Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway, Application no. 34068/21

The document argues that Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) are essential, self-standing legal obligations that must be conducted prior to the adoption of plans to effectively influence policy and assess cumulative climate impacts. It specifically contends that for fossil fuel projects, failing to assess 'downstream' emissions—which can exceed extraction emissions by up to 900%—renders an assessment partial and misleading. ClientEarth links these procedural requirements to the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that fossil fuel extraction constitutes 'dangerous industrial activities' and that the principle of intergenerational equity requires the Court to consider the disproportionate risks posed to future generations and young people under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are distinct, self-standing, and complementary obligations under EU/EEA law. SEA occurs at the early planning phase to influence strategic choices, while EIA occurs during the consenting of individual projects.
• EIAs have inherent limitations that SEAs are designed to address, including a tendency to react to proposals rather than anticipate them, a lack of real assessment of alternatives because they often occur after decisions are made, and a failure to adequately consider cumulative impacts.
• Effective environmental assessment of fossil fuel extraction must include 'downstream' emissions (emissions from the use and combustion of the fuels), as these typically represent the primary climate impact and can exceed 'upstream' extraction emissions by as much as 900%.
• Failure to conduct a full SEA, including the assessment of downstream emissions, undermines the ability to evaluate cumulative impacts, which the document describes as the 'ultimate cumulative effect' of climate change.
• Fossil fuel extraction projects should be classified as “dangerous industrial activities” under the European Convention on Human Rights due to their severe climate impacts, triggering positive state obligations to conduct appropriate investigations and studies to protect rights.
• The principle of intergenerational equity requires that the European Court of Human Rights consider the disproportionate risks to future generations and today's young people, including climate change anxiety, when assessing the applicability of Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

APA

ClientEarth (n.d.). Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway, Application no. 34068/21. https://www.clientearth.org/media/3cdhhvlc/clientearth-third-party-intervention-amicus-in-greenpeace-nordic-and-others-v-norway-3-5-2022.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway, Application no. 34068/21. n.d. https://www.clientearth.org/media/3cdhhvlc/clientearth-third-party-intervention-amicus-in-greenpeace-nordic-and-others-v-norway-3-5-2022.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway, Application no. 34068/21 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/3cdhhvlc/clientearth-third-party-intervention-amicus-in-greenpeace-nordic-and-others-v-norway-3-5-2022.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearthndgreenpeace, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway, Application no. 34068/21}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/3cdhhvlc/clientearth-third-party-intervention-amicus-in-greenpeace-nordic-and-others-v-norway-3-5-2022.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }