The High Court has today (Tuesday, March 1) granted leave for a judicial review of the government’s agriculture strategy – Food Vision 2030.
The legal challenge to the 10-year roadmap to grow agri-food exports from €14 billion to €21 billion by 2030 was taken by Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE).
The move followed a decision by the Environmental Pillar in February 2021 to withdraw its cooperation from the 2030 Agri-Food Strategy Stakeholder Committee.
The environmental coalition cut ties with what it described as the “industry-dominated” committee due to concerns it had about the strategy’s shortcomings on climate, biodiversity, water and air quality.
Food Vision legal challenge
In the High Court today, Justice Charles Meenan granted FIE leave to judicially review Food Vision 2030.
“Despite the Dáil having declared a climate and biodiversity emergency, last August the government nonetheless proceeded to approve the publication of Food Vison 2030, leaving these very serious environmental concerns side-lined,” FIE outlined in a statement following the ruling.
“While it is very unusual for government policy to be challenged in the courts, these legal proceedings challenge a plan that undermines our international and national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, will increase water pollution, and is damaging protected and unprotected habitats across Ireland.
“Irish agriculture is on the frontline of the climate crisis and is extremely vulnerable to the main impact of the increasing number and intensity of extreme weather events, highlighted by yesterday’s IPCC report,” the group explained.
“The grounds of the review include an alleged failure to properly subject the plan to the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Directives as well as the lack of monitoring,” FIE outlined.
The group claims that the environmental assessments accompanying Food Vision 2030 “unequivocally concluded that an alternative strategy would have the most beneficial environmental outcomes”.
However, it claimed that “this was rejected in favour of an industry’s agenda”.