Gas extraction project in the North Sea: hesitant politicians, determined civil society

Press Release 0f 3 July 2025

Yesterday, 2 July 2025, the German Government approved an agreement with the Netherlands. It enables the cross-border extraction of natural gas in the German North Sea and concludes a lengthy political process at several governance levels. However, the agreement could be subsequently challenged by a pending court judgement. A newly published IDOS study examines the political dynamics around marine gas extraction, the approval process and opposition to the Gateway to the Ems (GEMS) gas extraction project.

The author, Dr Irit Ittner, senior researcher in the Department Environmental Governance at IDOS, who conducted research in a project of the SustainMare Mission of the German Marine Research Alliance from the end of 2021 to the end of 2024, worked out the key differences between the two countries with regard to marine gas extraction.

Since the early 1970s, the Netherlands has focussed on the extraction of natural gas from its part of the North Sea, securing national demand and exports. Germany, on the other hand, has relied on foreign production sites, pipelines and imports since the 1970s. Only a few marine gas projects were realised in the German North Sea. The Dutch government was confronted early on with conflicts of interest within the country, controversial debates, protests and lawsuits. It had to enter the public debate and reached a political compromise in 2007. In Germany, on the other hand, gas imports from Norway, the Netherlands and Russia hardly aroused the interest of consumers and environmental organisations. Production risks were externalised and political interests were not questioned. The German North Sea continued to be perceived primarily as a natural space. The study illustrates the effectiveness of these historical path dependencies in the authorisation procedures for the GEMS project, in political decision-making and in resistance to it.

Hesitant action on the German side

Since 2019, political responsibility in Germany has rested with three state governments in Lower Saxony, as the project area is located in the coastal waters of Lower Saxony. However, none of the state governments gave a unanimous and consistent approval or rejection of the anticipated fossil fuel GEMS project. Clear, tangible political signals, which could have led to a rejection of the approval due to public interest, did not materialise from the researcher's perspective. Project opponents from Germany and the Netherlands took legal action and appealed to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.

The study concludes that the political signals at national level (government under Olaf Scholz) were not clear enough at first and then sent too late. This hesitant, indecisive attitude contrasted sharply with the stance of the Dutch government, which has supported the GEMS project since 2019. This was also reflected in the Dutch court proceedings, in which politicians and authorities in Lower Saxony and Germany initially showed little interest.

Civil society bears lawsuit risk

According to the study, GEMS opponents are divided into two groups: the plaintiffs (Environmental Action Germany, Saubere Luft Ostfriesland, Mobilisation of the Environment, the island municipalities of Borkum and Juist) and other environmental groups and associations. Greenpeace Germany played a special role. The organisation did not take legal action itself, but supported the evidence of the plaintiffs with its own expert opinions and reports.

“Although the controversial GEMS project basically represents a conflict between industrial use and marine protection, the opposition was strongly motivated by climate protection arguments and driven by the respective actors,” explains Dr Irit Ittner. It was only in the course of the legal preparations that marine biodiversity protection and potential impacts on endangered stone reefs came more into focus. Neither marine conservation actors nor the major popular climate movements in Germany played a significant role in this.

The work of other organisations against GEMS is definitely important, especially the commitment of Greenpeace. However, the central challenge lies at a structural level: “As environmental conflicts are regularly decided by courts, the key question today is who ultimately takes the financial risk of a lawsuit and who provides the human resources to provide evidence.” Ittner emphasizes. “In this case, civil society organisations have once again taken on this task, with donations and an incredible amount of voluntary work.”

This is precisely why it is problematic when political decision-makers hesitate or dismiss decisions as purely technical: "If you are too hesitant politically or don't want to make a decision, then it is not public bodies or experts who ultimately decide, but courts. And after that, political options for action, including for subsequent governments, are extremely limited," Ittner's message to politicians is clear.

Even she is somewhat surprised that her research is more relevant than ever today: "When I started my research, some marine researchers looked at me in disbelief. Gas extraction in the German North Sea was not even an issue. Things can change quickly."

The study was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the German coastal states (CREATE project, DAM-SustainMare Mission, 03F0877E).

You can download the study (in English) as a PDF below.

Original publication:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40152-025-00434-z

https://www.cogitatiopress.com/oceanandsociety/article/view/8893