The Hague District Court orders the Dutch State to adopt stricter emission targets and a climate adaptation plan for Bonaire

Below we summarise the key elements of the judgment and offer our initial thoughts on its meaning and potential implications. We briefly address:

1. The admissibility of Greenpeace’s claims;
2. Greenpeace’s claims;
3. The relevant facts
4. The legal framework for assessing climate cases
5. The District Court’s assessment of the State’s climate policy; and
6. The District Court’s ultimate decision.

The substantive assessment of Greenpeace’s claims is organised around four central themes: climate mitigation (preventing, as far as possible, the consequences of climate change), climate adaptation (limiting or reversing, as far as possible, the consequences of climate change that have already occurred), procedural safeguards (duty to inform and involve the public) and unequal treatment (through direct or indirect discrimination).

Summary

1. Admissibility of Greenpeace’s claims (para. 3)

This case is brought under the Act on Redress of Mass Damages in Collective Action (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, WAMCA). The WAMCA distinguishes between an admissibility phase and a substantive phase in class actions. In its interim judgment of 25 September 2024 (only in Dutch), the Court declared Greenpeace admissible. It held that this is a public interest action, meaning that not all admissibility requirements ordinarily applicable under the WAMCA apply. The Court did assess whether Greenpeace was sufficiently representative to bring its claims. It concluded that Greenpeace has defended environmental interests for decades, has often been recognised by authorities and courts as representing climate-related interests, and has no commercial objective or other self-interest that would prejudice the interests of those on whose behalf the action is brought.

Admissibility of individual claimants

Greenpeace initially acted together with eight individual claimants. However, the Court held that this is not permissible in WAMCA proceedings. The individual claimants’ interests are already represented by the representative organisation and public interest actions relate precisely to interests that are difficult to individualise. Individual claimants could only be admissible if they had their own direct interest, but this was insufficiently substantiated. Influencing the representative organisation in its procedural strategy is not considered such an interest. The WAMCA specifically provides for the appointment of an exclusive representative organisation, which also acts on behalf of other representative organisations that are party to the proceedings, to ensure that the proceedings are conducted efficiently and effectively. The Court therefore declared only Greenpeace admissible.

2. Greenpeace’s claims (para. 8)

Greenpeace argued, in the interests of the inhabitants of Bonaire, that the State is failing to take sufficient action on climate mitigation and adaptation, thereby breaching its positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to Greenpeace, Bonaire is being affected more rapidly and severely by climate change, while the State is taking measures later and less systematically than in the European part of the Netherlands. Greenpeace’s claims relate to two issues: the State must (1) do more to reduce emissions and prevent climate change (mitigation), and (2) take measures to protect Bonaire from the consequences of climate change (adaptation).

Climate mitigation

Greenpeace sought:

• A declaration that the State breaches Articles 2 and 8 ECHR by pursuing a climate policy that falls below the minimum fair contribution to emission reductions needed to limit the rise in average global temperature to 1.5°C.
• An order that the State must take all measures necessary to ensure that the total annual volume of Dutch greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent):

• • primarily, is reduced to net zero by 2030 at the latest, or reduced by 95% relative to Dutch emissions in 1990;
  • alternatively, is reduced to net zero by 31 December 2031 at the latest, or reduced to net zero within a carbon budget of 448 Mt CO2 as at 1 January 2024;
  • or at the latest, is reduced to net zero by 2040, or at least reduced by 95% compared to 1990, or in the further alternative by 90% compared to 1990.

• An order requiring the State to establish a national carbon budget reflecting a fair Dutch contribution to the global 1.5°C budget, and on that basis to establish concrete interim targets for domestic emission reduction.

