An environmental group’s challenge to the Government’s adoption of a 10-year agri-food sector strategy was dismissed by the High Court on Thursday.
Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) sought to quash Food Vision 2030, arguing it had not been subjected to adequate environmental impact assessments.
The Food Vision report, which was published in 2021, laid out a roadmap for exports to rise from €14 billion to €21 billion by 2030 and envisaged Ireland becoming a “world leader in sustainable food systems”.
A cross-sectoral committee of 30 agri-food stakeholders contributed to the plans covering the agriculture and marine sectors. In February 2021, a coalition of environmental groups withdrew from the committee, having concluded the approach was “woefully inadequate to meet the social and environmental challenges we face”.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Michael Harding: I went to the cinema to see Small Things Like These. By the time I emerged I had concluded the film was crap
Look inside: 1950s bungalow transformed into modern five-bed home in Greystones for €1.15m
Dismissing the case on Thursday, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys noted the court’s job is to assess the decision against “justiciable benchmarks” properly pleaded in the case. It does not have the expertise or investigative instruments, nor is it the court’s role, to assess its level of ambition.
The State argued the Food Vision strategy, having no statutory basis or legal effect, was not a matter that could be judicially reviewed. At its height, it was contended, the plan is a “non-binding policy document” that does not require EU-law environmental screenings, known as an appropriate assessment and a strategic environmental assessment.
Mr Justice Humphreys said FIE’s complaint of an “invalid” appropriate assessment, which is intended to determine a project’s effects on a protected site, was “totally misconceived”.
The Food Vision plan is “just too general and contains nothing relevant to any identifiable site” for which such a screening could be conducted. It was for the applicant to “put in the hard yards” to find something site-specific, the judge said.
This differentiates this case from FIE’s challenge to the Government’s National Development Plan, called Project Ireland 2040, which the Supreme Court has referred to the Court of Justice of the EU for consideration of issues, he said. While that plan also is not binding, it is site-specific in certain respects which could be enough to trigger obligations under the appropriate assessment law, Mr Justice Humphreys noted.
The judge also agreed with the State’s argument that, due to its non-binding nature, the plan does not require a “strategic environmental assessment”.
A further ground, alleging the State has not properly transposed the EU’s Access to Information on the Environment Directive, fell primarily due to issues with the way it was pleaded in legal documents.
He dismissed the proceedings.
