Taking land seriously: the politics of the European ‘no net land take’ target

In Europe, land-use planning is a policy field that has resisted encroachment of EU influence, at least de jure. There is no legal competency in the European Treaty, and the various attempts to cultivate a European Spatial Planning seem to have lost steam. Sovereignty over one’s territory – specifically how land is and can be used – remains a powerful countervailing force to the Europeanization of planning. At the same time, countless European policies directly and indirectly impact the built and natural environment. Arguably, a de facto and uncoordinated European planning exists as the sum total of these impacts (Evers & Tennekes, 2016). The planning literature has generally concentrated on two policy areas to illustrate this: regional policy which usually acts as a catalyst for urban development, and environmental policy which usually limits it. Since the adoption of the European Green Deal in 2019, climate and energy have become more prominent on the political agenda, and with it, the impact on planning. This is exemplified by the ‘no net land take in 2050’ target. This concept emerged from environmental policy on soil quality and describes the loss of natural land due to its conversion to ‘artificial’ use (generally urban). The target has existed since 2011 but was only known among a small circle of environmental specialists. However, with the publication of a proposal for a directive on soil quality monitoring in July 2023 (European Commission, 2023), it is about to become politicized. Although conceived as an analytical term, ‘land take’ is deeply suggestive and normative, thus carrying a powerful discursive force but at the same time exposing itself to ideological attack. It frames urbanization as something unwanted or even illegitimate. At the eve of the politicization of land take, we offer some insight into the European political landscape by analysing the results of the public consultation. In addition, we provide an account of how different Ministries in the Netherlands approached land take in the runup to the Dutch government response. A provisional conclusion is that differences are not (yet) political, but disciplinary: environmentalists, economists and planners have much different conceptualizations of what urbanization and land take means. Finally, we can reflect on the problematic definitions and operationalisations of the term. For example, it is at once a description and a proscription, and the ‘zero’ target absolute and generic. This runs counter to how ‘urban development’ is understood by planners, who will inevitably be asked to implement this target. Moreover, the unclear wording of definitions allows for radically different interpretations (and therefore measurements) of land take. Sources European Commission. (2023). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law) (COM(2023) 416 final). European Commission. Evers, D., & Tennekes, J. (2016). The Europeanisation of spatial planning in the Netherlands. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.