Climate adaptation

Greenpeace sought:

• A declaration that the State acts unlawfully towards the inhabitants of Bonaire by failing to take timely and appropriate adaptation measures, by excluding Bonaire without legitimate justification from virtually all adaptation legislation and measures, and by insufficiently informing and involving the inhabitants of Bonaire in adaptation policy.
• An order that the State take all necessary measures to adequately protect Bonaire against the consequences of climate change, including by:
  • adopting an adequate adaptation plan for Bonaire by 1 April 2027 at the latest, based on scientific research, local knowledge and the needs of the population;
  • ensuring the timely implementation of this plan through sufficient funding, monitoring and interim adjustment;
  • starting immediately with structural provision of information to inhabitants about climate change; and
  • immediately initiating and funding ongoing scientific research into the climate impacts on Bonaire.

3 Relevant facts (para. 4)

In its assessment, the Court based its decision (in summary) on the following facts, among others:

• Bonaire is a small coral island with approximately 26,000 inhabitants, low elevation and a high vulnerability to sea-level rise, storms, heat and drought.
• Bonaire has been a public body within the Netherlands since 10 October 2010. As early as the 1990s, IPCC reports recognised the particular vulnerability of small Caribbean islands to climate change. Scientific research by, among others, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and Wageningen University & Research has since shown that Bonaire is experiencing rising temperatures, increasing drought, coral bleaching, health risks and a real risk of flooding.
• Since 2016, a National Adaptation Strategy has applied to the European part of the Netherlands, supported by annual monitoring, a Climate Act and implementation programmes. For Bonaire, a process to arrive at a climate adaptation plan and integrated climate policy was lacking until 2023; policy had mainly consisted of isolated projects. Although a Bonaire Climate Table now exists and is exploring adaptation measures that could lead to a climate adaptation plan and integrated climate adaptation policy, there is no concrete timetable and implementation budget, and it is still unclear as to the eventual outcome of the process.
• In the current Climate Act, the Netherlands has set an interim reduction target of 55% (compared with 1990) for 2030. The Climate and Energy Outlook 2025 shows that the probability of the Netherlands achieving the 55% reduction target by 2030 is less than 5%. In addition, in 2023 the Ministry of Finance warned that the remaining Dutch carbon budget would be exhausted within two years in the absence of a substantial tightening of policy.

4 Legal framework for assessing climate cases (para. 10)

The legal framework is formed by States’ positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR to protect citizens against real and serious risks to life and to private and family life, including the consequences of climate change. In this judgment, the Court closely follows the test laid down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in KlimaSeniorinnen. The ECtHR emphasised that climate change differs fundamentally from classic environmental cases, among other things, because the danger cannot be traced to a single clear source but arises from cumulative global emissions, with complex causality, from activities that are not in themselves dangerous or unnecessary and with some causes being cross border. For these reasons, in climate cases, the ECtHR accepts collective complaints and group level assessment (para. 10.17). The starting point is that climate change poses a serious human rights threat and that States are responsible for their own share in the necessary measures, regardless of the conduct of other countries (paras. 9.5 and 10.23).

Assessment method

KlimaSeniorinnen clarifies that a States’ margin of appreciation is limited regarding (i) the need to take measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and (ii) the goals to be pursued (para. 10.21). States do have a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of means to achieve the goals, provided those means are suitable to achieve the goals and are actually implemented (para. 10.22). The ECtHR applies an ‘overall assessment’, asking whether a Member State has established an adequate regulatory framework and has taken substantial, progressive measures to limit the consequences of climate change (para. 10.24 et seq.). The ECtHR distinguishes three types of measures: mitigation, adaptation and procedural safeguards.

Mitigation

For mitigation it is important whether the State (a) has set a clear pathway towards carbon neutrality, (b) uses binding interim reduction targets and trajectories that enable timely achievement of the goals, and (c) provides evidence that the objectives are being met or being demonstrably steered towards. In addition, the State must (d) keep these goals up to date carefully and on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and (e) acts in a timely and consistent manner in setting and implementing climate policy. These requirements must be assessed in conjunction; a shortcoming on one point does not automatically result in a violation.

