Dutch State insufficiently protects Bonaire inhabitants against climate change
Bonaire
Bonaire is the largest and southernmost island of the Caribbean Netherlands and has approximately 26,000 inhabitants. The south of Bonaire, which boasts salt pans, known as saliñas, and mangrove forests in the southeast, is situated much lower and thus more vulnerable to inundation than the rest of the island. Many of Bonaire’s inhabitants live in poverty and the island’s economy is largely driven by tourism.
Research shows that small islands in the Caribbean are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This is mainly due to their location, small size and high economic dependence on tourism and imports.
Effects of climate change
The annual average temperature on Bonaire has already reached harmful heights. If climate change continues unabated, the average temperature and sea levels will continue to rise, and parts of Bonaire will be inundated. The extent to which this will happen is impossible to predict, but even in the most favourable scenario that experts have projected, the consequences will be serious. Research shows that the following adverse effects are already occurring or are highly likely to occur in the near future:
- Temperature rise: by 2050, the annual average temperature is expected to lie between 29.3 and 29.8 degrees Celsius. By 2100, that temperature will lie between 29.2 and 31.8 degrees;
- Sea level rise: by 2050, sea levels will have risen by 14 to 34 centimetres in a low greenhouse gas emissions scenario and by 16 to 37 centimetres in a high emissions scenario. For 2100, the rise is calculated at 31 to 78 centimetres in a low emissions scenario and 55 to 127 centimetres in a high emissions scenario;
- Inundation caused by tropical storms/hurricanes and extreme rainfall: inundation due to heavy rainfall and inundation due to tropical storms have been identified as risks;
- Public health consequences: climate change is very likely to increase the risk of physical and mental health problems related to heat stress and food insecurity on Bonaire, and to lead to an increase in illnesses;
- Impact on nature: Bonaire’s nature is in a moderately to very poor condition. Climate change is one of the main threats to the mangrove forests, salt pans, coral reefs and other natural habitats on and around the island;
- Impact on culture: much of Bonaire’s material heritage, such as the slave and fisherman’s huts, the lighthouse and the salt pans, is located in the low-lying coastal areas in the south of the island, making it vulnerable to permanent inundation due to sea level rise, storms and extreme weather. Climate change also poses a threat to Bonaire’s immaterial heritage, including traditional fishing and agriculture;
- Consequences for tourism and the economy: many people on Bonaire live in poverty. They are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change because they lack the means to protect themselves against heat, extreme weather and inundation. Bonaire’s economy is heavily dependent on tourism. The preservation of the coral reefs and mangroves is therefore of great importance to the island’s economy.
- Impact on infrastructure: much of the key infrastructure and many buildings are located on the coast and in the lower parts of the island. Even in the most positive climate scenarios for the future, the expected damage to buildings on Bonaire will run into millions of US dollars (the official currency of Bonaire).
This court case
Greenpeace is acting on behalf of the inhabitants of Bonaire in this case. The association argues that the State is not taking sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so-called mitigation measures, nor to help the environment and society adapt to the effects of climate change, so-called adaptation measures.
According to Greenpeace, this constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Bonaire.
Assessment
In these proceedings, the court has assessed whether the State is fulfilling its obligation to protect its residents on Bonaire. In its assessment, the court has exercised restraint, taking into account the State’s margin of appreciation.
Climate change is a complex global problem that poses a serious threat to people, without it being clear who exactly is causing what damage. This lack of certainty, however, does not allow countries to point fingers at each other while failing to take sufficient measures themselves, despite international agreements. Under the ECHR, a specific legal framework applies to asserted violations of the right to life and well-being in the context of climate change. This specific legal framework has recently been laid out by the European Court of Human Rights in the KlimaSeniorinnen-case.
The climate measures taken by the State are assessed as a whole, meaning both the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation measures) and the measures to help the environment and society adapt to the effects of climate change (adaptation measures). The State bears ultimate responsibility for this ‘overall picture’.
Mitigation measures
The court finds that Dutch regulations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions do not meet the minimum standards agreed on by the UN in key areas. These standards aim to ensure that states continue to take effective steps to haltAfkorting voor Het Alternatief. Het Halt-bureau kan onbetaald werk opdragen als alternatief voor een boete of gevangenisstraf bij kleine vergrijpen zoals vernielingen of diefstalletjes. Halt is er alleen voor jeugdige daders. Het werk dat moet worden gedaan heeft zoveel mogelijk te maken met de aangerichte schade, bijvoorbeeld het verwijderen van graffiti. Als het werk goed is gedaan, is daarmee de zaak afgedaan en volgt er geen oproep meer om voor de kinderrechter te verschijnen. further global warming.
Firstly, the Dutch Climate Act, which was revised in 2023 to include stricter reduction targets, does not contain a binding reduction target for 2030, even though this is required under the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, it is not sufficiently clear how the proposed 55 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels relates to the UN agreement that emissions must be reduced by 43 per cent by 2030 compared to 2019. These percentages cannot easily be compared, if only because the Dutch calculations do not include all emission sources. The Dutch targets do not fully include emissions from air and sea transport, even though emissions from these sources are considerable in the Netherlands.
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the Netherlands will achieve its own (non-binding) target for 2030 with the measures currently proposed. In fact, the probability of achieving this target is less than 5 per cent. Therefore, the proposed measures are insufficient. As of yet, no concrete plans or measures are in place to achieve the targets for the time span between 2030 and 2050, even though greenhouse gas emissions must be net zero by 2050. Furthermore, current plans do not indicate the amount of greenhouse gases the Netherlands will emit in the future and how this amount relates to the target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Adaptation measures
The court finds that the State has failed to adequately fulfil its duty of care towards the inhabitants of Bonaire. The State did not take appropriate measures in time to reduce the vulnerability of Bonaire and its inhabitants.
The court considers that still no coherent climate action plan is in place for Bonaire, though it has been known for three decades that the island is particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. The inhabitants have been experiencing these negative effects increasingly for years. It was only after a recommendation in 2023 that the State began to take concrete steps to draw up a coherent and integrated climate policy for Bonaire. While these steps are appropriate, they were not taken in time. It is still unclear when a concrete adaptation plan will be in place. However, the targets for adaptation measures specified within the UN framework are still achievable. These targets must be achieved by 2027 and 2030.
Unequal treatment
The court rules that the inhabitants of Bonaire were wrongfully treated differently than the inhabitants of the European part of the Netherlands. This means that the State has violated the prohibition of discrimination.
There are major geographical and climatic differences between Bonaire and the European part of the Netherlands. Equal treatment therefore does not mean that the same measures are taken in both areas, but that area-appropriate policies are drawn up and implemented for each. The differences between Bonaire and the European part of the Netherlands underline that the development of climate policy for Bonaire is (even) more urgent than it was for the European part of the Netherlands. There is no good reason why measures for the inhabitants of Bonaire, who will be affected by climate change sooner and more severely, should be taken later and less systematically than for the inhabitants of the European part of the Netherlands.
The decision
The court concludes that the State has violated treaty rights, more specifically Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR. This is unlawful. The State is pursuing a climate policy that does not bindingly and transparently comply with the measures that must be taken worldwide to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. The State has also not taken sufficient timely and appropriate measures to protect the inhabitants of Bonaire from the effects of climate change.
The court orders the State to set binding targets for the entire economy within 18 months to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as intended in the Paris Agreement. These targets must be laid down in national legislation. Binding interim targets must be set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the years leading up to 2050, when emissions must be net zero. In addition, the remaining emission allowance must be made transparent. The State must also draw up an adaptation plan for Bonaire that can be implemented in 2030.