Phosphate reduction debate

On Thursday 18 May, the political arena in The Hague once again revolved around dairy cattle and manure. The House of Representatives debated with Martijn van Dam about the Phosphate Reduction Regulation 2017. The debate has now ended and the live blog is closed.

The reason for the debate was the judge's ruling on May 4 and the changes in the scheme. 

This is a co-production, co-authored is Herma van den Pol.

The debate ended at 16:10 PM. The motions will be voted on on Tuesday 23 May.

Update 16:03 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): Which organic farmers are faced with a forced contraction or having to pay a levy? These are the organic farmers who have grown after July 1, 2015. From then on, it was known that an arrangement would be made to regulate growth after that date. This also applies to organic farmers.

The derogation is not only about the individual interest, but also about the social interest. From that point of view, organic farmers may also be asked to make a contribution. 

Update 15:59 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): I expect that a majority of the Senate will agree to the Phosphate Rights Act. I also want to use the CAP for social purposes. Not only for young farmers, but also for those who are committed to land and innovation.

Update 15:43 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): The communication about the scheme is maximum, both by the ministry, RVO and the sector organisations. The lack of clarity is also due to the parties that have an interest in it. Think, for example, of law firms, which have an interest in winning as many clients as possible.

RVO has also received 100 letters from farmers who have registered themselves as a bottleneck.

The debate has been adjourned for five minutes.

Update 15:31
Elbert Dijkgraaf (SGP): The pressure relief scheme must correspond to that of the phosphate rights law. The answers to the two trouble-shooting schemes differ and this can have legal consequences.

Update 15:24
Esther Ouwehand (PvdD): Ouwehand submits 2 motions. The first is to limit the herd by limiting the rearing of cows. 

The second motion concerns organic companies. They do not make use of the derogation and therefore do not have to participate in the phosphate reduction. Van Dam must therefore withdraw the appeal on this point.

Update 15:22 PM
Jaco Geurts (CDA): Does the State Secretary already have an idea of ​​what the claim will be if the State loses the appeal? I would also like to emphasize that farmers in the Netherlands are doing a mega achievement by far-reaching reductions. 

Update 15:18 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): How do you proceed with the entire livestock sector in the Netherlands? That question is also on the plate of the parties negotiating a new cabinet. They will undoubtedly have to make some very difficult decisions about livestock farming. 

Update 15:15 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): It takes quite a bit of perseverance, especially now that we are experiencing turbulence. We have to bite through the sour apple now. It is not the government that produces an excess of phosphate, but the dairy sector. And they are doing so for the third year in a row.

Big growers have grown for their individual interest in the past 2 years. Now we have to reduce for the collective good. That's not fun, but it's necessary. I am confident that we will achieve those goals. 

Update 15:09 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): We have made agreements in Brussels to prevent leaching of nitrate and phosphate everywhere in Europe. That balance is not yet there, which is why stricter measures are needed. The European Commission is giving us more room than previously agreed. Brussels is not doing anything wrong, because we are the ones who do not keep the agreements. 

Update 15:01 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): The shortage provision in the phosphate reduction scheme 2017 has been copied one-to-one from the 2018 phosphate rights bill. Only when that law is in force can a claim be made for the shortage provision. That will not be until 2018. The pressure relief scheme applies in the event of illness of the entrepreneur or in the event of illness of the livestock. 

The debate is currently suspended. It will be continued at 14.50 pm.

Update 13:35 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): The phosphate rights system enables companies to grow. The phosphate rights are therefore tradable. Furthermore, it is up to the judge to make a judgment and I do not want to prejudge it.

Update 13:27 PM
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): The basis of the scheme is lawful. This is already apparent from the judge's decision. The emergency treatment will have to be granted and then the appeal will be in August. Should I nevertheless be found to be in the wrong, I hope that the verdict will clarify the extent of the disproportionate burden experienced by the companies. The hardship committee can then take advantage of this. 

Update 13:23
Martijn van Dam (State Secretary): As a sector, we have to bite through the sour apple this year. At best, I would not have opted for this arrangement either. 

The debate has been suspended.

Update 11:51 PM
Dion Graus (PVV): 'Why does the Netherlands have a phosphate reduction plan, while the phosphate mines are starting to run out? That is a very important raw material. Apart from that, we want a better revenue model for farmers.'

