected sites programme, and marine recovery.

Goal 2: Clean air. Including new interim PM2.5 targets and enhanced emissions reductions.

Goal 3: Clean and plentiful water. Spanning Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) requirements, nutrient reduction, storm overflow reduction, wastewater and abstraction reform.

Goal 4: Minimising harm from chemicals and pesticides. Including REACH (i.e. Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals) reform, a dedicated PFAS plan, pesticides reduction and contaminated land review.

Goal 5: Waste reduction. Including statutory interim targets and tackling fly-tipping and illegal waste sites.

Goal 6: Resource management. Including sustainable soil management, fisheries sustainability, and new farming and food strategies.

Goal 7: Climate change. Peatland restoration, agroforestry expansion, climate-resilient site management and alignment with carbon budgets.

Goal 8: Reducing environmental hazards. Flood risk management, asset resilience and potential planning reforms.

Goal 9: Biosecurity. Including halving the establishment rate of invasive species by 2030.

Goal 10: Access to nature. Ensuring everyone is within a 15-minute walk of green/blue space and improving landscape and heritage condition. 

The 13 Delivery Plans

A major structural change in 2025 is the publication of 13 detailed delivery plans, each explaining how a specific statutory or interim target will be achieved. These cover: (1) Agriculture water quality; (2) Air quality; (3) Farm wildlife; (4) Habitat creation and restoration; (5) Invasive species; (6) Marine protected areas; (7) Protected sites; (8) Residual waste; (9) Statutory species targets; (10) Tree and woodland cover; (11) Wastewater; (12) Water and abandoned metal mines; and (13) Water demand.

These plans are legally and practically significant. They provide granular delivery pathways and identify responsibilities for DEFRA, Arm’s-Length Bodies, other government departments, local authorities, landowners, farmers, private companies, and civil society groups. These plans accordingly provide benchmarks for decision-making, compliance expectations, enforcement strategy and potential litigation.

Initial Responses

There have been a number of initial reflections put out by a range of Environmental NGOs and stakeholders over the past day, all of which are worth exploring for a ‘vibe check’ on the EIP’s reception. But the real king-maker of the EIP will be the Office for Environmental Protection. The OEP’s scrutiny can proxy as a useful litmus test for its resilience to legal challenge.

The OEP, created under the Environment Act 2021, is tasked with scrutinising EIPs, goals and targets. On publication day, the OEP welcomed the “coherent and specific commitments” in the revised Plan but highlighted areas requiring further clarity. Concerns included: vagueness in some commitments; gaps in monitoring arrangements; uncertainty over whether the EIP adequately replaces a dedicated chemicals strategy; that amendments to some interim targets require close scrutiny. We were interested to listen to the CEO of the OEP, Natalie Prosser in conversation with Sophie Tremlin at Landmark on 1 December 2025 as part of UKELA’s ‘Fireside Chats’ series about the important role of the OEP in holding public bodies to account, and were particularly interested to hear about the OEP’s detailed wider project work on certain areas including PFAS chemicals. We will be keeping a keen eye on what comes out of the OEP as the EIP takes effect.

For our part, on an initial read, we broadly agree with the OEP’s impressions. The EIP 2025 – on first blush – contains a number of precise commitments across a range of areas. It appears to take some welcome steps in the move towards “SMART” (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) objectives and standards on climate adaptation, and the promised Land Use Framework in 2026 will be an important milestone to watch out for. But the devil is in the detail, and there are a number of areas where the EIP opts to treat the symptoms rather than invest in the cure (e.g. aviation, nitrogen).

So please join us for the rest of the series to dive deeper!

--------------------------------

In other news

While we’re focusing on the EIP 2025, don’t miss:

• Mould J’s decision in Oceana UK v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2025] EWHC 3146 (Admin), which has just been handed down and which rejects Oceana UK’s challenge to the lawfulness of three “Appropriate Assessments” (AAs) conducted by the Secretary of State under reg 5 of the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001. These AAs informed the Secretary of State’s agreement to the grant of 28 offshore oil and gas licences by the North Sea Transition Authority. Three quarters of those licences are inside marine protected areas. As Oceana points out, while exploration may now be possible (subject, of course, to any appeal), Mould J made clear that the government must account for ocean harms as the licenses progress, and that this verdict is not a sign that oil production should be allowed to go ahead. But we also note the finding that it was lawful for the Secretary of State when carrying out AAs to defer consideration of effects which are either not yet known or capable of being sufficiently identified to a later stage. We will be looking out for any developments; watch this space for our future case updates.
• The first instance judgment in Município de Mariana v (1) BHP Group (UK) Limited (2) BHP Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 3001 (TCC). O’Farrell J handed down her judgment mid-November, finding BHP liable for what may be billions more in compensation following the collapse of the Mariana dam in Brazil. The dam collapsed in 2015, killing 19 people and releasing over 40 million cubic metres of iron ore tailings into the local environment. This claim, which was pursued on behalf of 620,000 alleged victims and was allowed to proceed in the English courts after the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s initial strike-out of the proceedings, has been heralded as a significant landmark for mass litigation. It might also increase the appetite of litigators and third party litigation funders when it comes to investing in large environmental group claims or climate damage lawsuits, as to which, do keep an eye on recent proceedings launched against Shell to recover climate damages on behalf of Filipino victims of typhoon Odette, which Margherita is acting in.
• The important recent decision of the ECtHR in Greenpeace Nordic v Norway, which also concerned the issuance of licences for the exploration of oil and gas reserves. This case followed in the footsteps of the KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland case (see: here, here, here, here and here), and it was hoped that the ECtHR would venture into ruling on the legality of new fossil fuel production. That hope was misplaced, but this remains an important new instalment in the fast-developing climate human rights jurisprudence. A detailed analysis to follow…
• One to watch: five campaign groups are taking the Dutch state to court this week in an effort to bring an immediate ban on the discharge of cancer-causing PFAS chemicals (forever chemicals) into the environment. Comparisons are being drawn to the Urgenda climate case, in which the Dutch state was ordered to reduce GHG emissions. Given growing concern around PFAS in the UK (if you haven’t watched it yet, we recommend the BBC’s recent Panorama, “The Truth on Forever Chemicals”) and the EIP’s possibly underwhelming approach to PFAS, litigation on forever chemicals is certainly one to watch.
• DESNZ has launched a consultation to review the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2011, seeking input on carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). See: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-and-what-role-can-it-play-in-tackling-climate-change/, for a helpful explainer on CCUS.
• We’re giving a webinar with Richard Turney KC and Jenny Wigley KC on “Challenging Grid Connection Decisions” on 5 December 2025, concerning the new TMO4+ Grid Connection reforms and their role in net zero objectives. Sign up if you’re interested! The link is here: https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/events/planning-property-and-power-electricity-networks
• Finally, don’t forget about our sister blog, the Aarhus Blog – it has some great content from colleagues, and is a must-read given how much debate there is around Aarhus these days!