The ‘nitrogen gate’ dossier shows how difficult it is to access data on permits in our country. The Flemish government needs to focus more on transparency, says Dries Verhaeghe (director of Dryade VZW).
For a study, this newspaper examined the nitrogen emissions of 53 farms. According to the European register for industrial pollution, these are the companies that emit ammonia on a large scale.(DS 12 February). But they are just the tip of the iceberg. Cattle farmers escape the reporting obligation. Also, barns that emit more than 10 tons of ammonia, but are not GPBV companies (with at least 2,000 pigs, 750 sows or 40,000 chickens), are not listed in the register. The editor concludes that the majority of ammonia pollution remains out of sight because these peak polluters are not in the public database and the Flemish government does not want to release their data for privacy reasons.
But there is another reason why the editor had to work with a limited amount of data: there is no database of environmental permits. A decree from 10 June 2010 introduced this, but before it can become operational, a ministerial decision is needed first. More than a decade later, that still does not exist.
The 'environmental permit register' would make the information from the environmental desk accessible and searchable for the administration and the public. Through the environmental desk, you can already apply for a permit, follow up on the file, submit an objection, and consult the decision. However, once the decision on the permit has been made and the appeal period has expired, you can no longer consult the file. Thanks to the register, you would be able to look up all ongoing environmental permits.
The environmental information directive states that the government must proactively make 'permits that have significant effects on the environment' available. As the articles on 'nitrogen gate' show, the European register does not comply. An environmental permit register offers a solution.
The government has a duty to implement legislation within a reasonable timeframe. In 2010, the Brussels Court of Appeal condemned the Belgian government for not having taken an implementing decision under the anti-discrimination law within a reasonable timeframe. The timeframe in that case was four years. The fact that this register has been delayed for more than ten years is a disgrace to the environmental information directive and is not good governance.
Another way to obtain data on permits and emissions is through passive public access to information: requesting information from the government yourself. However, as previously mentioned, the editor's request was denied on the grounds of privacy. A recent ruling by the Dutch Council of State confirms that privacy does not apply to emission data. Ultimately, addresses and the corresponding nitrogen emissions from Dutch farms were released. The Flemish regulations on public access to information also state that privacy cannot be invoked when information about emissions in the environment, including nitrogen data, is requested.
The conclusion is that the Flemish regulations on public access to information fall short in many areas or are not applied correctly. Citizens, journalists, and NGOs have insufficient access to information that is essential for health and the environment. The nitrogen scandal reveals not only that the Flemish nitrogen accounting is unreliable but also that accounting documents are not accessible. Not only are the figures questionable, but so is the transparency. It is up to the Flemish government to urgently restore order.