Adaptation

Where necessary, mitigation measures must be supplemented by adaptation measures aimed at limiting the most serious climate risks. Because adaptation and mitigation policy are interconnected, and the fact that some measures serve both mitigation and adaptation objectives, the court must make an overall assessment of all mitigation and adaptation measures taken by the Member State. There is therefore no specific criterion to assess whether sufficient adaptation measures have been taken.

Procedural safeguards

When taking mitigation and adaptation measures, two types of procedural safeguards must be observed: (i) relevant information, and in particular government studies, must be disclosed to the public, and (ii) procedures must exist to ensure that the public’s views are taken into account in the decision making process.

5 Assessment of the State’s climate policy (para. 11)

The Court assessed the claims only under Article 8 ECHR, because Article 2 ECHR has a high threshold in climate cases, requiring an acute and concrete life threatening risk, which was absent here. Under Article 8 ECHR, the Court held that the State has acted unlawfully “overall” towards the inhabitants of Bonaire through inadequate mitigation and adaptation measures and insufficient procedural safeguards, gauged against internationally agreed obligations and minimum standards. The Court also considered in this overall assessment that, at least until 2023, the State fell short in procedural safeguards to communicate with and ensure participation of Bonaire’s inhabitants regarding climate measures. In addition, the Court concluded that the State treated the inhabitants of Bonaire unequally, in breach of the non discrimination rule in Article 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR, without an objective and sufficient justification.

Assessment of mitigation policy

Inadequate objectives (para. 11.13): The Court finds that Dutch mitigation policy does not meet internationally agreed minimum standards and does not provide sufficient safeguards to achieve the climate goals. First, the Climate Act contains a binding goal for 2050, but no binding interim goal for 2030. Second, the Dutch reduction target presumably does not align with the current United Nations’ (UN) norms, which require, for Annex I countries (the ‘rich countries’) such as the Netherlands, to reduce all greenhouse gases by 43% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels. The Netherlands’ current target – 55% compared with 1990 – is presumably lower than the required 43%, because emissions in 2019 were significantly higher than in 1990. Thirdly, the Court found that the Netherlands wrongly excludes aviation and shipping emissions, which undermines transparency as to whether the Netherlands is contributing its “fair share” to achieving the 1.5°C target.

Insufficient implementation of climate policy (para. 11.14): The implementation and concretisation of Dutch climate policy fall short. It is established that the Netherlands is very unlikely to meet its own – presumably already too low – reduction targets for 2030. There is also no coherent and binding policy framework for the period from 2030 to 2050, including the absence of interim trajectories aimed at achieving the UN agreed reduction objectives.

No calculation of remaining carbon budget (para. 11.15): The State has wrongly failed to quantify how much emission space the Netherlands still has within the global 1.5°C carbon budget. KlimaSeniorinnen indicates that Member States must quantify their future emission limits over a given period, either via a national carbon budget or by another method.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that, in view of these shortcomings, the State does not meet its positive obligations under Article 8 ECHR in respect of mitigation.

The Netherlands does not have to reduce faster than the UN norm: Greenpeace argued that, as an Annex I country, the Netherlands must exceed the UN minimum reduction requirement of 43% by 2030 (compared with 2019) and should, primarily achieve net zero by 2030 or at least a 95% reduction (compared with 1990). The Court rejected this argument: the Netherlands does not have to reduce its emissions faster or further than the internationally agreed minimum. Although Annex I countries must make additional efforts, they may determine how to do so themselves. For example, this may also be through financial or technical support to other countries. The absence of further domestic reductions therefore does not constitute a breach of Article 8 ECHR.

Assessment of adaptation policy

Legal framework (paras. 11.20-11.22): The Court found that since 1992 the UN Climate Change Convention has required Member States to draft, implement and periodically update national adaptation programmes, with special attention to vulnerable areas. These obligations have been strengthened in, among other things, the Paris Agreement, which sets binding requirements for planning and transparent reporting. The United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience adopted at COP28 in 2023, further specifies these obligations. Under this framework, by 2027, Member States must have early warning systems and climate information services, and by 2030 they must have a national adaptation plan, integrated adaptation policy and planning processes covering all ecosystems, sectors and vulnerable communities, and they must already have made demonstrable progress.

