Lobbying Activity
Meeting with Tom Berendsen (Member of the European Parliament) and Natuur Milieu
3 Sept 2025 · Industry and climate
Meeting with Myriam Jans (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra) and Greenpeace European Unit and
3 Sept 2025 · Climate Policy
17 Jul 2025
Natuurmonumenten is a Dutch site managing Nature Conservation organisation that exists since 1905 and manages about 115.000 hectares of nature. We are supported by 968.000 members and supporters. So, based on field-experience of more than a century, we are very worried about the decline of insects in general and polinators especially. We see and measure this in our sites and we notice that also in the wider countryside. Earlier we have initiated a large public campaign about this issue and where overwhelmed by the traction it got with ordinary citizens. A healthy insect and polinator population is imperative to get our sites in a favourable conservation status. I is also important for the wider countryside and the connectivity of nature reserves through the wider countryside. Therefore Natuurmonumenten supports the Commission proposal, that is necessary to implement the target in Article 10 of the NRR to reverse the decline of wild pollinators by 2030. This objective is vital for our biodiversity and food systems. We ask the Commission and Member States to implement the proposal in full and without delay, so that the implementation timetable set out in the NRR is achieved.
Read full responseResponse to European Democracy Shield
26 May 2025
Natuurmonumenten is een Natuurbescherming met een achterban van 950.000 supporters. Natuurmonumenten maakt zich grote zorgen over de verdachtmakingen, gebaseerd op foutieve informatie aangaande de LIFE subsidies. Deze op misinformatie gebaseerde aanval op NGO's de een stem geven aan natuur en milieu heeft schade opgeleverd in het vertrouwen dat deze NGO's hebben opgebouwd en verdienen. Gezonde democratische rechtstaten kunnen niet zonder een gezond maatschappelijk middenveld. Doordat de vertegenwoordigende democratie in onze complexe samenlevingen noodzakelijk is zijn er organisaties nodig die stem geven aan de belangen van burgers en belangen van zaken die zelf geen stem hebben. Dat moet gefinancieert en gekoesterd worden. De EU Commissie zou zorg moeten dragen voor: ervoor zorgen dat innovatieve en inclusieve participatieve en democratische formats worden gepromoot als een centraal element in de verdediging van de democratie; ervoor zorgen dat een Europees Democratieschild niet onbedoeld de bescherming van het maatschappelijk middenveld en innovatieve democratische structuren verzwakt; waakzaam blijven voor de risico's die slecht geformuleerde wetten van buitenlandse agenten kunnen vormen voor de democratie en de maatschappelijke ruimte, en optreden tegen alle pogingen om de maatschappelijke ruimte of de vrijheid van meningsuiting, vereniging en vergadering in de Unie te beperken, inclusief elke poging om de financiering van maatschappelijke organisaties te beperken of andere aanvullende maatregelen die de actieradius van maatschappelijke organisaties beperken; streven naar een EU-strategie ter ondersteuning, bescherming en empowerment van het maatschappelijk middenveld, die een holistische bescherming tegen directe aanvallen (zoals SLAPP's) waarborgt, de administratieve lasten vermindert en structurele ondersteuning biedt om machtsongelijkheden aan te pakken (lidstaten aanmoedigen om structurele ondersteuning te bieden), waaronder: o een gestructureerde civiele dialoog, in overeenstemming met de aanbevelingen in EU Civil Dialogue: The Foundations of an Institutional Framework; o Beschermingsmechanisme voor verdedigers van mensenrechten en milieurechten, evenals maatschappelijke organisaties, conform de mapping- en pathways-documenten van Civil Society Europe; o Operationele ondersteuning om maatschappelijke organisaties in staat te stellen gestructureerd en effectief betrokken te zijn bij de ontwikkeling en implementatie van EU-beleid. Het behoud van LIFE-exploitatiesubsidies en het CERV-fonds is bijvoorbeeld van cruciaal belang om participatie van het maatschappelijk middenveld mogelijk te maken en hun transparantie en verantwoordingsplicht te garanderen. Betrokkenheid bij elke herziening of goedkeuring van EU-wetgeving om volledige naleving van de wettelijke vereisten van het Verdrag van Aarhus en beste praktijken in het veld te garanderen, en in overeenstemming met de grondrechten.
