Background Nitrogen mood
Mole brings cow plague and the Dutch twist
It's been clear for a long time that the uniquely Dutch approach to nitrogen issues is completely ignored elsewhere in the world. There, it's seen as a bizarre bit of Dutch silliness, a phenomenon often seen in that small country on the North Sea.
Quality newspaper NRC Handelsblad, along with Follow the Money and Omroep Gelderland, felt the need to take that spin even further, imagining millions more cows if the nitrogen arithmetic limit (RKO) drops from 0,005 mol to 1 mol. The result: cows practically on the balcony!
Cow flood
The writers of this motley fear scenario They also realize that it's primarily a theoretical exercise. They write it themselves, and scientist Arthur Petersen emphasizes this point. Yet, they managed to find exactly one farmer who was willing to confirm that they wanted to grow with a higher RKO. They considered that sufficient proof. As if adjusting one figure would immediately open all the floodgates.
Livestock farmers only want one thing
The authors completely ignore the fact that a livestock farmer has a few other things to check off before expanding. No, apparently, that livestock farmer only thinks about one thing every day.
Fortunately for the journalists, nitrogen professor Willem Jan Erisman was also kind enough to point out that increasing the RKO is indeed very problematic. He seems to have forgotten that he had just stated the opposite. Erisman is a frequent commentator.
Stibbe's Blog
Anyway, the NRC article is actually more of an introduction to a further elaboration on the fact that the Dutch judiciary in particular (and in its wake many politicians and the media) follows a very unique course in interpreting nitrogen regulations. Law firm Stibbe recently devoted a very interesting article to this topic. blog This piece is based on a more in-depth legal study and isn't so much about the RKO, but rather about the broader playing field. It does put things into perspective.
European and Hague additionality
Stibbe's article primarily concerns the interpretation of the principle of additionality, as applied by the Council of State in its ruling of December 18 of last year. Citing various rulings by the European Court of Justice, the lawyers demonstrate that Europe does not view the additionality requirement as a generic one, but as one that applies to individual projects/permit applications. From this perspective, a general ban on compensatory measures, emissions trading, and even internal netting should not apply. Companies requiring a permit must each take their own measures and be assessed on them.
This broadly supported interpretation also differs from what LTO Nederland and law firm Houthoff believe, but for applicability in the Netherlands, it still needs to be confirmed in a new ruling. The Council of State is likely to then have to agree with the European Court of Justice.
Sweetman
In general, Stibbe's study is also in line with the Sweetman judgment, which last week has been mentioned, and that also states that companies near nature should not be assessed generically, nor solely on nitrogen emissions. Apparently, the Council of State does not read, or only superficially reads, several rulings of the European Court of Justice. It could also be another example of Dutch idiosyncrasy. When the highest court on the Kneuterdijk was asked last year to further define what it considers significance, it also provided an explanation that no one had heard of before, and which therefore deviated from what is common.
Model illusion exposed
On Friday, at the very last minute, a scientific study was published by Ronald Meester, professor of probability theory and expert in model analysis. Commissioned by State Secretary Rummenie, he shed light on the models used to calculate nitrogen deposition and the sensitivity of nature to nitrogen. The study is therefore subtitled: "A study into the uncertainties in the scientific nitrogen discourse; Aerius/OPS, Critical Deposition Values, Nature Target Analyses, and the recommendations of the Ecological Authority." The main title reveals the outcome: The illusion of a reliable nitrogen model realityIn short: Meester completely dismisses the so-called reality. In his summary, he puts it this way: "All in all, I conclude that with the combination of the uncertainties in the KDWs and the depositions calculated by the Aerius/OPS model, we don't actually know what we're doing. We're blindly following model results, without the ability to verify what we're doing. Many claims are made about nitrogen, but there are virtually no quantitative claims that are actually verifiable. Because of all this, I don't consider working with the KDW/Aerius combination scientific. Statements about empirical findings with far-reaching legal consequences (nitrogen emissions and deposition) should be verifiable, and they aren't."
That the report was released at all is a minor miracle, as there was considerable resistance to publication. However, it has now been "reviewed," as is customary in scientific circles, and the House of Representatives wanted it out. Even though many civil servants felt it would be better off in a drawer.
New interest bloc
Another relatively new development this week was the birth of a new agricultural coalition, comprising eight organizations minus LTO Nederland and its youth movement. While it's surprising that they've come together, it's a healthy sign for the agricultural sector that internal differences are being put aside. A larger, new bloc is preferable to the ongoing fragmentation of recent years. It may still take some time to clarify who will take the lead, and let's hope the coalition doesn't waste too much energy on that.
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.
