Bromet's nitrogen boomerang and the cabinet

Not often has a seemingly simple question caused so much disruption in the carefully designed nitrogen structure that the then government had commissioned.

Mistake after mistake
The RIVM started working on Bromet's question, but made mistake after mistake in answering it, which led to serious doubts about the expertise, professionalism and authority of the RIVM and the models it used. The authoritative institution had to face shame in parliament to justify. The outcome of all this was that an external party finally investigated how things could have gone so wrong. The assignment went to the expensive consultancy firm Andersson Elfers Felix (AEF).

Hilarious and sad
Almost two years after Bromet asked her question, the report from this agency has brought a temporary end to the hilarious and sad affair. AEF's final report is not without damage to the government. Perhaps unnecessarily, the piece once again emphasizes that Aerius is not suitable for making statements at a local level about nitrogen (and ammonia) emissions. And the minister repeats this in the offer letter. That is why both LNV and RIVM should never have agreed to answer the questions, even if it was from a Member of Parliament. They wanted too much, but they should have realized that it wouldn't work.

Knowing limitations
Actually, AEF's advice to recognize one's own limitations would have been sufficient, but a consultancy firm bears its name for a reason. That is why another piece of advice was to also look at the manpower available at the RIVM. Also in the file of ex-informer Ronald Plasterk the call for additional manpower arises. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality would like to add €400 million over the next four years to keep the civil service (LNV, RVO, NVWA) at the desired strength. A lot needs to be done in the areas of nature, nitrogen and implementation of European policy.

Simplification and more bureaucracy
This amount is separate from all planned expenditure for purchasing policy, area plans and the like. The question always remains whether things will improve, or whether it will become easier in terms of regulations. This week, outgoing ministers Piet Adema and Christianne van der Wal once again sat down with the business community. Not just to talk about nitrogen and fertilizer, but also to simplify regulations and reduce bureaucracy. The requested amount of €400 million more seems to contradict this, because more civil servants also brings more of what they are good at, but which does not always help society move forward.

RIVM virus also at RVO
Of course things can always be better. Sometimes it's the money, as a whole group of aspiring quitters heard this week. Nearly two hundred livestock farmers want to participate in the LBV-pus, or the 'peak tax scheme' (no link with the above-mentioned top 100), but they were told that the money has now run out and that they will have to wait indefinitely. Sometimes it also depends on the organization of the process. RVO called and emailed candidates. Unfortunately, the RIVM virus also struck, because, for example, a participant from Friesland received a message for a company from the Gelderse Valley (and perhaps the other way around) in addition to a message intended for him.  

Greenpeace billions
The aforementioned letter from Plasterk with a budgetary insight into the various departments in The Hague was not a letter with real setbacks, as NSC leader Pieter Omtzigt thought. It is a list of desired expenses and risks of setbacks. This includes a lawsuit from Greenpeace regarding the reduction of nitrogen taxes. In principle, this could cost the state €10 to €15 billion and lead to further measures against agriculture - if Greenpeace wins. That chance has become a lot smaller since the Stikstofclaim Foundation joined as a third interested party. As a result, the judge must weigh more interests, much against the wishes of Greenpeace in any case. There is also a threat of a claim for damages from PAS reporters who have been waiting for a long time for promised help.
The Nitrogen Claim Foundation will, by the way initiate summary proceedings against the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. This is because of the Dutch interpretation of the Nitrate Directive and is therefore also aimed at the introduction of some new manure rules.

Stick behind the door
Politically and administratively, not much has happened in the past week, despite all kinds of debates and consultations. However, an old report from 2020 emerged in a hearing in the House of Representatives, on which current CDA Member of Parliament Eline Vedder had also contributed ideas. This concerns the report Advice and research 'Individual means of payment for climate challenges in agriculture', also known as the 'stick behind the door report'. This makes an inventory of how supposedly reluctant farmers and gardeners can be encouraged to take additional action towards climate challenges. It was made at the request of former LNV minister Carola Schouten, but feels extra offensive to many agricultural players in the current context. Perhaps also because many farmers and gardeners now feel extra vulnerable due to lower prices and high costs. An announcement from Rabobank in a trade magazine about previously unknown credit categories (A, B, C, D) increased irritation Furthermore. However, tractors remained in the yard this week.

KLW stick
The 'stick behind the door report' does the Kringloopwijzer instrument a disservice. This is presented as an instrument with not only a management function but also as a monitoring instrument for the government. Perhaps flawed, but also very useful.

The aforementioned consultation between the livestock farming industry with Adema and Van der Wal has not yet yielded much concrete information. After another threatening argument between organizations, Agractie managed to get everyone on the same page again and continue talking together. It hasn't gotten much further yet.

Significance zones and indirect deposition
Agractie itself claims some success in the working group on alternatives for the Critical Deposition Value (KDW), but here too no hard results. It is proposed to replace the KDW, which now locks down many companies, with the 'conservation status' for nature reserves and to only work with a 'significance zone' of several hundred meters around companies, supplemented with the calculated effect of 'indirect deposition' . This could replace appropriate assessments. Unfortunately, for the time being it is a wishful thinking, for which it is not clear how much support will be available and for which major uncertainties must be taken into account in the substantiation. This almost ends at the beginning of this review. Nitrogen is very difficult to capture.