Politics under the judge's thumb

Still, the ruling of the Hague court on the nitrogen policy, as initiated by Greenpeace, still feels a bit strange. The wall that separates the various powers from each other is becoming very thin. The court is also very specific about politics on various points, such as the NPLG. The fact that court chairman Jerzy Luiten, given his social media history (LinkedIn), also shows a soft spot for all kinds of other concrete climate actions, does not make things any better.

Wildly confused and embarrassed
However, Greenpeace had a big day, especially in terms of publicity. Especially because politicians reacted wildly confused after the statement last Wednesday and their statements flew in all directions. The most embarrassing was perhaps how minister Femke Wiersma and BBB leader Caroline van der Plas openly contradicted each other. Partly for that reason, it seems like a good idea for them to improve their mutual communication. The cabinet approved the appointment of a number of political assistants this week, but the minister of LVVN still has to do without them.

Council of State more far-reaching
In terms of content, the Council of State ruling of 18 December last year hit much harder. With the Amercentrale and Rendac, another 100.000 permits issued since May 2020 were swept off the table. Only 5.000 of these (5%) affect agricultural companies. Most national media have barely noticed this.

The cabinet does, given the weight of the new Nitrogen Commission (formally: Commission for Economy and Nature Restoration). In addition to the permanent members, other members can participate on a temporary basis. It is clear that the cabinet gives the highest priority to this matter and no longer leaves it to a single department, which may also still be in an entrenched rut.

Litigation and 'helping'
In the meantime, it makes one very curious what new knowledge the committee will tap into to escape the current trap. Under the previous cabinet, activists and opponents such as MOB were also allowed to join in to 'share knowledge'. MOB chairman Vollenbroek has now again offered help. Perhaps it would be better not to.

Aerius seems to be more firmly in the saddle than ever, but as previously indicated, the European Habitats Directive also offers an alternative, which the Environment Act may also prescribe. This will be elaborated in the coming period.

The cabinet is still considering appealing last Wednesday's ruling. The Stichting Stikstofclaim also wants to do so.

Reparation
However, the Greenpeace ruling does not make the case much stricter than the existing policy. The year 2025 as an intermediate target of 40% on the way to a 50% CO2 reduction in 2030 can even be forgotten as far as the judge is concerned. At most, he finds it justified that Greenpeace can be paid a penalty of €10 million in five years' time if the policy target is not achieved.

But does that feel good? It feels a bit like the €80 million compensation that the estate owners receive from the land management organizations (TBOs) because the former were disadvantaged by the government in the allocation of billions in natural land. The Dutch state and the TBOs did not want to wait for the outcome of an investigation into unlawful state aid and high fines and pushed for a settlement.

Overbureaucratization
Anyone who thinks that the Netherlands is unique with its restrictive nitrogen and other regulations should look around more broadly. German business associations also complain bitterly about 'overbureaucratisation'. It sounds a bit redundant, but the gist is clear. And it means something when even Germans complain about it. It is therefore a serious theme in the election campaign. And, before we forget, it fuelled the rise of the BBB in the Netherlands two years ago. Really doing something about it remains difficult, because expressing dissatisfaction alone is not enough. The parallels with the other side of the Atlantic Ocean are obvious, but society there is structured differently.

Hansen's Balm
The new European Commission seems to understand better than the previous one that things need to change. Last week at the Grüne Woche in Berlin, the new European Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, called for more policy freedom for member states and more attention to national differences. Agricultural managers and politicians who listened to him were amazed. Balm for their souls and what a difference with the sound from the previous commission!

Then a flood of environmental initiatives stormed over agriculture from the office of Frans Timmermans and his helpers. Reinforced, as it turns out, by tens of millions in PR subsidies for the green NGOs in Brussels. Timmermans' organization even gave these NGOs the details of the politicians they were to attack with priority.

Timmermans knew nothing
Of course, Timmermans himself knew nothing about it, he said this week, when the subsidy scandal leaked out. The European Parliament was of course up in arms, but in the Netherlands a large part of politics shrugs its shoulders.

The mechanism used for the Green Deal until last year may have been invented in the Netherlands by now. The Ministry of Development Cooperation used the policy framework from 2016 to 2020 Dialogue and contradiction, which worked in a similar way. With a maximum of 25% of their own resources, NGOs could (and can) obtain the rest in subsidies from the Postcode Lottery and the government, provided that they broadly conform to the policy and message of the ministry.

Want and be able
The proponents of the old agricultural and nature policy are more on the defensive these days, but are often successful in their resistance. Also because those who want to change it have a knowledge deficit, are less well organized (see politics this week) and because they are perhaps not focused enough on solutions. Maybe something can change after all. For example, if Aerius is immovable and the judge confirms it time and time again, can you also get around it?