Environmental Law Initiative

01/10/2026

In depth: the EU–NZ FTA climate complaint

What does this landmark complaint mean for New Zealand’s climate obligations — and how could international trade law help reinforce climate commitments?

Our Senior Legal Researcher Eliza Prestidge-Oldfield speaks with Climate Matters in a wide-ranging interview about the legal basis of the complaint brought by Both ENDS under the EU–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

Read and or listen to the full interview here: https://climatemattersnz.substack.com/p/nz-in-the-dock-climate-matters-special

Guilty as charged?

30/09/2026

This afternoon Eliza talked to Guyon Espiner about the significance of the Dutch NGO complaint to the European Commission alleging New Zealand has breached its climate commitments under the EU-NZ Fair Trade Agreement.

We have backed this complaint. By backsliding on climate, the current Government is undermining our international trade relationships while putting our environment and the global climate, further at risk.

Listen here:

A Dutch environmental group claims New Zealand has broken its climate change promises in the free trade agreement with the EU and is lodging the first complaint of its kind through the European Commission. Eliza Oldfield, a Senior Legal Researcher with the Environmental Law Initiative spoke to Guyon...

30/09/2026

Breaking news: We have formally co-sponsored a complaint to the European Commission alleging that the New Zealand Government has breached its climate commitments under the EU–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

The complaint has been lodged by Dutch environmental justice organisation Both ENDS through the European Commission’s Single Entry Point — a mechanism that allows civil society organisations to raise concerns about compliance with sustainable development commitments in EU trade agreements.

It is the first civil society complaint for climate regression under any EU trade agreement.

The complaint points to a series of Government decisions that have wound back New Zealand’s climate action, including the recent Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Act, which bars the Smith v Fonterra climate case and future civil climate claims in tort. It also points to measures including the reversal of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and weakened methane reduction targets.

The complaint asks the European Commission to engage with the New Zealand Government under the FTA and seek compliance with its climate commitments. It is directed at the Government’s conduct, rather than specific exporters or sectors.

This is a watershed moment for international accountability on climate change.

Aotearoa New Zealand made a commitment to the EU to honour the Paris Agreement. By backsliding on climate, the current Government is ignoring the concrete legal effect of these commitments — undermining our international trade advantages while putting New Zealand’s environment and the global climate further at risk.

--

21/09/2026

This week, the Court of Appeal will hear our challenge over a major nitrogen discharge consent in Canterbury.

The case concerns a 10-year consent covering around 138,000 hectares between the Hakatere and Rangitata rivers.

The consent allows farms within the MHV irrigation scheme to discharge excess nitrogen from agricultural activities — nitrogen that can leach into groundwater and ultimately reach our rivers, streams and coastal waters.

The High Court previously found that Environment Canterbury (ECan) acted unlawfully when granting the consent. However, the Court declined to overturn the consent following the Government’s 2024 changes to section 107 of the RMA.

We are appealing that decision, arguing that an unlawful consent should be revisited.

The issue is particularly significant given Canterbury’s declared nitrates emergency. Previous ECan analysis estimated that 62% of private drinking-water wells in the MHV scheme area could exceed the maximum acceptable value for nitrate.

The Court of Appeal will hear the case on 23 and 24 September.

ECan’s approach to nitrogen discharge consents has had serious consequences for Canterbury’s freshwater. It is not too late to turn this around — but it requires greater scrutiny of the permits that allow nitrogen pollution.

--

18/09/2026

Tomorrow, people across Aotearoa will come together for the March for Nature, as Parliament considers significant changes to our conservation laws.

We made a written submission on the Conservation Amendment Bill in July, and yesterday we presented our legal analysis to the Environment Select Committee.

We have significant concerns.

The Bill would make wide-ranging changes to the Conservation Act, including introducing new provisions prioritising economic opportunities for public conservation land and resources, and changing how conservation plans and decisions are made.

In our submission, we identify a number of risks including:

• Insufficient analysis and consultation — the proposed changes are far-reaching, including new economic objectives, and redefining Te Tiriti obligations. The policy analysis undertaken does not address these systemically, and as such is not fit for purpose.

• Unresolved conflicts with conservation purposes — the Bill's economic opportunity provisions are not clearly constrained by existing conservation objectives.

• Reduced independent oversight — the Bill removes independent approval functions currently held by the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards, concentrating more decision-making power with the Minister.

• Greater uncertainty and risk of litigation — key terms and relationships between the proposed new provisions are unclear, leaving important questions to be resolved through future decisions and potentially the courts.

