This is partially true. The directive of the regulation came from the EU, the concrete implementation from NL. And at that point it was not clear to anybody that nitrogen deposit restriction would be such an important part of it. But, in that way, the Dutch are responsible for the problems that this regulation currently causes. However, if it would have been purely a Dutch regulation, the Dutch could simply amend it or drop it altogether. Since the regulation comes from the EU, this is not an option.
> ... the nitrogen limitation was introduced in the Dutch implementation of the directive and it's not present in the regulation of most of the other countries.
The nitrogen limitation was not specifically mentioned in the initial Dutch implementation, nor was it in the EU directive. It followed from the principle in the EU directive; that nature in the Natura 2000 area's is not allowed to deteriorate. The reason it is on the Dutch agenda at all, is that Dutch environmental organisations realized that nitrogen was a threat and even took the Dutch government to court to act on it.
> How the housing crisis relates (in a tiny part), with this specific environmental regulation ...
When the Dutch government lost the case about handling nitrogen in 2019, 18000 building projects had to be halted. That's no tiny part.
You are right in that they cannot drop it, but they can amend it. The issue is that if they want to drop the nitrogen requirement they would have to come with scientific arguments on how the nitrogen limits doesn't hurt the protected areas, or alternative means to protect those areas from the nitrogen.
> The reason it is on the Dutch agenda at all, is that Dutch environmental organisations realized that nitrogen was a threat and even took the Dutch government to court to act on it
I fully agree with your point
> 18000 building projects had to be halted. That's no tiny part
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my comment, it's definitively not a tiny part of the total building projects (for context, currently in NL there are like 75k ongoing), but of the housing crisis as a whole.
In my opinion there are many issues with housing in this country. ie. Empty houses due to investors not wanting to rent, cultural tendency for low population density projects, lack of labor, massive (badly implemented) intervention from the government, etc.
> Around 20 million people are feed by their agriculture
This is a nice political slogan, however I don't think it's true. Just go to your local supermarket and try to find anything of Dutch origin besides tomatoes, meat, eggs and milk.
By the way, I support the idea of each country having their own strategies resources guaranteed, and this includes food.
The issue here in my opinion is the way they grow the produce. They could grow less, export less and pollute less. As an example: From all the EU exports, eggs of NL origin represented 42%, while poultry meat represented 23% [1] (2013 data) This makes absolutely no sense in a country of the size of the Netherlands and it makes even less sense considering they are selling them very cheap, as you can see by the low GDP impact of the whole industry.
[1] https://zootecnicainternational.com/focus-on/netherlands-lea...
This well documented in many places:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/net... technology/
https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/agri-s...
I think in since the COVID pandemic and with War in Europe is clear how important is for every single country to have food security for its population. Every country is responsible for themselves. Nobody is coming to help them. So to have a good and effective Agriculture is a geopolitical advantage today.
> They could grow less, export less and pollute less.
Maybe, but it just make sense if you first reduce your costs and pressure in the housing market. Sounds like thats what the Dutch people is asking for and what the new government is saying they are going to do. If that's what really going to happen. Just the time will tell us.
As a foreigner living in the Netherlands for many years it baffles me how successful are the Dutch politicians on using the EU as a scapegoat for their own wrongdoings. In my opinion the main issue is the complexity and the lack of understanding of the general population of the European legislative process.
The "regulation that comes from the EU" was redacted and implemented by the Dutch government including the nitrogen limits that you talk about [1]. the areas where nitrogen is a problem where proposed and designated by the Dutch government [2] (which, by the way, together with the farmers have been receiving EU subsidies for their conservation for many years).
How the housing crisis relates (in a tiny part), with this specific environmental regulation is not that there is no free space to build on, but that the Dutch government botched the regulation that allowed for construction of housing near to the designated areas, leading to the Dutch judiciary to annul it [3].
In the meantime, the agricultural sector that represents 1.6% of the GDP and employs 2% of the population causes 46% of the nitrogen emissions in the country. This is not normal[4], and it's the reason why the nitrogen limitation was introduced in the Dutch implementation of the directive and it's not present in the regulation of most of the other countries.
Who knows, maybe if instead of the farmers party, it was a housing party who got the support of 20% of the population in the last provincial elections we would be talking differently about this topic and people would have better informed opinions.
[1] https://business.gov.nl/regulation/code-conduct-nature-conse...
[2] https://www.government.nl/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nat...
[3] https://www.nautadutilh.com/en/information-centre/news/the-c...
[4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Europe_G...