Climate case of Bonaire residents and Greenpeace against Dutch State begins

THE HAGUE--The climate lawsuit filed by eight residents of Bonaire together with Greenpeace Netherlands began this week at the District Court of The Hague. The proceedings, officially known as the case on the merits, focus on the Dutch government’s duty of care toward the residents of Bonaire in the face of climate change. The case could set an international precedent similar to the Urgenda ruling, but this time for citizens in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

This case centers on two major issues: climate mitigation and climate adaptation. Mitigation refers to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to address the causes of climate change, while adaptation focuses on adjusting the environment and society to cope with its effects, such as heat, drought, flooding, and sea level rise.

Greenpeace Netherlands, acting on behalf of the people of Bonaire, argues that the Dutch State is failing in its duty of care. According to the plaintiffs, the government has not done enough to (1) reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement and the obligations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and (2) protect the island and its residents from the already visible and worsening effects of climate change.

The Dutch government denies these claims, stating that it has taken sufficient measures on both mitigation and adaptation. The court has scheduled two hearing days — the first, held on October 7, focused on emission reduction and mitigation, while the second, on October 8, will focus on adaptation measures.

According to Marieke Vellekoop, director of Greenpeace Netherlands, Bonaire’s vulnerability reflects a clear double standard. “No comparable research or protection exists for Bonaire as it does for the European Netherlands. That is unacceptable. Whether you live in Valkenburg, on Ameland, or on Bonaire, everyone has the same right to protection of health, the environment, and the future,” she said.

Research by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam shows that without effective action, up to 20 percent of Bonaire could be flooded in the coming decades. Rising sea levels threaten not only infrastructure but also coral reefs, fisheries, cultural heritage, and public health.

One of the plaintiffs, Onnie Emerenciana, a farmer from Bonaire, described how the changing climate affects everyday life. “The air is so hot that my crops burn, even under shade cloth. Animals suffer from the heat, and children can no longer play outside during the day. We see coral dying and the sea rising — parts of the island are already disappearing.”

Emerenciana added that Bonaire remains largely unprotected during storms and hurricanes. “In the Netherlands, the dikes are closed, but here we have to pray. We are not asking for charity, only for the same protection other Dutch citizens already receive.”

Another plaintiff, Danique Martis, originally from St. Eustatius and now living on Bonaire, said the government has long known the risks but failed to act. “For fourteen years, the Dutch government has known that the islands are at great risk from climate change, yet it chose to do nothing. We cannot continue to watch ministries shift responsibility while our environment disappears.”

Martis also warned that climate change is eroding community life. “It has become too hot to be outside during the day. Children are growing up indoors, without playing together. That affects our sense of community and our culture.”

According to Eefje de Kroon, lead campaigner for Climate Justice at Greenpeace Netherlands, this case is groundbreaking because it demands both emission reductions and concrete adaptation measures. The plaintiffs are calling for the Netherlands to become climate neutral by 2040 and to create a scientifically based and locally supported adaptation plan for Bonaire by April 2027.

“This case is about human rights,” said De Kroon. “The Netherlands cannot hide behind European targets. Residents of Bonaire have the same right to protection of their lives, their families, and their culture.”

The case draws on the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to equal treatment. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the outcome could also have implications for Saba and St. Eustatius.

The case reflects a recurring pattern in the relationship between The Hague and the Dutch islands in the Caribbean: promises of action often materialize only after legal intervention. Similar court cases were needed in the past to advance issues such as the social minimum and nature management.

“Each time, we hear that plans are coming,” said Vellekoop. “But real action only happens when residents go to court. That’s painful, because these protections should already be standard.”

The hearing continues on Wednesday.

‍