Arizona Tribune - Court orders Dutch to protect Caribbean island from climate change

Residents of the Dutch territory off the coast of Venezuela had teamed up with Greenpeace to sue the Dutch government, demanding "concrete measures" to shield the island from rising waters.

The District Court in The Hague ruled that Bonaire residents were "treated differently from the inhabitants of the European part of the Netherlands without good reason", calling it a violation of their human rights.

It ordered the Netherlands to set binding interim targets within 18 months "for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy".

"The judges really listened to us, and I'm extremely happy about that," Jackie Bernabela, a co-claimant who travelled from Bonaire to be in court, told AFP.

She said islanders had felt like they were being treated like "second-class citizens".

The ruling follows an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice that countries violating their climate obligations were committing an "unlawful" act.

Greenpeace said before the ruling that it regarded Bonaire as the first major test case following the ICJ's opinion.

The campaign group's Netherlands director Marieke Vellekoop described Wednesday's ruling as a "huge breakthrough".

"This is a truly historic victory," she said.

"People on Bonaire are finally getting recognition that the government is discriminating against them and must protect them from extreme heat and rising sea levels."

- 'Unbearable' heat -

The low-lying Netherlands is famous for its protective measures against rising waters, mainly based on an extensive system of barriers and dykes.

But campaigners argued that it was not providing the same protection for its overseas territories such as Bonaire.

They had called for a plan for Bonaire by April 2027 and for the Netherlands to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2040 rather than 2050 as agreed at EU level.

The government had argued it was an "autonomous task" of the local authorities to develop a plan to counter the ravages of climate change.

Following the judgment, a spokesperson for the infrastructure ministry said the state was taking the ruling "very seriously" and would study it closely.

"After that, we can say more about the measures the state will take," the spokesperson said.

Campaigners pointed to a survey by Amsterdam's Vrije Universiteit showing the sea could swallow as much as a fifth of Bonaire by the end of the century.

Bonaire, a former Dutch colony, became one of three so-called special municipalities of the Netherlands in 2010 along with Saba and St Eustatius.

During court hearings last year, some of the island's 27,000 residents shared their experiences battling rising seas and temperatures.

Bonaire farmer Onnie Emerenciana told judges: "Where we used to work, play, walk, or fish during the day, the heat is now often unbearable."

After the ruling, she said the state could "no longer look away".

"Our lives, our culture and our country are being taken seriously," she said in the statement provided by Greenpeace.

- Equal treatment -

The judges pointed out that Europe and the Caribbean had different climates.

"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 European part of the Netherlands," it added.

The use of courts and other legal avenues to pursue climate litigation has grown rapidly over the past decade, with most lawsuits targeting governments.

Claimants argue a relatively small number of major polluters bear a historic liability for losses caused by droughts, storms and other climate-fuelled extremes.

The ICJ opinion, requested by the United Nations, aimed to clarify international law as it relates to climate change.

In what was largely seen as a win for environmental campaigners, the judges said polluters could be liable for reparations to countries suffering from climate damage.

Greenpeace's Vellekoop said Wednesday's Dutch ruling would have a huge impact on future cases.

"With this ruling in hand, communities have a powerful new asset to hold governments to account," she said.

M.Robinson--AT