Natuurpunt has a lot of shady things going on. Purely anecdotal but my village has had Natuurpunt acquisitions of forests that raise a lot of questions, elderly farmers complain about being put under pressure. There’s also some scandals of Natuurpunt land being used as dumps by friends of the local responsibles.
Obviously it is a good thing that they protect nature and they create a lot of educational/recreational value, but they lack transparency.
Translation using DeepL. If you like this article, please consider subscribing. €1 for first month.
> Natuurpunt is clashing with other environmental and civic organizations over the discharge of PFAS-contaminated water from the Oosterweel shipyard. Natuurpunt wants this water to be pumped to the drying Blokkersdijk nature reserve. Natuurpunt’s anomalous position in the Oosterweel dossier can be traced back to a cooperation agreement that the nature association signed with Lantis in late 2020, including a confidentiality clause.
> Climate movement Climaxi, Actiegroep Leefmilieu Rupelstreek (ALR), Save our clay pits and Burgerplatform OnzeMobiliteit announced last weekend that they are going to go to the Council for Permit Disputes with the request to suspend the environmental permit for the construction of the Scheldetunnel.
> The construction of the capstone of the Oosterweel connection involves the pumping of massive amounts of groundwater. After the initial request of construction manager Lantis to discharge the pumped groundwater unfiltered into the Scheldt, it was decided to filter the water before it is discharged.
> The problem with the recognized filtering techniques is that they can by no means remove all PFAS from the groundwater. This is especially the case with the so-called short-chain PFAS.
> Flemish Environment Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) consequently allowed Lantis a discharge standard of 0.1 micrograms per liter (µg/L), and that for each different PFAS separately. In other words, the treated groundwater is allowed to contain PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, PFBA, etc., each at a maximum concentration of 0.1 µg/L.
> Part of that filtered, but still PFAS-contaminated water is pumped to the neighboring Blokkersdijk nature reserve. According to the environmental and citizen groups going to the Council for Permit Disputes, that approach does not guarantee sufficient protection for surrounding natural areas and public health.
> Experts previously informed Apache that there are strong legal arguments to successfully challenge the environmental permit. This is because the discharge standards granted by Minister Demir “conflict with a number of obligations included in the European Water Framework Directive.”
> *’Particularly unfortunate’*
> A few days after the announcement of the request to suspend the environmental permit, Natuurpunt Waasland responded with a remarkably sharp press release. The local chapter of the nature association is angry that the organizations requesting the suspension did not contact them beforehand.
> “It’s particularly unfortunate that they didn’t engage in conversation with us beforehand,” chairman Jef Van De Wiele told Apache. “They really don’t fully realize what they have started. Blokkersdijk and other natural areas in the area are visibly drying up. This is pernicious for biodiversity. Filtered groundwater was supposed to be the appropriate solution for that, but now everything is at risk again.”
> The agreement to fill Blokkersdijk with pumped up groundwater during the construction of the Scheldetunnel appears to be part of a broader cooperation agreement that Natuurpunt Waasland concluded with Lantis on December 22, 2020. The umbrella Natuurpunt Flanders also signed that cooperation agreement.
> *Secrecy clause*
> Looking at the cooperation agreement is not possible. “It contains a secrecy clause. So we are not going to publish it,” says Jef Van De Wiele. “That is a matter of elementary trust. Only when all parties involved agree to it – so in addition to Natuurpunt Waasland, Natuurpunt Vlaanderen and Lantis – could that possibly be possible.”
> The existence of the secret cooperation agreement between Natuurpunt and Lantis has so far remained under the radar. It comes on top of the settlement that Lantis previously reached with the chemical company 3M, which is responsible for the massive PFAS pollution.
> The cooperation agreement does help explain the course taken by Natuurpunt in the whole PFAS story. That differs in several ways from what other environmental and civic organizations did.
> “We work well with Lantis,” says chairman Van De Wiele. “Even after the cooperation agreement was concluded, we had regular consultations with Lantis. This was always done very openly and constructively. Talking to everyone has always been our starting point. Even if you disagree, talking is always better than fighting it out in court.”