For these reasons, we oppose the Bill in full and recommend that it be withdrawn.

Significant changes to Aotearoa's conservation laws should be supported by proper analysis, meaningful consultation and a clear framework that protects conservation outcomes.

You can read our full written submission via the link below.

March for Nature: September 19th, 1pm in Albert Park, Tāmaki Makaurau

https://www.eli.org.nz/updates/submission-conservation-bill

17/09/2026

"To understand why the case matters, you need to look beneath the surface of Northland’s coastal waters.

Crayfish are not simply a valuable species for customary, recreational and commercial fishers.

They are predators with an important ecological role.

Crayfish eat kina.

Kina eat kelp.

When predator numbers become too low, kina populations can increase dramatically and graze entire areas of kelp down to bare rock."

Radio Waatea with a thorough breakdown of our Northland crayfish case and its implications for the health of the moana:

https://waateanews.com/2026/09/17/crayfish-in-court-landmark-appeal-could-rewrite-the-rules-for-fisheries-management/

17/09/2026

And that's a wrap! Day 2 of our crayfish Appeal has now come to a close. Congrats to the cray team on a job well done.

A reminder that this case was never just about crays (while we love crays). Ultimately we were there to defend a sustainable and science-based approach to managing Aotearoa's fisheries.

Thanks to everyone involved for their good mahi.

And now we wait ⚖️

10/09/2026

We're defending one of the most significant fisheries decisions in recent years.

From 16–17 September, ELI will appear in the Court of Appeal to defend our landmark High Court victory in the Northland crayfish (CRA1) case.

Together with Ngāti Kaharau and Ngāti Hau Hapū ki Hokianga, we successfully challenged the Minister's 2023 catch limit decision. The High Court reinforced that fisheries decisions must be based on evidence that they will effectively address identified sustainability issues.

The Minister is now appealing key aspects of that decision.

For us, this case is about ensuring fisheries management is grounded in the best available information, takes ecosystem health seriously, and delivers meaningful environmental outcomes.

24/08/2026

“Wetlands are the connectors across our diverse landscapes, linking the mountains to the sea, and allowing migratory species to complete their lifecycles.

"At a human level, they are also where the food and fibre sector began in Aotearoa.”

ELI’s Senior Legal Researcher, Anna Sintenie reflects on the actions councils and government need to take to protect wetlands in Aotearoa, following our latest report, which finds that despite stronger rules, we're losing wetlands at an alarming rate.

Read the full piece here:
https://www.eli.org.nz/updates/wetlands-op-ed

“Wetlands are the connectors across our diverse landscapes, linking the mountains to the sea, and allowing migratory species to complete their lifecycles.  At a human level, they are also where the food and fibre sector began in Aotearoa.” ELI’s Senior Legal Researcher, A

19/08/2026

Last night, the New Zealand Government passed into law the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill. We've been opposing that law change, alongside Mike Smith, and many others for the last few months (in fact, 93% of public submissions opposed it).

The Government has blocked one form of climate litigation (tort-based), aimed at stopping Mike Smith's landmark lawsuit against the country's biggest polluters, but climate litigation in New Zealand is continuing.

On the very day Parliament acted to stop Smith v Fonterra, the Supreme Court was hearing Smith v Attorney-General (read more at the link in comments). Climate accountability claims, including our own case with Lawyers for Climate Action, against the Minister for Climate Change, are continuing through other legal pathways.

The legislation has attracted significant criticism because it extinguishes a live proceeding that the Supreme Court had allowed to proceed to trial, closes a pathway for future climate harm claims, and removes a mechanism for holding major emitters accountable. It weakens access to justice and undermines accountability at a time when climate risks are increasing.

Last month, a damning Climate Change Commission report found that New Zealand was at risk of missing all of its climate targets due to weak policies.

The Government has not created any alternative mechanism to address climate-related harm, allocate responsibility for that harm, or require emissions reductions to be consistent with New Zealand's domestic and international obligations.

Despite this, the passage of a single law does not eliminate climate accountability. Governments can close off one legal avenue, but they cannot eliminate climate harm, public concern, or the demand for justice. As climate impacts intensify, climate litigation will continue to evolve and adapt.

Opposition parties have pledged to repeal the legislation if elected in November, meaning the law may prove to be a temporary pause rather than a permanent barrier to tort-based climate litigation.

The struggle continues. But right now, we want to mihi to you Mike Smith - for your leadership and for fearlessly standing up for all of us, for future generations and for te taiao.