The Bonaire Climate Case: Dutch State ordered to comply with reduction obligations and to adopt a climate adaptation plan

On 28 January 2026, the District Court of The Hague (the Court) delivered its long-awaited judgment in the climate case brought by Greenpeace Netherlands (Greenpeace) against the Dutch State (the State) concerning climate change impacts relating to the Caribbean island Bonaire. In short, the Court orders the State to (i) comply with its international emission reduction obligations, and (ii) to adopt and implement a climate adaptation plan by 2030, thereby taking into account Bonaire.

This blogpost outlines the background of the case, the Court’s key findings, and the broader implications of the judgment.

Background

The island of Bonaire is one of the three special municipalities of the Caribbean Netherlands and forms part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In 2024, Greenpeace, together with eight residents of Bonaire (who were later held not to have standing), initiated proceedings against the State under the Dutch collective action regime (the WAMCA). In short, Greenpeace alleged the State provides insufficient protection to Bonaire's inhabitants against climate change impacts – including rising sea levels, warmer seas, and coral loss – particularly when compared to the protection afforded to residents of the European Netherlands.

The case revolved around the question of whether the State’s current policy on climate change is in accordance with its duties under (EU) treaties and national law. Specifically, Greenpeace argued that the State is obligated to increase its efforts in terms of (i) reducing its greenhouse gas emission (mitigation); and (ii) preparing the inhabitants of Bonaire for the adverse consequences of climate change (adaptation). 

The fact that Greenpeace was also demanding adaptation measures, is one of the circumstances that sets the Bonaire case apart from other high profile ‘government framework’ cases, such as Urgenda and KlimaSeniorinnen. 

Interestingly, during oral pleadings, both parties referred to the ICJ’s recent Advisory Opinion on states’ obligations under international law in relation to climate change (Advisory Opinion). We describe further below the approach that the Court took to the Advisory Opinion in its assessment of the State’s conduct (for more information on the Advisory Opinion itself, please see our blog posts here and here).

Key findings of the Court

General considerations

The Court emphasised that climate litigation differs from ordinary cases due to the scientific complexity of climate change and the potentially severe and irreversible consequences of insufficient action. Referring to Urgenda and KlimaSeniorinnen, it reiterated that each state bears its own responsibility within the international climate regime, irrespective of its relative share of global emissions. The Court held that states must make an equitable contribution, taking into account their capacity and historic emissions, and arguments based on comparative emissions were rejected. 

Article 8 ECHR: applicable assessment framework

In KlimaSeniorinnen, the ECtHR developed an integrated framework to assess whether a member state had fulfilled its positive obligations under Article 8 ECHR (right to a private and family life) when taking climate measures, which coherently considers: (i) adequate mitigation measures, (ii) timely and coherent adaptation measures and (iii) appropriate procedural safeguards. Applying the KlimaSeniorinnen framework, the Court conducted an overall assessment of the State’s climate policy to determine whether the State has fulfilled its positive obligations under Article 8 ECHR. 

With respect to mitigation, the Court assessed whether the State’s climate policy constitutes an equitable contribution to limiting global warming to 1.5°C under its UN climate obligations. Taking into account the Netherlands’ capacity and historical emissions, the Court found that the State has not shown that its current and planned measures are capable of delivering the required emission reductions, pointing in particular to the absence of legally embedded economy-wide targets beyond 2030 and the assessment that the 2030 target is unlikely to be met under existing policy.

Turning to adaptation, the Court finds that climate adaptation measures for Bonaire were developed and implemented significantly later and less systematically than comparable measures for the European Netherlands, despite long-standing scientific knowledge that Bonaire is particularly vulnerable to climate change and that local authorities lack sufficient capacity to address these risks. 

The Court further examined whether the State complied with its procedural obligations under Article 8 ECHR. It reiterated that effective protection against climate-related harm requires not only substantive measures, but also adequate procedural safeguards, including timely research, systematic risk assessments, planning, monitoring, transparency, and public participation. Applying the KlimaSeniorinnen criteria, the Court found that these procedural requirements were insufficiently met with respect to Bonaire, as climate risks were not adequately translated into coherent and timely policy and decision-making.

On this basis, the Court found that the State is in breach of Article 8 ECHR.

Unequal treatment and discrimination

The Court found that the State treated the inhabitants of Bonaire differently from the inhabitants of the European Netherlands when taking adaptation measures, despite Bonaire’s greater vulnerability and limited local capacity. As the State failed to justify this differential treatment, the Court concluded that the State is also in breach of Article 14, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination).

Decision

The Court found that the violations of Articles 8 and 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 are unlawful under Dutch tort law vis-à-vis the inhabitants of Bonaire.

The Court ordered the State, within eighteen months, to embed absolute economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in national legislation, including interim targets and reduction pathways up to 2050, to provide insight into the remaining national emissions budget, and to ensure that a national adaptation plan is drafted and implemented by 2030 in line with international targets which takes Bonaire into account.

Further, the Court denied certain Greenpeace claims insofar as they sought orders that would require the Court to prescribe specific climate measures, holding that such choices fall within the State’s wide margin of appreciation. Emphasising the trias politica, the Court noted that while it may review whether the State complies with its international and human-rights obligations and targets, it cannot direct concrete climate policy choices. Accordingly, it confined its order to requiring the State to take effective action in line with those obligations, leaving the design and implementation of the measures to the State.

Greenpeace also relied on Article 2 ECHR (right to life). Although the Court recognised that climate change entails serious risks to life, it found that the high threshold for a violation of Article 2 ECHR was not met in this case, as there is no sufficiently immediate and concrete risk of loss of life attributable to the State’s conduct.

Observations 

The judgment is among the first judicial decisions to expressly rely on the Advisory Opinion, treating it as authoritative interpretative guidance and using it to clarify that those obligations entail due-diligence duties of conduct and, in some respects, obligations of result thereby reinforcing the benchmark against which the State’s mitigation and adaptation efforts were assessed. 

Notably, the Court ordered the State to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the reduction pathway required under the related international commitments. In doing so, the Court required the State to align its mitigation efforts with what is necessary to meet those obligations, thereby going beyond the State’s previously formulated emission-reduction ambitions for 2030.

Finally, the Court ordered the State to take concrete and timely measures with respect to climate adaptation for Bonaire, including the preparation and implementation of an adaptation plan. This marks an important development in European climate litigation, where judicial review has traditionally focused primarily on mitigation, rather than on the adequacy of adaptation measures.

What next? 

The judgment is expected to influence pending and future climate cases against states as it focuses on the role of courts in assessing both mitigation and adaptation measures, particularly in the context of vulnerable regions within a state’s territory.

Both the State and Greenpeace have three months to appeal the judgment, but neither of them have yet announced to do so. Any appeal would be brought before the Hague Court of Appeal, which has previously ruled in major climate cases such as Urgenda and Milieudefensie v. Shell.

The judgment is declared provisionally enforceable (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad), meaning the State needs to comply with it notwithstanding an appeal (if any).