> According to the president of Natuurpunt Waasland, the agreement does not mention PFAS. “There is nothing about PFAS stipulated in it. We did say that we would come back to it in further consultations. That has also happened.”
> “About the concrete content I can only say broadly that it is mainly about guarantees for nature conservation. Addressing the dehydration of Blokkersdijk via the pumped groundwater is an important part of that.”
> *Objection*
> Natuurpunt’s attitude in recent years has differed greatly from that of other environmental organizations. But this has not always been the case. Until the cooperation agreement was concluded, Natuurpunt was highly critical of the Oosterweel connection and even took legal action. The chronology speaks volumes.
> When Lantis received an environmental permit for the works on the Oosterweel connection in the summer of 2020, Natuurpunt was just about the only organization to make extensive mention of the PFAS/PFOS problem in a notice of objection:
> When Lantis received an environmental permit for work on the Oosterweel link in the summer of 2020, Natuurpunt was just about the only organization to make extensive mention of the PFAS/PFOS problem in a notice of objection:
>> “The assessed area from this permit application and EIA (environmental impact report, ToC) is one of the most intensively polluted places in the world for the dangerous PFOS (…) We note that bitterly little attention is paid to it in the EIA and we have the strong impression that the ‘problem’ is greatly underexposed. We even very much question the correctness of the research data – which shows that there is no PFOS contamination at Blokkersdijk -.”
> At the time, Natuurpunt was also already involved in proceedings against Lantis before the Council for Permit Disputes in connection with the site installation. According to Natuurpunt, this would have an impact on the environment. However, the Council then followed Lantis’ defense and ruled against Natuurpunt.
> *Court*
> Does the cooperation agreement provide some sort of satisfaction for Natuurpunt in exchange for cooperation and for foregoing legal proceedings? The secrecy clause makes it impossible to answer that question with certainty.
> Jef Van De Wiele does state that no promises were made regarding the renunciation of legal action. “Our vision of not going to court and engaging in talks is separate from that. That is not included in the cooperation agreement.”
> At the same time, the president of Natuurpunt Waasland does indicate that Natuurpunt’s constructive attitude toward Lantis stems from the cooperation agreement. “It’s logical that you don’t go to court if you cooperate. That would be unfair.”
> “For us, the environmental permit for Oosterweel that was delivered in the summer of 2020 contained too few guarantees related to nature. We negotiated the additional guarantees not in a conflict in court, but in an agreement around the table.”
> “We feel very good about that agreement. We only won. But it is true that for Lantis the same may be true. Otherwise they would not have signed the cooperation agreement,” Van De Wiele said.
> *Impact of PFAS*
> There is another pithy detail. In the fall of 2020, Lantis ordered a study from the Institute of Nature and Forest Research (INBO). At the same time, Lantis and Natuurpunt were in full discussion about the cooperation agreement and accompanying environmental guarantees for Natuurpunt.
> INBO’s research gauged the expected impact on nature of the discharge of approximately 100,000 m³ of groundwater, pumped up during the works on the Scheldt tunnel, into the Blokkersdijk nature reserve.
> INBO’s research gauged the likely impact on nature of the discharge of approximately 100,000 m³ of groundwater, pumped up during the works on the Scheldt Tunnel, into the Blokkersdijk nature reserve.
> The answer to that question is ambiguous – more negative than positive – but it is particularly striking that PFAS was not considered in any way. Yet it is already fall 2020. By then, the alarm bells about the gigantic PFAS contamination and its possible impact on the works on the Oosterweel link have long been ringing among all those directly involved.
> Yet the investigation did not look at the impact of PFAS on irrigating Blokkersdijk with groundwater. A few months later, the PFAS scandal exploded in the media.
Natuurpunt is shady in general – lots of old nobility (land owners) in their ranks and steering the decisions. Often they use these deals to avoid people from entering their land or land becoming public property.
Ah shit, here we go again.
I can’t read these type of articles anymore. Makes me too worked up and angry.
