WWF EUROPEAN POLICY OFFICE

How Pro Bono Legal Expertise Helped WWF Turn a Landmark ICJ Opinion Into EU Policy Impact

A pro bono legal team helped WWF’s European Policy Office translate the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion into concrete recommendations for the EU’s LULUCF Regulation.

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on States’ obligations in respect of climate change – a landmark clarification of how international law treats the duty to mitigate climate change, including the protection of greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. Almost a year later, as the European Commission opened a call for evidence on the post-2030 revision of EU climate targets, the opinion’s relevance to one specific piece of EU law became urgent: the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation.

For WWF’s European Policy Office (WWF EPO), the timing raised a pressing question. Several Member States had signalled openness to weakening the EU’s 2030 net greenhouse gas removals target of 310 million tonnes of CO₂e, set under the LULUCF Regulation, and to adjust ambition for the upcoming 2040 net target.. Would doing so put the EU at odds with its obligations under international law, as clarified by the ICJ? WWF EPO needed a rigorous legal answer – and needed it before the Commission’s proposal took shape.

Thanks to a pro bono match facilitated by Pro Publico, WWF EPO found the right partner to deliver exactly that.

Two Precise Legal Questions

The brief WWF EPO brought to Pro Publico centred on two specific questions arising from the Commission’s post-2030 review:

  1. Following the ICJ’s findings, is the EU required under international law to set a 2040 sectoral net GHG removal target more ambitious than the current 2030 target?
  2. If the EU were to reduce or revoke the existing 2030 target, would this breach international law as clarified by the ICJ?

Answering these questions required lawyers comfortable moving fluidly between an international court’s reasoning and the technical detail of EU secondary legislation – applying the ICJ’s findings on obligations under international treaty and customary law to a regional legislative framework, and considering the impact of possible changes to that framework in the context of the ICJ’s findings. 

From International Law to EU Land Policy

The legal team’s analysis found that international law does not impose a freestanding requirement for the EU to adopt sector-specific removal targets; the operative obligations instead concern the preparation, communication and maintenance of progressively more ambitious nationally determined contributions (which include reference to removals with emissions reductions). 

However on the second question, the analysis was more consequential: reducing or revoking the 2030 LULUCF removals target and stagnating or regressing ambition for the 2040 target could indicate non-alignment with the ICJ’s findings – unless accompanied by measures that maintain overall ambition and continue to protect and enhance carbon sinks and reservoirs. If the target were revoked outright, whether an equivalent policy package steps in to perform the same governance function would be central to any assessment of compliance.

In short: the EU has room to manoeuvre on how it structures its land-sector targets, but not on whether it maintains the underlying climate ambition those targets were designed to protect. The briefing also flagged that reducing or removing the target is likely to invite close scrutiny of the EU’s overall climate ambition, and could open the door to legal challenge if not paired with credible compensatory measures elsewhere in EU climate law.

A Collaboration That Delivered

According to Sofia Ghezzi, Policy Officer for Climate & Land Use at WWF EPO, the collaboration exceeded expectations from start to finish.

“Pro Publico quickly matched us with a law firm that was the perfect fit for our needs. The lawyers were responsive, professional and thorough, and the final briefing exceeded our expectations,” Sofia said.

The legal team worked closely with WWF EPO’s policy staff throughout, ensuring the final briefing was rigorous enough to withstand scrutiny from legal counterparts in EU institutions and Member States, while remaining usable for advocacy, media engagement and stakeholder conversations.

From Legal Analysis to Public Impact

A briefing summary of The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025 on States’ Obligations on Climate Change and its Relationship to the EU’s Regulation of the Land-Use Sector was published alongside a WWF press release and has already generated meaningful coverage for what is, by nature, a niche and technical subject: five outlets across three countries picked up the story, including specialist EU policy and carbon-removal press (Europe Says, Carbon Pulse, EU Business), plus outlets in France (Contexte) and Germany  (Tagesspiegel).

The deeper test of impact lies ahead. The briefing is designed to inform the European Commission’s forthcoming proposal on the LULUCF revision, and the co-legislative negotiations that follow. That process is expected to conclude only later this year, so the briefing’s full policy influence can’t yet be measured – but the analysis is now in the hands of policymakers at exactly the moment it’s needed most.

Why This Match Worked

Timing. The ICJ opinion and the Commission’s post-2030 review converged on the same narrow policy window. The legal analysis needed to land before the Commission’s proposal took shape, not after.

Specificity. This wasn’t a generic legal question – it required precise engagement with two distinct legal questions, each turning on how an international advisory opinion interacts with a specific EU regulation’s numerical targets.

Translation. A legal opinion is only as useful as an organisation’s ability to act on it. The pro bono team didn’t just analyse the law – they helped shape a briefing WWF EPO could use directly in advocacy and media engagement.

As Sofia put it, Pro Publico’s matchmaking was “quick, efficient and well targeted” – and the resulting collaboration shows what’s possible when the right legal expertise meets an urgent civil society need at exactly the right moment.

Do you need legal or advocacy support to advance a public interest?