CIVICUS speaks with Matt Hall, director of the Environmental Law Initiative, a New Zealand civil society organisation that is taking legal action against the government for replacing its greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy with one that relies heavily on offsetting, without proper public consultation.

In June, civil society groups in New Zealand filed a legal challenge against the government’s revised Emissions Reduction Plan, denouncing it as dangerously inadequate. The plan dismantles key climate policies while relying heavily on forestry offsets, prompting serious concerns about its effectiveness and legality. Environmental lawyers contend that the plan fails to meet legal obligations and undermines climate justice.

Why are you suing your government?

As a wealthy country, New Zealand has a responsibility to take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help limit global warming to 1.5°C. By law, the government must publish an emissions reduction plan every five years, setting out how it will meet legally binding emissions budgets and achieve net-zero status by 2050. The first plan was released in May 2022 and outlined the strategy for the 2022 to 2025 period. When the government came to power, instead of building on existing progress, it dismantled 35 climate policies – many already underway – without public consultation. This breaches New Zealand’s legal obligations and weakens its climate efforts.

Then in December 2024, the government released a second plan, led by Climate Change Minister Simon Watts, to apply from 2026 to 2030.

The new plan leans heavily on forestry offsets instead of real emissions cuts. The government assumes that converting 700,000 hectares into forest and using carbon capture will be enough. But this reasoning is deeply flawed. Emissions won’t fall without actual policy action; it simply doesn’t work any other way. These offsets are ineffective at delivering short-term reductions, as forests take time to grow. And relying on this type of policy delays the transition to a low-carbon economy. What’s worse, New Zealanders largely oppose them as we’re already seeing the risks of large-scale pine forestry in places such as the Tasman District, where forestry waste has worsened flooding.

At the Environmental Law Initiative, we believe this plan isn’t just inadequate, it’s unlawful. This approach undermines New Zealand’s climate law and its global commitments under the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, the government’s NZ$200 million (approx. US$120 million) investment in gas exploration sends the wrong message to the international community. It contradicts New Zealand’s climate pledges and undermines our credibility.

That’s why, together with Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, we’ve taken legal action against the government. Our case is one of the first to globally challenge the assumption that offsetting emissions can replace meaningful climate policy.

What are your legal arguments and what should change if you win?

We’ve filed for judicial review of the minister’s decisions under the Climate Change Response Act, which establishes the legal framework for New Zealand to meet its international climate change obligations. This is the first legal challenge to an emissions reduction plan under this law, and it will test whether the government acted lawfully when it weakened the first plan and drafted the second. Our focus is on the shift away from emissions cuts toward reliance on forestry offsets.

We believe our legal grounds are strong. The law is clear: emissions reduction plans must be able to meet climate targets and must be developed through proper public consultation and meaningful engagement with the Māori community. That’s not what happened here.

If we succeed, the minister will need to revise the plan to comply with the law. They will need to reinstate effective, fair policies and replace offsets with real action to cut emissions at source. That’s not just a legal obligation: it’s key to rebuilding trust and making New Zealand’s climate response credible again.

Are there other legal cases challenging emissions in New Zealand?

Yes, there are. Māori elder Mike Smith has sued seven of New Zealand’s biggest fossil fuel and dairy companies to hold them accountable for the harm their emissions have caused to ancestral land and sea in Mahinepua. After years of struggle, it has been confirmed the hearing will take place in April 2027.

The government argues climate policy should be decided through politics, not the courts. But when governments fail to act, litigation becomes necessary. Like our case, Smith’s highlights the urgent need to defend communities and demand accountability. If successful, this case could set a major precedent that big emitters can be held legally responsible for contributing to climate change.

This is something the International Court of Justice has just confirmed, lending strength to these litigation efforts.