5 comments
Natuurpunt has a lot of shady things going on. Purely anecdotal but my village has had Natuurpunt acquisitions of forests that raise a lot of questions, elderly farmers complain about being put under pressure. There’s also some scandals of Natuurpunt land being used as dumps by friends of the local responsibles.
Obviously it is a good thing that they protect nature and they create a lot of educational/recreational value, but they lack transparency.
Translation using DeepL. If you like this article, please consider subscribing. €1 for first month.
> Natuurpunt is clashing with other environmental and civic organizations over the discharge of PFAS-contaminated water from the Oosterweel shipyard. Natuurpunt wants this water to be pumped to the drying Blokkersdijk nature reserve. Natuurpunt’s anomalous position in the Oosterweel dossier can be traced back to a cooperation agreement that the nature association signed with Lantis in late 2020, including a confidentiality clause.
> Climate movement Climaxi, Actiegroep Leefmilieu Rupelstreek (ALR), Save our clay pits and Burgerplatform OnzeMobiliteit announced last weekend that they are going to go to the Council for Permit Disputes with the request to suspend the environmental permit for the construction of the Scheldetunnel.
> The construction of the capstone of the Oosterweel connection involves the pumping of massive amounts of groundwater. After the initial request of construction manager Lantis to discharge the pumped groundwater unfiltered into the Scheldt, it was decided to filter the water before it is discharged.
> The problem with the recognized filtering techniques is that they can by no means remove all PFAS from the groundwater. This is especially the case with the so-called short-chain PFAS.
> Flemish Environment Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) consequently allowed Lantis a discharge standard of 0.1 micrograms per liter (µg/L), and that for each different PFAS separately. In other words, the treated groundwater is allowed to contain PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, PFBA, etc., each at a maximum concentration of 0.1 µg/L.
> Part of that filtered, but still PFAS-contaminated water is pumped to the neighboring Blokkersdijk nature reserve. According to the environmental and citizen groups going to the Council for Permit Disputes, that approach does not guarantee sufficient protection for surrounding natural areas and public health.
> Experts previously informed Apache that there are strong legal arguments to successfully challenge the environmental permit. This is because the discharge standards granted by Minister Demir “conflict with a number of obligations included in the European Water Framework Directive.”
> *’Particularly unfortunate’*
> A few days after the announcement of the request to suspend the environmental permit, Natuurpunt Waasland responded with a remarkably sharp press release. The local chapter of the nature association is angry that the organizations requesting the suspension did not contact them beforehand.
> “It’s particularly unfortunate that they didn’t engage in conversation with us beforehand,” chairman Jef Van De Wiele told Apache. “They really don’t fully realize what they have started. Blokkersdijk and other natural areas in the area are visibly drying up. This is pernicious for biodiversity. Filtered groundwater was supposed to be the appropriate solution for that, but now everything is at risk again.”
> The agreement to fill Blokkersdijk with pumped up groundwater during the construction of the Scheldetunnel appears to be part of a broader cooperation agreement that Natuurpunt Waasland concluded with Lantis on December 22, 2020. The umbrella Natuurpunt Flanders also signed that cooperation agreement.
> *Secrecy clause*
> Looking at the cooperation agreement is not possible. “It contains a secrecy clause. So we are not going to publish it,” says Jef Van De Wiele. “That is a matter of elementary trust. Only when all parties involved agree to it – so in addition to Natuurpunt Waasland, Natuurpunt Vlaanderen and Lantis – could that possibly be possible.”
> The existence of the secret cooperation agreement between Natuurpunt and Lantis has so far remained under the radar. It comes on top of the settlement that Lantis previously reached with the chemical company 3M, which is responsible for the massive PFAS pollution.
> The cooperation agreement does help explain the course taken by Natuurpunt in the whole PFAS story. That differs in several ways from what other environmental and civic organizations did.
> “We work well with Lantis,” says chairman Van De Wiele. “Even after the cooperation agreement was concluded, we had regular consultations with Lantis. This was always done very openly and constructively. Talking to everyone has always been our starting point. Even if you disagree, talking is always better than fighting it out in court.”
