DNSH compliance in the next MFF may be assessed in two simple steps: First, activities are checked against two lists: an exclusion list (significant harm, no EU funding) and an eligibility list (no environmental impact foreseen). If an activity is on either list, it is automatically compliant or non-compliant, and the assessment ends. Most DNSH checks should be this simple.
NAT
Natuurpunt
NGO · Belgium · EU Transparency Register 520508414540-03
4
positions filed
in the 665 files tracked
4
legislative files
of 665 tracked
0
with a full position paper
attached to a submission
Counts here are a floor, never a total: they cover the 665 consultation files tracked so far (57,774 submissions, mostly 2021–26), so an organization's real filing history is larger, not smaller.
Who they are
Among the 1106 non-governmental organisations on this site, they rank #357 by legislative files engaged, a count of participation, not a measure of influence.
2.5
declared lobbying FTE
self-declared
–
declared costs / yr (floor)
0
EP accreditations
as declared to the register
2014
in the register since
Declares membership of
- Bond beter leefmilieu vzw
- Birdlife Europe
- Seas-at-Risk →
Self-declared to the EU Transparency Register (snapshot 14 Oct 2026).
- Register category
- Non-governmental organisations
- Registered as
- Natuurpunt vzw
- Head office
- Mechelen, Belgium
Self-declared to the EU Transparency Register (snapshot 14 Oct 2026); cost bands are floors, not audited totals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.
Track Natuurpunt in PolicySpeak: request access →
Work at Natuurpunt? so we know who speaks for it.
Their record over time
Natuurpunt filed 4 positions between 12 Sept 2023 and 31 Mar 2026, across 4 of the 665 legislative files tracked here.
2023 · 1 filed2024 · 1 filed2025 · 1 filed2026 · 1 filed
What they argued
Natuurpunt (Flemish umbrella organisation of Birdlife): Natuurpunt hereby provides feedback on the ECs initiative to revise the rules regarding the application of fertiliser products recovered from manure in the Nitrates Dir. We do not agree with the lack of proper assessment during the preparation phase and pre-empting the results of the ongoing fitness check evaluation of the Nitrates Dir.
Despite claims that the proposal is intended to benefit farmers, it primarily reduces administrative burdens for Member States while weakening the Commissions oversight of CAP spending and undermining key environmental safeguards - measures that ultimately do not serve farmers long-term interests.
Funding through LIFE is highly efficient for biodiversity and society: investing through co-financing projects pays off many times over, in the form of enabling ecosystem services, job creation and improving environmental democracy. LIFE has made a significant contribution to saving species from extinction, such as the Spanish Imperial Eagle.
Looking for an argument rather than an organization? Search every submission for a phrase and see everyone who used it.
Put Natuurpunt next to another organization. Same files, same register facts, side by side. Compare →
Turns up on the same files
Organizations that also filed on at least two of the same consultations. A shared interest in the same dossiers, not evidence of coordination, and we do not suggest any.
Showing 5 of 20.
Is this your organization?
Everything on this page comes from Natuurpunt’s own submissions to the European Commission. We have added nothing and interpreted nothing. If something is wrong or out of date, email info@policyspeak.com and we will correct it. If you are an individual named in a record, our privacy policy sets out your rights to correction, objection and removal.
Quotes are verbatim from submissions published by the European Commission, trimmed to their opening passage and never summarized by a model. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.