The House of Representatives has approved a motion for a levy on the use of nitrogen fertilizer. The motion provoked a lot of angry reactions among farmers. What exactly is the intention of the motion and what are the consequences?
On Tuesday, November 6, a vote was taken on the motions submitted during the discussion of the budget from the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. Then the motion of Laura Bromet (GroenLinks) and William Moorlag (PvdA) was also voted on. They want Carola Schouten to include the levy on the use of nitrogen fertilizer in the elaboration of the vision 'Agriculture, Nature and food: valuable and connected'.
Circular agriculture
Initiator Bromet indicates that the motion is a direct result of Schouten's vision. "In this view, there is no room for fertilizer," says Bromet. She has seen farmers react indignantly. "We are not asking for the impossible, look at the organic farmers. We want to remove obstacles in the legislation when it comes to replacing fertilizers. And I will also talk to farmers about these obstacles." Bromet has already invited a number of farmers to come and talk in The Hague.
Bromet notices that there are 2 types of farmers: conservative farmers who are against everything and the progressive farmers who respond to new situations. "A lot is going to change and you can't stop that, you better be prepared. The agricultural vision is clear about this: farmers belong to the Netherlands, but that should not be at the expense of the living environment."
Too many animals
GroenLinks believes that there are too many animals, but that does not mean that the standards for animal manure cannot be extended. It is necessary to investigate what the consequences are and what crops need. "Agriculture is not the only interest for GroenLinks," says Bromet. "We also consider biodiversity and ammonia emissions to be important, for example." Schouten will have to have it investigated how the reduction of fertilizer use will work out.
Reinier Gerrits of Fertilizers Netherlands is not happy with the party's motion. "Fertilizers are the last option for the farmer. Arable farmers are often paid a lot to spread animal manure and will (insofar as this is useful and allowed within environmental standards) opt for animal manure instead of artificial fertilizer." He believes that a levy will mainly increase costs, but will not make much of a difference.
Precision farming
"For us, sustainable fertilization starts with an optimal use of animal manure as a basic supply of the necessary nutrients. The organic matter of animal manure improves the soil structure and stimulates soil life." In addition to the basic fertilization, additional fertilization of nitrogen in particular remains necessary (depending on the soil condition and the dynamics in nutrient supply, the fertilizer application and the yield level).
Mineral fertilizers can be tailor-made to meet the specific needs of the various nutrients. Fertilizer makes precision fertilization possible. Gerrits is concerned about lower yields as a result of less fertilizer use and its consequences on a global scale. "It will put a heavier burden on agricultural land in South America," he predicts.
After all, crop yields for both animal feed and human food will decrease. Since there is a need for that food, it will have to come from elsewhere. Concentrate in the form of soy usually comes from South America. Gerrits foresees that the measure will certainly not promote a closed cycle.
Highest Goal
For GroenLinks, the highest yield is not the goal. Bromet thinks that if the Netherlands succeeds in developing circular agriculture, other countries will follow: "All agriculture will have to become circular if we want to be able to pass on the earth to the next generation."