Read full responseMeeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and
20 May 2025 · Water legislations and Natura 2000
Meeting with Ingeborg Ter Laak (Member of the European Parliament)
8 Apr 2025 · Natuur, Milieu, Landbouw
Meeting with Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Member of the European Parliament)
7 Apr 2025 · Natuurmonumenten meeting
Response to European Water Resilience Strategy
4 Mar 2025
Reactie van Natuurmonumenten op EU Resilience strategy Natuurmonumenten is een natuurbeschermingsvereniging, gesteund door 960.000 mensen en beheert 112000 hectare natuur in Nederland. Veel van die natuur heeft voldoende en schoon en goed water nodig. Aan de andere kant levert deze natuur ook veel schoon drinkwater op en geeft het ook water af in droge tijden aan de omringende agrarische bedrijven omdat de natuur als een spons functioneert. Ook zorgt natuur er voor dat wateroverlast en waternood wordt voorkomen. Natuurmonumenten verwijst voor vele voorbeelden naar https://www.klimaatbuffers.nl/ Wij zijn van oordeel dat gebruik van water, hoe efficiënt ook, wordt begrensd door de hoeveelheid en kwaliteit die het waterecosysteem nodig heeft om goed te kunnen functioneren. Alleen het surplus mag beschikbaar zijn voor (efficiënt en spaarzaam) gebruik. Voor de gehele inbreng verwijs ik naar de bijlage. P. Nuvelstijn Coordinatur European and International affairs Natuurmonumenten
Read full responseResponse to Uniform format for national restoration plans
7 Feb 2025
Natuurmonumenten is a private association with 944.793 supporters and owns and manages nature sites since 1905, 115.000 hectares. During this long time we have learned that the plans as foundations of our management and measures we take must be clear, sound scientific based and comparable. As such we value and greet the system of the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR), the planning and monitoring approach and the uniform template for the Restoration Plans. The following comments want to help to optimise the content of the uniform format of the National Restoration Plans and thus improve the preparation of these plans. And also gives us the maximum opportunity to coordinate and learn from other countries and site managers and other organizations in other countries. General All legal requirements from the NRR should be included in the uniform format and should be mandatory. The questions should be leading to SMART answers. The scientific underpinning for the National Restoration Plans is of crucial importance and should be the baseline for the discussions with stakeholders. The plans should be accompanied by concrete maps, as they are vital for the evaluation of the National Restoration Plans by the EC and stakeholders. Effective and inclusive public participation of the general public and stakeholders concerned is of key importance for development of strong national plans the and good implementation of the NRR. Especially site managing organizations and species (knowledge) organizations should be intensively involved with the preparation and making of the National Restoration Plan. Because they play a crucial role in implementing the measures and monitoring the results. The format should therefore include the conditions on stakeholder participation that are in the law: open, transparent, inclusive and effective with early opportunities to participate. Sufficient financing for the implementation of the NRR is needed. Therefore, it is important to keep the sections on finance in the draft format, including on the estimated financial needs to implement the restoration measures. Cohesion with other policy areas should be very concretely scrutinized. So that synergies with BHD, Nitrates Directive and Climate law and policy should be identified and intensified. Also harmful subsidies should be identified, not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. For specific remarks, see the attachmented document.
Read full responseResponse to Commission Directive amending Annex III of the Nitrates Directive
16 May 2024
Our feedback is included as attachment. I wanted to attach an article by The Financieele Dagblad of april 2024, called "Gesjoemel en raadsels rond wondermiddel tegen de mestcrisis" but apparently it isn't possible to attach more than one annex.
Read full responseResponse to Farm to Fork Strategy
19 Mar 2020
Natuurmonumenten, an association with 720.000 menbers/supporters welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s Roadmap for the Farm to Fork Strategy. We are very allarmed by the pressure of intensive agriculture on our 110000 hectares nature reserves. Nitrogen, nitrates, pesticides, water extraction make our management difficult or useless. We are also worried by the enormous degradation of biodiversity in the agricultural lands. wild palnt and insect populations are crumbling as do meadow- and farmland birdpopulations .
We strongly support support the stated objective to “transition towards a sustainable food system that should have a neutral or positive environmental impact, is capable to adapt to climate change and at the same time contributes to climate change mitigation, ensures food security and creates a food environment which makes healthy diets the easy choice for EU citizens.” However, we see no evidence to support the statement that “the transition into more sustainable food systems [...] is ongoing.”
In the Dutch situation the trend is that farms become bigger and intensify. In the different forecasts of the offical scientific advisory institute PBL this trend will go on.
• The current food system is failing on economic, social, and environmental counts, and the policies in place are not providing the right impetus for change.6 The Strategy must commit to system change and set a clear direction of travel towards a sustainable food system based on the principles of agroecology. Tweaks in the margins of the current food system will not be enough. • Intensive agriculture and dietary patterns are major drivers of all current environmental challenges. The Strategy cannot cherry pick issues or solutions but must adopt a holistic and joined-up approach to environmental sustainability. A healthy environment and a stable climate are the foundation of food production and must be front and centre in the Strategy. Economic viability cannot be pursued in isolation of environmental (and social) sustainability.
