Background Nitrogen Mood
New nitrogen buttons and goat pad farming table
Just before the weekend, the cabinet announced another series of nitrogen measures, including nitrogen reduction per hectare per year and a new approach for identifying peak loads. This is no longer via their direct contribution to exceeding the Critical Deposition Value (KDW) for vulnerable nature, but via a calculated contribution to the nitrogen load in an area. In our weekly section Nitrogen Mood, we give an impression of the nitrogen crisis in our own way.
Christianne van der Wal, the Minister of Nature and Nitrogen, had already said last week made clear that the old approach route was no longer tenable. The RIVM, among others, did its best to downplay this, but with the latest cabinet decisions the question is why. Cabinet nitrogen officials believe they have found a new button to get livestock farms out of a range of targeted areas, but the substantiation has yet to be provided.
Self-identification peak loaders
From March, peak loaders are expected to identify themselves by entering a number of characteristics on a special website. Minister Van der Wal no longer dares to come up with his own definition. The question remains to what extent this approach will be effective, because it is of course a matter of which criteria and calculation methods this website will work with. In addition, the cabinet is making efforts to reduce nitrogen precipitation in the Netherlands by approx 100 moles per hectare per year," the House of Representatives reported. This is a best efforts obligation, which also needs to be further substantiated.
No deterioration nature
The adjusted deployment does not mean that Van der Wal and the cabinet are throwing all the old overboard. What seems to work so far to bring the nitrogen targets into view will be maintained. For example, it continues to be emphasized that no deterioration of the state of nature may take place. But this too must be partly substantiated differently. "We are working with sector parties and nature organizations on an exploration of alternatives to the Critical Deposition Value (KDW)," the cabinet writes. This, of course, takes extra time, but a term for a working alternative is not mentioned.
Conclusion: new attempts are made, while it remains to be seen whether something will work. One thing is clear: it is becoming increasingly difficult for the government to use models such as Aerius to demonstrate the influence of individual companies on the overall picture and to hold them accountable in a credible manner. Researcher Rosanne Hertzberger just wrote about that. About all that can go wrong and what goes wrong with model-based policy
.
Lawsuit and questions Council of State
For livestock farming and the cabinet, it will be exciting in the coming weeks whether the link between Aerius and the nitrogen legislation can be maintained, now that the Nitrogen Claim Foundation filed a lawsuit against it. In any case, the legal underpinnings of many nitrogen regulations can be scrutinized much more closely in the near future. Some respected scientists has asked the Council of State to further explain and substantiate its argumentation in this area, a request that this Board finds difficult to refuse.
Psychological pressure also works
Be that as it may, Minister Van der Wal does succeed in increasing the emotional pressure on livestock farmers with her new commitment. And that will also have an effect, cynical as it may sound. If concrete policy does not help, then the psychological warfare of the cabinet will do its job. Something to which individual, smaller entrepreneurs and family businesses are more sensitive than large companies. They have a legal department, have more direct contacts with politicians on a regular basis and are seen as more important from a social and economic point of view. The non-agricultural sectors are therefore treated less harshly in terms of nitrogen policy, see the approach of many large industries and Schiphol.
Decreasing involvement
While the cabinet is coming up with new plans, consultations at the agricultural tables will continue. However, with decreasing involvement of the agricultural parties, who nevertheless form the core of the consultation circuit. This is partly due to a lack of clarity regarding the question of what should be part of the agricultural agreement. Because how comprehensive is a 'comprehensive agricultural agreement', as was first announced?
It is becoming increasingly clear that quite a few subjects that affect agriculture are not included in the consultations at the agricultural tables. Moreover, the playing field that is being talked about is constantly changing. That is not good for clarity and also not for confidence, according to several parties. Is the NPLG part of it? The water quality agreements? LTO foreman Sjaak van der Tak doesn't seem to know exactly either. All this does not help, because the restoration of confidence was said to be the starting point in the discussion about an agricultural agreement. Scout Johan Remkes emphasized this in his report at the end of last year. If agricultural organizations then start complaining that the cabinet is trying to create exceptions for an agricultural agreement through all kinds of 'goat paths', that will not help.
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.
