Greenpeace Netherlands director Marieke Vellekoop (right) described the ruling as a historic victory, saying it finally acknowledges that the government has discriminated against Bonaire’s residents.
THE HAGUE--The Dutch State has failed to adequately protect the residents of Bonaire against the effects of climate change and has unjustifiably treated them differently from residents of the European Netherlands. That conclusion was reached on Wednesday by the District Court of The Hague in a landmark ruling in a case brought by Greenpeace against the Dutch State.
The court found that this unequal and insufficient protection violates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and ordered the Dutch government to take far-reaching corrective action. Within 18 months, the State must enshrine binding interim greenhouse gas reduction targets for the entire economy in national legislation, and by 2030 it must have a fully developed and implemented plan to make Bonaire more resilient to climate change.
Tourism economy
Bonaire is home to approximately 26,000 people. Large parts of the island, particularly in the south, lie at or below sea level. This includes ecologically sensitive areas such as salt pans and mangrove forests in the southeast, which are highly vulnerable to flooding.
Many residents of Bonaire live in poverty, limiting their ability to protect themselves from extreme weather and environmental degradation. The island’s economy depends heavily on tourism, making it especially vulnerable to climate-related damage to natural ecosystems.
Scientific research has consistently shown that small Caribbean islands are disproportionately exposed to the impacts of climate change. Their geographic location, small scale, limited economic diversification, and dependence on tourism and imports increase their vulnerability. These structural factors mean that climate shocks can have far-reaching social, economic, and environmental consequences in a relatively short time.
The effects of climate change are already being felt on Bonaire and are expected to intensify in the coming decades. Average temperatures on the island are already at unhealthy levels. As global warming continues, temperatures will rise further and sea levels will continue to increase, placing large parts of the island at risk of permanent or recurrent flooding.
While the exact scale of future damage cannot be predicted with precision, the court accepted that the consequences will be severe and that many negative effects are already occurring or are highly likely to occur in the near future.
Public health risks
Projections indicate that by 2050 the average annual temperature on Bonaire is expected to rise to between 29.3 and 29.8 degrees Celsius. By the end of the century, average temperatures could range from 29.2 to as high as 31.8 degrees Celsius.
Sea levels around Bonaire are projected to rise by 14 to 34 centimetres by 2050 under a low-emissions scenario, and by 16 to 37 centimetres under a high-emissions scenario. By 2100, sea level rise could reach between 31 and 78 centimetres with low emissions, and between 55 and 127 centimetres if emissions remain high.
Increased flooding poses a serious threat to the island, not only through gradual sea level rise but also through extreme rainfall and more intense tropical storms and hurricanes. These events raise the risk of flash flooding, coastal erosion, and damage to homes, roads, and public infrastructure.
The court also acknowledged serious public health risks, including increased heat stress, food insecurity, and a higher incidence of climate-related diseases, all of which can affect both physical and mental health.
Habitat loss
Bonaire’s natural environment is already in poor condition, and climate change is one of the most significant threats to its remaining ecosystems. Mangrove forests, salt pans, coral reefs, and other habitats on and around the island are under increasing pressure. Damage to coral reefs and mangroves not only threatens biodiversity but also undermines coastal protection and the tourism sector, which relies heavily on healthy marine ecosystems.
Cultural heritage is also at risk. Much of Bonaire’s tangible heritage, including historic slave huts, fishermen’s shelters, the lighthouse, and the salt pans, is located in low-lying coastal areas. These sites are vulnerable to permanent flooding, storm surges, and extreme weather. Climate change also threatens intangible cultural heritage, such as traditional fishing and agricultural practices that are closely tied to the island’s natural environment.
Against this backdrop, Greenpeace initiated legal proceedings on behalf of Bonaire’s residents, arguing that the Dutch State has failed both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently and to take adequate measures to adapt Bonaire to the impacts of climate change. According to Greenpeace, this failure constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of the island’s inhabitants.
In its judgment, the court examined whether the State had fulfilled its duty of care toward the residents of Bonaire. While acknowledging the government’s policy discretion, the court emphasised that climate change poses a serious and well-documented threat to human life and well-being. The global nature of the problem does not excuse individual states from taking meaningful action, particularly where international agreements exist to guide national policy.
Climate legislation
The court assessed the State’s climate policy as a whole, including both mitigation measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation measures intended to protect society and the environment from climate impacts. For this overall approach, the State bears ultimate responsibility.
With respect to mitigation, the court pointed to the Paris Agreement, under which countries committed to striving to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The court found that Dutch climate legislation falls short of internationally agreed minimum standards. Notably, the amended Climate Act of 2023 does not include a binding emissions reduction target for 2030, despite such targets being required under the Paris framework.
The court also found that it is highly unlikely – less than a five percent chance – that the Netherlands will meet its stated goal of reducing emissions by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels using current policies. Moreover, Dutch calculations exclude certain emission sources, such as parts of aviation and maritime transport, even though these are significant contributors to national emissions.
The court concluded that existing measures are insufficient and that there are no concrete, credible plans for the period between 2030 and 2050, when emissions are supposed to reach net zero.
On adaptation, the court was equally critical. It ruled that the State has not taken timely or adequate measures to reduce Bonaire’s vulnerability to climate change. Despite decades of awareness of the island’s heightened risks, no comprehensive adaptation plan has been put in place.
While steps toward such a plan were taken following advice issued in 2023, the court found these actions to be too late and insufficiently concrete. Nevertheless, it noted that internationally agreed adaptation targets for 2027 and 2030 remain achievable if prompt action is taken.
Unequal treatment
A central element of the ruling concerns unequal treatment. The court determined that the residents of Bonaire have been unjustifiably treated differently from residents of the European Netherlands, amounting to discrimination in violation of the ECHR. While acknowledging that different geographic and climatic conditions require different policy responses, the court emphasised that this does not justify delayed or weaker protection for those facing greater and more immediate risks. In fact, the urgency for climate action on Bonaire is greater, not less.
The court concluded that the State has violated Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 12, and that this conduct is unlawful. It ordered the State to establish binding emissions reduction targets for the entire economy within 18 months, to be laid down in national legislation, including clear interim targets up to 2050 and transparency about remaining emissions space. The State must also develop and implement a climate adaptation plan for Bonaire by 2030.
Historic victory
Greenpeace Netherlands director Marieke Vellekoop described the ruling as a historic victory, saying it finally acknowledges that the government has discriminated against Bonaire’s residents and failed to protect them from extreme heat and rising seas. She said the judgment leaves no room for continued inaction and forces a significant acceleration of Dutch climate policy.
Plaintiff Onnie Emerenciana welcomed the decision, saying it marks a turning point for Bonaire. He said the ruling makes clear that the lives, culture, and future of the island matter, and stressed that the next step must be the provision of funding and expertise to turn plans into concrete action.
