On November 12, Greenpeace's proceedings against the State took place. Greenpeace demands that at least 75% of the most vulnerable nature (red list) in Natura2000 areas will be protected. Greenpeace also asks the court to test the government's nitrogen policy against the Habitats Directive. As an absolute minimum, Greenpeace claims that the government must adhere to its own legal objective. Dutch law already states that by 2025 at least 40 percent of nitrogen-sensitive nature must no longer be overburdened. By 2030 this applies to half of that nature and by 2035 to 74 percent. To protect nature, nitrogen precipitation must be brought below the critical deposition value (KDW) (amount of nitrogen precipitation allowed to fall on a certain area).
In proceedings earlier this year, Greenpeace already demanded that nitrogen precipitation be brought down faster. Although Greenpeace lost that case, the circumstances in this case appear to be more favorable. The court already determined that the government must take into account that the existing policy “seriously fails to prevent the imminent further deterioration of Red List habitats. In doing so, the State may be violating the destruction prohibition of the Habitats Directive.”
In the proceedings, Greenpeace's lawyer pointed out that the State is taking an “impermissible risk” with nature, speaking of a “point of no return.” Greenpeace takes the position that this administration has abandoned the nitrogen approach. The previous administration had a nitrogen policy and a €24 billion fund to solve the nitrogen problem. Even then, research showed that the measures had too little impact to meet Dutch nitrogen targets. The current administration wiped out almost all of the previous administration's plans. Instead of 24 billion, 5 billion was allocated to meet the targets.
According to the State, Greenpeace's claims are not realistic. According to them, nitrogen emissions have already fallen sharply and the peak in emissions occurred before the EU had set nature targets. The State cannot be held responsible for the destruction of nature before that time, according to their lawyer. In addition, the State's lawyer argued that there is no evidence for the existence of a “point of no return.” According to him, a recovery strategy will always be possible, but it cannot be subject to a deadline, as Greenpeace wants. In doing so, the national lawyer pointed to research by the RIVM. This shows that the goal set by Greenpeace requires 100% emission reduction in the Netherlands and 70% emission reduction in neighboring countries.
On January 22, the Court of The Hague will issue its ruling. Now, the question is whether the court will grant the deadlines set by Greenpeace. It would be an important ruling in the context of jurisprudence concerning the environment and would certainly make an impact on cabinet policy. Granting the claims would force the State to take far-reaching nitrogen measures with major social and financial consequences.
Comments