New Zealand faces its first climate complaint under EU trade rules

In the two years since the agreement came into force, the New Zealand government has passed a law that shut down a climate case its Supreme Court had cleared for trial, reopened its waters to offshore oil and gas exploration, lowered its 2050 methane target, and removed the legal requirement that its carbon market settings accord with its Paris Agreement pledge. Its own officials advised against several of these steps. Its Foreign Ministry warned that reversing the exploration ban could be inconsistent with New Zealand's trade agreements, including the one with the EU.

In the agreement, both sides promised not to weaken environmental protection to attract trade or investment, and to effectively implement the Paris Agreement. It was the first EU trade agreement in which breaking the latter can, as a last resort, cost the offending side trade benefits. The complaint argues that New Zealand has broken both promises. It equally puts a question to Brussels: the EU presented these commitments as proof that trade and climate go together, and now has to show that it enforces what it signed.

"New Zealand signed climate commitments with Europe in the middle of a climate crisis, knowing exactly what was at stake. Then, to reassure investors, it gave polluters immunity from being sued for climate harm and shut down a case its own Supreme Court had sent to trial. This is not only a trade question. It tells everyone living with floods, fires and rising seas that the right to hold polluters to account can be traded away. This is the first EU trade agreement where breaking a climate promise can carry a price. We are asking Brussels to show that the price is real, for New Zealand and for every government that signs these commitments."

Fernando Hernandez, Head of Trade and Investment Policy, Both ENDS

"Greenpeace Aotearoa supports this complaint because the New Zealand Government has spent the last three years systematically undermining climate and environment laws, often with the stated purpose of gaining trade benefits. That is a race to the bottom on environmental regulation, which is exactly what the sustainability chapter of the EU–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement was designed to prevent. We have met the Prime Minister, Ministers and senior officials many times to warn them they were breaching that chapter. They have not listened."
Dr Russel Norman, Executive Director, Greenpeace Aotearoa

"The New Zealand Government has knowingly chosen climate regression: reopening oil and gas exploration, fast-tracking extraction, and legislating to shut down my case against major emitters after the Supreme Court ruled it should go to trial. It cannot enjoy the benefits of its trade deal with Europe while treating its climate promises as optional. This complaint is not an attack on our exporters, workers or communities. As Indigenous protectors of the natural world, we have a duty to generations yet to be born, and when domestic avenues for accountability are closed, we will seek accountability wherever we can."

Mike Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu), plaintiff in Smith v Fonterra

"It's shameful how far backwards New Zealand has gone on climate change over the last three years - despite the clear due diligence obligations for developed nations under the Paris Agreement, and despite non-regression clauses in the EU-NZ FTA. This complaint is a significant step for international accountability, and the Environmental Law Initiative supports it completely.”

Eliza Prestidge Oldfield, Environmental Law Initiative

What happens now

The Commission will examine the complaint against its published criteria and respond to Both ENDS. If it takes the case up, it can raise the matter with the New Zealand government and then hold formal consultations between the two governments. If that does not resolve it, an independent panel of experts examines the case and publishes its findings. Both ENDS will publish a short update at each stage.

The complaint targets no company, farmer or exporter, and it cannot change any New Zealand law. Only New Zealand's Parliament can do that. Trade benefits could be suspended only as a last resort: if an independent panel found that New Zealand had broken its commitment to the Paris Agreement, and New Zealand then failed to put that right. That would be years away, and the government can end the process at any point by keeping the commitments it signed. If market access is ever at stake, it will be because the government broke its word, not because anyone complained.

The evidence is New Zealand's own record:

• The Ministry of Justice advised against the law that closed the courts to climate claims, saying it had "not identified any evidence that the ongoing court proceedings have had a measurable impact on business confidence".

• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade warned that reversing the offshore exploration ban could be inconsistent with several of New Zealand's trade agreements, including the one with the EU.

• Treasury puts the cost of closing the gap to New Zealand's 2030 Paris pledge by buying offshore at NZD 4.4 to 5.0 billion, and there is no funded plan to close it at home.

• 93 per cent of the 623 written submissions to Parliament's Justice Select Committee opposed the law that closed the courts to climate claims.

New Zealand voted at the United Nations General Assembly in May 2026 to welcome the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on states' climate obligations, while recording reservations on the legal issues.

Who is behind the complaint

Both ENDS filed the complaint in its own name, as only EU-based organisations can. It is accompanied by supporting statements from the Environmental Law Initiative, Greenpeace Aotearoa, Ngāti Pūkenga Iwi ki Tauranga Trust, OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health Council, Mike Smith and Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey, who speak for themselves, and is supported in Europe by La Via Campesina. Mike Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu) is the plaintiff in Smith v Fonterra, the case the new law extinguished.

For more information

• Read the case explainer or download (pdf)