Tasman

Canterbury

West Coast

Northland

Taranaki

Marlborough

Chatham Islands Territory

Otago

Auckland

Greater Wellington

Manawatū-Whanganui

Gisborne

Southland

Bay of Plenty

Waikato

Nelson

Hawke's Bay

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.

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. 

The case was brought as a humanitarian appeal by the appellants (a husband, wife, and three children) against their deportation liability, which arose when their presence in New Zealand became unlawful. The primary issue in this case was whether there were exceptional humanitarian circumstances and whether the best interests of the three children, having regard to the challenging circumstances they would face on their return.

Regarding all the relevant factors, including climate change, Tribunal Member Clayton, on July 23, 2025, allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants be granted resident visas.

The Tribunal noted the effects of climate change, including intensified water insecurity and reduced food availability. As to the relevance of disasters and climate change, the Tribunal noted the decision of AD (Tuvalu), where the Tribunal stated that exposure to the impacts of natural disasters in general terms can constitute a circumstance of a humanitarian nature, and that it is widely accepted that the effects of climate change can adversely affect the enjoyment of basic human rights. The Tribunal accepted that the appellants were understandably concerned for their own well-being and especially for their children’s future in an increasingly climate-change impacted Tuvalu. The Tribunal also accepted that the appellants’ “climate anxiety” which, as the parents of three young children, was pivotal in their decision to leave Tuvalu. Despite no psychological evidence presented, the Tribunal factored the children's climate anxiety into its assessment of humanitarian factors. 

Geography

New Zealand

Recent cases