OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Natuurpunt vzw

Natuurpunt draagt zorg voor de natuur Natuurpunt wil meer natuur! Er moet ruimte zijn voor wonen, werken, voedselproductie en verplaatsing, maar hoe drukker het leven wordt, hoe meer nood de mensen hebben aan groen en natuur. Dankzij de inspanningen van Natuurpunt bleven unieke stroken bos, heide, duinen, valleigebieden en polderlandschappen gevrijwaard. Natuurpunt wil betere natuur! Door deskundig beheer slagen de vrijwilligers van Natuurpunt er in de soortenrijkdom in de natuurgebieden te verhogen. Zeldzame en bedreigde diersoorten krijgen daardoor betere levenskansen. Natuur voor iedereen! Natuurpunt beschermt onze natuurgebieden niet angstvallig achter prikkeldraad, maar stelt ze open voor iedereen, om ervan te genieten, om ze te bestuderen of om een handje toe te steken bij het beheer. Geen groene eilandjes in een ecologisch rampgebied! Natuurpunt plaatst haar werking in een brede maatschappelijke context. Natuur verdient aandacht en ruimte in alle ruimtelijke bestemmingen.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Bruno Tobback (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Nov 2025 · Sustainability Omnibus and Life-funding

Meeting with Liesbet Sommen (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Nov 2025 · Environmental omnibus

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

2 Sept 2025 · Roundtable on the revision of REACH and the environmental and health impact of chemicals including PFAS followed by a site visit.

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

19 Jun 2025 · Nature restoration- Visit to Natura2000 site where nature restoration is made possible through LIFE funding

Response to European Water Resilience Strategy

4 Mar 2025

Natuurpunt calls to acknowledge that natural ecosystems are the backbone of our water cycle. Improving landscape water functioning by nature based solutions can deliver flood protection, baseflow enhancement and water quality improvement. For example, wetland restoration can deliver a volumetric water benefit of 180 l/m², and provide flood protection through cost-effective measures. At the site Kalmthout Heath a volumetric water benefit was realised of 985.000 m³ annually, with a return on investment of 4 - 5 years (see attachment). In addition, a structural collaboration with drinking water companies was established, financing part of the nature management. Investment in water replenishment projects makes economical sense and delivers additional benefits to society. In addition, we aim to restore the historical wetlands, with the focus on ecosystem services these valuable sites deliver. A dedicated plan is formulated as the Wetlandplan, to restore 1500 ha of wetlands but lacks structural financing despite delivering significant benefits to society (https://www.natuurpunt.be/projecten/wetland-plan-english). As a nature management organisation, Natuurpunt engages to improve the natural water system in Flanders. Through our nature restoration work we implement large scale wetland restoration. We conquer the following issues which should be addressed in the water resilience strategy. Acknowledgement of natural ecosystems as the backbone of the water cycle and water resilience. Land and water management are interlinked, improving the natural water retention in the landscape via nature based solutions such as wetland restoration and floodplain reconnections helps to restore water cycle and delivers benefits to society. People, industry and agriculture all require water. Thereby natural ecosystems are essential for a competitive European economy and a healthy population. Binding & coherent water policy, the Water Framework Directive and synergy with Nature restoration law: Current water policy in Flanders is voluntary, often applies for exemptions and lacks sufficient financing. Nature is sensitive to pollution and water poor quality hampers wetland restoration. The main threats include sewage overflow and agricultural runoff. This brings a significant load of nutrients and associated pollutants in the surface waters. Natural areas provide clean water, therefore the nature restoration law will also benefit water quality. Sustainable green-financing: nature will remain an essential part to ensure water quality and quantity. Therefore, an anchored water security fund should provide sustainable green-financing. This moves away from annual project budgets and focusses on a stable system approach. New ways of green financing can contribute to water resilience. For example, the production of tap water uses underground aquifers or surface water to make potable water. A fund related to potable water companies to improve landscape water infiltration and aquifer replenishment provides the opportunity to enhance understanding the local water cycle and taking deliberate action to improve water balance of the landscape. Clear framework for industry: A clear and effective permit policy is essential to reach water quality targets. Natuurpunt calls for a future-oriented and legally sound framework. If it appears that the objectives for a water body are not being achieved, the permits involved must be examined and revised if necessary, with additional actions to still achieve the objectives ideally on a mass-balance basis. Avoid and phase out construction in flood risk areas. Restoration of functioning wetlands is often hampered by constructions within flood risk areas. Occupation of flood zones (including river floodplains and wetlands) for the construction of homes and infrastructure increase the risk of flood damage to people and property, while at the same time limiting the space where water would naturally flow.
Read full response

