Background Nitrogen
Nitrogen directors unflattering about agriculture
If one thing becomes clear from all the government information that has come out about nitrogen in the past week, it is that the policy for this is mainly a matter of choice. Those choices are not made on purely factual grounds. Emotions also play a major role. Many officials are not a fan of livestock farming and, according to the documents, ventilate that that have been requested with an appeal to the Open Government Act (Wob) regularly against each other.
It also affects researchers. If one wants to tackle agriculture in a buffer zone around nature, people quickly talk about 'clearing out' an area. When it comes to veal farming, a top official from Rutte's own department sneezes about 'low-grade activity'. "What is the added value of this sector for the Netherlands if we bring calves from all over Europe here; the few veal farmers have barely earned anything for decades; and we export the output at rock-bottom prices and the earning capacity is too small to set even minimal animal welfare requirements. "
In previously published documents on the preparation of the report 'Relaxed Netherlands', officials urged to put a little more pressure on agriculture with their findings. Literally asked for 'more bang for a buck'. Sounds that show sympathy or even understanding for current agriculture are almost impossible to find.
Problems with the burden of proof
All documents show that there is a heavy focus on nitrogen problems in agriculture, and less in other sectors. But it also becomes clear that agriculture is not simply a game that is tipsy. Aerius has ingrained weaknesses and inaccuracies. This causes problems for the government with the burden of proof, even if Aerius is the appropriate calculation method. Furthermore, from a legal point of view, it is not about tackling one party (agriculture) more seriously for the same facts than the other (industry, traffic). There are also questions as to whether the intended nature objectives can be achieved with an almost exclusive approach to nitrogen in particular.
Central management of various reports
The government reports also devote a great deal of attention to goal-oriented reasoning that is as close as possible. Reports that appear to come from various agencies often appear to have the same approach, with management from the same group of officials. That too becomes clear. However, this does not mean that their arguments and arguments cannot be challenged.
The Hordijk Committee concluded in mid-2020 that the Aerius calculation model, which forms the basis of all nitrogen policy and is the legally prescribed instrument, requires major adjustments. It has to be sharper, also easier to calculate and more real measurements have to be taken, it was judged. The reason was the criticism that Aerius was stricter on emissions from agriculture than those from road traffic, for example.
Fundamental criticism of Aerius model
In pieces published this week, there was more and more fundamental criticism of the model. "The uncertainty in the model is many times greater than the outcome of the calculations", a Leiden scientist told the policymakers. Other researchers have pointed out that, in terms of package of measures for nitrogen-sensitive nature, the Netherlands keeps industry and road traffic more out of the wind than, for example, Germany. The result is that nature is in a much less favorable position here than with its eastern neighbours.
Nevertheless, the government continues to work with the model. The deposition pain will be distributed a little differently this year, because there is again a new version of Aerius. It is also not clear whether all emissions from industrial sources, such as the large power plants, Schiphol, Olam Zaandam and Isover in Brabant, are included in a credible way. The environmental organization MOB also points to this, for example.
Doubt at provinces
Using Aerius, it is calculated that the so-called Critical Deposition Value (KDW) is seriously exceeded in many nature reserves. That is why the central government and the provinces are focusing on a large-scale buy-out of so-called peak tax payers – mainly in agriculture. Tens of billions are available for it. Yet from the Overijssel king's commissioner Andries Heidema are big doubts about whether it really matters. Even if all agricultural companies around nature reserves are bought up or shut down, the nitrogen load for the nature reserves will still be too high, he states in a letter to the Provincial Council. The major goal of bringing half of all hectares of rural area under the KDW by 2050 has not been achieved, he notes.
Declining returns policy
Heidema and many other provincial administrators with him, he indicates, also doubt whether the existing package of legislation and regulations is sufficient to tackle the problems. More is needed. This is remarkable for two reasons, because Heidema seems to think, despite his doubts, that even stricter policy is the only way. Another point is that the civil servants in The Hague last spring, around the presentation of the report from ABDTOPConsult still radiated confidence that she could handle everything with the then ready legislation, according to the Wob documents. Besides, that wasn't the first time. You would think that nitrogen policy suffers from the law of diminishing returns.
Klaas van der Horst
© 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.
