The alternative plan that JA21 and BBB have put forward to the cabinet to quickly get out of the nitrogen impasse, is almost completely set aside by Minister Christianne van der Wal (Stikstof). Although the minister appreciates ‘the way in which constructive thinking is being done’, she sees no scope for adopting the approach of the opposition parties.
MPs Derk-Jan Eppink (JA21) and Caroline van der Plas (BBB) submitted an initiative memorandum to adjust the policy. Although Minister Van der Wal previously mentioned interesting ‘points of reference’, but also saw ‘points of concern’, the formal response mainly consists of rejections. Particularly towards the elections for the Provincial Council, the MPs insisted on their alternative, which, according to Van der Plas and Eppink, would get the Netherlands out of trouble. But the minister clearly sees it differently.
Alternatives
BBB and JA21 point to alternatives of the so-called ‘critical deposition value’ (KDV). The cabinet is already working on this itself, after nitrogen mediator Johan Remkes also argued for a legally sustainable alternative. “In that process, the proposal for an alternative from this initiative memorandum from BBB and JA21 will also be viewed as a possible solution,” says Van der Wal, who seems to let some positivity seep through.
But on other points of the initiative memorandum, it is mainly a firm ‘no’. According to Van der Wal, nitrogen deposition is and will remain one of the major pressure factors on vulnerable nature. “The court has made it clear to various governments at various times that a substantial, certain decrease in nitrogen deposition is necessary to comply with the European obligations of the Birds and Habitats Directives. A substantial and permanent reduction in deposition is a crucial condition for achieving nature objectives. It is therefore necessary to aim for less nitrogen, as part of combating deterioration and achieving a nationally favorable conservation status.”
‘Result obligation’
According to Van der Wal, an alternative to the so-called ‘obligation of results’ does not change the legal obligations to which the cabinet feels bound. Only if the nitrogen deposition decreases considerably in the near future will there then be ‘more possibilities’ for permits. As far as Van der Wal is concerned, the plan of JA21 and BBB to raise the ‘threshold value’ to 1 mol per hectare per year also ends up in the trash, because she sees ‘no possibility’ to raise it. In Germany, a nitrogen permit is only required if more than 7 mol of nitrogen (100 grams) per hectare per year is deposited in a Natura 2000 area due to a new activity, in Denmark this is even 14 mol.
However, Van der Wal refers to rulings by the Council of State, which did not accept the earlier Dutch standard of 1 mol of nitrogen per hectare per year. According to the minister, reintroduction of that standard would lead to even more legal uncertainty. Finally, Van der Wal does not want to burn her fingers on another plan of the opposition parties, namely to make a distinction between ammonia and nitrogen. “There is currently insufficient scientific basis to assess the effect of nitrogen oxides and ammonia on nature separately,” said the minister, who kindly thanked the MPs for their plans.