Greenpeace wins biodiversity case against Dutch state

The Dutch state has been ordered to work to reduce nitrogen emissions in the most vulnerable nature areas following a ruling by the District Court of the Hague in Greenpeace Nederland v the Dutch State. The case was brought by Greenpeace Netherlands against the Dutch government for its inadequate measures to reduce nitrogen levels in the country.

Greenpeace said the court ruled that natural habitats in the Netherlands have been proven to have deteriorated, and the state must comply with its own law, which means the state must bring 50% of nitrogen-sensitive nature below the relevant critical load by 2030, prioritising the most urgent natural habitat types.

Greenpeace Netherlands executive director Andy Palmen said: “This ruling is a celebration for nature; finally there is clarity. The state has repeatedly delayed taking measures, leaving society as a whole, but also farmers and businesses, hanging in the balance. It has waited so long that the court has now intervened. The celebration is bittersweet, however, as it should not have taken a court intervention to achieve.”

He added: “As a result of the systematic ignoring of the nitrogen problem, nature has continued to deteriorate in recent years, and this is ultimately a problem for all of us. The government has wasted precious time and failed to take necessary steps. As a result of not making choices, urgent measures must now be taken. We expect the government to finally take responsibility in its action plan and ensure that all relevant sectors, including agriculture, traffic, aviation and industry, make a fair contribution. The government will have to come up with proposals that will finally give farmers clarity and support them in a fair way in the necessary transition to ecological agriculture.”

Law firm Burges Salmon called the ruling “a significant milestone in biodiversity and ESG litigation by enforcing environmental obligations against the Dutch government”.

It said the District Court ruled that the Dutch state is under an obligation to prevent the deterioration of nature in Natura 2000 areas and had not taken sufficient measures to prevent the deterioration of the sites in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive. It also found that the state had failed to meet the 2025 statutory nitrogen targets and that current measures were going to be insufficient to achieve the 2030 targets and had therefore acted unlawfully.

“This case is evidence of an emerging ESG claims trend,” said Burges Salmon in a briefing note. “While climate action cases have become numerous, the Greenpeace case represents one in a much smaller but growing pool of biodiversity rulings… It is anticipated that biodiversity claims are likely to grow rapidly due to the need to protect biodiversity and in the context of legislative developments, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which require reporting and due diligence obligations related to biodiversity.”

It added: “The Greenpeace ruling is also significant as it demonstrates the willingness of the courts in the Netherlands to attach penalties to government failure to reach statutory targets. This is a clear indication that the judiciary is ready to hold the government to account on its legal obligations in the climate change and biodiversity space. Companies globally need to be mindful of these trends and consider adequate measures and governance improvements to manage biodiversity risk in their operations and supply chains.”