publicaties

Explanatory notes

The Council has reached the conclusion that it is time for a rethink of national public housing policy, with a particular focus on the role of housing associations. Housing associations are indispensable for the government to secure adequate and affordable rental supply, however the government needs to place a greater focus on the performance of these associations. There are a number of obstacles that need to be addressed. For example, the performance expected from housing associations is not yet sufficiently clear and the contribution of municipalities towards that performance is still too voluntary. Mutual financial solidarity of housing associations is also not properly regulated at present. The Rli makes six recommendations:

1. Set national new-build targets for social rental housing and elaborate these targets at regional level

Set national targets for the proportion of new social rental housing as a fixed percentage of total new construction. Also do this for other issues concerning social renting, such as the housing of housing policy target groups, sustainability and affordability of housing, and the resilience of neighbourhoods. Laying down the national targets for longer than one cabinet term, for example in the announced Public Housing (Management) Act, provides other parties with a framework for their efforts and performance. Specify the national targets at regional level, so that differences between housing market regions and the challenges ahead can be taken into account.

2. Secure the stock of regulated rental housing

Make sure that, overall, the stock of housing association homes is increasing. Do not introduce a general right to buy for sitting tenants, but maintain a situation in which housing associations decide whether or not to sell homes. In addition, stimulate the purchase of private rented homes by housing associations to maintain the level of social rented stock and improve its quality in vulnerable areas.

3. Promote the supply of social housing by parties other than housing associations

Invest in broadening the supply of social housing by parties other than housing associations, particularly not-for-profit organisations, such as philanthropic organisations or housing cooperatives. Develop tax incentives , to enable these organisations to attract capital more easily.

4. Reinforce implementation of performance agreements with housing associations

Ensure that local housing visions and policy plans of the housing associations and performance agreements between municipalities, tenants’ organisations and housing associations contribute to the objectives of the national housing policy. Amend the Dutch Housing Act so that the Minister for Housing and Spatial Planning is able to hold both municipalities and housing associations to account for improvements in performance. Moreover, make ‘cooperation with care and welfare organisations’ an additional public housing priority.

5. Manage the availability of development land and define the designation ‘social’ when allocating land

Require municipalities to incorporate the national targets for social and affordable housing in their environmental plans. This can be done by including an instruction rule in the Living Environment (Quality) Decree. Furthermore, when allocating land, municipalities must set requirements for the realisation of ‘social housing’ to ensure that developers and investors have a clear framework and a level playing field.

6. Manage the financial continuity of housing associations and their mutual solidarity

The coalition agreement of the fourth Rutte government agreed to ‘switch to a system of standard rents based on income’. Make sure that this does not undermine a sustainable revenue model for housing associations, thus hindering investment in public housing tasks. Furthermore: regulate financial solidarity between housing associations together with the repeal of the Landlord Levy Act, to allow housing associations with insufficient financial resilience to realise their tasks. Adjust the Housing Act-based project grant system to simplify the rules for application and levy, and make it possible to avoid the levy if a housing association provides voluntary support to a fellow association.

Date of publication and public meeting

The advisory report was presented to Minister De Jonge for Housing and Spatial Planning on 16 June 2022.

On 29 June, a public meeting was held about the advisory report, with speakers from the various parties involved.

More information

For more information about the advisory report, please contact project leader Douwe Wielenga at douwe.wielenga@rli.nl, or on +31 (0)6 2124 0809

Explanation

The Council concludes that Dutch nature policy is falling short. There are a number of reasons for this:

• The focus of nature policy is too narrow. It concentrates mainly on protected areas, but these areas are part of much larger ecosystems that extend beyond the protection boundaries. The current policy fails to ensure proper conditions for groundwater and surface water, the soil and the ecosystem. The narrow scope of the Netherlands’ nature policy also means that nature in rural and urban areas is often neglected.
• Dutch nature policy is not sufficiently linked to other societal challenges. The government has stalled in its efforts to interweave the challenges related to nature with other activities and to move towards a nature-inclusive society. Well-intentioned parties in society in fact face all kinds of obstacles in that regard.
• Nature is not given enough weight as a factor in economic and political decision-making. It is mainly perceived as an expense and as a fringe interest that hampers economic growth. Policymakers appear to have a blind spot when it comes to the importance of nature for human existence.
• The various authorities do not cooperate enough. They lack a coherent approach to governance and fail to cooperate with other parties. They also fail to systematically monitor the results of policy and to put independent oversight in place.

