Maikel van Wissen interviewed in Trouw

Advocates for the Future's founder, Maikel van Wissen, was interviewed by Dutch newspaper Trouw about our campaign against the Port of Rotterdam Authority. Read a machine translation of the interview below.


Read the Trouw interview here →


Why a lawyer who previously

represented Shell is now turning against

the ‘fossil’ port of Rotterdam

The port of Rotterdam has ‘sixty times the emissions of Schiphol’. Yet it receives much less attention than the airport. Maikel van Wissen’s environmental organisation wants to change that.


Maarten van Gestel

sustainability and economy editor

December 16, 2024, 2:36 PM


Maikel van Wissen (48) worked for the ‘big law firm’ for twenty years. He was a partner at De Brauw, the large, prestigious firm that represented Shell in the climate case, among others. Van Wissen himself also defended large companies, including the Dutch-British oil and gas giant.

But it wearing on him. “Like many people in the Netherlands, I am extremely concerned about the climate.” When ‘the world came to a standstill during corona’, Van Wissen wondered: couldn’t he use his skills better to really drive change? The lawyer gave up his generous salary in 2022 and started the NGO Advocates for the Future. Several other former lawyers joined, as did former Extinction Rebellion figurehead Hannah Prins. At their own expense, they successfully conducted their first case against a cruise company about greenwashing. The first major offensive will start on Monday: against the Port of Rotterdam Authority.


‘Many people never go to the port’

“I was surprised that there is so much attention for Schiphol and so little for the port,” says Van Wissen. “While they are comparable companies: state-owned companies that stimulate fossil activities.” Schiphol has been a target of environmental groups for some time, probably because many citizens visit Schiphol and realize the impact of flying. “Most people never go to the port.”

That is why the young NGO, together with Extinction Rebellion, had research agency CE Delft investigate the total emissions of the Port Authority. This appears to be 3.5 times as large as the national emissions of the whole of the Netherlands and sixty times as large as what Schiphol reports.

The vast majority of these emissions are indirect. They are the oil, coal and gas that are transported via Rotterdam, and sooner or later are burned and release CO2 into the atmosphere. The NGO demands that the Port Authority come up with a climate plan in which it outlines how it will ‘phase out’ its fossil activities. If not, then ‘all options are on the table’. Including ‘legal steps’, think of the climate cases against Shell and the Dutch state.

Trouw speaks to Van Wissen while he is handing out flyers to employees of the Port of Rotterdam together with concerned young people.


Is the Port of Rotterdam the big new target for environmental organisations in your opinion?

“Yes. We would be making a mistake by focusing blindly on the Schiphols of this world. If you look at the IPCC reports, you can only combat the climate crisis by stopping fossil fuels. If you look at the Netherlands, you immediately end up at the Port of Rotterdam. That is the largest fossil complex in Europe, with the four largest refineries, large petrochemicals, all fuel transport. I am not saying that we should stop doing that overnight, but there does need to be a plan.”


What do you think is the most important finding from the study?

“First of all, that it is possible to map out the entire emissions of the port. The Rotterdam environmental service said earlier that this was difficult. Like the Port Authority, it does not report on indirect emissions, as Schiphol does. So it turns out that it is possible.

“In addition, it is important that the study shows that the total emissions have not really decreased over the past fifteen years, while you read a lot in the news about sustainable steps. We lull ourselves to sleep with the idea that we are doing well, but the big picture remains unchanged.”


The vast majority of emissions is the combustion of fuels that ships transport. You can't hold the port responsible for that, can you?

“We think so. This is a state-owned company that determines what happens on Dutch territory. We are currently the largest fuel station in Europe. All ships come here to refuel. We are one of the largest coal transhipments in North-West Europe, while the IPCC says that we should stop using coal as soon as possible.

“Two weeks ago, I was sitting at the table with concerned young people with the CEO of the Port Authority. He said: we are mainly guided by demand. We say: no, you have the task of making adjustments, for example by moving more towards alternative fuels.”


The Port Authority says that it is indeed encouraging sustainability. With the Porthos project for CO2 storage. By charging less rent to sustainable companies. Is this the right company to target?

“This is indeed double. Compared to other ports, I can imagine that Rotterdam is developing great projects. But so far, that has been on top of fossil activities, not instead of them. You can make a refinery emission-free, but it still produces oil. It is great that we are an international leader, but more is needed.”


Rotterdam is important to the economy. You want the port not to renew contracts for coal transhipment. What will replace that?

“We are a legal NGO. We look at what is going wrong, and we do not prescribe what they should do instead. There are other experts for that.”


If the port does not meet your demands, will you go to court?

“At the moment we have opened the dialogue with the Port Authority. I am not going to threaten legal action yet. But we do look through the lens of responsibility and liability. Everything is on the table.”


What do your former colleagues at De Brauw actually think of the fact that you are now on the other side?

“Many people who work for large companies are also concerned about the climate. I hear that they find it beautiful and inspiring. At the same time, some also say: this is not how I would organize my own life.”