Inadequate adaptation measures for Bonaire (paras. 11.23–11.29): The Court found that for years the State has fallen short in its duty of care to protect Bonaire against climate change. There is still no climate adaptation plan or integrated policy, even though the island’s extreme vulnerability has been known for three decades. Scientific research into local risks started late and funding for nature policy related to adaptation is lacking. Despite the recent efforts to catch up, the Court concluded that the State did not take the required adaptation measures in the past. For the future, the State can still meet the targets under the United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience for 2027 and 2030.

Assessment of procedural safeguards (paras. 11.30–11.36)

The Court noted that transparent information provision, participation and periodic evaluation have only been getting underway since 2023, so the State did not meet its procedural obligations before then. Although there has been a clear catch up effort since 2023, the lack of sufficient binding norms and instruments remains a bottleneck. As a result, effective and enforceable participation is still insufficiently guaranteed and it is difficult for citizens to identify any shortcomings and hold the government to account.

Assessment of unequal treatment of Bonaire by the State (paras. 11.37–11.47)

The Court concluded that Bonaire was unjustifiably treated unequally compared with the European part of the Netherlands. Since 2016, the State has developed and implemented a fully integrated adaptation policy for the European part of the Netherlands. Yet more than a decade later, no adaptation plan has been drawn up for Bonaire, and it remains unclear when this will materialise. This difference in treatment is all the more unlawful because Bonaire is affected more quickly and seriously by climate change and the local authority has less implementation capacity. The reasons advanced by the State do not explain or justify the policy lag. Therefore, there is discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR.

6 The ruling

The Court declared that:

• State acts in breach of Article 8 ECHR, and thus unlawfully towards Bonaire’s inhabitants, because it:
  • pursues a climate policy that does not make a fair contribution to limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C; and
  • fails to take sufficiently timely and appropriate adaptation measures and fails to adequately inform and involve Bonaire’s inhabitants in decision making regarding these measures.
• The State has acted and continues to act in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR, by unjustifiably treating Bonaire’s inhabitants differently from those in the European part of the Netherlands when taking adaptation measures.

The Court ordered the State to:

• Within eighteen months, lay down absolute economy wide emission reduction targets in national legislation, including interim targets and trajectories for reducing carbon emissions for the entire period to 2050, that comply with UN agreements, and to make transparent the remaining emission space for the Netherlands.
• Ensure that the targets set out in the United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience for drawing up and implementing a national adaptation plan that also covers Bonaire are met on time – that is, by 2030.

Provisional enforceability: The Court declared the judgment provisionally enforceable, so the State must begin implementing the orders immediately. Any appeal does not suspend these obligations. The Court did not impose a penalty payment.

Initial observations

Immediate implications of the judgment

• The Court concluded that the Dutch and EU targets for 2030 do not conform to UN minimum standards. The order to set absolute emission reduction targets within eighteen months in line with the ‘UN minimum standards’ almost certainly means that the State must adopt higher reduction targets for 2030 (above the current 55% relative to 1990). The State will also have to establish a complete reduction trajectory through to 2050 and take additional national measures to achieve the interim and long-term targets.
• As a result, companies may face stricter emission policies and additional obligations, faster tightening of existing standards and stricter supervision and enforcement. This will be felt particularly in high emitting sectors such as energy, industry, agriculture and mobility.
• The State will have to draw up a new climate adaptation plan that also covers Bonaire. This ruling may also increase pressure on the robustness of the climate adaptation plan in the European part of the Netherlands, particularly its timely implementation, given that this judgment confirms that failure to draw up and implement an adaptation plan in time is contrary to Article 8 ECHR.
• Furthermore, the State will have to improve the transparency and quality of its communication about climate measures, primarily with Bonaire’s inhabitants, although it is quite conceivable that this must be applied more broadly throughout the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The manner in which inhabitants and other stakeholders can express their views on adaptation measures will likely also need to be more structured and formalised.
• For the first time, the State must make transparent how much national emission space remains within the global 1.5°C budget. This will likely make the debate on climate policy more data driven and legally more reviewable.

