It is difficult to assess whether the tsunami of lawsuits against the nitrogen policy of the current cabinet has fully gained momentum, but even without the Wilderian commitment of the MOB and the Environment Association, the position of many PAS reporters and other livestock farms will continue to be challenged.
The aforementioned combination, which has its leaders socializing with the Ministry of LVVN, is crowing victory this week against the Frisian provincial government. MOB and Vereniging Leefmilieu report that they have been proven right by the court of Noord-Nederland in their appeal against the province's refusal to enforce eight PAS reporters and that they are drawing a line through 'a political legacy of former provincial administrator Wiersma', as MOB rubs it in in a press release.
Former provincial administrator
Earlier this week they had a little less success at the East Brabant court in a more or less similar case. At that time the court acted as a kind of mobile judge and ruled that the parties (province, farmers, MOB/Environment) must arrive at a solution by mutual agreement and agricultural and nature interests must be weighed amicably against each other. It will be a test for all parties.
Incidentally, it was clear long before Johan Vollenbroek's 'tsunami statement' that he and his supporters were collecting information on a large scale about agricultural companies in the Netherlands.
More careful procedure
This is done through mass requests, such as the mass request that was halted this week at RVO-Netherlands. In addition, also via WOO requests about individual companies. Anyone who follows the publication of WOO requests can see that almost every week a few WOO requests about agricultural companies are made public. Vollenbroek is quite upset about the interruption by Minister Wiersma at RVO Nederland, as was already apparent. The minister has now judged that an announcement regarding the WOO request in the Staatscourant alone was not enough to properly inform all the entrepreneurs concerned about the possible consequences and to point out their options to submit their views on this (that, plus the processing thereof takes time). You would almost wish that governments were always so neat, but MOB and Leefmilieu will certainly not be happy about that.
Stable emissions and research review
They might be able to agree better with the recent letter from Minister Wiersma about stable emissions, although of course those friends from Nijmegen would prefer no emissions at all and no stables either. letter from the minister, which is accompanied by extensive reports from Wageningen UR on the latest insights there. Some of them are not unfavorable for livestock farming, but the findings on emission measurements in stables and low-emission stables build on insights that were previously found to be incorrect. In an international review by Belgian and Danish scientists – so the kind of report that should also be held in high regard by the government, and often is, for example when it comes to nature – in such a report it is noted that a number of crucial principles of the Wageningen scientists are incorrect.
Estimated losses
Mentioned are: the accuracy of the estimated nitrogen losses to the air, the representativeness of the research. The Belgians have learned from it for use in their own country, but in the Netherlands the flawed method is being built upon, the CBS has adopted the findings and even the judge rates the weaker WUR research higher than the international findings. So you see once again that even judges are very context-sensitive (and do not know everything themselves).
Extra money, for what?
The Spring Memorandum 2025, which has now been reported, apparently contains little new nitrogen policy, although BBB leader Caroline van der Plas is pleased with the additional €600 million for agriculture. She does not mention what the money is intended for. In the Ministerial Committee for Economy and Nature Restoration and the Council of Ministers, it has now been agreed that additional ammonia policy (track 2) must be pursued.
Ceiling only for farmer
How and what this entails remains shrouded in mystery. After all, ammonia is just as much of a catch-all term as nitrogen. So you can ask yourself whether this is mainly ammonia policy for agriculture, or also for traffic and industry in, for example, the west of the Netherlands. It could also be that the ideas that the province of South Holland is trying to work out for a differentiated ammonia ceiling per hectare indicate a direction. So, agriculture should be tackled again? It should become clearer in the coming weeks, but it certainly looks that way.
Purchase plan version so much
According to some sources, a variant of the purchase plan that the G7 and the Ministry of LVVN in collaboration with the Rabobank previously discussed is being worked on again. It is called a voluntary plan, but because of the financing, many intensive companies will probably not be able to reject the offer (also from the bank). The nitrogen profit must be a 'guaranteed' emission reduction of 55% in 5 years. This must be achieved by a combination of livestock reduction (10-20%) and the withdrawal of phosphate rights. Everything for nitrogen and everything for the coalition, especially for the VVD and NSC, is what is being said.
Many people in The Hague already found it a miracle this week that the collaborating parties behind the government stayed together. Little goes without saying with the current four, but it also seems to be often forgotten that things also regularly cracked in previous coalition governments.