The Dutch state has been accused in court this month of violating the rights of people on the Caribbean island of Bonaire by failing to properly engage with its responsibility for curbing climate change.
Bonaire is a former colony of the Netherlands that became one of its municipalities in 2010, following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. It has been run from the Netherlands since the 17th century. Located nearly 8,000 kilometres away from the Dutch seat of government in The Hague, Bonaire has a specific set of climate risks, including extreme heat.
The island also faces a heightened threat from sea-level rise – even when compared with the famously low-lying and flood-prone Netherlands.
“Life on Bonaire is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive,” Onnie Emerenciana, a farmer in his 60s and one of those involved in bringing the case, told the court. “For us, climate change isn’t a distant, distant threat. It’s here. It’s breathing down our necks, burning our skin, and penetrating our homes.”
Emerenciana is part of a group of Bonaire islanders who, together with the Dutch branch of the environmental NGO Greenpeace, filed a legal claim against the Netherlands in early 2024. They asked the district court in The Hague to order the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions much more quickly than it plans to, and to develop a concrete climate change adaptation plan for Bonaire.
In September last year, the court rejected those complaints that were made by individuals. That decision was similar to the conclusion made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in a landmark climate judgment last year, which set a high threshold for individuals attempting to bring climate cases before it. But it did admit Greenpeace’s claim as an organisation, and the district court of The Hague heard the opening claims in the case this month.
Facing an impossible future
A fifth of Bonaire could be underwater by the end of this century due to sea level rise driven by climate change if no action is taken. That is according to research from the Free University of Amsterdam (VU), commissioned by Greenpeace. Furthermore, rising temperatures on the island are expected to exacerbate human health problems, ranging from mosquito-borne diseases to heat stress and declines in mental health.
The livelihoods and culture of people on Bonaire are also at risk.
The Dutch and Bonaire authorities have funded breeding projects to help restore corals and to make them more diverse and adaptable, but have not turned these into long-term commitments. For this reason, Greenpeace fears measures being taken to protect nature such as these could eventually be discontinued.
The sea is warming, destroying coral and mangroves – our island’s natural protection. Fish are disappearing and fishermen are losing their livelihoodsOnnie Emerenciana, farmer and original plaintiff in the Bonaire case
The NGO also notes that traditional professions on the island, including farming and fishing, are becoming increasingly difficult.
Although Greenpeace is taking the legal lead, the Bonaire islanders remain heavily involved in the lawsuit. Three of the original plaintiffs, including Emerenciana, spoke in court about how climate change is already affecting their lives.
Extended dry seasons are making it harder to farm, while the cascading impacts for vegetation in general are threatening species such as the local green iguanas nicknamed boomkip (tree chicken), as well as the ecosystem as a whole. And when it does rain, it rains harder and streets flood.
Emerenciana says the ocean around the island is changing, too: “The sea is warming, destroying coral and mangroves – our island’s natural protection. Fish are disappearing and fishermen are losing their livelihoods.”
Meeting obligations, or double standards?
The Dutch government has acknowledged Bonaire faces risks from climate change, and that the Netherlands has an obligation to take effective measures to reduce its national greenhouse gas emissions. But in court, its lawyer maintained the Netherlands was already doing enough to meet its legal duties. Another line of defence was that the matter is ultimately one for politicians to resolve, not the judiciary.
In a statement, the Dutch government said it was working at both the national and European levels with clear “targets for climate neutrality by 2050”, and that the Dutch Climate Act ensures progress with “a system of monitoring, accountability, and adjustment of climate policy”.
“The state is implementing effective climate policy, also to protect Bonaire against the consequences of climate change,” it added.
In contrast, Greenpeace told the court that the Dutch government is protecting the residents of Bonaire less effectively against the consequences of climate change than it protects those who live in the European Netherlands. “This is not only unacceptable, it violates the fundamental rights of the people on the island,” said Marieke Vellekoop, director of Greenpeace Netherlands.
The Dutch state asserts that the differences in protection from the impacts of climate change offered to the Netherlands compared to Bonaire are explained by their differences in climate and geography. Vellekoop sought to rebut this by accusing it of “double standards”. The more perilous state of Bonaire should result in more protection, said Greenpeace.
The NGO wants the Dutch government to do its “fair share” to keep the average global temperature rise to below 1.5C, and to set a goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 – much tougher than the country’s current 2050 target. It also wants the government to produce a climate adaptation plan for Bonaire, in collaboration with the islanders themselves.
A ruling is due on 28 January. In theory, the Netherlands could be ordered to take steps to accelerate reductions in its carbon emissions. But whether this is enforceable in practice is unclear, say experts.
High risk of climate impacts – and litigation
The Netherlands has proved to be a fertile jurisdiction for climate litigation. In 2015, the same court in The Hague ordered the Dutch government to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a case brought by Urgenda, a Dutch nonprofit foundation. The decision was later upheld by the country’s supreme court, which smoothed the path for many similar lawsuits across the world.
There have been several other important decisions on climate change made in recent years by European courts. Last year, the ECHR ruled Switzerland must do much more to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to stop breaching its citizens’ human rights. That case was brought by a group of Swiss women calling themselves the KlimaSeniorinnen (climate senior women). Enforcement of the decision has proved problematic because the Swiss state continues to maintain that it is already doing enough to cut its national emissions.
But while most of these lawsuits have focused on mitigating climate change, the Bonaire case is one of a nascent group focused on adapting to it.
As well as court rulings, Greenpeace’s legal team is relying on recent advisory opinions on climate change by the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Both say states have clear legal duties to address climate change and to help communities adapt.
Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, says: “The Bonaire case will test these obligations in a national context, 10 years on from the Urgenda climate case, in the country where climate litigation took off. If successful, the Netherlands will need to increase its climate ambitions beyond the current European Union targets – setting a new bar for climate action in Europe.”
After the hearing, Emerenciana said the Bonaire islanders were pleased to have told their stories but disappointed with the state’s stance. He noted that the Netherlands established its so-called Delta Programme years ago, which plans for sea-level rise and other climate impacts for its European territory:
“They stated that there is no plan for Bonaire yet, like a Delta plan in the European Netherlands, because we have not yet experienced a disaster.
“It shouldn’t be the case that a disaster happens before a plan can be drawn up; then there is no protection. These have been long, difficult days, but we remain determined.”
