Controversy Surrounds European Commission’s New Nature Restoration Law in the Netherlands

• Yuri Vugts

  news editor

• Roemer Ockhuysen

  news editor

In Brussels, the cabinet is trying to water down plans for a new nature restoration law. An initial study by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality shows that the European Commission’s plan could have ‘far-reaching consequences’ for housing projects, among other things.

These are new European plans to improve the state of nature. The Commission states that more than 80% of nature reserves in Europe are in poor condition. This concerns, for example, peat areas, grasslands and dunes – of which the Netherlands has many.

The plans come from the European Commission. The European Parliament and the responsible ministers of the EU countries are now considering those plans. Together they negotiate how the European Commission’s proposal will ultimately look like in a law. If everything goes according to plan, a European agreement could be reached in December this year, Minister Van der Wal wrote in a letter to parliament on Thursday.

But what remains of the original proposal of the European Commission is still the question. There is a lot of criticism from both the European Parliament and from various Member States. One of those critical member states is the Netherlands.

Minister Christianne van der Wal (Nature and Nitrogen) says against News hour to support the ambition of the proposed law. “It is extremely important that we restore nature.” But the cabinet has great fears about a specific element of the regulation: the prohibition on deterioration. This prohibition means that projects such as the construction of houses or the construction of roads may not have a negative impact on nature areas.

Such a deterioration ban already exists for Natura 2000 areas. For this reason, projects that cause too much nitrogen precipitation in Natura 2000 areas will not receive a permit. “And look at the situation we are in now. The licensing process is stalled.”

The government is therefore doing everything it can to prevent a ban on the deterioration of all nature areas from ending up in the final European legislation. “I am talking to colleagues, also behind the scenes. The entire cabinet. We are all constantly putting this on the agenda,” says Van der Wal.

The government is supported in this by the House of Representatives. In a motion, the BBB called on the cabinet to make maximum efforts in Europe to get the ban on deterioration off the table. That motion was passed by a majority of the House last October. Coalition parties D66 and ChristenUnie voted against the motion.

Farmers’ organization LTO and the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) have already expressed their views on the European plans. The LTO fears that agricultural land will be curtailed and wants the targets to be watered down and postponed. “This will be so far-reaching. We see that the current nitrogen legislation already considerably limits the possibilities for the agricultural sector,” says portfolio holder Nature at LTO Edwin Michiels. “It could lead to another nitrogen crisis.”

The VNG opposes the hard goals of the European plan that determine how a large part of a city should consist of green areas. Proper design of public space is up to municipalities themselves, they say.

According to the European Commission, the nature restoration plans are badly needed because the biodiversity in Europe is in a bad state. For example, one in three bee and butterfly species are declining, as are a majority of fish and amphibian populations.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality conducted an exploratory study into the impact of the European plans if they were introduced in their current form. This shows that issuing permits for large construction projects could become even more difficult than it already is due to the nitrogen crisis. The study also shows that the European Commission’s plan will have a positive effect on nature in the Netherlands.

The European Commission’s draft law contains numerous rules on how member states should restore their nature areas. Countries are free to choose which recovery measures they use. To do this, they have to make plans and map out the state of nature. They submit these plans to the European Commission, which, together with the European Environment Agency, checks whether the plans are satisfactory.

Members of the European Parliament also see many objections, they say News hour know. Esther de Lange (CDA) refers the proposal to the trash. “I have been in the European Parliament for sixteen years now and I have never submitted a proposal that says: reject the committee’s proposal. Now I do, because I am very concerned about this law.”

Her political opponent Bas Eickhout (GroenLinks) is happy with the intentions of the law, but not with the goals. “European nature is just not doing well, so we have to do more. You can see in the proposal that there is a lot of caution. A lot of freedom is left to the member states, which have to make their own recovery plans.”

These attempts to mitigate are a thorn in the side of scientist Jeroen Candel of Wageningen University. He has started a petition to have the cabinet reconsider its position. “Due to the nitrogen crisis, people are now realizing that you really have to keep to agreements from the past. The loss of biodiversity is a major problem. That is why accelerated action is needed and this law is also urgently needed.”