On 20 May 2026, the independent Climate Change Committee (“the Committee”) released its Fourth Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk (“the Report”). The Report sets out key risks for the UK posed by climate change, and recommends particular actions for ameliorating those risks. Those recommended actions bear particular weight in light of the ECtHR’s decision in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland (2024) 79 EHRR 1 (“KlimaSeniorinnen”).

The Report also provides a more comprehensive evidence base for an upcoming application to the ECtHR by Friends of the Earth and its two co-claimants, Mr Kevin Jordan and Mr Douglas Paulley, who have suffered from the effects of climate change in the UK through coastal erosion and heatwaves, respectively. This follows the dismissal of their challenge by way of judicial review to the Government’s National Adaptation Programme in R (Friends of the Earth) v SSEFRA [2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin).

This article will recap the key legal principles on climate change adaptation, and why Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley’s claim in the domestic courts was dismissed. It then outlines the contents of the Committee’s report, before discussing the recent application to the ECtHR.

Climate change adaptation: key legal principles

On the international stage, Article 7(1) of the Paris Agreement establishes “the global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change”. Article 7(9) then requires that each Party shall engage in “adaptation planning processes and the implementation of actions … which may include: … (b) The process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans”.

In the UK, this is transposed into domestic law through Part 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”) which is entitled ‘Impact of and adaptation to climate change’. Section 56 requires the Secretary of State to lay reports before Parliament containing an assessment of the risks for the UK on the current and predicted impact of climate change at least every 5 years. Before doing so, the Secretary of State must take into account the Committee’s advice (s.56(5)).

Under section 58 of the 2008 Act, the Secretary of State must lay programmes before Parliament setting out the Government’s objectives in relation to climate change adaptation, its proposals and policies for meeting them, and the time-scales for introducing those proposals and policies – all of which should address the risks identified in the most recent s.56 report. These programmes are called National Adaptation Programmes, or ‘NAPs’.

The third NAP (“NAP3”) was the subject of Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley’s challenge in R (Friends of the Earth) v SSEFRA [2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin), the Committee having assessed that it fell far short of what was needed to address growing climate risks already being experienced in the UK, [69]. The claimants challenged NAP3 on three grounds, the first of which was that the Secretary of State had erred in law by misconstruing the requirement under s.58(1)(a) of the 2008 Act to set ‘objectives’. Dismissing the claim, Chamberlain J at [92] explained a key difference between climate change mitigation and adaptation:

… Unlike in the field of mitigation, and subject to the arguments about the effect of the ECHR as interpreted in [the KlimaSeniorinnen case] (to which I shall come in a moment), there is no internationally binding quantified standard governing how states must adapt to climate change. It would be very difficult to devise any such standard because the risks of climate change differ widely from state to state (and indeed within states). In some places the main risk may be from flooding, in other places extreme heat or drought. Elsewhere there may be a combination of risks, which all have to be addressed but some of which are more urgent than others. Moreover, the profile of risks, and the priorities attached to addressing them, may change over time.

The claim failed essentially because the 2008 Act is not particularly prescriptive; the s.56 duty is not framed by reference to any single or precisely quantified objective, nor does s.56 set out what the risks posed by climate change might be or the degree of specificity to which they must be described in the assessment, [93]. As regards the NAPs, s.58 does not prescribe how ambitious the objectives must be, except that they must “address” the risks identified in the latest s.56 report – but ‘addressing’ a risk does not mean ‘eliminating’ or ‘minimising’ it, [93]. Chamberlain J considered that it made sense that the 2008 Act did not identify specific objectives, proposals or policies to be met (or prescribe how ambitious or specific they needed to be) because doing so is “likely to involve resource allocation choices which turn on political priorities”, [96]. He also noted that KlimaSeniorinnen was a case mostly about mitigation, not adaptation, and that because what is required by way of adaptation is very state-specific, a wide margin of appreciation is likely to be afforded to states in setting adaptation objectives and in setting out proposals and policies to meet them, [105]. Chamberlain J therefore concluded that his reading of s.58 fell comfortably within the UK’s margin of appreciation under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, [106].

