Background Nitrogen Mood
Emotions in nitrogen and derogation run high
The nitrogen emotions ran high again in the past week. Not so much because new political or administrative facts were created, but more because everyone wanted to make their position clear once again. As a highlight on Friday afternoon, there was also the wrangling around the derogation rules. In our weekly section Nitrogen Mood, we give an impression of the nitrogen crisis in our own way.
The only tangible act was taken by the Schiphol Group, which announced that it had purchased sufficient nitrogen rights to secure the operation of Schiphol and also to be able to fly from Lelystad. The Schiphol Group managed this smoothly. This decisiveness is here and there contrasted with the lack of progress shown by the cabinet, because where has that made any progress on the nitrogen front? For the time being, as far as the ambitions with regard to agriculture are concerned, it mainly remains with the repeated propagation of intentions and new administrative and legal entanglements.
Putting this against each other is partly flawed. As a private company, the Schiphol Group (despite being largely state-owned) can quietly buy nitrogen rights for any amount it deems useful, while the cabinet is bound by state aid rules. The same rules also make it difficult to help PAS detectors out of the fire, it is said. Still, something is gnawing. After all, Rijkswaterstaat also succeeds in acquiring the necessary rights for infrastructural projects.
Take control yourself
This week there were no further consultations at the agricultural tables of Minister Piet Adema. A number of the organizations that joined us took the time to look back on the discussions and to inform the members. They also used the time to profile themselves among themselves. The FDF does not participate, but the Dutch Dairymen Board (DDB), which is somewhat connected administratively, does. This one spoke her reserves out about the consultation. The Dutch Dairy Farmers' Union (NMV) did the same, but also believes that, together with other agricultural participants, they can take control themselves. On top of all this, LTO chairman Sjaak van der Tak suddenly came from the Grüne Woche in Berlin with an ultimatum to the cabinet to help the PAS reporters quickly.
Brussels wants all or nothing
Shortly afterwards this was expanded with a (threat of) going to court for the derogation rules, which suddenly need to be adjusted. This is necessary because the European Commission is playing hard with regard to the phasing out of the derogation. As far as she is concerned, it is all or nothing: phasing out strictly according to the Commission's rules or a transition to a new policy without phasing out. This surprised Adema so much that he urgently returned from Germany for a cabinet meeting. In the meantime, giving in to the Commission is also unacceptable for agriculture. Emotions in the various organizations about the state of affairs ran high.
Inimitable process
Back to the farming tables. Whether anything concrete will come out of the talks on an agricultural agreement remains the question, and if so, when. The consultation process follows the same recipe as Johan Remkes' investigations. Many parties are heard under the leadership of one or more wise people. Chairman Wouter de Jong reportedly received help from Carin van Huet (ex Rabo) and Thijs Kuipers (former LTO). They are assisted by a group of communication experts and copywriters and through an inimitable process a result is obtained. The NMV indicates that it sees risks in this, because who can guarantee that the participants in the consultation will not be used as decoration for a story that they themselves no longer have any control over?
And even though the talks about an agricultural agreement sometimes look like a Polish country day. After all, dozens of parties have been invited. Yet there is also at least one important player that is not participating: MOB. He won't let his teeth be pulled out. It is true that MOB is not invincible. At the end of December, she even lost 19 cases at once at the Council of State. Nevertheless, it can sharpen a lot as long as the quality of the legislation does not get better than it is now.
Aerius questions to the Council of State
When it comes to legislation and case law, it is interesting to mention that a number of respected scientists from various disciplines have submitted a series of factual questions to the judiciary department of the Council of States about the way in which it arrives at its legal judgments when it comes to about Airius. The scientists – with very different backgrounds – find questioningly that the Council is not always unequivocal and sometimes provides vague evidence. The questions are published on the website of the Agrifacts Foundation.
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.
