Destruction of nature permit can force Schiphol to shrink

The Dairy farmer in Noord-Holland. His colleague in a polder south of Schiphol. The Utrecht pig farmer. The sheep holder in Noord-Holland.

Did Schiphol bought out these agricultural companies in 2022 and 2023 – together with five other agricultural companies? And unnecessary the anger of many farmers and agricultural organizations? That farmers had to give way to planes put a lot of bad blood. Schiphol spent 20 to 25 million euros on the ‘nitrogen space’ of the farmers for a nature permit. But, as previously from research from NRC pale, the legal basis of that nitrogen construction shaky.

On Wednesday, the court in The Hague destroyed the nature permit of the airport. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature (LVVN) must now assess a new application for such a permit. It places the entire ‘operation’ of Schiphol legally on quicksand. Without a nature permit, the airport has no valid permission for its activities that emit nitrogen. In the long term, the number of flight movements at the Amsterdam airport should be reduced to ensure that air traffic fits within the nitrogen space.

From November 1, 2025, the airport may process 478,000 flights a year, the now departed minister Barry Madlener (Infrastructure and Water Management, PVV) determined in May. That number should fall to 275,000 to 300,000, say environmental organizations, to lower the pressure on vulnerable nature. Research by consultancy firm CE Delft commissioned by Milieudefensie shows that KLM, the largest user of Schiphol, best can fly less without the accessibility of the Netherlands being harmed.

According to the critics, it will not work for another route to the required nature permit – even more agricultural companies to acquire nitrogen space – according to the critics. That has everything to do with the so -called ‘additionalism requirement’ in the nitrogen rules. The current nature permit also died on Wednesday at the court of The Hague.

That requirement simply means that Schiphol should have first investigated whether the nitrogen rights that the airport gained from the farmers were needed to restore vulnerable nature in the region. The court stated on Wednesday that the airport had not done that when applying for the mandatory permit.

Shift with emission rights

The consequence of both Council of State statements is that since then there have been many stricter requirements for ‘external netting’, sliding with emission rights from, for example, farmers to an airport or an industrial company.

These stricter requirements also apply to ‘internal netting’. A company may also not first reduce its own nitrogen emissions – for example by electrifying its fleet – and then use that nitrogen space for new activities. In the case of Schiphol: according to the Council of State, electric taxi does not provide (nitrogen) room for more flights.

Before an airport-or another company-may slide with nitrogen rights, the company must therefore have it investigated whether it should be restored to vulnerable Natura 2000 areas. When Schiphol received the nature permit in 2023, those judgments were not yet made, but Schiphol also failed to conduct the investigation into nature recovery afterwards, the judge says.

The nature reserves that are all about around Schiphol include the Naardermeer, the Kennemerduinen and the Nieuwkoopse Plassen. In those areas, nature is so bad that all nitrogen rights must be for the benefit of nature, according to Johan Vollenbroek from the Mobilization for the Environment (MOB) environmental organization on Wednesday after the hearing in the court in The Hague. According to MOC, many nature permits have been killed in recent months on this additionalism requirement.

Together with Greenpeace, Milieudefensie and a few smaller environmental movements, MOB had appealed against Schiphol’s nature permit. The then Ministry of Nature and Nitrogen had provided it in September 2023. The mayor and aldermen of Amsterdam and the municipality of Nieuwkoop had also objected.

According to the objectioning parties, the nitrogen calculations of Schiphol would also rattle. That objection rejected the judge. Schiphol has performed the calculations correctly. The airport does not have to count the nitrogen emissions of air traffic outside a radius of 25 kilometers, even though it also leads to damage to nature according to the environmental organizations. Schiphol also does not have to take into account emissions of aircraft flying higher than 900 meters.

Appeal

In a response, a spokesperson for the Royal Schiphol Group says: « We are going to consult on this ruling in consultation with the Ministry of LVVN. Additionality requires a national government solution. »

Schiphol will change the permit application based on the decision. « At the same time we appeal, » says the spokesperson. « This ruling will have no effect on the number of flights to and from Schiphol in the short term. » He does not accept whether the buying of the nine farms has been for nothing.

Mobilization for the Environment (MOB), Greenpeace and Milieudefensie are satisfied with the destruction of the permit. They call on the government to immediately limit the number of flights at Schiphol and ‘to’ bring in accordance with the limits of nitrogen, nature, sound and climate.  » « Nobody benefits from a search for goat paths. The excess of nitrogen is very harmful to nature and biodiversity, which we have agreed to protect it. It is certain that the natural crisis, the climate crisis and the housing crisis benefit from less Schiphol. »

It is not the first time that the court in The Hague has made a decision to the disadvantage of aviation. On March 20, 2024, she stated that the Dutch state acted unlawfully by taking insufficient account of the interests of local residents of Schiphol, in particular with regard to noise nuisance and sleep disturbance. Earlier, the economic interests always were given priority, according to the judge. This lawsuit was brought by a foundation of local residents, right to protection against aircraft nuisance (RBV).

To share

Mail the editors