Oslo

Innlandet

Trööndelage

Svalbard (Arctic Region)

Rogaland

Vestfold og Telemark

Romssa ja Finnmárkku

Jan Mayen (Arctic Region)

Møre og Romsdal

Agder

Viken

Nordland

Vestland

Norway

Reduce GHG emissions by 90-95% compared to 1990

Reduce GHG emissions by at least 50 toward 55% by 2030 compared to 1990.

This is an update of its previous target to reduce GHG emissions of at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990.

30% cut in GHG emissions by 2020 against a 1990 baseline

40% cut in GHG emissions by 2020 against a 1990 baseline

10% overfill Kyoto obligations by 2012 against a 2008 baseline

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared with a 2017 baseline

Reduce emissions of urban buses by 100% (2025), of new coaches by 75% (2030), of new trucks by 50% (2030), of urban freight by 100% (2030), of rail by 100% (2030); increase biofuels in aviation by 1% (2019), then 30% (2030) by 2030 against a 2018 baseline

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is challenging a Norwegian parliamentary decision to open up vast areas of the seabed for mining. The organization argues that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) on which the decision was based is inadequate. In April 2024, WWF notified the government of its intention to sue if the decision was not reversed. WWF maintains that the EIA does not meet the minimum requirements set out in the Norwegian Subsea Minerals Act §2-2. The organization also points out that the Norwegian Environment Directorate has expressed similar concerns. WWF further argues that the EIA shows that the Norwegian government does not have sufficient knowledge to assess the environmental impacts of seabed mining. Without this knowledge, it is impossible to properly assess the consequences of exploration and extraction activities. WWF's lawsuit aims to prevent the Norwegian government from violating the law by opening up a new and potentially destructive industry without adequately assessing the consequences. The organization believes that this would set a dangerous precedent and could lead to irreversible environmental damage. Several Norwegian political parties, including the Socialist Left Party, the Liberal Party, the Red Party, the Green Party, and the Christian People's Party, voted against the decision to open up the seabed for mining. These parties share WWF's concerns about the inadequacy of the EIA and the potential environmental risks of seabed mining. WWF has urged the Norwegian government to reconsider its decision and conduct a more thorough EIA that takes into account the full range of potential environmental impacts of seabed mining.

On June 29, 2023, two environmental NGOs, Greenpeace Nordic and Natural og Ungdom (Nature & Youth), challenged three administrative decisions whereby the Norwegian Energy Ministry approved the plan for the development and operation of the oil and gas fields of Breidablikk, Yggdrasil, and Tyrving in the North Sea. The three fields in question have been subject to impact assessments by the companies that are operators and licensees for the fields. However, these impact assessments do not include combustion (Scope 3) emissions from the oil and gas produced.

In the absence of administrative or specialized environmental courts in the Norwegian legal system, the lawsuit occurred in a civil court. The plaintiffs based their challenge on various legal grounds, including Section 4-2, second paragraph, of the Petroleum Act, alongside Section 22a of the Petroleum Regulations. The interpretation of these statutes was guided by Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, emphasizing the right to a healthy environment. Additionally, the challenge was grounded in compliance with the EU Directive on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA Directive). The plaintiffs also invoked legal sources such as Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), on the right to life and right to respect for private life and family life and home, respectively, both independently and in conjunction with Article 14 of the ECHR, prohibiting discrimination. Furthermore, the challenge drew support from Section 104, second paragraph, of the Norwegian Constitution, which focuses on the dignity rights of children and the obligation to incorporate their best interests, and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the best interests of the child. Further legal theories encompass Norway's Nature Diversity Act and Public Administration Act.

Essentially, the plaintiffs argued that the assessment of Scope 3 emissions should have been conducted before issuing the three administrative decisions. In contrast, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, now the Ministry of Energy, asserted that a general-level assessment of Scope 3 emissions by the Ministry sufficed and that there was no explicit requirement for this assessment to be integrated into the specific impact assessments for the Breidablikk, Yggdrasil, and Tyrving fields.

