The first contours of the new government policy for rural areas are becoming visible. It was already known that Minister Femke Wiersma of LVVN no longer wants to hold the provinces to a hard deadline for submitting the area plans. State Secretary Jean Rummenie now also makes it clear that he wants to look at the state of nature differently than his predecessor Christianne van der Wal. No longer exclusively or mainly through the nitrogen glasses. He also indicates that, as far as he is concerned, no complete baseline measurement has yet been made for the state of nature.
Van der Wal and the provinces tried to create a picture of the state of nature in 2022 and 2023 through the so-called nature goal analyses, but these suffer from all kinds of shortcomings. For example, they are not based on current maps, no uniform baseline measurement has been carried out, there is no quantitative data on the numbers of animals and plants and the studies have been carried out almost entirely from behind the desk, with nitrogen as the measure of things.
No Dutch headlines
Various consultancy firms have written to it, including Arcadis, which coincidentally or not is also the firm an impact analysis has created the European Nature Restoration Regulation, together with Berenschot. Rummenie leaves it somewhat open whether the government will follow the lines of this impact analysis. He does make it clear that the Schoof cabinet will not put national headlines on the nature restoration ordinance.
Fresh advice
That is a different tone than the previous cabinet. Rummenie also tells Van der Wal that nature is about to collapse. He first wants more clarity and a broader view; as the Nature Restoration Regulation also requires, the State Secretary knows. Perhaps it is a good thing that he also calls in other agencies for this, perhaps with a fresher view than the usual advisors of recent years.
Fixed runs
For a long time, expertise and counter-expertise have not been used much against each other by the central government, whether it concerns nature policy, nitrogen or any other area (and where it did happen, such as with the Hordijk committee, the counter-expertise ended up in the bottom drawer). The Rutte cabinets had their regular routines with predictable results.
Nitrogen claim against CBS
CBS will probably soon experience that it is wise to listen to sound counter-expertise. It can expect a legal letter from the Nitrogen Claim Foundation (SSC) about the statisticians' analysis with regard to low-emission stables and floors. Statistics Netherlands has made an analysis in which the alleged ammonia emissions from these malfunctioning stables were calculated. This analysis was an instrument for MOB to challenge the claimed operation of these stables in court. Hundreds of farmers are then left with the pieces.
Less ammonia, more N2
According to SSC, CBS's analysis was incorrect and misleading, and it had been warned about this. According to SSC, research by Wageninger Herman de Boer and modeling expert Wouter de Heij shows that the stables emit much less ammonia, but mainly the harmless N2. That is not harmful to nature. SSC therefore believes it can successfully challenge the court rulings on the low-emission stables, and wants to hold CBS liable for the damage suffered by farmers.
Nitrogen also makes Boerenbond rebellious
In Belgium, advocates are also going to court. And not a somewhat 'rebellious' club like SSC. No, in Flanders the farmers union and the General Farmers Syndicate (ABS) – say the Flemish LTO and NMV/NVV – sound the alarm. It is a step that Dutch clubs have not yet taken. The two largest agricultural interest groups in Flanders are going to the Constitutional Court because of the nitrogen decree that was adopted there at the end of January.
Principle of equality violated
The Boerenbond and ABS state that the Flemish government almost asked for it, so to speak, because of 'the nonchalance and stubbornness of the policy makers.' According to them, the decree violates, among other things, the principle of equality, something that has even been mentioned by the Council of State. Agriculture is assessed differently and more strictly than industry and mobility. Yet the Flemish government has persevered. The ABS also objects to the impact scores used to calculate the influence of an agricultural company on vulnerable nature.
Criticisms well read
According to the ABS, the calculation model used, which is comparable to Aerius in the Netherlands, does not provide good measurement results at farm level. It seems that the ABS has read the scientific criticism of Aerius in the Netherlands well, perhaps better than the Dutch unions. The Flemish unions also asked to view the calculations for the nitrogen models, but this was also refused, although this is required under the Aarhus Convention (publicity of environmental information).