The Rise Of Climate Cases: How 58,000 People Took The Belgian Government To Court

In June 2021, Brussel’s court of first instance found that the Belgian authorities’ failure to prevent the “detrimental” effects of climate change was in violation of its civil and human rights obligations. Behind this victory lies a movement of 58,000 citizens who took their government to court for failing to comply with the Paris Agreement. Ashoka Fellow Ignace Schops is one of the masterminds for the seven-year effort. We spoke to him about its origins, and the ultimate goals of the campaign. Here’s what he had to say:

Corina Murafa: These kinds of climate cases are a relatively recent development. How did this trend get started?

Ignace Schops: The first time a judge ruled the state was legally required to take precautions against climate change was in the Netherlands. The class action law suit was initiated by Roger Cox on behalf of Urgenda Foundation and 900 citizens. I was a co-plaintiff at the time. Our actions in Belgium were inspired by that, but we went a step further and also built a movement around the case. We started with eleven Belgian influencers, such as filmmakers and journalists, whose hearts were throbbing for wildlife, nature and climate. They were in the press a lot and this group of people accelerated the growth of our movement. We hoped we could grow from eleven concerned Belgians to 11,000, and now 67,000 people are engaged. It’s the biggest case Belgium has ever seen. This mass mobilization sparked curiosity in other people. It demonstrated that it’s not just the ‘green weirdos’ who are trying to solve the problem. It’s all of us. We are using this as an instrument for change. With biodiversity loss and global warming, the world is silently collapsing and we are facing humanity’s biggest challenge ever. We cannot continue to destroy what keeps us alive. That’s why we decided to start an appeal process for our governments to impose effective CO2 reductions.

Murafa: Why did you decide to rely on the courts?

Schops: When we started, we asked ourselves: What we can do to move us away from our current path of environmental degradation? Looking at the past, we found parallels with how society had dealt with asbestos. It took people bringing asbestos cases to court, for the government to forbid its use – even though its impacts on health were already widely known. Our goal with this climate case was to become the ‘asbestos of the future’. It’s not our hobby to go to court, but it’s an effort of last resort out of love for nature, knowing there’s no time left to waste. We based our case on two pillars: the Belgian government is accountable for their duties stemming from the Paris Agreement; and, more broadly, it has a duty to prevent harm.

Murafa: Apart from courts, what’s the role of the economic system in climate action?

Schops: It’s very important . I believe in what Leonard Cohen said: ‘There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.’ That’s why we’ve been proving that protecting wildlife, for instance, has a net positive socio-economic benefit. Take the National Park we created in Belgium, Hoge Kempen National Park. It now has an annual turnover of €191M and creates 5,000 jobs. So, whenever I’m talking with decision makers, I bring this up as evidence that protecting wildlife and nature in general brings both intrinsic and extrinsic value. International research clearly shows that every Euro invested in a national park produces 10 euros of benefits for the local community.

Murafa: Why aren’t we seeing more traction for nature conservation then?

Schops: Many nature conservationists like myself made the mistake of only focusing on the birds and the bees, and not on the socioeconomic benefits overall. We jailed wildlife into protected areas, which signaled that outside those protected areas nature had no value. We forgot to tell the full story about the value of protection. Now, we need to break out of this system and realize that protected areas are not islands. Society must be interconnected and reconnected with the resilience and healing powers of natural ecosystems. I call this the (Re)connection Model.

Murafa: Are there losers when it comes to climate action?

Schops: If we solve it right, there are only winners. Of course, this is very complex and systemic. So much needs to change, but we’re in a transition period. Ultimately, alternatives will emerge. Governments need to come in and push for these alternatives. They are the ones that provide the infrastructure and the general framework that the private sector operates within. We also have to reconnect governments with social entrepreneurs who have tried and tested solutions. We have a shared responsibility to create systemic change.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

For more follow Ignace Schops and Next Now/Planet & Climate.

The article was originally posted at: %xml_tags[post_author]% %author_name% Source%post_title%