> According to the president of Natuurpunt Waasland, the agreement does not mention PFAS. “There is nothing about PFAS stipulated in it. We did say that we would come back to it in further consultations. That has also happened.”
> “About the concrete content I can only say broadly that it is mainly about guarantees for nature conservation. Addressing the dehydration of Blokkersdijk via the pumped groundwater is an important part of that.”
> *Objection*
> Natuurpunt’s attitude in recent years has differed greatly from that of other environmental organizations. But this has not always been the case. Until the cooperation agreement was concluded, Natuurpunt was highly critical of the Oosterweel connection and even took legal action. The chronology speaks volumes.
> When Lantis received an environmental permit for the works on the Oosterweel connection in the summer of 2020, Natuurpunt was just about the only organization to make extensive mention of the PFAS/PFOS problem in a notice of objection:
> When Lantis received an environmental permit for work on the Oosterweel link in the summer of 2020, Natuurpunt was just about the only organization to make extensive mention of the PFAS/PFOS problem in a notice of objection:
>> “The assessed area from this permit application and EIA (environmental impact report, ToC) is one of the most intensively polluted places in the world for the dangerous PFOS (…) We note that bitterly little attention is paid to it in the EIA and we have the strong impression that the ‘problem’ is greatly underexposed. We even very much question the correctness of the research data – which shows that there is no PFOS contamination at Blokkersdijk -.”
> At the time, Natuurpunt was also already involved in proceedings against Lantis before the Council for Permit Disputes in connection with the site installation. According to Natuurpunt, this would have an impact on the environment. However, the Council then followed Lantis’ defense and ruled against Natuurpunt.
> *Court*
> Does the cooperation agreement provide some sort of satisfaction for Natuurpunt in exchange for cooperation and for foregoing legal proceedings? The secrecy clause makes it impossible to answer that question with certainty.
> Jef Van De Wiele does state that no promises were made regarding the renunciation of legal action. “Our vision of not going to court and engaging in talks is separate from that. That is not included in the cooperation agreement.”
> At the same time, the president of Natuurpunt Waasland does indicate that Natuurpunt’s constructive attitude toward Lantis stems from the cooperation agreement. “It’s logical that you don’t go to court if you cooperate. That would be unfair.”
> “For us, the environmental permit for Oosterweel that was delivered in the summer of 2020 contained too few guarantees related to nature. We negotiated the additional guarantees not in a conflict in court, but in an agreement around the table.”
> “We feel very good about that agreement. We only won. But it is true that for Lantis the same may be true. Otherwise they would not have signed the cooperation agreement,” Van De Wiele said.
> *Impact of PFAS*
> There is another pithy detail. In the fall of 2020, Lantis ordered a study from the Institute of Nature and Forest Research (INBO). At the same time, Lantis and Natuurpunt were in full discussion about the cooperation agreement and accompanying environmental guarantees for Natuurpunt.
> INBO’s research gauged the expected impact on nature of the discharge of approximately 100,000 m³ of groundwater, pumped up during the works on the Scheldt tunnel, into the Blokkersdijk nature reserve.
> INBO’s research gauged the likely impact on nature of the discharge of approximately 100,000 m³ of groundwater, pumped up during the works on the Scheldt Tunnel, into the Blokkersdijk nature reserve.
> The answer to that question is ambiguous – more negative than positive – but it is particularly striking that PFAS was not considered in any way. Yet it is already fall 2020. By then, the alarm bells about the gigantic PFAS contamination and its possible impact on the works on the Oosterweel link have long been ringing among all those directly involved.
> Yet the investigation did not look at the impact of PFAS on irrigating Blokkersdijk with groundwater. A few months later, the PFAS scandal exploded in the media.
Natuurpunt is shady in general – lots of old nobility (land owners) in their ranks and steering the decisions. Often they use these deals to avoid people from entering their land or land becoming public property.
Ah shit, here we go again.
I can’t read these type of articles anymore. Makes me too worked up and angry.