Flora and Fauna Act stricter on paper than on the ground

The Flora and Fauna Act has been in force for more than a year. Its purpose is to protect plant and animal species, including those species listed in the European directives. However, the way the Act is currently implemented casts doubt on its effectiveness. Most of the applications for exemption are, for example, seldom or never applicable to protected insects such as butterflies, beetles and dragonflies, even where examination of the data on the relevant areas indicates that these species are highly likely to be present. Central government does not require that ecological studies submitted in support of applications for exemption meet any specific quality standards, and so the quality of these studies is highly variable.

Applications are not assessed for their impacts on the survival of a population according to the spirit of the law – but for infringement of the prohibitions according to the letter of the law. Activities that disturb feeding grounds, and dispersion and migration routes, are deemed irrelevant. The Birds Directive, and therefore also the Flora and Fauna Act, does not permit exemptions to be granted for activities that have impacts on birds. In practice, though, such interventions are allowed, as long as they take place outside the breeding season. No central records are kept of the activities for which exemption has been applied and granted. Nor is there a record of the species to which these exemptions apply. Consequently, there is no national picture of the cumulative effect of all the dispersed encroachments on a species.
The implementation of the law requires detailed and up-to-date information on the dispersion of species. Data on species dispersion and range for a number of areas in the Netherlands are inadequate. Moreover, the data available are in urgent need of an update.

Policy cycles move much faster than implementation

Policies change faster than the pace at which they are implemented. Policy cycles last about 4 to 8 years, whereas their implementation (such as the assembly of the NEN or the Randstad Green Structure) takes about 20 to 30 years. As a result, objectives for ‘new’ nature areas, the Randstad Green Structure, ecological corridors and aquatic nature have stacked up. Some of these objectives are complementary and others partly overlap. Reasonable progress is being made with completing the objectives formulated before 1990, but work on objectives added in 2000 is far behind schedule. Besides the policies themselves, the financial parameters for carrying out policy change as well. All of this has led to a situation in which the objectives and actual achievements are not always clear.

Ad hoc policy leads to loss of support

Frequent and rapid financial and political changes are blurring the distinctions between adopted and non-adopted policies. Adopted policies have been found to lack financial resources, and cabinet decisions have more influence on the implementation of policy than plans that have been through all the official consultation procedures. Other plans have been put on the back burner. These tendencies create uncertainty and erode support among the implementing parties.
The consequences of this ad hoc policy are clearly visible. Acquisition of land for the NEN has fallen sharply since the sudden announcement of a moratorium on transactions in 2002. No further obligations to purchase land have been made since the summer of 2002. No new rural land development projects were started in 2003 and current projects have been deferred. Moreover, the worsening economic situation has negated the opportunity to use ICES funding for the rural Reconstruction and aquatic and wetland nature areas. Trial projects for the ‘Landscape Quality Initiative’ cannot start up for lack of money.
Although a few provinces and nature management organizations have stepped in with financial support, some commitments made to private parties could not be honoured and current projects have ground to a halt, sometimes after many years of negotiation. Interviews have revealed falling levels of confidence in central government, which may lead to mistrust of new government initiatives and demands for guarantees in advance.