It is unprecedented: during its presidency of the European Union, Belgium wants to repeal the approved law for fear of elections. Prime Minister Alexander De Croo presents sad news.
On February 27, the European Parliament approved the Nature Restoration Act after much fanfare. This should lead to better protection of European nature, which is essential if we are to combat global warming efficiently. It is becoming increasingly clear that nature is beneficial to people's physical and mental well-being.
However, getting the Nature Restoration Act through European bodies has been an ordeal. The Flemish government, among others, opposed this. On February 16, Flemish Environment Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) sent a letter to Federal Prime Minister Alexander De Croo (Open VLD): “I am writing in response to the agreement reached by the Flemish government with various countries.” Agricultural organizations dated February 16, 2024 (Farmers’ Union and General Farmers’ Union). An essential element of this agreement is Flemish resistance to the (European) regulatory burden…'.
Demir understood from the statements made by the Prime Minister in the media that he, like her, supports “the pause button regarding the regulatory initiatives of the new European law, including with regard to the Nature Restoration Act… I would like to ask you to approve the Nature Restoration Act …and not to place it on the agenda of one of the next European Councils of Ministers, so that no further settlement can be made…during this (European) legislative body.'
Alexandre de Croo: If you farmed today as you did twenty years ago, you would have violated everything.
However, the Nature Restoration Act was approved. But signs emerged last week that De Croo is still trying to hit the pause button. “Based on consultation with Dutch officials, it has become clear that Prime Minister De Croo is making a phone call to persuade other member states not to vote in favor of the Nature Restoration Act,” said one of the people directly involved. The Netherlands has always voted in favor of the Nature Restoration Act, but changed course after the last election and will vote against it when European member states have to give their final approval. The switch was announced by the responsible minister, Christiane van der Waals, from the VVD: Dutch Liberals.
German position
De Croo's government is also said to have contacted the Free Democrats, the liberals in the German government, to gauge the possibility of a change in voting behavior in Germany, which has also voted for him so far. The Netherlands is too small a country to stop the Nature Restoration Act, but it's not the same for a large country like Germany or Hungary. For those who thought the fight for the Nature Restoration Act was over after its approval by the European Parliament, this is a bitter pill to swallow. Things can still go wrong at the final hurdle.
“In principle, the approval of the 27 member states is a formality if there is an agreement in the European Parliament, after consultation with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers – the so-called tripartite dialogue,” says Hendrik Vos, professor of European politics. (Gent). “Normally, such an agreement is simply rejected at the next meeting as so-called Point A, about which there is no further discussion. It is therefore exceptional that there is a new vote on the Nature Restoration Act. But it is not illegal.
The Nature Restoration Act was initially expected to be passed as Clause A on April 12 at a meeting of Ecofin, the EU's Council of Ministers for Economic and Financial Affairs. But De Croo played a role in changing this course, as Belgium currently holds the presidency of the European Union, and therefore has its weight on the agenda. The Nature Restoration Act will now be discussed again on Wednesday 20 March in the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) of Member States. Depending on the outcome, the law – whether or not it is a simple baseline point – may be placed on the agenda of the meeting of environment ministers on March 25.
“It is unprecedented for the prime minister of the country that heads the European Union to exert this kind of pressure,” says a person with extensive European experience. “In principle, all obstacles have been removed through the long negotiations that preceded the law. The requirements of densely populated areas such as Flanders have been met. I have the feeling that many politicians do not even know about those concessions. If they do know them, they are guided by election fever, not What is best for their people.
bad weather
Last week, Prime Minister De Croo paid a working visit to West Flemish farmers who are facing problems because they cannot harvest their crops due to floods. According to reports, De Croo and the farmers mainly talked about “bad weather” and how to compensate for damages – the discussion was about disaster fund versus weather insurance. The term global warming as a cause of extreme weather is not mentioned anywhere, nor is the fact that nature can act as a buffer against floods and severe droughts.
On the contrary, nature and its connections are once again presented as the enemy. “If you farm today as you did twenty years ago, you will have violated everything,” the Prime Minister said. As if we should not take into account over-fertilization, water pollution, nitrogen pollution, global warming, and the overuse of pesticides, the impact of which on public health is becoming increasingly clear. If politicians, especially Open VLD and CD&V, had taken responsibility twenty years ago, farmers would not have so many problems now.
It is unprecedented for the Prime Minister of the country that heads the European Union to exert this kind of pressure.
But partly because of pressure from Europe, Europe is now beginning to curb its quest for a better environment. Plans to tighten pesticide legislation have been cancelled. The Green Deal and other climate measures are being manipulated. The Nature Restoration Act is not yet complete.
There is also a campaign sent from the Netherlands and apparently supported by a Demir government employee, to weaken the European Water Framework Directive, which is supposed to improve water quality. “I hope Demir realizes the consequences this could have,” says an insider. “It could mean that all the efforts you have made through the Blue Deal for water management in Flanders could be thrown into the dustbin by the next government with a few strokes of the pen.”
Demir emphasizes that she will continue to do what she has been doing for years in Flanders: working for more and better nature – she has made many additional resources available for this purpose. Of course, it is stuck in a government coalition of two parties, Open VLD and CD&V, for whom nature essentially stands in the way of progress. She does not want to intervene at the federal level now – according to her, De Croo's government partners, Groene and Ecolo, should do so.
Credible politician
Federal Deputy Prime Minister Petra De Sutter (Green) and Climate Minister Zakia El-Khattabi (Ecolo) did not want to comment directly on De Croo's possible endeavors. Jeremy Vanneckhout, co-chair of the Green Party, said: “If this is true, then De Croo is taking advantage of his position as prime minister.” It is therefore unprecedented: the Prime Minister of a country who heads an important EU institution is lobbying against EU legislation, because the Nature Restoration Act has been approved by the European Parliament. In this way he undermines his position as a credible politician and completely separates himself from federal government partners. The Nature Restoration Act is part of the European Green Deal, which will falter if the law is undermined. The Green Deal stimulates innovation, economic growth and investments. To risk that for the sake of getting a few votes in the electoral booth is beyond ridiculous.
The De Croo government confirms there has been a call for the Nature Restoration Act. State Department spokesman Bram Dehlen says: “We are communicating to determine the positions of other countries and to find out the extent to which this affects our position, as we do in many files.” “You must not forget that we and other Member States as legislators have the right to investigate what is happening. We observe the principle of legal certainty that is important for citizens, farmers and industry. It has become clear in the past that judges can give a more stringent interpretation of the regulations of nature than we had imagined. That is why we are now more vigilance.
But according to De Croo and others, there is still a “steady majority” of nature restoration law in Europe, and some people see ghosts today. Belgium, as it did before, will abstain from voting.
“Creator. Award-winning problem solver. Music evangelist. Incurable introvert.”
More Stories
Funny protest against mass tourism in Galician village
Cause of backlash known in LATAM – in the sky
Increased investment in European defence startups