Background nitrogen mood
Political silence after starting note, MOB angry and concerned
The relatively nice weather and the long May recess may be the reason that it has been politically quiet for a long time after the publication of the Starting note Netherlands from the lock, which the cabinet published two weeks ago. It may also be that its critics need some time to let the impact sink in, or that they need to be brought up to date.
Many NGOs and action groups did not need two weeks and media from left to right already judged that the new plans contained a lot of empty noise and would lead to nothing. Even a moderate right-wing magazine like Elsevier does not think much of it.
Stay in the trap!
'MOB and friends' don't have that either, but perhaps for a different reason. Johan Vollenbroek even threatens new lawsuits if the cabinet doesn't come up with new (enforcement) decisions within a few weeks that are based on the current nitrogen policy, apparently under the motto: 'government, swim further into the trap we have made for you!'
That is precisely what the cabinet does not seem to want to do with the new nitrogen and environmental approach. It is stated in the documents that belong to the starting note and it is also confirmed in an answer to a question from Member of Parliament Lidewij de Vos. The cabinet wants to move towards a broader assessment for nature than just on the basis of nitrogen sensitivity and – derived from that – the critical deposition values, while it also wants to settle the livestock farming differently and more via phosphate (but the latter is even less explicitly stated). In broad terms, therefore, more balanced.
Old and new nitrogen school
MOB and other environmental organisations sense that dampness and therefore want to continue as it was. The well-known scientists of this 'nitrogen school', such as Jan Willem Erisman, Wim de Vries and others also support this. However, other experts, such as Wouter de Heij, must also be present in the consultation within the ministerial committee for Economy and Nature Restoration (Schoof Committee). This seems to have had an effect, even though there is still great reluctance to get out of the old, well-worn track, especially in official circles.
This does not mean that everything will become easier for agriculture from now on. A different policy is not easy to implement and there are still major challenges for the agricultural sector. In addition, there are still many issues to be clarified at various levels. Such as emissions and deposition. The Aerius model of the RIVM estimates that roughly two-thirds of all deposition is dry deposition and that the total deposition is quite high. Partly due to the work of De Heij, and earlier in foreign publications, there is again more focus on the question of how large that dry deposition really is, and whether it can be demonstrated.
Lieftinghsbroeker nerves
In Lieftinghsbroek in Groningen, a research team led by Martin Scholten has determined that the deposition per hectare there is much lower than previously assumed. Something that has made many administrators and politicians in the region and beyond very nervous and has led to the results having to be heavily edited. Nitrogen research and everything that is connected to it sometimes seems almost the measure of all things in the rural area.
Cheaper zoning
In more practical terms, there is still much to be clarified. Minister Wiersma has written that 250 companies must disappear in the 2000-metre buffer zones around Natura 1.800 areas. The question is, however: are there really that many areas in that zone? A stable type report from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency from 2012 shows that it concerns only about 1.200 companies, and since then there have certainly been no more companies. Other studies give different figures. You would say: the fewer companies in those areas, the better, because it saves the government a lot of buyout costs, and nature does not suffer any extra burden, because there are fewer companies nearby than thought.
And what it means for air pollution, perhaps no one can prove. Jan Cees Vogelaar, chairman of the Stichting Stikstofclaim (SSC), recently pointed out that even during the major animal disease crises (swine fever, FMD) and the resulting sharp reductions in livestock numbers in recent decades, no noticeable effect on air quality was observed. There is no scientific explanation yet. Are the wrong causes being sought?
Follow the stench
Where one point is addressed, another farmer-critical club finds a new stick to beat with. Follow the Money believes that the government violates human rights by not tackling the stench nuisance of agricultural businesses. Thousands of businesses are said to be in violation. Now stench nuisance is never nice, but that outside the city is apparently the worst, because why are coffee shops not also tackled harder, or dirt on the street that stinks and attracts rats? The problem is that no farmers are involved in that.
Van der Wal leaves environment
Although it has been relatively quiet politically in recent weeks, Minister Wiersma did make a few decisions. Following her refusal to give MOB insight into the permit status of all farms, she also refused a request to access to I&R data (animal data) of livestock farmers, with again the reasonable sounding argument that the livestock farmers involved have not been heard enough in this. Former VVD minister and Member of Parliament Christianne van der Wal is making a career move and, like Diederik Samsom before her, is swapping environmental protection for the fossil sector. Van der Wal is becoming BOVAG chairman.
Parallel Cycle World
There was a stir outside politics published documents about the Kringloopwijzer (KLW) for dairy farming. This instrument is managed by the trade association ZuivelNL, with the calculation core owned by WUR. Its aim is to make dairy farming more efficient and environmentally friendly using data. The problem is that good safeguarding is difficult, it turns out. The KLW is and remains an instrument of the sector. What many people do not know, including administrators, is that there is also a PPS steering group Further Development of the Kringloopwijzer (PPS stands for Private-Public Partnership), which is partly from ZuivelNL and partly from the government. Its financing even lies entirely with LVVN. For ZuivelNL, this further development serves the same purpose as the KLW in its initial design, but not for the government, as appears from the released documents.
Search for brackets
Over the years (since 2016), agricultural officials have mainly tried to use the knowledge from the Kringloopwijzer consultation to link instruments for their own government policy. Attempts have also been made to give the KLW a legal status, but this has consistently failed due to poor data security. Formally, ZuivelNL cannot be held responsible for the government's intentions, but it does grate that insight was given to data from the sector, that ZuivelNL directors participate in the consultation, but apparently with a limited assignment. Inquiries with the organization do not really make it clear what the responsibilities are. However, an extensive explanation of the process has been provided.
Klaas van der Horst
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
