'The question is whether the phosphate law is enforceable'

For years he was responsible for the CDA's agricultural portfolio in the House of Representatives. He was committee chairman and then Atsma became State Secretary of the Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment. He has been a senator in the Senate since June 2015. Joop Atsma looks back on the outcome of the debate, which took place on Tuesday afternoon and evening, about the Soil-Based Growth Act and the amendment to the Fertilizer Act.

What is the substantive difference between Tuesday's debate and the debate to be held in the House of Representatives on Thursday?
'That's quite difficult. It was also questionable whether the debate could continue. This was due to the ruling of the preliminary relief judge last week about phosphate reduction. We talked about it beforehand, but still decided that it could be treated. There are many similarities with the House of Representatives debate, but there is also a clear cut to be made. The State Secretary thought so too. Next Thursday it will be about other topics, for example about the adjustment of the young livestock number. In the Senate, the main question is whether it is feasible, whether it serves a general interest, and in the Senate the legality is discussed. We as the Senate can still assess that. Ultimately, it is about achieving the derogation and the future of the sector.'

The introduction of phosphate rights means that the wealthy can grow the most. Is that desirable? 
'That was no different with the trade in milk quota. It is a good thing that we cannot predict price developments. The State Secretary has clearly explained why phosphate rights trading is being chosen. This is to ensure that individual companies can determine their own course of action and are not dependent on the government. Together with the VVD, I have tried to redistribute the skimming of phosphate rights, of 10 percent when transferred, generically among all livestock farmers. However, the State Secretary does not want that. He opts for non-statutory goals (such as grazing, nature-inclusive agriculture and organic farmers) when spending the phosphate bank, which is created by skimming off.'

Have we now received a phosphate quota instead of a milk quota?
'When the milk quota was abolished, the government already warned that phosphate duties would be introduced if unbridled growth took place. I think it is right that Van Dam pointed this out in his argument. I also did that myself at the opening of the Ids Postma stable in Friesland. Be careful that all those stables are not used as caravan parks, I said then. On the other hand, the sector itself has also come up with an excellent solution.'

The latest figures on phosphate production provide optimism. Did you know that there is a buffer of 25 percent?
'No, I heard that for the first time here tonight. I haven't read it in the papers. There is apparently a quarter between the task that Brussels asks of us and what the sector has committed itself to.'

In 10 days, things go from a disorderly situation due to the judge's ruling to renewed optimism. Are you relieved?
'Ultimately it is about the result, namely the maintenance of the derogation. If the result is what Van Dam outlined on Tuesday evening, we are very close. That does provide some reassurance. With this you can also go to Brussels to start negotiations for the sixth nitrate directive action program. But there are still plenty of questions that haven't been answered yet.'

One of the questions is how the appeal case will end?
'Yes, but Van Dam's explanation was clear. As for the emergency committee, which must assess the consequences of the introduction of phosphate rights, he said that the committee's advice is important, that customization is possible and that an appeal can be lodged. With regard to the phosphate reduction bottlenecks, he has made it clear that he can use his discretionary power, although he will be sparing with it. Clarity will be provided as soon as possible about the introduction of feed-manure contracts.'