Background nitrogen
Not a word about the low-emission barn debacle in debate
The cabinet wants to speed up the approach to the nitrogen problem, Prime Minister Rutte said a few weeks ago. Partly for this reason, the 'Temporary Transition Fund for Rural Areas and Nature Act' was debated in the House of Representatives for about two days. It will be voted on next week, but it does not seem to have become much clearer for the interested layman.
Not even with the help of various accompanying letters that Minister for Nature and Nitrogen Christianne van der Wal sent to the House of Representatives. She announced that there is now a European-approved purchase scheme for peak loaders, initially voluntary, although there is still a big stick behind the door, she said on Wednesday. However, the minister did not clarify how much money she has available for the various schemes. Not the entire €24 billion may go there, that should be clear. The question is whether it can 'help' many peak loaders.
No concrete
It also remains unclear how much extra space will now be available to help PAS detectors thanks to the reprioritisation in the nitrogen registration system. Any nitrogen space released, also from the purchase of peak loaders, will first go to nature, said Van der Wal. For a moment, the questions from Member of Parliament Roelof Bisschop (SGP) threatened to create the impression that PAS detectors might not be helped out after all, but the minister wanted to dispel that suggestion. However, she got nowhere. In the meantime, Van der Wal stated that the government has a duty to help the PAS reporters.
It was also striking that none of the politicians spoke about another category of livestock farmers who got their fingers in the door because of wrong government actions, which for the sake of convenience can only be referred to as the 'RAV reporters'. This issue became topical last year following court rulings on low-emission stables. They don't do what is promised. That was broadly the feeling and was also legally established at the time. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality then had an analysis carried out by Wageningen Livestock Research – the same research institute that subsequently supplied incorrect data to demonstrate the operation of the offending stables – to gain insight into the extent of the problem with low-emission stables.
Destructive judgment
This study, which has been shared in concept with those involved in the agricultural sector, but is not yet supposed to be 'official', delivers a damning verdict. No emission-reducing effect has been established in any of the low-emission barns for dairy cattle, which makes them legally outlawed. The classic group barn performs best, but that is no longer allowed due to animal welfare. In pig farming, the picture is slightly less dramatic. The gap between promise and reality is the smallest in poultry farming. In the meantime, those stables have been approved by the government. In Brabant, its application is even mandatory. Moreover, policymakers have already booked emission reductions on the basis of the alleged effect. Now it all appears to be a paper (or digital) reality. Because the report will probably not reach the House of Representatives before the end of June, there is a good chance that the government will only start thinking about a solution to this problem after the summer recess, for which it will bear responsibility itself. The stables have been approved and encouraged by the government and farmers have purchased them in good faith.
Hot potato
Because the report is officially still in draft form, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality does not want to say how many livestock farmers have ineffective stables and how much emission space is needed to help them out. Politicians apparently also find it a hot potato and apparently this also applies to the parties around the Agricultural Agreement. The researchers also have no idea how to solve the problem, according to the report. The higher than expected emission in the stables could be due to a larger walking and therefore emission surface and/or due to the use of separated manure in the cubicles. At the same time, they argue that these factors cannot really make a difference. A fresh look seems necessary.
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.