It is crucial for the Netherlands to reverse the decline of its natural assets and to restore nature. To do this, the government will have to work much harder towards shaping a nature-inclusive Netherlands. The Council has four recommendations in this regard:

1. Ensure that the quality of nature is adequate everywhere

The Netherland’s current nature policy is ineffective. The narrow focus on protected nature areas will not reverse biodiversity loss. The authorities must also work to restore nature and biodiversity outside these areas. More green spaces are needed in and around towns and cities that everyone can easily walk or cycle to. Nature must also be restored in rural areas, where it has suffered serious deterioration in recent decades. The Council advocates establishing a minimum quality standard for nature on a region-by-region basis.

2. Integrate the approach to nature into the transformation of the Netherlands

The Netherlands will be undergoing a major transformation in the years ahead in response to the many challenges it faces, for example in housing construction, the energy transition, climate change adaptation, the nitrogen crisis and the transition to more sustainable agriculture. This transformation will create excellent opportunities for nature restoration outside the protected areas. Many public and private organisations and municipal authorities are also willing to adopt more nature-inclusive practices, but they will only succeed if the authorities support their efforts and fully commit to nature-inclusive policy objectives themselves (e.g. by setting a good example when managing or leasing government-owned land). The Council recommends a regional approach that integrates nature restoration and the other challenges society faces, along with relevant sector-specific agreements. The necessary funds can be provided through the Climate and Transition Fund and Nitrogen Fund, among others.

3. Take nature fully into account in economic and political decision-making

Nature is still mainly regarded as an expense in economic and political decision-making and is therefore not accorded its full due. There are still too many financial and other incentives that promote nature loss; damage to nature goes unpunished and nature restoration unrewarded. The Council therefore recommends gearing subsidies and tax measures in agriculture, industry and nature management towards building a nature-inclusive society and giving the value of nature more weight in economic and political decision-making.

4. Cooperate on a regional basis

Integrating spatial planning challenges requires a region-by-region approach that can be implemented jointly by all parties involved, each one assuming its own role and carrying out its own tasks. The Council therefore supports the Government’s intention of adopting an integrated, region-by-region approach to challenges. Nature-related challenges must be linked to other challenges at regional level. That should apply across all regions, whether rural or urban. Systematic monitoring and independent oversight of progress and performance are necessary.

Date of publication and public meeting

The advisory report was presented to the Minister for Nature and Nitrogen Policy on 23 March 2022. It was also presented to the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the Minister of Housing and Spatial Planning and the Presidents of the Senate and House of Representatives.

From left: The Minister for Nature and Nitrogen Policy, Christianne van der Wal, receiving the advisory report from Jan Jaap de Graeff (Rli Chair), André van der Zande (Rli Member) and Yvette Oostendorp (Rli Project Leader). Photograph: Marco de Swart

Online public meeting – 19 May 2022

The Rli organised an online public meeting on 19 May about its advisory report Nature-Inclusive Netherlands.

More information

For more information about the advisory report, please contact project leader Yvette Oostendorp at yvette.oostendorp@rli.nl or +31 (0)062702 0642.

