Dutch MEP Sander Smit (ECR) has asked the European Commission to clarify how it will assess whether national restoration plans go beyond what is necessary, in a written parliamentary question submitted on 24 April 2026. The question targets the Commission's evaluation criteria under Article 17 of the Nature Restoration Regulation, and could affect the scope of obligations for EU member states and landowners.
Smit's question follows a review by the Agrifacts Foundation of the draft Dutch national restoration plan (NRP), which he says provides for 450,000 to 850,000 hectares of additional habitat, aims for 40% protected area, and opts for result-based obligations. The MEP notes that the European Parliament explicitly opted for effort-based obligations when adopting the Nature Restoration Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1991). He also points out that the Dutch plan extends the regime for habitat types to areas of the Dutch Nature Network outside Natura 2000.
Concrete asks in the question
Smit's question contains three concrete asks. First, he requests the Commission to specify the criteria it will apply under Article 17(2) to determine whether a plan goes beyond what is necessary, and whether it has established an assessment framework it is prepared to publish before formal submission of plans. Second, he asks whether the adequacy assessment under Article 17(2)(b) also examines if a plan goes beyond what is necessary, or is limited to adequacy. Third, he asks whether the Commission intends to publish its observations under Article 17(4) in full and in a timely manner, so that stakeholders and national parliaments can take note before member states finalise their plans.
Policy direction and ambition
The question signals a push for transparency and proportionality in the implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation. Smit appears concerned that the Dutch plan may impose excessive obligations beyond what the regulation requires, particularly by extending habitat regimes outside Natura 2000 and using result-based rather than effort-based obligations. The question seeks to ensure that the Commission's assessment framework is clear and publicly available, and that member states do not over-implement the regulation.
Expected follow-up
The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will indicate whether it has established a formal assessment framework, how it interprets the scope of Article 17, and whether it will publish its observations on draft plans. The reply will signal the Commission's approach to balancing environmental ambition with proportionality and legal certainty for member states and stakeholders.
← Atlas › News › Environment