'Excuse seller' Christianne van der Wal, outgoing Minister for Nature and Nitrogen, had to answer in the House of Representatives this week for sending an impact assessment of the European Nature Restoration Act too late. That didn't go entirely smoothly for her. She wasn't used to it either.
Van der Wal does not come across as the type who likes to get down and dirty, and it showed. Her defense was also rather wooden and formalistic. Partly because of this, the question remained whether she really could not have done better. Van der Wal also defended herself with the argument that she still had to coordinate and that she really wanted a government response first.
The Chamber can judge for itself
However, the House of Representatives is perfectly capable of forming its own opinion, as NSC MP Rosanne Hertzberger (NSC) rightly pointed out. Caroline van der Plas (BBB) said she mainly heard excuses.
The question is whether it would have helped much if Van der Wal had sent the documents in question to Parliament earlier. Would the vote on the European Nature Restoration Act (officially a regulation) have turned out differently, or would something else have turned out more positively?
New Room, old attitude
Maybe that wasn't what it was about at all. It also seems that the current House of Representatives is increasingly annoyed by the still acting but outgoing cabinet, and by the fact that ministers often do not care much about parliament. They were also not used to it when they were still fully in office. Now, however, a different wind is blowing.
Whether the short but fierce debate is good for the (in)formation discussions is another matter. VVD member Thom van Campen had to stand up for Van der Wal several times, while Hertzberger and Van der Plas took off the gloves, the first with the clear approval of party leader Pieter Omtzigt.
Consulting agency income
D66 MP Tjeerd de Groot tried to divert attention by going to the documents themselves and broadly measuring the benefits of the Nature Restoration Regulation. In a study about that van Berenschot and Arcadis the cost/benefit balance is strongly in favor of the latter. Farmers and their representatives see skyrocketing costs looming, the consultancy firms see many tens of billions in additional social benefits in return. These benefits are not tangible money, but are a kind of experience converted into projected costs.
Selective environmental costs
Anyone who wants to know how these are calculated is recommended to do so Environmental Prices Handbook 2023 by CE Delft. This lists the costs per kilo of environmentally hazardous substances emitted or prevented with astonishing clarity, without also taking into account the costs of, for example, human medicine use. This is always a problem when measuring water pollution. Everything is examined up to the detection limit, unless it comes from people themselves.
Naturally, De Groot and Bromet had no problems with Van der Wal's slowness. They are fine with anything that can further restrict agriculture.
Lots of hustle and bustle, little results
By the way, last week was a week of reports anyway. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) published together with other institutes an ex-ante analysis of Van der Wal's NPLG plans, in which it was noted that everything will not work in the current way and that more instruments needed. There was still more to come another report from the PBL and fellow institutes that the nitrogen approach has not been going particularly well since 2021: a lot of planning and hassle, but little results.
It all received extensive (media) attention, but among the mountain of reports there was also another piece that, strangely enough, hardly anyone noticed: hhe Analysis framework for effectiveness and efficiency of nitrogen and nature policy. Also from PBL and Wageningen UR.
Wanting and not being able to
Among all the usual academic 'humbug' from policy research, this stands out when it comes to thoughtfulness and critical consideration. It explains very well why all of Rutte IV's grand agricultural and nitrogen plans are so ineffective in tackling problems. In short, it is explained that making plans and passing them through parliament is not an art, but that it is important to first think carefully about what exactly you want to achieve and how that could be possible. Moreover, it is useful to periodically evaluate how the intentions are being achieved, but hardly any evaluations are done, the report notes.
Renure crown for Adema?
In the meantime, Agriculture Minister Piet Adema is still trying to find a way out of the manure and nitrogen knot in which livestock farming currently finds itself. An important part of the solution is Brussels permission for the use of artificial fertilizer substitutes as fertilizer (Renure). This is a tough dossier, because many politicians have cut their teeth on it. For Adema, a breakthrough could not only be of great importance for livestock farming, but he could also put a crown on his ministership. Something he was not allowed to achieve during the consultation on an agricultural agreement. He has been in Brussels more often lately, including at the European Council of Agriculture at the beginning of this week. This was largely dominated by the massive farmers' protests that still continue outside the Netherlands. The European Commission has already made many concessions to them. Whether that is enough for the farmers remains to be seen. They are slowly dismantling more and more of Frans Timmerman's legacy, even though the Nature Restoration Regulation has been adopted and has still not been stripped of its sting.
Returning to the NPLG plans. Led by the Stikstofclaim Foundation (SSC) and followed by Agractie, many farmers decided at the last minute to submit their views on the plans for this. The Ministry of I&W, which receives the views, reports in an initial response that it has already registered more than six hundred views, but due to delays in delivery, among other things, not all documents appear to have been received yet. Farmers protect their legal position with the action and also indicate that they do not simply agree.
Path for PAS detectors
In the meantime, an increasingly clear path seems to be emerging in the case law along which PAS reporters can be helped, even though MOB, for example, denies this. The Council of State allows external netting under certain conditions, if it can be demonstrated that provinces have taken space from other companies. Provinces must get to work on this, and not in the manner of Von Martels.