Explanation

Policies intended to foster sustainable agriculture currently emphasise the restructuring of agricultural businesses (buy-outs, expropriation) and the adoption of ever more detailed rules on how to farm. We believe that more should also be done to support agri-entrepreneurs who are willing and able to carry on their businesses sustainably. Government should make them part of the solution by allowing them to take responsibility for developing a future-proof (and in many cases multifunctional) business that is resilient enough to handle changes in policy. Government support for farmers – policy, money and expertise – is indispensable for this. We offer six recommendations in this regard:

1. Provide maximum clarity on farm-specific sustainability standards

Authorities will need to clarify the goals that must be achieved and the corresponding timeframes. These goals should be broken down into farm-specific standards, as far as possible per unit (plot/building). The standards must be set in a way that policy goals are actually met, obviating the need to tighten up standards for farmers midway.

2. Give agri-entrepreneurs as much freedom as possible within the framework of government standards

Standards set by government can be generic or specific, depending on the parameter concerned and the particular situation. In the latter case, the standards are specified in a permit. We recommend that these standards should, as far as possible, be laid down in goal-conditioned provisions and that it should be left to the agri-entrepreneur to decide on the means used to achieve the goal. We realise, however, that the necessary monitoring will require considerable effort.

3. Facilitate the establishment of an integrated sustainability performance certification system and create an independent authority to set up and monitor this system

We recommend that the national government should promote the introduction of an integrated sustainability performance certification system and an associated independent authority (with practical knowledge of the agriculture sector). The independent authority we are advocating can also play a coordinating role with respect to government oversight. An added advantage of such coordination is that it fosters learning from best practices.

4. Commit to proper farm-level enforcement

Giving farmers more freedom and more responsibility for their sustainable practices makes proper enforcement all the more important. The authorities will remain responsible for oversight and enforcement. However, the outcome of reviews by the certification authority (including possible decertification for legal infringements) may actually result in less (or, occasionally, more) government oversight. It goes without saying that the responsibility for penalising farms that do not abide by the rules remains with government.

5. Be actively involved in and support regional collective policymaking

In some regions, the tasks are shared between many stakeholders, for example to raise the groundwater level or restore biodiversity. Such tasks should be adapted into criteria for individual farms in regional collective policymaking processes in which the farmers themselves are involved. The national government must play an active role in such processes, with the province offering support.

6. Commit to improving the sustainability of the value chain and to changing consumer behaviour

Whether agricultural businesses can become more sustainable also depends on the extent to which their partners in the food value chain and consumers alter their practices and behaviour and support them in the transition to sustainable business practices. The national government must encourage lenders, supermarket retail groups, marketing cooperatives and consumers to do more to share the responsibility for the transition to sustainability.

Publication date

The advisory was presented to the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on 2 December 2021.

More information

For more information about the advisory report, please contact project leader Nicole van Buren at nicole.van.buren@rli.nl or +31 (0)6 1017 2005.

The recommendations

The focus that the Council recommends for the Growth Fund - investing in a sustainable economy that is also internationally competitive in the long term - is in line with the ambitions of the European Green Deal to design a new economic model that will make Europe the world's first climate-neutral continent and create new innovation and investment opportunities and new jobs. This connection is essential because the European measures and legislation arising from the Green Deal will also be decisive for the Netherlands.

To increase the impact of the National Growth Fund on the sustainable earning capacity of the future, the Council briefly makes the following recommendations:

Take 'sustainable earning capacity' as referred to in the government's growth strategy as the starting point for the Growth Fund's mandate, and focus investments on strengthening earning capacity within a carbon-neutral, low-resource, nature-inclusive and socially just economy.

The current mandate of the Growth Fund focuses on structural growth in gross domestic product (GDP). The Council advises the government to ensure that money from the Growth Fund intended to structurally increase GDP goes to projects that, in line with the government's own growth strategy, are unambiguously aimed at achieving truly sustainable earning capacity. That is, earning capacity that fits within the planet's ecological limits and is socially just. It is important to avoid a situation where investments from the fund support parts of the economy that will no longer be viable in the future.

Set the direction for the investments from the Growth Fund by linking up with goals already formulated for relevant social challenges that help achieve a sustainable economy.

