Dutch Court Finds Government Discriminated Against Bonaire Islanders Over Climate Adaptation
A landmark ruling in The Hague has determined that the Dutch government discriminated against residents of Bonaire by failing to provide adequate climate adaptation measures for the vulnerable Caribbean territory. The court has ordered the Netherlands to develop comprehensive protection plans and implement more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Judgment Highlights Systemic Climate Injustice
The court found that the government breached articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguard the right to respect for private and family life while prohibiting discrimination. This ruling represents a significant victory for climate justice advocates who have long argued that vulnerable territories deserve equal protection from climate impacts.
Bonaire, a Dutch special municipality since 2010, faces particular vulnerability to sea-level rise, extreme heat, and other climate-related threats. The court noted that local authorities lack sufficient personnel, resources, and specialist knowledge to address these challenges effectively, despite decades of clear warnings about the escalating risks.
Court Orders Concrete Action Within Six Months
The judgment requires the Dutch government to create a proper adaptation plan specifically for Bonaire and establish a national carbon budget within six months. This budget must reflect a fair share of the remaining global carbon budget aligned with the 1.5°C warming threshold established in international climate agreements.
Furthermore, the court mandated that the Netherlands set legally binding interim targets for emissions reductions, to be implemented transparently. The ruling emphasises that countries must contribute to climate action according to their capacity to pay and historical emissions responsibility.
Plaintiffs Celebrate Historic Victory
"They really listened to us," said Jackie Bernabela, one of the original claimants who testified about how climate change was already affecting her life. "Not only us but all the other Caribbean islands in the world – if we join as one unity we can make things happen."
Bernabela expressed particular emotion about the court's discrimination finding, noting: "The Netherlands are engineers number one in the world, especially in water management – but they have no plan for us. So we feel already – and not only with climate change – that we are second-class citizens."
Legal Precedents and Government Response
The lawsuit was initially brought by a group of Bonaire residents alongside Greenpeace Nederland in early 2024. While the court rejected individual complaints, it admitted Greenpeace's claim as an organisation, creating an important precedent for collective climate action.
Eefje de Kroon, a climate justice expert at Greenpeace Nederland, described the outcome as "an incredible victory for the people in Bonaire." She added: "Not only has the court established that people from Bonaire are being discriminated against because of the climate crisis but also the Dutch government needs to do much more to protect them."
This ruling follows a 2015 Hague court decision that ordered the Dutch government to cut emissions by at least 25% within five years – a landmark judgment that inspired global climate litigation. Greenpeace's legal team also drew upon recent advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding states' legal duties to address climate change.
Government Acknowledges Ruling Significance
In a statement, Sophie Hermans, the Dutch minister for climate policy and green growth, recognised the court had delivered a "ruling of significance for the residents of Bonaire and the European Netherlands." She confirmed that she and colleagues from relevant ministries would carefully review the judgment, which remains subject to appeal.
The Dutch government had previously acknowledged Bonaire's climate vulnerability but argued in court that the nation was already doing more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than many other countries. The court rejected this defence, emphasising that international agreements require contributions proportionate to capacity and historical responsibility.
This decision establishes important legal principles regarding climate justice and colonial legacies, potentially influencing similar cases worldwide where vulnerable territories seek protection from climate impacts.
