points of claim

Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. and Environmental Law Initiative v. Minister of Climate Change - points of claim

Litigation

Sabin

Filing Year For Action

On June 10, 2025, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. and the Environmental Law Initiative filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court of New Zealand against the Minister of Climate Change, challenging the lawfulness of New Zealand’s first and second emissions reduction plans (ERP1 and ERP2) under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA). The case marks the first legal challenge to emissions reduction plans under the CCRA and, according to the applicants, the first case globally to challenge a government’s heavy reliance on forestry offsets to meet national climate targets.

The applicants claim the Minister acted unlawfully both in failing to maintain the integrity of ERP1 and in adopting ERP2. With respect to ERP1 (2021–2025), they argue that after the 2023 change in government, key policies were cancelled or postponed without timely amendment of the plan or adequate consultation, violating the statutory requirement that the plan remain current and consistent. The applicants also argue that the December 2024 amendments to ERP1 were procedurally improper, lacking meaningful consultation and resulting in an incoherent plan split across multiple documents, contrary to the CCRA’s objectives of policy clarity and predictability.

The second limb of the challenge concerns ERP2, covering the 2026–2030 budget period and published in December 2024. The applicants contend that ERP2 fails to meet the legal requirements of section 5ZG of the CCRA because it does not set out a coherent and credible plan of policies and strategies likely to meet the emissions budget. They highlight that 95% of the projected emissions reductions are attributed not to ERP2-specific policies but to pre-existing trends assumed in baseline modelling. ERP2 also relies heavily on forestry offsets, based on the “offset equivalence assumption” that removals via exotic afforestation are fungible with reductions in gross emissions at source. The applicants argue this assumption constitutes a fundamental error of fact and is inconsistent with the best available climate science and New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.

They further allege that ERP2’s reliance on an “adaptive management approach” is an inadequate risk management strategy, lacking specific measures to be implemented if the plan veers off track. The applicants cite advice from the Climate Change Commission and government officials warning that reliance on offsets and the ETS alone is insufficient and risky, particularly given the climate vulnerability of forests and the time lag associated with implementing new policies.

The claimants seek a series of declarations, including that ERP1 and ERP2 are unlawful, that the Minister failed to comply with legal consultation and procedural requirements, and that ERP2 should be quashed and remade in accordance with the Act. They also seek clarification from the Court on the proper interpretation of the Minister’s legal duties when developing and amending emissions reduction plans.

As of August 2025, the High Court has not yet set a hearing date.