Structural growth in GDP is proving to be a goal that does not sufficiently set the direction for public investment from the Growth Fund. There are many ways of pursuing this goal, as evidenced by the plethora of investment proposals submitted from very different angles. The Council believes that in its mandate for the Growth Fund, the government must set the direction of the investments by focusing on a clear mission (or several missions). This can be done in line with the government's current goals for the social challenges associated with the transition to a sustainable economy and following the route set out in the European Green Deal.

Clarify the type of public investment for which the Growth Fund can be used in view of its specific goal. Make explicit the substantive additionality to regular budgets and funds, particularly regarding investments from the Mobility Fund and the Delta Fund, and ensure sufficient resources for existing funds.

The ambition to secure the Netherlands' future sustainable earning capacity will not be achieved solely through investments from the Growth Fund. Parts of standard government policy are already focusing on this ambition. Therefore, it is vital to make clear choices about the investment goals for the Growth Fund. According to the Council, it should focus on investment proposals that add value to the standard policy. After all, the challenge of securing sustainable economic earning capacity for the future and linking it to the sustainability transitions is so big and so fundamental for the Dutch economy that investments from the Growth Fund should truly add something to existing policy efforts. The Council believes that the Growth Fund should not be used to fill the financial voids of existing funds, such as the Mobility Fund.

Direct the coherence between (a) the investments from the Growth Fund and (b) the Growth Fund and other funds/policy instruments. Do this from the perspective of sustainable economic growth: what is needed to achieve the corresponding social goals?

The government states that investments from the Growth Fund must be additional to existing public investments, but it is not clear what exactly is meant by this. The combined investments from the Growth Fund are intended to take the Netherlands closer to a carbon-neutral, low-resource, nature-inclusive and socially just economy to secure our sustainable earning capacity for the future. Making the investments coherent and linking them to other government policies increases the chances of the Growth Fund's missions succeeding. This coherence is not currently being sufficiently promoted or monitored. The government should take more control of this. However, the Growth Fund Committee could also emphasise the coherence between investments in its recommendations. The submitting consortia may also be asked to pay attention to how their investment proposals relate to other investments and policy aimed at the missions of the Growth Fund.

Explicitly include in the assessment framework the need to consider the contribution of proposed projects to the sustainability of the earning capacity.

The GDP effect and the balance of social costs and benefits are prominent aspects of the assessment framework used by the Growth Fund Committee for investment proposals. The Council believes that these indicators are only suitable to a limited extent for assessing the sustainable earning capacity in an economy in transition. The Council therefore recommends that, from now on, proposed projects should be assessed in terms of their contribution to social goals or missions relevant to the growth strategy. A positive criterion should be introduced to favour proposals that make a greater contribution to transition goals. This should include, as a precondition, hard lower limits for the effects on the ecological and social boundaries of the planet, derived from the social goals relevant to the growth strategy.

Communicate more with the outside world about the actual and intended results of the Growth Fund and the work of the Growth Fund Committee. Do not limit this communication to the domain of experts and submitting parties. Use the choices made by the Growth Fund as input into the public debate on the development towards a sustainable economy and the attractive prospects that this sustainable economy will bring.

To make government spending politically and socially accountable, it is vital that both the government and the National Growth Fund Committee clearly communicate the reasons for investments from the Growth Fund and the results achieved. The direction taken will also determine the future economy of the Netherlands and is therefore of great importance to society. Clear communication on how the Growth Fund is being used contributes to the public debate about the development of a sustainable economy in the Netherlands, creates support for it and increases its chances of success.

Publication date

On 14 October 2021, the advisory report was presented to the Dutch ministers of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (EZK), Finance, Infrastructure and Water Management (IenW) and Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV).

More information

For more information about the advisory report, please contact the project leader Bart Swanenvleugel, bart.swanenvleugel@rli.nl, +31 (0)6 52012691.