Citizens and Others v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violations of environmental regulations

Location

Guyana

Status
Closed
Case file number
2020-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-460
Start date
May 21, 2020
Date of judgment or latest existing decision
On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court of Guyana issued a consent order that forced the EPA to reduce the duration of permits for the Liza 1 and Liza 2 projects.
Summary

Guyanese scientist Dr. Troy Thomas filed a lawsuit against Guyana's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Supreme Court, alleging that the 23-year permits the EPA had granted to Esso Exploration (an Exxon subsidiary) for oil exploration violated the Environmental Protection Act regulations, which limited the duration of such permits to 5 years.

The EPA granted Esso permits valid until 2040 and 2043. In an affidavit supporting the lawsuit, Thomas argued that issuing such an extensive permit, in violation of the law, exposed Guyana and the rest of the world to serious, if not irreparable, damage and adverse consequences from climate change.

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court of Guyana issued a consent order accepting an agreement between Thomas, the EPA, and Esso. The EPA agreed to reduce the permits' validity to five years, so they would expire in 2022 and 2024. The Court also ordered the EPA to pay Thomas's legal costs.

Climate element

The case is considered a landmark lawsuit against Guyana's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because the main arguments highlight actions to curb environmental risks and climate change.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs explicitly incorporated the context of the global climate crisis as a central argument in challenging the legality of the more than 20-year permits granted to Esso (an ExxonMobil subsidiary) to extract oil, arguing that they violated the Environmental Protection Law, which limited such permits to a maximum of five years. They also argued that the approval of these permits, which exacerbate climate change and threaten to generate billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions, violated citizens' constitutional right to a healthy and safe environment.

The decision issued by the Supreme Court of Guyana forced the EPA to reduce the duration of the permits for the Liza 1 and Liza 2 projects.

Claimants
  • Citizens of Guyana
  • Dr. Troy Thomas
  • Abogados: Seenath Jairam SC and Melinda Janki
Defendants
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Territorial context

The territory of Guyana covers an approximate area of 214,970 km² in northern South America, although approximately 82% of it is under international dispute due to historical border claims by its neighboring countries.

Guyana faces significant challenges from climate change, experiencing frequent droughts and floods that have caused substantial economic losses, while simultaneously developing its oil industry with projects such as Hammerhead, an ExxonMobil initiative to extract oil in deep waters.

This context presents a tension between the need to adapt to climate impacts and the exploitation of fossil resources, although the country seeks to frame its energy development under the umbrella of sustainability and investment in human capital.

Rules and principles invoked

International agreements/treaties

  • Paris Agreement

National laws

  • Environmental Protection Act of 1996

Beginning

  • Principle of prevention
  • Precautionary principle

This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .

Links of interest
Instance
Judicial
Actor type
Ombudsman
Natural person
Topic
Acuerdo de París y compromisos climáticos
Fossil fuels
Climate disasters
Fragile ecosystems
Dirty energy
Environmental impact studies
Obligations of States
Environmental protection
Defendant type
Public company
State
Grounds for claim
Paris Agreement and climate commitments
Environmental or climate damage
Right to a healthy environment
National legislation