The Green Deal, for all your infringements...

The so-called infringement package for July, which the European Commission circulated this week, fully testifies to this. Belgium has been charged with infringement proceedings because it does not comply with the European Nitrates Directive - with reference to that directive, but supported by a reference to the Green Deal. The Netherlands has scored two environmental infringement proceedings this month: for failure to comply with the Water Framework Directive (the Netherlands issues permits for water extraction too easily) and for failure to comply with the Birds Directive (voluntary meadow bird protection does not go far enough).

Green Deal is the stick
Of course, reference is made to the relevant guidelines, but the Green Deal also acts as an additional legal incentive. The Member States must then come forward to explain what they have done wrong again. The July package contains dozens of infringement procedures that the Commission has launched against almost all Member States. Sometimes against a whole series at the same time. The July total for the Netherlands was 7 pieces. And so it goes every month. Dutch governments make it seem as if an infringement procedure is a big thing, but most procedures are handled in silence.

Teacher from Brussels
It's a bit as if the teacher in Brussels gave out bad grades. Only a few procedures receive real publicity, especially when it suits the Commission or a Member State politically. It can already be predicted that matters surrounding the environment and nature will receive the most attention and will provide work for MPs and ministers after the political summer break. In far from all infringement situations, the soup is eaten as hot as it is served. One of the most infamous examples is that of Italy, which during the time of the milk quota in the EU allowed its own farmers to continue milking and in practice did not pay any fines for violations.

Monthly avalanche
Something like that is not good, but the monthly avalanche of infringement procedures, in which everything is dragged out by the hair, also does no one any good. Moreover, Commission officials often suffer from a need for detail. The (now disappeared) rules about the shape of cucumbers and the rules regarding clogs are well known. The balance between proportionality and efficiency often seems far-fetched.    

Interprovincial (dis)proportionality
Anyway, when it comes to that, there are more examples and closer ones. Take the supra-provincial civil servants club BIJ12. Keepers of sheep and other livestock should protect their animals in the pasture much better than they do now and, in addition to high fences, should also install cameras and perhaps even do more to protect them against wolves, the implementers indicate. . They believe that it must first be demonstrated (with DNA evidence) that this week's savage sheep slaughter near Ede should be blamed on the wolf. Don't just accuse!, is the idea. And if they did, the livestock farmers may not have used the entire arsenal of permitted repellents. The wolf was given too many opportunities.

Signal doesn't land
Animal keepers cannot work with such a, especially legal, attitude. Even children are not safe from the recently reintroduced animal, as it recently became apparent in Leusden. The fencing installed there does not keep the wolf in and does not really reassure anyone. Farmers' organizations, such as Agractie, and many ordinary rural residents, do not understand this and believe that the problem must be tackled at its core and from the other side, but the signal does not seem to be getting through. It is strange that until now the provinces have mainly had their wolf policy defended by an implementing organization such as BIJ12. After all, the political direction and responsibility in the event of disasters lies with them.