Op-ed: Climate Change and the Delta between the Netherlands and Bangladesh
By Ana Cutts Dougherty
At first glance, the Netherlands and Bangladesh might look like two countries with relatively little in common. They are culturally distinct in myriad ways, and located thousands of kilometers apart. The GDP per capita of the Netherlands is roughly $57,000, while that of Bangladesh is over 21 times lower, at roughly $2,700. However, in the face of climate change and its many consequences — including rising sea levels — the two low-lying countries have a crucial commonality: the need to carefully manage water and prepare for serious floods.
Indeed, Dutch and Bangladeshi experts have been collaborating on water management strategies for many years. Together, they developed the Bangladesh Delta Plan (BDP 2100), which was approved by the government of Bangladesh in 2018, and modeled after the Dutch Delta Programme. The Dutch Delta Programme is the iterative and longstanding Dutch approach to flood protection and water management through relevant policies and water works. The Dutch government has worked to transfer its Delta Approach to other countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh as part of its “International Water Ambition, aimed at extending bilateral support to these deltaic countries while simultaneously creating business opportunities for the Dutch water sector.” The Dutch government considers its Delta Approach to be an export product, the demand for which is generated by the Dutch reputation for excellent water management.
In addition to being home to some of the world’s leading experts on managing water, the Netherlands is also a hub for international law, with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) located in The Hague. In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly requested that the ICJ render an advisory opinion on questions including what the legal consequences are for States that have caused significant harm to the climate system through greenhouse gas emissions with respect to States that are particularly vulnerable to the negative consequences of climate change. In other words, the ICJ has been asked to clarify what legal obligations a State like the Netherlands might have with respect to a State like Bangladesh. According to one estimate, the Netherlands is responsible for a cumulative 12 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions since 1751. Meanwhile, Bangladesh’s cumulative CO2 emissions over the same period are estimated to be significantly lower, at 1.77 billion tonnes.
Given its historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, the Netherlands might be considered a State that has caused significant harm to the climate system. Bangladesh is certainly considered a country that is “particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.” In this context, it is interesting to note that the Dutch government frames its cooperation with Bangladesh on the Bangladesh Delta Plan as a matter of diplomacy and business rather than as a matter of justice.
Of course, it remains uncertain what the ICJ will advise regarding the legal obligations of States like the Netherlands to States like Bangladesh. It will likely be difficult for the ICJ to name specific obligations owed by certain States to other States, as opposed to clarifying general principles of climate justice. We might imagine that the historical relationship between two States ought to be taken into account, such as the British colonization of what is now Bangladesh. It has been suggested that the United Kingdom should be responsible for helping Bangladesh to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change as a form of reparations both for its colonial rule and for its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The same could be said of the Netherlands with respect to Indonesia, which was formerly under Dutch colonial rule. More generally, States like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands might have legal obligations to States like Bangladesh and Indonesia for the harms they have caused to the climate system which are inextricably linked to their industrial activities and historical economic growth based on colonialism and extractivism.
This discussion began with a brief look at some of the differences and similarities between the Netherlands and Bangladesh. Upon taking a closer look in historical context, we see that some key differences, including the relative expertise of the Dutch in managing water, are likely the product of a resource differential arising from the fact that the Netherlands was a colonizer while Bangladesh was colonized. We might then be troubled by the difference in prevailing narratives about climate adaptation in each country.
In the Netherlands, the narrative is one of abiding hope alongside the promise of innovation and technological prowess, as the Dutch government aims “to make the country climate-proof.” Internet searches about climate-induced displacement in the Netherlands turn up few results; it seems a foregone conclusion that Dutch people will simply stay put, relying on the nation’s expertise and resources for climate adaptation. Meanwhile, prevailing narratives about Bangladesh’s response to climate change describe the current reality and predict a future in which mass migration is an inevitably important consequence of climate change and/or form of climate adaptation.
Of course, if differences in infrastructure and resources are such that people in low-lying Bangladesh must relocate in order to survive while people in the low-lying Netherlands need not, then it is no surprise that there is a corresponding difference between the narratives about climate adaptation in each country.
However, it is critical that the Netherlands recognize that the luxury of staying put is built on a foundation of historical injustice. If the Dutch government could acknowledge this, then perhaps it would stop seeing its water management approach as an “export product” and a business opportunity. Instead, it might see that States like Bangladesh are owed resources and support as a matter of justice and reparations, and in order to ensure that the people of other nations can have livable futures in their own homelands, too.
