Court of Auditors calculates
Why manure fraud is a Dutch problem
The Netherlands. The land of cheese, tulips, clogs and manure fraud. About 40 percent of agricultural entrepreneurs commit fraud in manure. This is reported by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) in its evaluation of the Fertilizers Act. The question now is whether it is correct and what the backgrounds are. The Green Court of Audit on the typically Dutch phenomenon: manure fraud.
'Manure fraud? Will the real fraud please stand up?' Henny Verhoeven, an environmental scientist, took a close look at the manure policy. 'Precisely in the field of agriculture, a critical look at the figures presented as facts is urgently needed! Take, for example, the phosphate problem. Actually, there is no phosphate problem, but explain that to the average citizen. Government policy is so contrived and so far from practice. It is hard to imagine that an intelligent country such as the Netherlands pursues such a bad policy.'
Why 160.000 cows gone?
As a result of all recent developments, 160.000 cows have to leave. Verhoeven indicates that it is logical that citizens think that an "unbelievable amount of phosphate" will end up on the land. This is not correct, because the Netherlands works with application standards and balanced fertilization. Why then do 160.000 cows still have to leave?
'The phosphate problem is a paper problem: as a big stick with it, it was agreed during the derogation negotiation in 2002 that a phosphate ceiling would be applied.' In this case, the derogation provides for a broader application standard for manure. 'It is lower in the south than in the north of the country, because sand and loess are very permeable and therefore lead to leaching of the nitrate more quickly.' Ultimately it comes down to the quality of the groundwater. Even with sand and loess, the phosphate only ends up in the groundwater after, say, 30 years. 'In the Netherlands, on average, just as much phosphate ends up on the ground as is removed.' Which also means that there are places with shortages.
Verhoeven argues that the Netherlands has made a number of major mistakes with this ceiling. This concerns a production ceiling, which means that all the phosphate from animal manure is added together. Export and incineration of manure have no influence on this. Which in turn means that the contraction, which the Netherlands is aiming for in 2017, has no effect on groundwater. 'Are we meaningful then? New.' There is only less left to export or burn. 'It is not Brussels that asks us to cull cows, that is the Dutch solution.'
Derogation companies meet the standard
An important point is the reason for the culling of the cows and the introduction of phosphate rights, namely to maintain the derogation for the usage standards. 'But it is precisely the derogation companies that meet the standard for nitrate in groundwater.' Verhoeven even indicates that the ministry knows that the problems are not with the derogation companies. "We know, but we don't do anything with it."
This has resulted in the situation in which the party that does well pays for the polluter. 'It gets even crazier when you consider that companies that do not participate in the derogation have to hand in cows. No wonder the farmers are falling over each other. Playing farmers off against each other is something the ministry is extremely good at.'
What about the fraud?
Against this background, there are the PBL rulings on fraud. "Every tick you put wrong is fraud." Verhoeven indicates that farmers are the victims of a system that is far too complicated. 'It doesn't matter that sometimes you really don't know what to fill in your situation. If you have a difference of opinion at RVO, it often takes years.' Nevertheless, each year, before 15 May, a declaration of soil, manure and crops must be submitted. Not submitting a statement means a fine, but what do you enter when matters have not yet been resolved? Not filling in the truth is fraud, but then what is the truth?
Another problem is that the PBL calculates how much a pig or cow defecates. Even if the animal poops less, the farmer is a fraud. For example, it is checked how much a cow has to defecate and what is given up on 15 May. 'What the cow poops depends on quite a few factors, in particular the feed she gets. According to PBL, the water quality will automatically improve if the fraud has been solved and that is why the application standard, the amount of manure that may be used on various types of soil, will be tightened up. As a result, the manure problem continues to increase and the soil quality deteriorates.'
'If deliberately creating a wrong image falls under fraud, then we still have a lot of fraudsters to deal with.' It also indicates why this is really a Dutch problem.
Herman van den Pol
© 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.