On January 18, 2024, the Oslo District Court concluded that all three decisions were unlawful. There is a legal requirement that Scope 3 emissions must be subject to an impact assessment pursuant to Section 4-2 of the Petroleum Act and Section 22a of the Petroleum Regulations, interpreted in light of Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution (on the right to a healthy environment). This also follows from Article 4 no. 1 of the EU EIA Directive, Article 3 no. 1. Conversely, for the three challenged administrative decisions, no impact assessment of Scope 3 emissions had been carried out, contrary to the Norwegian Supreme Court's ruling in the <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordic-assn-and-nature-youth-v-norway-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy/#:~:text=The%20Oslo%20District%20Court%20ruled,before%20making%20the%20licensing%20decision">first Norwegian Climate Case</a>. By referring to the mentioned Supreme Court's decision, the Oslo District Court asserted that the greater the consequences of a measure under review, the stricter the EIA requirements. Similarly, the greater the consequences of a measure, the more thorough the court's procedural review must be. For petroleum activities, courts should not be reluctant to review cases on procedural grounds, in this case, the EIA (p. 27). Differently from the first Norwegian Case, where the challenged decision sprang from a Parliament's resolution, the challenged decisions are of the Ministry's competence, yielding to more judicial scrutiny. In connection to such scrutiny, the Court cited the IPCC AR6, comparative case law, and expert opinions heard during the case hearing.

Further, the Court concluded that there is no legal obligation to consider the best interests of children in connection with each individual decision on a plan for development and operation (PDO) of petroleum activities. The Court, therefore, concluded that the decisions are not contrary to section 104 of the Norwegian Constitution and Articles 3 and 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court concluded that the decisions are not contrary to Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), pending a challenge to the mentioned Supreme Court's decision <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordic-assn-v-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy-ecthr/">before the ECtHR</a>. Remarking on remedies, the application for a temporary injunction was granted in that the state is prohibited from adopting other decisions that require valid PDO approval for Breidablikk, Yggdrasil and Tyrving until the validity of the decisions has been finally decided. The state, represented by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, was ordered to reimburse the plaintiffs' legal costs in connection with the case (NOK 3 260 427, circa USD 309,833.49- incl. VAT in compensation for legal costs to the plaintiffs). In addition, the court's fee will be included. 

On May 16, 2024, the Appeals Court in Oslo (Borgarting lagmannsrett) decided to bifurcate the case. The State's appeal against the Oslo District Court's ruling in the injunction case of January 18, 2024, will be heard during the Court of Appeal's appeal hearing concerning the main case, but the right to enforce the District Court's temporary injunction is suspended until the Court of Appeal has ruled on the appeal against the District Court's ruling.

In its judgment from October 14, 2024, the Oslo Court of Appeals reversed the interim injunction. By referring to a report by Rystad Energy, commissioned by the Ministry of Energy, it argued that increased production from the Norwegian continental shelf could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The court also mentioned the complex interplay of economic and societal factors, including lost tax revenue, potential losses for companies and shareholders, job losses, reduced investor confidence in the Norwegian shelf, and implications for European energy supply and security. Except for an argument about risks to the sand eel population, the appellants' claims were showcased as unrelated to the fields but rather constituting a broader challenge to Norwegian petroleum activities, which the court noted should first be assessed by the Norwegian Parliament and government, not by the courts. The court denied that the principle of effectiveness of EEA (EIA) law and the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment by the ECHR could offer counterarguments to the denial. 

In April 2025, the Supreme Court of Norway reversed the appellate decision and remanded the case to the Oslo Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the EEA law principle of effectiveness—and the related principle of effective protection of EEA rights—requires Norwegian courts to grant temporary measures if it is established, or made probable, that breaches of the EU’s Project Directive have resulted in inadequate impact assessments leading to irreversible environmental harm. In such cases, the state has a duty to halt the consequences of these EEA violations, provided that the court finds it probable that the directive has been breached and the general conditions for issuing a temporary measure are otherwise satisfied.

