On January 11, 2024, Greenpeace Netherlands and eight Dutch citizens of the island of Bonaire sued the Dutch State about the lack of climate adaptation and mitigation action. The plaintiffs argue that the Dutch State has not taken sufficient climate adaptation and mitigation measures to protect the people of Bonaire, a small Dutch island in the Caribbean near Venezuela, against the negative effects of climate change on human rights, in line with the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement and human rights treaties. The complaint was launched after plaintiffs issued a warning letter in 2023, demanding to meet with Ministries in The Hague to have talks about better climate adaptation policy and action for the island, as well as more resources devoted to adaptation.

The plaintiffs argue that the Dutch State is committing an ‘unlawful act’ (onrechtmatige daad) under Article 6:162 of the Civil Code by failing to implement adequate climate adaptation and mitigation action, in a way that protects inhabitants’ international human rights. The plaintiffs rely on the legal reasoning by the Dutch Supreme Court in the landmark case of Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands [2015] HAZA C/09/00456689 (“Urgenda Case”), as well as in judgment of the Dutch District Court in the Hague in the case of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.  that is still undergoing an appeal. The rights at stake in the present case include the right to life and right to private life, family and the home in Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 of the ECHR and the right to culture of people living on the Caribbean island under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In support, plaintiffs also invoke several provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters on relevant procedural rights and obligations, e.g. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Aarhus Convention.

Regarding the right to culture and non-discrimination under Article 27 of the ICCPR, the plaintiffs argue that the inhabitants of Bonaire are a minority within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with a special and deeply rooted shared culture and history tied to their island. The complaint provides ample detail on the colonial history of the islands, the culture of the island and its inhabitants, as well as its current legal status as a ‘special’ municipality of the European part of the Netherlands. The plaintiffs claim that as inhabitants of Bonaire, they are not treated the same as Dutch citizens living in the European part of the Netherlands, because for ‘European Netherlands’ major adaptation works have long been planned and undertaken, resources reserved and devoted, as well as permanent, ongoing evaluations and assessments of the situation. There is no comparable protection for Bonaire. In fact, plaintiffs argue that in light of the deep structural inequality between the quality of life on Bonaire and those living in the European part of the Netherlands, there is reason to argue that the State should pay extra attention to the situation on Bonaire. They argue that this also follows from case law under Article 14 of the ECHR, and the principle of equality under Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution.

Regarding Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR and mitigation, the plaintiffs’ case is premised on the legal reasoning previously endorsed by the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda Case. Notably, Article 2 and 8 of the ECHR entail positive legal obligations for the Dutch State to do its ‘fair share’ to prevent dangerous climate change by adequately mitigating GHG emissions. The plaintiffs argue that based on the Netherlands’ historical emissions, compared to other countries, especially in the developing world, it is no longer fair for the Netherlands to still emit any GHGs. They also refer to studies indicating that it is feasible for the Netherlands to achieve net-zero emissions in the Netherlands by 2040, rather than 2050. As such, this is what the plaintiffs consider legally necessary for the Netherlands to do as its minimum “fair share” to prevent dangerous climate change. According to the plaintiffs, the negative effects on the lives of people on Bonaire are already significant and will only increase if no action is taken. Climate change threatens, among other things, their lives, their livelihoods, their health, their cultural heritage, nature, and the possibility for future generations to live on in the same way on Bonaire.

The plaintiffs extended their legal reasoning on mitigation also to adaptation. They note that there is ‘widespread consensus’ in international climate policy and law, as well as amongst human rights bodies, that there is a need to ‘rapidly accelerate’ the implementation of adaptation measures. Plaintiffs argue that the State has a legal obligation to take all appropriate measures that may be reasonably necessary, in a timely and consistent manner. This obligation is based on due diligence, and must take into account the special needs and disproportionate vulnerability of the inhabitants of Bonaire, and the complex historical and political context of the islands. They also point to other successful climate litigation on adaptation in this regard, such as the Torres Straight Islanders case at the UN Human Rights Committee.

On September 25, 2024, the District Court in The Hague rendered an interim judgment on the admissibility of the parties. It decided that Greenpeace as an environmental NGO acting on behalf of the interests of all people on Bonaire is admissible. The case of the 8 individual citizens was not admissible. Greenpeace’s case was admissible based on Article 3:305a of the Civil Code, which provides for special standing for NGOs to take collective action. The Court did not consider the 8 individual’s case admissible under the same procedure, because Greenpeace’s claim already incorporates theirs; the citizens are not allowed to bring a claim of behalf of other residents on Bonaire in a similar way as Greenpeace; and the citizens did not sufficiently provide evidence of being ‘personally directly affected’ by climate change either, possibly justifying a separate claim on their own behalf.

The case is scheduled to proceed based on the merits in 2025, with the State’s substantive defense to be presented later this year. Greenpeace Netherlands and 8 citizens of Bonaire v. The Netherlands (Netherlands, District Court North-Holland)