West Coast

Bay of Plenty

Southland

Marlborough

Canterbury

Tasman

Manawatū-Whanganui

Waikato

Chatham Islands Territory

Taranaki

Nelson

Otago

Gisborne

Greater Wellington

Northland

Hawke's Bay

Auckland

New Zealand

aiming to lower the average number of people affected, per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared with 2005-2015.

aim to lower disaster mortality by average per 100,000 mortality between 2020-2030 compared with 2005-2015.

10% reduction of biogetnic methane by 2030, 24%-47% reduction by 2050

Net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (except biogenic methane)

Emissions of biogenic methane in a calendar year—(i)are 10% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2030; and(ii)are 24% to 47% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year.

Electric vehicles make up 2% of the vehicle fleet by the end of 2021.

Decrease in industrial emissions intensity of at least 1% per annum on average between 2017 and 2022.

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

Lawyers for Climate Action NZ alongside climate specialist Paul Young filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority alleging that Mazda New Zealand is misleading consumers about the environmental effectiveness of its tree-planting programme. 

The complaint focused on Mazda’s website advertising that stated that it funds the planting of five trees for each new car sold, and claims that “Over each vehicle's 5-year warranty term, these 5 trees will [..] mitigate any environmental impact from CO2 emissions…” which they state grossly overstates the actual impact of planting those trees. 

The Complaints Board Chair accepted the complaint to go before the Complaints Board to consider whether the Advertising Standards Code had been breached. As part of the self-regulatory process, advertisers have the option of amending or removing their advertising after receiving a complaint. In this case the Advertiser confirmed they had removed the advertisement. As the advertisement has been removed, the Chair has ruled the complaint as settled on March 12, 2026.

In February 2025, the Coastal Ratepayers Union (CRU) filed for a judicial review at the Wellington High Court regarding the Kāpiti Coast District Council’s (KCDC) public-facing information on coastal properties. The CRU alleged that the KCDC’s information on coastal properties, specifically hazard maps and Land Information Memorandums (LIMS), exaggerates climate risks such as sea level rise, floods, and erosion. 

Subsequently, the CRU requested that the council incorporate information from a report it had commissioned independently by retired Waikato University lecturer Willem de Lange into its report.
The CRU contended that Lange’s report provided an alternative assessment of the risks of coastal hazards, which should also be made available to property owners. The KCDC has since agreed to include the CRU’s commissioned report, marking a shift in climate risk warning material.


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.

This appeal concerns a decision of a refugee and protection officer declining to grant refugee or protected person status to the appellant, a citizen of Somalia.  The appellant feared returning to Somalia, as he considered that Al-Shabaab would seriously harm him. 

Trbiunal Member Aitchison, on July 30, 2025, held that appellant was a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention. The Tribunal found that the appellant was likely to face a tapestry of such harms that cumulatively reached the threshold of serious harm. Part of the Tribunal’s consideration centred on climate insecurity, with Somalia ranking seventh among the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change. The Tribunal noted that the effects of climate change are compounded by the actions of Al-Shabaab, noting that while droughts and climate change did not create Al-Shabaab or cause Somalia’s instability, they have shaped the environment in which the conflict is taking place and influenced the militant group’s tactics and evolution, relying on a report from the International Crisis Group “Fighting Climate Change in Somalia’s Conflict Zones”. The Tribunal found that the [ICG] reports convey how climate change and conflict are increasingly intertwined, and Al-Shabaab are exploiting climate threats and emergencies. 

Geography

New Zealand

Recent cases