By Mike Corder with AP
Published on
A court has today (28 January) ordered the Dutch government to draw up a plan to protect residents on the tiny Caribbean island of Bonaire from the devastating effects of climate change in a sweeping victory for the islanders.
The Hague District Court, in a stunning rebuke of Dutch authorities, also ruled that the government discriminated against the island’s 20,000 inhabitants by not taking “timely and appropriate measures” to protect them from climate change before it’s too late.
“The island already suffers from flooding due to tropical storms and extreme rainfall, and according to several researchers, this will worsen in the coming years,” Judge Jerzy Luiten told a packed courtroom.
“Even conservative forecasts predict that parts of the island will be underwater by 2050, so in 25 years.”
The case brought by eight Bonaire residents and backed by environmental group Greenpeace, sought to compel the government to better shield its citizens from the effects of increasing temperatures and rising sea levels and could set a precedent for similar legal challenges elsewhere.
‘We’re no longer second-class citizens’
“The judges heard us,” says one of the residents, Jackie Bernabela. “We are no longer second-class citizens. Equality. I am very happy.”
There was no immediate reaction from the government to the 90-page written ruling. The government can appeal the decision.
In a statement issued before the ruling, Marie Vellekoop of Greenpeace Netherlands says: “It would be a victory of historic significance, should the court ruling force the State to take concrete measures to protect people from extreme weather and other consequences of the climate crisis.”
The case was heard in The Haguebecause Bonaire, along with two other islands, St. Eustatius and Saba, became special Dutch municipalities in 2010. The island’s 20,000 residents are Dutch citizens based on their colonial history.
Dutch government to tighten climate rules
Lawyers for the government argued that the Netherlands already is making strides to combat climate change, citing greenhouse gas reductions and mitigation efforts. Government lawyer Edward Brans says the issue should be handled by national administrations and not judges.
But the court ruled that government efforts weren’t enough, saying a target to reduce emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels wasn’t binding and didn’t fully include emissionsfrom air and sea transport. The court also said that the Netherlands was “highly unlikely” to meet its 2030 target.
The ruling came as weeks of talks to form a new Dutch government following a national election in late October look like producing a new minority coalition headed up by centrist D66 leader Rob Jetten.
He earned the nickname “climate pusher” when he was a minister responsible for shepherding through a raft of legislation intended to reduce the Netherlands’ reliance on fossil fuels and significantly cut its carbon emissions. Now, the new government that Jetten is expected to lead will have to tighten the measures in line with the court’s ruling.
The new Urgenda case
It’s not the first time that The Hague District Court has issued a groundbreaking climate ruling. The same court heard the first stage of the landmark Urgenda case more than a decade ago. That case wrapped up in 2019 when the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in favour of climate activists and ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a legal battle that paved the way for similar challenges around the world.
The Urgenda decision featured prominently in recent climate change decisions from the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations’ highest court, the International Court of Justice. Both courts found that failing to combat climate change violated international law.
In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters, with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3°C since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.