Nature and environmental organizations in Drenthe are also strongly critical of the province’s new Environmental Vision. The Environmental Vision states what Drenthe should look like in 25 years. According to the nature organizations, the province has written down prospects and ambitions, but no hard choices are being made.
For example about water and housing construction. The Drenthe Nature and Environment Federation (NMFD), Staatsbosbeheer, Het Drentse Landschap and Natuurmonumenten have therefore jointly submitted a view to the provincial government. “The major spatial issues require clear spatial choices,” they write.
“The fact that the province wants water, soil and landscape to guide what Drenthe should look like in 25 years is great, but no hard choices are being made. The province only wants to do this later in separate programs, such as about water. But this belongs in the Environmental Vision.”
“Moreover, the Provincial Executive wants a kind of compass that allows for shifting. This could mean that a certain interest ultimately takes precedence over the general interest or the Environmental Vision itself. Don’t do that, create clarity,” advocates NMFD director Reinder Hoekstra on behalf of the joint nature organizations.
In addition, nature organizations lack a vision on water quality. Hoekstra takes the stream valleys as an example.
“Due to climate change with more extreme dry and wetter periods, we will have to organize our water management differently,” he says. “The province sees opportunities for this in the stream valleys, which could accommodate more water. But real plans or decision-making will follow much later in a Regional Water Plan.”
According to the nature and environmental clubs, this should also be strictly regulated in the environmental vision, because it has consequences for all users of those stream valleys.
The nature organizations also disagree with the province about the housing construction task. They understand the 13,000 for their own needs, but the prospects together with municipalities and in the northern context for an additional 60,000 homes is too much, they think.
They think it is a logical choice that massive housing construction should be built in the four major cities, especially according to the Environmental Vision. But Hoekstra does not understand that Zuidlaren, Gieten and Borger on the Hondsrug are designated as growth centers.
The nature clubs also wonder why the vast majority of Drenthe is designated in the Environmental Vision as a ‘Priority Agricultural Area’ without specific assignments.
“There are also no specific tasks on the map around the (larger) nature reserves and there is a hard boundary between nature and agriculture. However, many tasks come together in these agricultural areas. This not only concerns nature and water tasks, but also the task of giving agricultural companies with a future in these areas real prospects,” the nature organizations write.
Hoekstra then thinks of the same companies on more land, where the province can help to acquire that expensive land so that more extensive farming can be done. Or an incentive policy for organic agriculture in transition areas between natural agriculture and more intensive agriculture.
The nature organizations are calling on the provincial government to also take measures against peat oxidation, which causes a lot of CO2 emissions. “That is a typical example that cannot tolerate delay and now requires a clear choice and approach.” And they find what the provincial government wants to do to preserve the remaining peat areas downright disappointing.
The nature clubs also believe that the province should take the lead in zones where no crop protection products may be used to protect water, people and nature. “Otherwise we will continue to spin around in the legal battle between opponents, governments and growers,” Hoekstra fears.
