With the departure of Tjeerd de Groot from the House of Representatives, the D66 sound on agriculture has changed considerably. Not that the intentions have changed much, but it certainly sounds much more reasonable and less fundamentalist.
During the General Political Considerations, faction leader Rob Jetten actually had complimentary words about Minister Wiersma. He also believed that the representatives in the agricultural committee of the House of Representatives agree on important points when it comes to livestock farming. According to him, the need among farmers is so great that all representatives realize that a helping hand must be extended. But then again, Jetten would prefer to get them out of business as quickly as possible, which is not necessarily what all members of parliament want.
New sound, old picture
The opposition, and therefore also Jetten, still clings to the picture that the previous coalition had drawn up in collaboration with the duo Timmermans and Samsom. The new cabinet is actually trying to distance itself from that, as is evident from last week's manure letter and from the government plans. However, it takes a lot of effort to break through the closed package of the previous coalitions, also in the provinces. This is partly because the executive staff (the civil servants) do not simply follow the new line of thinking. Moreover, where exactly is the steering?
Centrally decentralized at IPO
Minister Wiersma recently announced that she wants to get rid of the NPLG (program for rural areas) and wants to manage herself, but for that she also has to regain control over the money flows that have been flowing almost automatically to the joint provinces since 2012 (when Henk Bleker supposedly decentralized this policy). Next year more than €600 million. And policy and spending are not centralized, because the IPO and BIJ12 decide on them, out of sight of the provincial governments.
Data interpretation needed
Wiersma's greatest ambition for livestock farming is to regain the derogation, so that manure regulations are also less restrictive. She proposes a whole package of measures, as can be read in the manure letter mentioned. Perhaps it would be a good idea to first get the figures in order. Because what are the correct data used for the discussion in The Hague and Brussels? What is used on the land? Normally, the (standardised) data supplied by Wageningen UR are used for this, based on the CBS data and corrected with the help of the National Emission Model (NEMA), among other things, or other data are used.
Wageningen versus Wageningen (and CBS)
WUR itself does not help to limit the confusion. For example, anyone who looks at Agrimatie data looks, just draws different conclusions. This shows a much lower nitrogen and manure use than the official data. Not all farmers throw maximum manure and artificial fertilizer on the land. Time for an analysis with the notary present, you would say.
Water board makes standard unachievable
You can have the same kind of questions about all the reports about water quality. Every now and then there is news about exceedances of standards or other problems. Recently, the NOS had again a 'scoop' about these kinds of problems, with the ominous message that things are really not going well. The reality turns out to be more complicated. At least one major water quality manager, people have not done their job properly, as further research shows, which resulted in an unachievably high phosphorus standard. Subsequently, an overzealous Water Information House ran away with apparent results.
Negative conditioning
This 'scandal' also results from a kind of negative conditioning of many media for everything that has to do with agriculture. It is more annoying when Dutch residents do not know which water quality data is sent to Brussels, for example for the Nitrate Directive. Some more unambiguous data would make life a lot clearer.
Legal ceiling and residual statement
The first effects of Wiersma's plans on livestock farming and the manure market could already be visible, although some matters still need to be decided. It is certain that there will be more manure placement space. Within the regulations, however, and Wiersma is also setting a legal production ceiling. The calculation for this estimates that with the LBV purchase schemes, around 8 million kilos of phosphate and 22 million kilos of nitrogen will be taken off the market this year. This means that the legal ceiling for 2025 will already be largely reached. However, there is still a tough remaining task for phosphate of around 5 million kilos. All companies are also required to have an electronic manure register with RVO.
Her other adjustments (smaller buffer zones, gaseous losses) on the other hand quickly provide tens of millions of kilos more placement space on an annual basis. The manure market is however slow to respond to this. The phosphate market is also not moving much, but okay, the livestock farming organisations still have a bone to pick with the minister about animal rights and production rights. The pig and poultry farming sectors in particular feel duped, with 25% or 30% skimming instead of the 10% they had initially expected.
Skimming according to Van der Plas or Jetten?
BBB chairwoman Caroline van der Plas wants to stand up for them, otherwise it will be a matter for the judge. Rob Jetten also wants to be farmer-friendly, but he would almost certainly increase the skimming even further, as is the case for his fellow opponents on the left in the House of Representatives.