Meeting with Kathleen Van Brempt (Member of the European Parliament)

30 May 2023 · Nature restoration law implications in Europe, Belgium and Flanders

Meeting with Tom Vandenkendelaere (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2022 · general introduction

Response to Interservice consultation on a Commission proposal for the GES Decision

11 Oct 2016

We would like to bring to your attention some fundamental improvements that are still needed to ensure that the revised Decision leads to a more effective implementation of the MSFD. We recognise that the proposed draft Decision is an improvement upon Decision 2010/477/EU by providing for a clearer and simpler approach to the determination and assessment of GES. We welcome the greater importance given to regional and EU-level processes, increasing chances of a coherent implementation of the MSFD. However, we are concerned that the search for clarity and simplicity risks lowering the overall level of ambition of the Directive. We therefore urgently request you to consider the following: 1. Include a clear safeguard mechanism for the setting of threshold values: The revised Decision relies extensively on the setting of ‘threshold values’ as the intrinsic mechanism by which Member States are to determine GES. In the present text, there is neither an independent process that is established to recommend these values, nor is the European Commission empowered to review and agree to these values. Furthermore, Member States are left to put forward these values without any clear guidance on timeline. The use of the expression ‘as soon as possible’ leaves far too much room for interpretation and a cut-off date is essential to ensure that Member States do not indefinitely delay doing so. Finally, the application of the precautionary principle, as per Article 4(1), should also apply at national level and not just at regional/EU level, reflecting the potential risks to the marine environment, the need to be consistent across different criteria when they relate to the same ecosystem element, and the necessity to make use of best available science. 2. Include a control mechanism in case Member States decide not to use secondary criteria: The current text gives a large degree of discretion to Member States in the selection and use of secondary criteria. This is not compensated by an appropriate control mechanism that would guarantee that this selection is made in the circumstances foreseen by the Decision, i.e. as complement to a primary criterion or when the marine environment is at risk of not achieving or not maintaining GES. This is particularly worrying when considering that certain Descriptors are now covered only by secondary criteria. At least, Member States should be required to provide the Commission with a justification for their selection, as is foreseen in Article 3(1) for the primary criteria. 3. Ensure that the revised Decision is fully coherent with other EU policies and objectives: Inconsistencies have been identified, which are extremely worrying at this late stage in the process. Specifically, the language used for criterion D3C1 on fishing mortality needs to be brought in line with the language used in Article 2(2) of the CFP Regulation. We also strongly object to the possibility given to Member States to define a ‘maximum allowable extent’ of habitat loss under criteria D6C4 and D6C5. Allowing Member States to set an acceptable level of habitat loss is contrary to the spirit of the Directive, as well as to the ‘Not Net Loss’ objective of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity to halt biodiversity loss. Finally, we have come to understand that the ongoing public consultation is a mere ticking box exercise without any scope for the responses to be taken on board in the final text. While we appreciate the efforts made by the Commission to organise in March 2016 a stakeholder consultation involving the observers of the MSCG, this cannot be seen as a replacement for an open public consultation. We request an evaluation of how the feedback collected during the public consultation is reflected in the final Decision. You will find our more detailed comments at: http://seas-at-risk.org/images/pdf/Other_pdfs/NGO_comments_GES_decision_Oct2016.pdf
Read full response