This is the new nitrogen law that locks the Netherlands
Guidelines and Regulations
The word 'directive' sounds less compelling than the word 'regulation'. However, that is not the case. A certain objective must be achieved in both a directive and a regulation. In the case of a directive, the Netherlands may decide for itself how the target will be achieved. Not by regulation.
On 22 June 2022, the European Commission presented the regulation for a Nature Restoration Act.
If this regulation is adopted, it will have disastrous consequences for the Netherlands. I therefore call the law the Netherlands-on-lock law.
In this article I will cover the following points. First of all, I will describe what is in the regulation. I then sum up why this is problematic for the Netherlands. At the end of this article I will indicate which amendments my colleague Rob Rooken and I are making to adjust this proposal as much as possible.
We want the proposal to go. If this is accepted, the consequences for the Netherlands will be incalculable.
The current nitrogen crisis
To properly understand the Nature Restoration Act, it is good to first look at another guideline. That is the Birds and Habitats Directive.
With this directive, the EU obliges member states to designate areas where the state of nature may not deteriorate further. The assignment for the Netherlands is: in Natura 2000 areas you must keep what you have. Nature should not deteriorate there.
The Birds and Habitats Directive is at the root of the nitrogen crisis. The judge says: because too much nitrogen is emitted, the quality of nature deteriorates – that is why nitrogen emissions must be reduced.
The result of this more than 30-year-old directive is that the Netherlands has to buy out many farmers, the country is in a construction crisis, and the taxpayer is more than 25 billion poorer.
With this regulation, the whole of the Netherlands becomes a Natura 2000 area.
Robert Rose
The Nature Restoration Ordinance goes much further
The Nature Restoration Ordinance goes much further than the Birds and Habitats Directives, while those directives are already causing major problems in the Netherlands.
In the first place, the whole of the Netherlands will become a Natura 2000 area with this regulation. In other words: the obligation that the state of nature may not deteriorate further will not only apply to Natura 2000 areas, but to the whole of the Netherlands.
The current nitrogen crisis is really child's play compared to this obligation. But that does not mean that the poison cup is empty, because the regulation has much more disaster in store for the Netherlands.
From conservation to recovery
It looks like a play on words, but it isn't. The Nature Restoration Ordinance imposes an obligation on Member States to restore nature to good condition. This obligation applies to terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems and to marine ecosystems.
From 2030, at least 30% of the surface that is currently not “in good condition” must be restored. In short, this means that biodiversity in those areas must increase, rather than remain as it is.
In 2040, the repaired surface must be 60% and in 2050 it must be 90%.
The Netherlands has no idea yet how large the affected area is. But the provinces of Zeeland, South Holland, North Holland, Friesland, Groningen and Flevoland can at least wet their chests, because these provinces are located by the sea or the IJsselmeer.
Business near the sea: soon to be a thing of the past?
Green environment in urban areas
There is much more to say about this regulation. For example, this regulation contains provisions on how the green environment should be organized in urban areas.
That's micromanagement. In the Netherlands, and in many other member states, we leave a lot of freedom to municipalities to determine how they organize public space. That's how it should be. Brussels should not decide that.
The democratic deficit of the European Union
Of course this proposal is bad and should be scrapped. That is also the first proposal we make. But we can discuss the content and eventually a law will be made in a democratic manner and that will be the end of the discussion. Or not?
In the case of the European Union, the situation is somewhat more nuanced. The possibilities for adjusting policy are very limited in the European Parliament.
When a new Parliament takes office in 2024, that Parliament will no longer be able to abolish or change this regulation. This is because the European Parliament has no means of enforcing amendments to this regulation, and indeed all other EU legislation.
The voter has less and less to say
That means: the voter has less and less to say. In principle, this nature restoration regulation applies until 2050. Even if a Parliament with a more right-wing signature is elected in 2024, this
the regulation cannot be changed. That is very problematic, because a Parliament should in principle be free to express the will of the people.
So we now have a situation that is bad in two ways. In the first place, we have a regulation that will have major consequences for the Netherlands in practice. In addition, we can no longer get rid of it. Whatever you vote.
You can see that this problem is already happening with the Birds and Habitats Directives, which I talked about at the beginning of this article. The Netherlands is now going to take absurd measures just to comply with the obligations of that directive. Normally you could also say: listen, this law does not work in practice, we are going to change it. That's very healthy. Unfortunately, this is not possible with EU legislation.
Our amendment proposals
Together with Rob Rooken, I submitted 32 amendments to reject the Nature Restoration Act and, if it were passed, to amend it. Click here to view these proposals.
My starting point is and will remain that this regulation should be scrapped.
Robert Rose
How is this going to continue?
MEPs had until last week to table amendments. More than 1,000 amendments have probably been tabled on this dossier.
The Climate and Public Health Committee will then try to reach agreement between the different groups on all the different amendments. These negotiations take place behind closed doors and are done by a representative of each European group. My Czech colleague Alexandr Vondra is the negotiator for the ECR Group.
Once the negotiations in the Climate and Public Health Committee have been completed, there will be a vote in the Commission first. The report is then presented to the plenary meeti g. The plenary assembly consists of all members of Parliament. Amendments can also be tabled there. When the plenary has adopted the proposal, the first phase is over.
The last step
The legislative process is not yet complete. Parliament is co-legislator. In order to pass legislation, it must find an agreement with the Council. The Council consists of the Member States. Parliament does not negotiate with all Member States at the same time, but with the President of the Council, the Presidency.
Once the Council and Parliament have reached an agreement, the agreement is voted on by both institutions. Those are generally simple votes: are you for or against this deal? If the Parliament and the Council agree to the agreement, the agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The legislative process is then complete.
It will therefore take some time before all steps are completed. However, the first step has been taken. I will keep you informed.
