Once again the Dutch government has been given a hard slap on the fingers by the judge. The Dutch state does not sufficiently protect residents of Bonaire against the consequences of climate change and therefore treats them unequally compared to European Dutch people. There are concrete plans and municipalities are obliged to adapt to possible dangerous consequences for citizens. Such a plan must also be in place for Bonaire by 2030, a special municipality of the Netherlands since 2010.
The court in The Hague ruled this on Wednesday in a case that Greenpeace had filed against the Dutch state together with residents of Bonaire. The environmental organization was largely right on both adaptation (protection against consequences) and mitigation (reducing emissions to combat global warming).
Within eighteen months, the Netherlands must set “clear and binding targets” for the entire economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This also includes binding interim targets, so that the Netherlands can meet the obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement. Even if the state appeals, it must start implementing the sentence. “Otherwise the goals will certainly not be achieved on time,” the judge said.
Also read
The Dutch state does not sufficiently protect residents of Bonaire against climate change
Climate case against Shell
“We are no longer second-class citizens,” said Jackie Bernabela, one of the Bonairean claimants, emotionally afterwards. “It’s about respect, and we got that.” She was present in the courtroom together with Onnie Emerenciana, one of the other plaintiffs. He also sees the recognition that the state discriminates against residents of Bonaire as the most important part of the ruling. “I am very, very, very happy.” Other plaintiffs followed the ruling on Bonaire, where it was 9 a.m.
The judge took almost 45 minutes to read a summary of the ninety-page verdict. He outlined the legal frameworks within which the requirements had been assessed. “Climate change is an exceptional problem,” he said. Although the Netherlands has a relatively small share in global emissions, and achieving the targets in itself would make little difference for Bonaire, this does not absolve the state of responsibility to do so, according to the judge.
If countries can avoid measures by pointing the finger at others, the climate goals will never be achieved
“In most cases the judge would say that the state is not to blame,” the judge said. “But in climate cases it is different,” he continued, because the state also recognizes the serious consequences of climate change. “If countries can avoid measures by pointing fingers at others, the climate goals will never be achieved.”
Climate lawyer Roger Cox calls the ruling “groundbreaking”. Cox was previously involved in the Urgenda case against the Dutch state and defended Milieudefensie in the climate case against Shell. “Countries and companies have a knack for pointing to the EU and saying: that’s why we don’t have to do anything ourselves. It’s very good that it is emphasized here that the Netherlands cannot hide behind this.”
Cox also sees the statement as “nicely in line with all kinds of international statements” in this area. In the spring of 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in a case brought by the Swiss ‘KlimaSeniorinnen’. In it, the Court ruled that a state that does not implement a good climate policy does not properly protect its population – and thus violates human rights. The KlimaSeniorinnen were vindicated on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR, just like Greenpeace now.
More than a year later, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a non-binding ruling in a case brought by the small island state of Vanuatu. In it, the Court ruled that countries are obliged to protect the climate and prevent damage resulting from it.
Also read
International Court of Justice rules: are states responsible for the damage they cause due to climate change?
Traumatic experiences
Director of Greenpeace Marieke Vellekoop sees the fact that a Dutch judge has now drawn the same conclusion as “a historic victory”. “Finally, the residents of Bonaire are receiving recognition that they have been discriminated against and that they are not sufficiently protected against the climate crisis.” The fact that the judge in the judgment also addresses the Netherlands’ responsibility to do more about the cause of this makes the ruling “extra special”, according to Vellekoop. “Rob Jetten really needs to get to work.”
In addition to the judge’s harsh, substantive rebuke, Roger Cox points to the judge’s words about the physical and mental conditions of Bonaireans as a result of climate change. “It is a recognition that people are moved when they see their living environment and culture disappear. Not to mention the traumatic experiences of experiencing a climate disaster. It is precisely that slow erosion that affects people deeply and in a mental and spiritual sense.”
All recent climate statements show that we as the public do not fully understand how big the climate problem is
In an initial response, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management calls it a “strong statement” that the state “takes very seriously”. Outgoing Minister Sophie Hermans (Climate and Green Growth, VVD) said she would first study the ruling before the cabinet issues a substantive response.
For Roger Cox, all recent climate statements essentially show the same thing. “That we as a public don’t even know how big the climate problem is.” That’s not surprising, he says. “It is because the consequences we are now experiencing are by no means all the consequences of the emissions that have been emitted to date. Land, oceans and ice masses respond with a slowness of decades to more CO2 in the atmosphere. We will therefore only see those real consequences in the second half of this century.”
“We can no longer stop the consequences that have already been set in motion,” says Cox. “But we can avoid further aggravating the problem. That is why this ruling is so important.”
Greenpeace plaintiffs outside the court prior to the ruling.
PHOTO LAURENS VAN PUTTEN / ANP
The journalistic principles of NRC
