To claim that the Birds Directive is at the root of the nitrogen crisis is quite a stretch. If anything, it is the Habitats Directive from 1992 (as you correctly refer to in your original piece on this subject) because it contains the legal base for the "verslechteringsverbod" (art. 6.2) which is the main point of contention in the various legal cases we saw in the Netherlands. But even then, that is a gross simplification that neglects a whole range of other factors.
I think the author treats the Birds Directive as paving the way for the Habitats Directive (which is effectively a sort of expansion of the Birds Directive), thereby placing Birds at the root of Habitats, which is then the root of the nitrogen crisis.
What I don't understand is why you don't agree with the idea that the Habitats Directive is the reason behind the nitrogen crisis. Why would it not be?
To claim that the Birds Directive is at the root of the nitrogen crisis is quite a stretch. If anything, it is the Habitats Directive from 1992 (as you correctly refer to in your original piece on this subject) because it contains the legal base for the "verslechteringsverbod" (art. 6.2) which is the main point of contention in the various legal cases we saw in the Netherlands. But even then, that is a gross simplification that neglects a whole range of other factors.
I think the author treats the Birds Directive as paving the way for the Habitats Directive (which is effectively a sort of expansion of the Birds Directive), thereby placing Birds at the root of Habitats, which is then the root of the nitrogen crisis.
What I don't understand is why you don't agree with the idea that the Habitats Directive is the reason behind the nitrogen crisis. Why would it not be?