Analysis Nitrogen Mood
Remkes didn't think of O-word, but U-word
The nitrogen debate this week was almost entirely dominated by the Remkes 2 report.What is possible'. Around the delivery of such an important report, some extra positivity is almost always created. Especially if it is intended to bring all kinds of different parties closer together. This was also the case this week with Johan Remkes' second report on the nitrogen problem. It was a solemn moment and Remkes himself spoke conciliatory and understanding words about agriculture.
He said the agricultural sector had been wronged, in multiple ways, and that the government had even broken promises. On the other hand, he also indicated that drastic measures are nevertheless needed, measures that will hurt. The agricultural organizations accepted the many good words of thanks and perhaps did not want to be too harsh about the measures that still hang over their heads. Only the Farmers Defense Force (FDF) did not care about this and immediately spoke out harshly against the possibility of expropriation.
Not the O word
Remkes didn't pronounce the O-word, and with good reason, it becomes clearer and clearer. When presenting his report, he mentioned almost casually that taking away permits can also work. This statement took some time to sink in, but it is now clear what Remkes was thinking of. Not the O-word, but the U-word. A couple of specific articles in the Nature Conservation Act (5.4 and 2.7) gives the national and provincial authorities far-reaching powers to terminate activities if they threaten a Natura 2000 site. With the use of this, expropriation is not necessary at all. Smoking is enough. After all, a company cannot do anything without permits. The law is already in place and governments are ready to deploy the instruments.
Technically not difficult
Technically, removing 500 to 600 peak loaders would not be that difficult at all, contrary to what many think. The only question is: how should this be done in a humane, acceptable way and not - after a conciliatory report - quickly in a harsh way? Judging by the sounds, that will probably be a bigger job than the technical handling. The other tricky point from the second Remkes report is that of zoning with 4 area types: one zone where the most is still possible for agriculture and three where various restrictions apply. The hard lines of Van der Wal's map are gone, but where are the new boundaries and what are the associated challenges? This will also be discussed vigorously in the near future, even the 'moderate' LTO Nederland promises.
Gift or hot potato?
Johan Remkes presented his report as a welcome gift to the new LNV minister Piet Adema. He may already be looking at it with slightly different eyes, because is it a gift or a hot potato? On the other hand, it is partly up to him, together with all the players, to give it further shape and content. Because that is another characteristic of a report such as the present piece by Remkes; everyone can find something positive in it. This was evident from all the reactions in recent days, from CDA and BBB to GroenLinks and from agricultural organizations to Natuurmonumenten and environmental organization MOB. Seen in this way, the government can also explain and deploy it quite flexibly.
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.
