The nitrogen debacle continues. Due to the cancellation of the permit for the ethane cracker of chemical giant Ineos in the port of Antwerp, N-VA and CD&V are even further apart than before. What is going on?
What happened?
Less than three days after Minister of the Environment Zuhal Demir (N-VA) issued his own instructions to prevent agricultural and industrial projects from no longer obtaining permits, a first project fell through. Project One, an Ineos ethane cracker that received the green light from the Flemish government to be built in the port of Antwerp, has had its license revoked by the Council of Licensing Disputes.
Various environmental organizations and other players have already taken the permit to court. The Council now rules in one of those cases, about the nearby Brabantse Wal nature reserve, that the Flemish government did indeed “not carefully” decide why the extra nitrogen emissions would not be harmful to nature. The additional research that has been done into the impact of the project on nature – the so-called appropriate assessment – is also “inadequate”.
The construction of the squatter can only resume after the Flemish government approves a new permit application. This must be done within six months. Ineos itself reacts disappointed and says it is looking at its options. According to The time the company is even considering withdrawing its application completely.
How does N-VA respond?
For the Flemish nationalists, the decision is a hard blow in the face. Antwerp mayor Bart De Wever (N-VA) and port alderman Annick De Ridder (N-VA) saw the ethane cracker as a real prestige project for the city. The project would produce 1.45 million tons of ethylene per year and create 450 additional jobs.
Flemish Prime Minister Jan Jambon (N-VA): “We regret this judgment, because this concerns a very important investment project that is extremely important for the prosperity of Flanders. We are now going to meticulously analyze the judgment from a legal point of view and evaluate what the reasons were for annulment, what the consequences are and how we can remedy it.” The prime minister also says he will take “the necessary discreet contacts” in the file.
What is the impact of this on the nitrogen crisis in the Flemish government?
Even more important is the question of what influence this destruction has on the nitrogen crisis in which the Flemish government is in the middle. Last Friday, Minister of Agriculture Jo Brouns (CD&V) refused to approve the nitrogen agreement in principle for the first time. Minister Demir therefore issued her own permit rules just after the weekend. According to her, the judgment confirms that without a definitive nitrogen decree, there is a threat of a license stop.
“The absence of a nitrogen decree will leave the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads,” says Demir. “I call on all responsible politicians to reconsider their attitude as soon as possible and to adopt the necessary draft decree.”
Open Vld minister Bart Somers also wants to get all Flemish ministers back from vacation as soon as possible and get them around the table to sign the agreement: “Not their own right or short-term gain, but the general interest should be the guiding principle of government members.”
What does CD&V say then?
It should hardly come as a surprise anymore, but the reading of cd&v is far from that of its coalition partners. According to Minister Brouns, the judgment on the Ineoscracker proves that part of the nitrogen agreement as agreed in March is shaky: “The decision concerns an important permit for a very large project, but it also provides a new reality for nitrogen. To put it mildly, we read here that a judge questions the use of threshold values to approve or refuse permits. They offer no guarantee to demonstrate that there are effects on the environment. But actually the judgment also says that you can only demonstrate with an appropriate assessment that activities do not have a significant negative impact on the environment.”
Minister Brouns calls on his colleagues to sit around the table again and evaluate the impact of the judgment on the licensing framework. CD&V thus places an extra question mark on the agreement, on top of the two conditions it previously set.
Now what does this mean (not)?
According to environmental law professor Hendrik Schoukens (UGent), who is also alderman for Groen in Lennik, both parties are somewhat right: “The Council says: if you apply a ministerial instruction, you must provide detailed reasons. Allowing a permit purely because the estimated nitrogen emissions remain below the threshold of 1 percent (the threshold for the industry according to Demir’s measures, KVD), is not possible as long as you do not have a fixed regulatory framework. Only if there is a decree can the court rule with sufficient certainty that nitrogen emissions below a certain threshold are not significant. Because only then will he know for sure that a thorough scientific analysis has preceded it.”
In other words: the temporary measures Demir took are not necessarily wrong, but also no more than a guideline. If an industrial company wants to have a permit approved or refused on that basis, an appropriate assessment must indeed be made each time. Just as it should already be done for farmers.
“But it does not say that permits can no longer be granted, nor does it say that different treatment for agriculture and industry is not possible,” says Schoukens.
Both N-VA and cd&v say they will study the judgment thoroughly in the coming days. In any case, the chance seems small that this ruling will bring a nitrogen agreement closer.
