Why ammonia is starting to stink more and more

Knowledge and innovation, with which the Netherlands would like to profile itself in the agricultural firmament. A good foundation is vitally important, but it turns out that it is precisely this that is not in order. The research into the basis of the ammonia policy points to the sore spot, but there are more question marks. Take, for example, the phosphate load of surface water. An analysis that explains why ammonia is starting to stink more and more. 

Not for the first time, the basis of the ammonia policy has been questioned. Even when Sharon Dijksma was State Secretary for Economic Affairs (EZ), critical questions were already raised. At that time it was necessary to conduct an international review of the scientific underpinning of the ammonia policy. The conclusion: the knowledge instruments that the Netherlands uses throughout the entire knowledge chain are scientifically well-founded.  

This was the second investigation, as such a review had already taken place in 2013. In the letter to parliament, in which State Secretary Martijn van Dam announced the conclusions of the review, he also stated that between 1993 and 2004 emissions decreased by 50 percent and in the period from 2005 by 35 percent. The fact that the reviews do not benefit the reliability of Dutch policy was apparent from Dijksma's words in response to recently published independent research: 'Ammonia in the Netherlands. Some critical scientific comments.' 

It does not stop with a few critical comments, because the conclusions do not bode well for ammonia policy. For example, the researchers show that there is no demonstrable relationship between policy and ammonia concentrations in the air. Over a period of 20 years, the concentration in the air has not decreased. This in itself is not good news, because it means that unnecessarily expensive measures have been taken in the agricultural sector. Mention the ban on applying above ground, the use of air scrubbers and measures in the stable. 

Incidentally, the researchers only looked at the measuring points in the field. More recent research in stables can show that a certain way of storing manure, manure pit, compost or grids with adjustments, has an effect on the amount of ammonia in the air. Just as it is also established that it is better to separate urine from feces, when an attempt is made to prevent the production of ammonia.    

Then it remains an interesting question why the concentrations of ammonia in air do not change, whether or not measures are taken in stables and on land. The tricky part in this file is that a follow-up question can only be answered when there is a basis. Chemist Jaap Hanenkamp had to conclude that important measurement data from Wageningen University was suddenly no longer available. In other words, the foundation of the policy is gone. 

It still has to be proven that the researchers of the report are right, but a round table discussion will take place in the House of Representatives Committee on Economic Affairs on 22 February. In the meantime, the Netherlands has a policy based on missing data and claims are in doubt. This is because the missing figures were continuously used to draw up and elaborate further policy, including the Programmatic Approach to Nitrogen (PAS).

The question that remains is why with all the new techniques of recent years no new research has been done or at least an attempt to produce the old research again. It is clear that there are only losers, because the agricultural sector has already invested a lot in reducing ammonia emissions. In Noord-Brabant and in more and more other places, it even limits the development space for companies. But it is still not clear where the high concentration of ammonia comes from. Maybe not from manure? In this scenario, a culprit was first identified and an attempt is now made to maintain the evidence that the correct culprit has been identified. Time for a cold case team.

And Wageningen? He says that research is expensive and will cost millions. 'Perhaps a way to meet social questions and uncertainties.' It might have been a little easier via a product board. The flip side is the permits for nature reserves that have been issued on the basis of current information. If the ammonia policy turns out to be smelly, it could also mean that everything will be locked for as long as the investigation lasts.

It underlines how sensitive this file is and how much misery could have been prevented by taking action earlier to uncover the requested information. Green utopias and science don't mix, according to The Post.

It doesn't stop here, because the data on the pollution of phosphate in groundwater also does not support government policy. Ammonia can become the first stone that sets a chain reaction in motion.   

© 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.