• The Strategy must take a rights-based approach to food, which means placing the primary responsibility for change on public authorities at all levels (from EU to local). They must take adequate measures to shape healthy, inclusive and sustainable food environments, within a fair and
sustainable food system, and to set up robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms to review progress.7 Accordingly, measures must go beyond voluntary corporate action and consumer information, which fall short of the required transformation of food environments and systems. • Step up environmental compliance assurance within the agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture sectors, as a key priority under the Strategy. The EU already has excellent environmental laws, which is not being implemented. The European Commission must increase efforts to enforce the Birds and Habitats Directives, Nitrates Directive, Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (regarding IPM), Water Framework
Directive, and Ambient Air Quality and National Emissions Ceilings (NEC) Directives. It should also be an explicit priority to reduce the problematically high number of exemptions and derogations granted to circumvent these directives, directly undermining their impact.
To our view the new CAP must be build on the polluter pays principle and farmers who perform (extra) public services shoul de rewarderd. Public money should only go to public services. There should be a close coherence between concrete ambitions/targets and policy. precise result and impact indicators are imperative. The proposals for the new CAP do not give a good answer to these asks. The strategic plan will be very important in delevering on the ambition but without good monitoring and indicators the ability for the EU Commission to have a good debate with the memberstate is very limited as is the possibility to enforce.
Read full responseMeeting with Frans Timmermans (First Vice-President) and Greenpeace European Unit and
15 Oct 2019 · Discussion on climate and biodiversity
Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on the methodology for risk assessments of invasive alien species
18 Dec 2017
Natuurmonumenten, a site managing Nature Conservation Organisation from the Netherlands, managing 105.000 ha, mainly designated as natura 2000 sites would like to express its support to the Delegated Act as it is currently drafted. Indeed, Natuurmonumenten is convinced that there are no substantive amendments needed to the draft. Natuurmonumenten considers that this draft Delegated Act meets, and in no way exceeds, the scope of the Delegated Act as determined by Article 5(3) the EU IAS Regulation 1143/2014.
As we also consider that the distinction between Risk Assessment and Risk Management is very important we welcome the Commission’s approach which clearly highlights this distinction within the Explanatory Memorandum. As clearly detailed in Article 5(3) of Regulation 1143/2014, this Delegated Act exists to further specify the evidence requirements for the Risk Assessments required under Article 5(1) of Regulation 1143/2014. It is clear from Article 5(3) that the Delegated Act does not exist to specify the evidence requirements for any Risk Management analyses. Consequently, Natuurmonumenten is supportive of the Commission’s ensuring the scope of this Delegated Act is limited to that of specifying the evidence required for Risk Assessment, and not deviated to considering the evidence required for Risk Management.
Article 5(1)(h) of Regulation 1143/2014 requires Risk Assessments to include ‘a description of the known uses for the species and social and economic benefits deriving from those uses’. Article 5(1)(h) is therefore asking for a description of the Risk Management considerations, so as to provide initial context to the Risk Assessment. However Article 5(1)(h) is clearly not requiring a detailed analysis of the Risk Management considerations; as this can be provided, if necessary, directly to the EU IAS Committee when it evaluates the Risk Management of whether to include the species on the EU IAS List or not. Natuurmonumenten considers the wording of the section relating to Article 5(1)(h) of the Annex of Common Elements to be appropriate and entirely within the aim and the spirit of Regulation 1143/2014. However, for the avoidance of doubt, we wonder whether there would be value in adding a note to this section which clearly states that the Regulation merely requires a brief description of social and economic considerations to provide context to the Risk Assessment, and not a full analysis of the Risk Management considerations. Furthermore, Natuurmonumenten considers it unnecessary to specify that only economic experts can compile evidence relating to Article 5(1)(h) as this would be an unnecessary burden for what is merely a descriptive section.
The primary aim of Regulation 1143/2014 is to prevent future damaging invasions by alien species. Due to the nature of invasive alien species, an IAS may become established and cause harm within the EU before it is possible to complete rigorous scientific studies into the impact of that species in Europe. Consequently, as per international best practice, it is not appropriate to rely solely on peer reviewed literature when assessing the risk that an invasive alien species poses. However, it is entirely appropriate, as per international best practice, to consider expert opinion and grey literature when assessing the risk that a species may pose. But only when peer-reviewed evidence is not available and only when the uncertainty surrounding such material is appropriately articulated. As this Delegated Act allows for the use of non-peer reviewed evidence, with appropriate and proportional caveats, Natuurmonumenten praises the mature and considered approach to evidence that this Delegated Act presents. With regards to the section of the Annex of Common Elements relating to Article 5(1)(f); within Paragraph 3, Natuurmonumenten suggest that ‘endangered habitats’ is changed to ‘habitats’. A habitat may become endangered by the presence of an IAS, so merely focusing on endanger
Read full response