Abstract Restrictive standing rules, adverse litigation costs, and proof of causation are major barriers to access to courts for Environmental Public-Interest Litigation (EPIL). A doctrinal and comparative examination of the relevant laws in Ethiopia reveals that these issues have not been sufficiently and unequivocally addressed. Primarily, there are controversies pertaining to standing, contestable actions, and potential defendants in environmental litigation. The rules related to the proof of causation and litigation costs are also not favourable for effective EPIL. In contrast, China has made significant strides in addressing these barriers by introducing different types of EPIL and bestowing the standing to initiate EPIL upon various actors, including social organizations, administrative organs, and procuratorial organs. Furthermore, Chinese laws allow for the deferment, reduction, or elimination of litigation costs in environmental matters. In addition, several laws in China shift the burden of proof in environmental matters to the defendants. Several stakeholders, including the judiciary, legislature, local governments, and non-governmental organizations, have played a significant role in the evolution of these legislative laws. Hence, following China’s approach to addressing the barriers to effective EPIL, Ethiopia must adopt laws that bestow the right to initiate EPIL upon a broad array of actors, relax the standing requirements unequivocally, and clearly outline the possible contestable actions and defendants. Ethiopia should introduce special treatment for EPIL, including reduced initial lawsuit payments and protection from adverse costs. A reverse burden of proof in EPIL cases should also be introduced to enhance citizen participation in environmental law enforcement.
Nurilign Mulugeta Gurmessa (Wed,) studied this question.