As climate lawyers will already know, the ECtHR in KlimaSeniorinnen found that Switzerland had failed to devise a regulatory framework setting the required objectives and goals, and that constituted a violation of Article 8 ECHR (para 562). Although the case focussed on mitigation rather than adaptation, the court stated at para 552:

Furthermore, effective protection of the rights of individuals from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being and quality of life requires that the above-noted mitigation measures be supplemented by adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection. Such adaptation measures must be put in place and effectively applied in accordance with the best available evidence (see paragraphs 115 and 119 above) and consistent with the general structure of the State’s positive obligations in this context (see paragraph 538 (a) above). (underlining added)

Chamberlain J is undoubtedly correct in noting that adaptation requires highly state-specific solutions and is thereby likely to attract a wide margin of appreciation. However, that margin is not so wide as to extend across the whole page. Where the “best available evidence” identifies the “most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection”, one can foresee the ECtHR holding that a state’s failure to take steps shown to address those risks constitutes a violation of Articles 2 or 8. In other words, rather than confining itself to finding that a state has failed to set appropriate objectives or enact a given framework – broadly speaking ‘procedural’ matters – it may well find that if particular identified risks are not adequately addressed in substance, there has been a violation of the ECHR.

The Climate Change Committee’s recent report

Enter stage left the Report. The Committee’s Report is 554 pages long and accompanied by an 823-page technical report. Given its statutory footing in s.57 of the 2008 Act, it could reasonably be identified as the primary source of information when assessing the adequacy of a NAP – the “best available evidence”. While the Committee’s previous reports have diligently advised the Government on climate risks, this Report does something else as well: “For the first time, the Committee is offering advice on potential solutions to address these risks.” (p.14).

The Report sets out climate risks, actions and enablers, and estimates that investment of around £11bn per year is needed from the public and private sectors for climate change adaptation. The Committee considers that with appropriate action, it remains possible to keep warming globally to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels, but the world is not cutting emissions fast enough to achieve this.

The Committee advises that there are three key hazards that drive fundamental challenges to the functioning of the UK: (1) intensifying heat; (2) growing flood risk; and (3) rising drought and wildfire risk. Those hazards give rise to a number of risks, and the Committee sets out eight climate risk areas of the highest priority, namely:

(i) Risks to the lives of vulnerable people from extreme heat

(ii) Risks of damage, disruption, and deaths from flooding

(iii) Risks to water availability from drought

(iv) Risks to the state of nature

(v) Risks to the viability of farming

(vi) Risks of food insecurity and inflation

(vii) Risks to the availability of insurance

(viii) Risks to cascading impacts on infrastructure

The Committee then sets out for each priority risk area its proposed targets and recommendations for government.

For example, in relation to the first priority risk area, the Committee’s proposed target is: “by 2050, excess heat-related mortality should be no greater, and ideally lower, than today’s annual average.”  It explains that the greatest risk to health in the UK from climate change results from extreme and frequent heatwaves, with 1,400–3,000 deaths each year in heatwave periods overwhelmingly concentrated among the elderly. The Report identifies possible cooling methods, some of which are active (e.g. air condition) and some of which are passive (e.g. natural shading).

It then sets out three recommendations for the first priority risk area, namely:

(i)    Invest in cooling for key public services such as hospitals, schools, prisons and care homes, including passive methods in new-builds and active cooling for the areas of greatest risk.
(ii)    Set maximum temperature regulations for workplaces, and ensure that employees who work outside are also protected.
(iii)    Accelerate the uptake of cooling for the most vulnerable, as those on low incomes who are already vulnerable (e.g. low-income pensioners) might need additional support.