Update 11:47 PM
Frank Futselaar (SP): 'The scheme is not fair for organic companies. In court, the test on the subject of “proportionality” could not be passed for more companies. Hundreds of lawsuits are now pending. I would like to have a clear and clear explanation of the state of affairs soon. I also want an explanation to the sector.'

Update 11:32 PM
Rik Grashoff (Green Left): 'I think it's a mess. You may wonder whether this is a case of mismanagement. The judge's ruling in the summary proceedings does not surprise me at all. It is good for the state treasury if we win the appeal, but it is special that the subject of “proportionality” was not worked out in the first instance.'

In addition, Grashoff asks for quick action before more cases arise. "The expiry of the derogation would be disastrous."

Update 11:29 PM
Attje Chick (PvdA): 'Is the State Secretary optimistic about achieving the figures from the plan? Is there a plan B? How are the bottlenecks handled? And what room is there for organic farmers?' Kuiken also points out that there must be a long-term vision for agriculture. 

Update 11:24 PM
Elbert Dijkgraaf (SGP):'Still 2 million kilos above the phosphate ceiling. Is a higher discount still necessary? Is it correct that if there is a surplus at the end of 2017, Brussels can only start an infringement procedure?'

Update 11:12 PM
Tjeerd de Groot (D66): 'All other animal categories, except dairy cattle, have grown. Are we in control or do we mop with the tap open? He asks for a standstill for other animal species. How high will the generic discount be at the launch? How can we avoid unnecessary transport to slaughter? Is there also a plan if the negotiations on the derogation fail?'

Update 11:04 PM
Carla Dik-Faber (ChristenUnie): 'Who is currently in control? And a minister shouldn't be an extra, right? There is no certainty at all about the derogation. The European Commission did not want to put a presentation on the agenda yet.' That is cause for concern. The bottlenecks from 2017 should not be separated from the bottlenecks from 2018, because otherwise they will no longer be there at all. She also asks for a response to the NAJK's proposal to use different codes for young stock. 

Update 10:57 PM
Helma Lodders (VVD): 'Clarity about the scheme and its implementation is below average. The young stock number means that farmers have to remove extra cows due to the natural course of the farm.' He asks for feedback from practice.  

Update 10:56 PM
Esther Ouwehand (PvdD): She asks for an insemination stop. 'If an animal has not been bred, it does not need to be slaughtered.'

Update 10:40
Discussion Rik Grashoff (GroenLinks) and Jaco Geurts (CDA): They wonder what went wrong in the phosphorus reduction plan. Geurts puts the ball in the hands of the State Secretary, especially because he can now respond. However, Grashoff notes that the essence of the phosphate reduction plan has come from the sector.

That is why he also looks at the role played by LTO, NAJK, NZO and others. Frank Futselaar (SP) adds that it is also striking that an LTO director joins the lawsuit. This is indicative of the division in the sector. Geurts also agrees that the sector is strongly divided. 

Jaco Geurts (CDA): The Chris Kalden committee is being asked to quickly, but carefully, make a judgment about the bottlenecks. 'How are things going at RVO? Is the reference known to everyone by now?' There are also critical questions about the young stock number, but also concerns about whether the 2017 Phosphate Reduction Regulation will be legally tenable on appeal.

Below is a brief explanation of the debate:
The judge ruled in favor of 4 dairy farmers on 52 May. They had instituted summary proceedings against the State because of the settlement. The judge's verdict means that the scheme partly out of order has been made. As a result, the 52 dairy farmers do not have to remove cattle, unless the outcome of the appeal is different.

Van Dam has chosen to challenge the judge's ruling. He made this Friday 12 May known. The outcome of the appeal is expected before September. If the 52 dairy farmers are then found to be in the wrong, they must still remove livestock and pay a fine for not reducing in time. 

The young stock number
Another spearhead will be the number of young stock. This adjustment Van Dam implemented at the beginning of May. He only wants the scheme to apply to milk-supplying companies. This means that the removal of young stock only counts when dairy cows are also removed. The reference date for this is April 28, 2017. It is a very drastic measure for many dairy farmers, as it suddenly thwarts their business strategy. 

The sector has been in talks with the ministry since last week to find an alternative to the young stock number. Van Dam is expected to discuss this in today's debate. According to various sector organisations, an alternative is on the table and is being investigated legally.

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.