Conversely, the Supreme Court maintained that the Oslo Court of Appeal found that it lacked the authority to grant such a measure and therefore did not conduct a substantive assessment. In the new hearing on the request for a temporary measure, the Court of Appeal must assess whether the basic conditions—main claim, legal grounds, and proportionality—are met, but the proportionality assessment under § 34-1(2) of the Dispute Act is a specific judicial evaluation and cannot be based on the idea that courts have limited authority. If it is made probable that the EU’s Project Directive has been violated and the other legal conditions are met, then the discretionary authority provided in § 34-1(1) of the Dispute Act must be exercised to grant a temporary measure. Under the Dispute Act, the state must cover the appellants’ legal costs, a total of NOK 1,322,516 for the Supreme Court proceedings.

A coalition of environmental groups sought a declaratory judgment from the Oslo District Court that Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy violated the Norwegian constitution by issuing a block of oil and gas licenses for deep-sea extraction from sites in the Barents Sea. Their petition highlighted several key factual points: 

 -- the licenses would allow access to as-yet undeveloped fossil fuel deposits, and such development is inconsistent with the climate change mitigation required to avert global warming of 1.5°C and possibly even 2°C in excess of pre-industrial levels;
 -- the area made accessible by the licenses would be the northernmost yet developed, and would abut the ice zone—thus rigs and tankers would be exposed to unprecedented risks of damage and spills, and their operation would deliver emissions of black carbon to the highly sensitive arctic; and
 -- the Norwegian government will incur costs to develop the sites, and will only recoup those costs if the oil and gas they produce commands and adequately high market price. 

It situated these points in a legal context shaped most fundamentally by article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, which establishes a “right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained.” Other constitutional provisions cited in the petition as relevant to the licensing decision included those requiring government action to be consistent with: the precautionary principle; the no harm principle as it applies both domestically and to citizens of other countries; and human rights protections. The petition was filed by Young Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, together with the Grandparents Climate Campaign and Friends of the Earth Norway. 

The Oslo District Court ruled in favor of the Norwegian Government on January 4, 2018. The court recognized that Article 112 of the Constitution is a rights provision, but found that the government did not violate any relevant rights because it had fulfilled the necessary duties before making the licensing decision. The court also declared that, “[e]missions of CO2 abroad from oil and gas exported from Norway are irrelevant when assessing whether the Decision entails a violation of Article 112.” In its assessment of whether the government had fulfilled its duties in regard to traditional environmental harm or other climate effects, the court noted that the Storting, (the Norwegian Parliament), had broadly agreed to open the southeast Barents Sea to licensing and had considered proposals to halt that licensing or review whether it was inappropriate in light of the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change. According to the court’s decision, the involvement of the Storting could be found in itself sufficient to indicate that the duty to take measures had been fulfilled. 
 	
Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth appealed the decision to the Bogarting Court of Appeal. Appellants allege that “[t]he District Court erred in interpreting Article 112 in such a way that it limits the duty of the Norwegian government to guarantee the right to a healthy environment.” They argue that the court interpreted Article 112 too restrictively in reaching the determination that Norway is only responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions released within Norwegian territory.

On January 22, 2020, the Borgarting Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court's decision ruling that the oil and gas licenses are valid. The appellate court parted company with the District Court in holding that article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution applies to the environmental damages alleged, including emissions of greenhouse gases from the combustion of oil and gas after export, and that emissions resulting from the relevant decision cannot be considered in isolation. However, the Court of Appeal held that the threshold for a violation of article 112 is high, and courts should exercise restraint in reviewing decisions by the political branches. The Court held that the appellants could not show a violation of article 112 in this instance, particularly because it is uncertain whether and to what extent to the licenses will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 24, 2020. The Norwegian Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on April 20. 

On December 22, 2020, the Supreme Court announced its decision rejecting the appeal and upholding the licenses for deep-sea extraction. Eleven of the 15 judge panel upheld the lower court's ruling. The Court reasoned that although the Norwegian constitution protects citizens from environmental and climate harms, the future emissions from exported oil are too uncertain to bar the granting of these petroleum exploration licenses. The Court's reading of the decision is available <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/norway/people-vs-arctic-oil-the-judgement/">here</a>. 

The plaintiffs referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights on June 15, 2021. See updates related to the case at the European Court <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordic-assn-v-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy-ecthr/">here</a>. 

Norway

Recent cases