Last year, Dutch Nature Minister Christine Van der Wal was allowed to adjust the protection status of some plant and animal species in Natura2000-gebieden to the current status. The court in Arnhem has rejected the protests of dozens of farmers against the controversial amendment decision.
According to the court, European legislation did not allow the minister to take economic considerations into account (as the farmers had demanded), but only ecological and physical ones. The court ruled that the habitats were already included when the Natura 2000 legislation was introduced, but that their natural status may have deteriorated in recent years.
In that case, the government could even be declared in default by the EU if the so-called deterioration ban were violated and the minister did nothing about it.
Many appeals had been filed with various courts throughout the Netherlands against the minister's decision. The court in Arnhem handled approximately 70 cases at multiple hearings in mid-March. Most of the appeals were submitted by farms afraid of the consequences of the update. The Environment Association also submitted a response to prevent the protection of the Natura 2000 gebiTP4Tn from being reversed.
In the judgment, the court says it realizes that (farming) companies are concerned about the influence of this decision on their companies. Many of them say they did not realize in advance that the designation of Natura 2000-gebieden would have such an impact.
Furthermore, farms are currently feeling enormous pressure from the nitrogen problem and they find it unreasonable that the agricultural sector in particular seems to be suffering from this. The controversial amendment decision is a good example of this, because it now appears that previously designated Natura 2000-gebieden can be adjusted afterwards.
In the final judgment, the court upholds the government decision. This is because the minister is obliged under European law to ensure that (the protection of) habitat and species in Natura 2000-gebieden is correct. If current ecological data show that species or habitats have not been included, the minister is obliged to correct that previous designation.
What the minister should have done earlier is to make the habitat type maps available for inspection. The minister did not do that. However, this does not change the outcome of the cases, because the habitat type maps in the appeal cases were still available, so that the farmers could respond to them for more than a year. Many of the (farming) companies have not done that.