The Committee notes that delivering the required adaptation requires action from across society. Households will need to invest in their own resilience and change their behaviours, and businesses will need to upgrade privately-operated systems. But more importantly for public lawyers is that “Government must create the policy environment, with incentives, regulation, standards and information, as well as support to enable businesses and households to protect themselves”.

The Report then is a comprehensive overview of what practical steps the Government should take to meet its positive obligations on climate change adaptation. It is supported by swathes of evidence, including the Technical Report. It is, in other words, the “best available evidence”.

Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley’s case

Enter stage right, Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley. Despite their loss in the domestic courts, they along with co-claimant Friends of the Earth have applied to the ECtHR alleging violations of their rights under Article 2, Article 8, and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (read with Article 14). Their written arguments (See the redacted written arguments for the case through the link here) say this violation arises from “the UK’s failure to put in place adaptation measures necessary to protect them (and, for Friends of the Earth, the people it represents) from existing risks and impacts of climate change” (para 1).

The claimants rely on the Committee’s 2025 report on ‘Progress in adapting to climate change’ (this is not the same as the Report summarised above), alleging inter alia that the UK “failed to implement the large majority of the CCC’s recommendations” (para 8). They cite a number of particular needs and recommendations which the Government has (allegedly) failed to address suitably or at all. These include “[t]he need for long-term policy and funding to enable care homes to adapt to excess heat” (para 9a), and “[t]he CCC’s recommendations to put Shoreline Management Plans on a statutory footing” (para 10a). The claimants’ criticism of the substantive failure to implement sufficient measures is the core of Ground 2, noting that even if there is a legislative framework in place for adaptation “[t]hat approach fails to address limb two of the positive obligation (adequate implementation)” (Additional Submissions, para 59). The reliance on the Committee’s progress report can be found in para 59(b)–(c) (Additional Submissions):

(b) As set out in the Application Form, NAP3’s vague and aspirational risk reduction goals (framed in a way which, among other things, makes it impossible to know what will be done by when, or why not; and then to measure progress) are in stark contrast with the detailed and precise measures which the CCC had recommended the Respondent consider in its latest progress report. The ineffectiveness of NAP3’s objectives, policies and proposals to fulfil obligations under the Convention, including with respect to extreme heat in care settings and with respect to coastal erosion are relied upon as evidence that NAP3 breaches Mr Paulley and Mr Jordan’s substantive human rights, in light of the State’s positive obligations in relation to climate change-related impacts (as articulated in VKS, §552). As indicated above the flaws in NAP3 also render it ineffective to secure Convention compliance more widely.

(c) NAP3 provided for none of [the] things recommended by the CCC, nor did it explain why it did not. There was not even any evidence of consideration of those issues by the Respondent, let alone any assessment of the costs of doing so (weighed against the impact on persons such as (but not limited to) Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley). … (underlining added)

Then in its final paragraph:

69. In all these respects (or any of them), the repeated failure to address the criticisms made by the CCC / follow the advice of the CCC has meant that the UK has failed to address its inadequate protection of relevant Convention rights by adhering to the best available science as to the specific risks posed to the enjoyment of Convention rights by the impacts of climate change (specifically extreme heat and coastal erosion in the case of the two individual applicants) and/or act with due diligence in seeking to protect those rights by ensuring that effective and practical measures are taking [sic] consistent with the standards set by the Convention as above.

What next?

It may be premature for Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley to rely on the 2026 Report in their current application to the ECtHR. After all, it was published last month and the Government has not had an opportunity to respond.

However, the 2026 Report adds a much more comprehensive arrow to Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley – or some other future claimant’s – quiver. It sets out in more precise detail than any previous report solutions to address the risks posed by climate change.

Given the wide margin of appreciation granted to states as to the methods by which they implement climate change mitigation measures, and the potentially greater margin in relation to adaptation measures as intimated by Chamberlain J, any challenge based on the substantive steps adopted (or not) by the Government will face some hurdles. However, if any such substantive challenge is to succeed, it must be premised on a comprehensive and detailed evidence base. The Committee’s latest Report provides that.