Background Nitrogen mood
Election time is trial balloon time
Election season is also a time for trial balloons. Not just for lobby groups with bright ideas, but also for organizations and institutions that consider themselves respectable institutions. It's no wonder, then, that this week the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) also launched a trial balloon. It's titled "Agricultural and Nature Outlook." It's already being widely reviewed and seized upon.
The report The accompanying balloon outlines two scenarios for how the Netherlands should become even more of a park landscape, with at least 100.000 hectares more nature and "nature-inclusive" (unprofitable, unless subsidized) agricultural land by 2050. This could easily be added to all the nitrogen dreams. According to various activist reports, farmers are primarily polluting and abusing soil, crops, and animals. Even the embryonic Marker Wadden Sea is said to be full of agricultural pesticides, if some reports are to be believed. Long story short: which political party dares to speak out against even more nature for the public?
Screen dreams
The mood is certainly conducive to giving screen projections like those from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency a push in the desired direction. For the past year and a half, there was a government that was supposed to "unlock" the Netherlands, but it was just as unsuccessful as the Rutte governments. The desired policy change and the recovery of the Netherlands didn't materialize. Now it's another club's turn, and they'll just have to persevere. It's also a choice the Dutch civil service is fully prepared for.
Turn lost
The fact that agricultural organizations, from LTO Nederland to Agractie and FDF, are up in arms because they feel unheard and because the importance of domestic food production is not mentioned at all seems like ceremonial background music to the planners. To further boost the momentum, the PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) is proposing a full-fledged state commission that could help the Netherlands move forward again. Who wouldn't want to serve on such a commission?
Another topic (which has been mentioned before): raising the arithmetic lower limit. Attempts to raise it to 1, or even 0,5 moles, are like flogging a dead horse. Almost all the advice thrust upon politicians is negative, and the few that point in a different direction are preferably ignored.
Homemade variations
The question, of course, is how independent or unbiased these recommendations are. When the IPO (joint provincial government) had to make a decision on the arithmetic lower limit in recent months, they were presented with four scenarios, but these were scenarios prepared in-house by the IPO. The choice was not broader. When the advice from scientist Arthur Petersen on the arithmetic lower limit was seriously reviewed by national officials, the question arose whether it could be scaled back a bit and made more palatable for opponents of a higher lower limit. After two difficult meetings, the caretaker cabinet of the VVD and BBB finally reached a decision on Friday evening: under certain conditions, a higher arithmetic lower limit of 1 mole can be introduced in early 2026. However, a test case must first be conducted. If the outcome is as the House of Representatives and now the cabinet want, farmers will be allowed to emit as much as "200 times as much nitrogen as they do now," according to NOS, among others. The state broadcaster almost suggests a deluge of nitrogen, while it's mainly a calculable multiplication, not a clearly measurable amount of additional nitrogen.
1 mole more difficult than 150 others
It's actually quite ludicrous to see how much resistance there has been, and still is, to that minimally higher arithmetic lower limit. Especially when you consider that the calculated nitrogen deposition, according to the latest version of Aerius, has decreased by 150 moles per hectare in the past year. At least, that's what nitrogen expert Wouter de Heij claims. If limiting emissions at the upper end is much more worthwhile, why all the resistance to that lower limit? To create maximum legal uncertainty?
Stumbling report
And then there's something else: a few weeks ago, three rapporteurs appointed by the House of Representatives issued a scathing assessment of the new Dutch derogation request. According to them (MPs Holman/NSC, Vedder/CDA, and Meulenkamp/VVD), Minister Wiersma's request doesn't stand a chance. It probably feels good to throw a wrench in the works for the minister on his way to Brussels, but that's beside the point. Reading their piece, one doesn't really get the impression that they've thoroughly considered any opportunities. For example, how a smaller portion of Dutch territory could be designated as sensitive. Did they turn a blind eye, or was the intention to draw a negative conclusion? Previous attempts certainly saw a harder fight for a new derogation, by civil servants, perhaps also by ministers, and by the House of Representatives.
Sweetman
So, is there no good news, any hopeful news, or anything like that in store for agriculture? Perhaps there is something there. A number of nitrogen experts and lawyers have so-called Sweetman ruling Dusted off and revisited from 2013, this is a rather complex ruling by the European Court of Justice concerning the rules for the conservation of natural habitats. This ruling has often been cited as a potential solution to the Dutch nitrogen impasse.
Court versus Council of State?
A key point is that, according to the highest European court, nitrogen and its application in regulations are completely inconsistent with the direction taken by Dutch case law, including the latest rulings by the Council of State. If this were confirmed, it would represent a major shift in policy in this country. It is noteworthy that no one has taken this seriously before, but it is also known that the European Commission takes the aforementioned ruling very seriously.
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.
