Omtzigt's ministerial plans beckon after agricultural debate

It is of course possible that six hours of continuous debate does not improve concentration, but experienced ministers should still be able to draw on their knowledge of the dossier and also know what it means to maintain a consistent line of argument. However, these matters did not come to light on Wednesday.

Neighbor's rights?
Minister Van der Wal paid herself a lot of compliments for her efforts on the nitrogen dossier, including her efforts for the PAS detectors, but still concluded that she 'never said' that she would solve this dossier. NSC MP Rosanne Hertzberger asked why farmers cannot obtain nitrogen space, even with government assistance and commitments, while Schiphol manages to do so, despite a much greater need. Party member Thom van Campen was friendlier, but wanted to know why farmers cannot settle the net if, for example, a neighbor stops and emissions space becomes available. Then the stayer could be given part of that space, if only to be a PAS reporter. According to Van der Wal, the latter is simply not possible and at Schiphol it would simply be a 'technical consideration', whereby it could still be offset.

Stupidity in Chamber
Perhaps even crazier was that the House left it at that. Unless she was stunned by such an answer. In the meantime, the Schiphol Group continues uninhibited. Emission space has also been purchased from farmers for Rotterdam Airport, various media report, and politicians will also approve this.

Van der Wal also said that she knew everything about the nitrogen problem, but after asking a specific question about it, she spontaneously spotted a black hole. The enthusiast can check it out the website of the House of Representatives, but you have to take your time and not get annoyed.  

Consistency problem
Adema did not fare much better, but for him the problem lies more in consistency compared to previous debates. Of course, he was concerned with the manure problem and derogation issues. Adema repeated again that he had no choice but to do so. There is no room at the European Commission, according to the outgoing agriculture minister. Moreover, it would now not so much be about space for manure placement, livestock density or land-relatedness, but water quality.

Adema and Van der Wal regularly give the impression that they are reading an official text that they have not mastered and over which they have no control. Now these are also complicated files, but where is the political influence?

NV areas and CDM
The water quality problem that Adema was referring to appears to be part of a package of additional measures requested within the derogation request. This included a target for nutrient polluted (NV) areas, on which, among others, the Committee for Experts on Manure Problems (CDM, which has a problem with the sensitivity to leaching of manure) and apparently not 'ordinary' water quality experts had to judge.

No substantiation
Chairman Gerard Velthof of the CDM said a technical briefing in the House of Representatives, incidentally, that his committee has proposed to Sinkevicius to delete the 170 kilo limit for nitrogen from animal manure in the Nitrate Directive. The Commission did not respond to this.
No substantiation was made for the 170 kilo limit when the Nitrate Directive was drawn up. It was the result of political bargaining, as old documents show.

45 year old drug prescriptions
Water quality is ultimately the goal that the almost 45-year-old Nitrate Directive is aiming for, but that guideline does not state that nothing is wrong as long as the limit of 50 milligrams of nitrate in the groundwater is not exceeded. The directive includes precisely defined means requirements to achieve the set goal for vulnerable areas. This can be deviated from (hence the name derogation) in consultation with the Commission and the EU Member States. This has been successful for years because the Netherlands was able to provide convincing substantiation. Under the last two Rutte cabinets, the process went wrong because all kinds of underlying data were suddenly tinkered with, the focus on the effort changed and, for example, miscalculations were made. 

Staghouders tangle
A clear example of this was the first visit of former minister Henk Staghouwer to the European Commission. According to published (WOO) documents, he offered to solve the manure problem through an integrated approach to the file. That may have been in line with Rutte-IV's new commitment, and supported officially, to solve the nitrogen and farmers' problem once and for all, but it certainly did not demonstrate thoughtfulness and knowledge of the file. By linking everything to everything, the complicated file became even more of a tangle than it was. Simply focusing on meeting the requirements of the Nitrate Directive, including a derogation, would have been simpler. Not designating the whole of the Netherlands as a vulnerable area would have helped even more (and according to water quality data it is also possible), but that may not have fit in with government policy.

With old or new team
The forming parties are apparently considering the option of a grassland derogation, in combination with a limited reduction in the number of cows. The question remains when this option should be presented in Brussels: now quickly, with Adema and his old official team, or should we wait for a new cabinet and a new team of negotiators. It is not the only option, however. A group of farmers who went to Brussels this week to hear from European Commissioner Sinkevicius himself about the nitrate requirements, were told that a lot is still possible in terms of measures. Perhaps more than Adema has told. Could that be why the minister suddenly announced this week? a large package of documents made public, which some investigators had been asking for months in vain?

Document dump
The Netherlands has the tendency to always want to meet European requirements in its own way. That may be part of the problem, but the European Commission is also not a politically neutral player. You only have to look at the rise and fall of the Green Deal. Features of this policy commitment have also influenced the nitrate discussion and may still do so. It is not only the Netherlands that has a problem with the latest derogation. Ireland has even given up on asking for a new derogation, much to the dissatisfaction of farmers and the dairy sector there. However, the current Irish government is certainly not conservative.

Duration Renure
After waiting a few weeks, the contours of the skin will gradually become visible Renure proposals. This also takes some of the shine off the plans. It was already clear that the processing of manure into legally applicable fertilizer substitutes would not be really cheap, but it now appears that the Commission only wants to open the tap for the processing of manure to a limited extent. For example, regional ceilings are proposed as well as a maximum use of 100 kilos per hectare. There has been good lobbying. The Nitrate Directive has always reserved its own space for fertilizer use, while no real comparative studies have been conducted on effectiveness, susceptibility to leaching and total environmental impact. However, the European Parliament still has the opportunity to tinker with this, just as the European Environmental Council can do.