Relation to Urgenda and KlimaSeniorinnen

• Urgenda I: Whereas Urgenda imposed a specific reduction percentage, this ruling leaves it to the State to set binding, economy wide interim targets and reduction trajectories through to 2050, in legislation, in line with the ‘UN lower limit’ for 2030 (43% reduction compared with 2019). The question is whether this still leaves any scope for the State not to achieve at least the UN lower limit for 2030, or whether failure to do so would automatically amount to a breach of Article 8 ECHR. Another difference is that Urgenda concerned mitigation only, whereas this case also concerns adaptation.
• Urgenda II: Urgenda imposed only a reduction percentage for CO2 emissions. The UN minimum of 43% reduction compared with 2019, however, concerns CO2 equivalents, and thus in principle all greenhouse gases. As the Court in this judgment required the State to set reduction targets in line with that norm, this ruling appears broader in scope than Urgenda. Incidentally, the current Dutch reduction target in Article 2(2) of the Climate Act already covers a broad range of greenhouse gases and not only CO2 emissions.
• KlimaSeniorinnen: The Court closely followed the ECtHR’s test: Member States have only a limited margin of appreciation regarding the necessity and goals of emission reduction, but a wide margin regarding the choice of means. In addition, the Court applied the “overall assessment” method, in which mitigation and adaptation policy are assessed in conjunction.
• Transparency and accountability as standalone core duties: Whereas Urgenda focused primarily on the reduction result to be achieved (25%), this judgment places additional emphasis on transparency and accountability duties. These include the use of consistent calculation frameworks, inclusion of missing sectors and visibility of remaining emission space. Transparency and accountability are essential for legal protection, democratic oversight and enforceability. The Court criticised the Dutch framework (55% relative to 1990), because it deviates from the current UN approach, making goals insufficiently comparable in scope and transparency.
• Overall assessment: Mitigation and adaptation were assessed together (“overall”), with procedural safeguards and unequal treatment also taken into account. Due to this overall assessment, it seems in principle possible that the State might fall short on mitigation but still not breach Article 8 ECHR if it performs well on adaptation and procedural safeguards. However, in this judgment it remains unclear how precisely this overall assessment should be understood, including the relative weighting of these factors. The Court did not need to consider this further because the State fell short on all fronts.

Innovative

• Climate adaptation: Although KlimaSeniorinnen already recognised that States have human-right-based duties to take adaptation measures, this appears to be one of the first instances – both internationally and in the Netherlands – where a court has explicitly assessed adaptation obligations and attached concrete orders to them. In this judgment, meeting the adaptation obligation requires, in particular, that an adaptation plan is drawn up and implemented in time, in line with the United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience.
• No higher reduction norm: The Court clarified that the Netherlands’ status as an Annex I country does not mean that the Netherlands can be required to achieve a higher reduction percentage than the UN minimum of 43% reduction by 2030 (relative to 2019). Although further efforts may be expected of the Netherlands, the State has discretion in how it gives fulfills these obligations.
• Application of the principle of equality: The Court clarified that protecting the overseas islands – which are disproportionately vulnerable – later and less systematically, without objective justification, violates the prohibition of discrimination.
• Internal constitutional arrangements irrelevant: The State argued (in summary) that, given internal constitutional relations, it was not always entirely within its power to pursue adaptation policy for Bonaire (para. 11.19). However, the Court considered that the State bears ultimate responsibility for the protection of human rights and cannot rely on limitations arising from its internal constitutional structure. Because the State is regarded as ultimately responsible under Article 8 ECHR, it is conceivable that the State will become more actively involved in the mitigation and adaptation policy of lower authorities, particularly when they fall short.