2023-07-12 15:23:57
Greenpeace is taking the Dutch state to court. The environmental organization argues that it does not make enough effort to reduce nitrogen, so that nature continues to deteriorate. But won’t the legal impasse only get worse?
Lukas van der Storm12 July 2023, 17:23
Nature in the Netherlands is still deteriorating due to an excess of nitrogen. That surplus is hardly decreasing, while irreversible damage to nature is imminent within a few years. “It will be done once,” says Andy Palmen, director of Greenpeace Netherlands. His environmental organization is therefore filing a new lawsuit against the government.
The Netherlands is violating European laws for nature restoration by not intervening sufficiently, he says. “Irreparable damage is imminent in the most vulnerable areas as early as 2025,” emphasizes Palmen. “While the political discussion is always about 2030 or 2035.” He points out that the annual amount of nitrogen on a hectare of protected nature decreases only very slightly, by just under 100 grams per year. While the average nitrogen surplus per nature hectare is more than 5 kilos.
Environmental organization MOB has been successfully conducting nitrogen cases against the government for years. What does this case add to that?
Palmen: “MOB mainly litigates before the administrative court against individual permits. Our case complements that, via a different track. We are starting a civil case against government policy. That is demonstrably insufficient to protect vulnerable nature, while there is an obligation. It is comparable to the climate case that Urgenda won at the end of 2019.”
Many policies are currently not getting off the ground because of social resistance. Does such a case help to solve the nitrogen crisis?
“What is the alternative? That we say: ‘don’t worry about nature’ because a group is protesting? This case is also a last resort for us. During discussions about the climate agreement, it became clear that the current livestock is unsustainable. We have emphasized the importance of cooperation. From a reduction path and a transition to not let the shock be too great. But at some point you also have to act. It must and it will. We cannot afford to let nature go under. Eighteen different habitat types (ecosystem types, ed.) According to ecologists, there is a risk of disappearing as early as 2025.”
Yet not everyone sees that need. The BBB wins elections.
“Yes, and then they say: there has to be some balance between economy and ecology. Well, that balance is not there now. Nature is the drain of society, which is in very bad shape on all fronts. We are actually doing the work of the government with this lawsuit, because the government itself does not come up with answers. We have been waiting for an agricultural agreement that everyone saw coming was not going to work. The fall of the cabinet threatens even more delay. But that is no longer possible. We hold the government to its own laws.”
Don’t we already know from all the MOB cases that less nitrogen should be released into nature? Many developments are therefore already at a standstill.
“I believe in democracy and the rule of law. If the judge convicts the state, something will really have to be done. In that case, the government must work on withdrawing permits from livestock farmers around nature areas. That sword of Damocles has been hanging over the sector for some time now; we prefer to do this in a decent way, by compensating farmers. But the fact that it has come to this point is inevitable from a nature point of view.”
Read also:
Johan Vollenbroek’s patience is running out: ‘We hear one rock after another’
After four years of the nitrogen crisis, we have not made any progress yet, concludes Johan Vollenbroek. ‘The cabinet comes up with one bullshit after another to avoid having to make a decision.’
1689466456
#Greenpeace #challenges #state #nitrogen