Timmermans does not come to The Hague as a bogeyman, but as a counselor

They’re used to it. With regularity, a discussion about European rules flares up somewhere in Europe and the European Commission is then blown away. But about the way in which European nature policy as a ‘dictation from Brussels’ now dominates the Dutch discussion – yes, that makes people in Brussels a bit uncomfortable.

This Tuesday, European Commissioner Frans Timmermans will come to The Hague, among other things for a much-discussed meeting with Caroline van de Plas. After her big victory in the provincial elections, the party leader of the BoerBurgerBeweging immediately announced that she wanted to talk to Timmermans. She wants to know from the European Commissioner for Climate Action what exactly needs to be done about Brussels and where there is still room in the nitrogen discussion.

Nitrogen: what Brussels does and does not ask for

Timmermans himself immediately indicated that he would like to make time for this. It is in line with what the European Commission prefers to radiate: we enter into dialogue with everyone and like to think along. Not as a bogeyman, but as a counselor. Getting involved directly in a sensitive national discussion, such as the one about nitrogen in the Netherlands, is the last thing people feel like doing.

In retrospect, people can therefore be kicked for the letter that ended up on the doormat of Minister Christianne van der Wal (Nature and Nitrogen, VVD) last week. In it, European Commissioner Virginius Sinkevicius (Environment) once again explained the existing rules on air quality and nature management. But because the letter arrived in the middle of heated coalition talks, it was immediately interpreted as Brussels interference and pressure. Officially, the letter made perfect sense, but diplomatically the timing was a miss, as the European Commission itself now acknowledges.

In any case, it means that eyes are now even more focused on the conversation between Timmermans and Van der Plas – and that the European Commissioner will also try to calm things down. He will emphasize once again that Brussels likes to think along about solutions, outline the different options and explain available European funds for the agricultural transition. The European Commission also plays a specific role in approving the buy-out scheme that the government is preparing – a procedure that, The Hague hopes, will be completed this month.

Timmermans’ message is not easy. Firstly, because it is primarily up to the Netherlands itself how it deals with rulings by national courts and nitrogen standards set at national level. Even listing the options can be spicy, as it turned out recently. Leaked minutes showed that Timmermans’ chief of cabinet Diederik Samsom had mentioned the possibility of forced buy-out to Dutch officials. That need not be surprising – that option has also been on the table in The Hague for a long time. But if it sounds in Brussels, it is quickly seen as ekaze.

Food security

Timmermans’ task is also complicated because nature, biodiversity and the relationship with agriculture in Brussels itself have also become an increasingly sensitive political theme.

As part of the ‘Green Deal’, the Commission presented proposals last year for, among other things, the reduction of pesticides and better protection of European nature. It is precisely those proposals that are encountering growing resistance, partly because they can have serious consequences for farmers. Just like in The Hague, the voice of the agricultural sector in Brussels is traditionally loud. Especially since ‘food security’ is back on the agenda because of the war in Ukraine.

Critics elsewhere in the EU are already referring to the Dutch heated debate as a warning of the consequences that European green policy can have.

In the run-up to the EU elections next year, the politicization of green measures will only increase. Last week, the European leader of the Christian Democrats, the German Manfred Weber, let in The Telegraph already know that in the Dutch elections the ‘environmental agenda of Brussels’ had also received a ‘yellow card’ and that the Commission ‘should show much more understanding for the farmers who try day in and day out to reduce emissions in order to protect our climate and environmental goals”.

This makes the position in which the European Commission now finds itself difficult. On the one hand, she likes to show good will and willingness to think along. At the same time, it must remain clear in the background that Brussels does not accept that nature reserves deteriorate. Especially since flexibility in one Member State simply leads to even worse compliance elsewhere in the EU.

What Brussels wants: P7