Nature is certainly not dying

How are you? A very normal question that you can probably answer yourself. How is Aunt Siep's neighbor doing? Then the answer becomes a little more difficult…. How is nature? That question is completely difficult to answer, but we (almost) all shout in unison: not good, about to die. 

You hardly dare to write it down, but I can tell you that nature is doing exceptionally well. And not because I like this. No, this has been reported to the EU by the Ministry of LNV through a sound European system called Standard Data Form (SDF). It is described as follows on the site of Wageningen UR: 

"For the Natura 2000 areas in our country, a database of present species and habitat types, and the contribution of Natura 2000 areas to the conservation of these species and habitat types, must be submitted in Brussels. This is done by means of so-called Standard Data Forms (SDFs) per area. These SDFs need to be updated on a regular basis, as they are consulted when, for example, there are questions about legal aspects of the Habitats Directive.” 

Nitrogen deposition a disaster
We are talking about nitrogen deposition and this is according to the Aanpakstistof.nl, which the ministry has launched, a 'disaster for biodiversity'. †Some plants benefit from this. Rarer species, such as heather, are having a hard time. As a result, some nature reserves can completely change. Because with the rare plants, animals that live on them also disappear. We say that biodiversity (the number of different species of plants and animals) is decreasing.” 

Everything, absolutely everything, is caused by nitrogen deposition. Even the decline of meadow birds is attributed to nitrogen deposition. If you don't mention this in your report these days, then something is wrong with you. But what if the report figures (SDF) of nature are good, so the many nitrogen-sensitive habitat types get a 10? Is it then still permissible to attribute the decline of species (meadow birds, for example) to nitrogen deposition? 

Better Techniques
A small explanation of the European system SDF is in order to understand this well. EU directives oblige each country to implement this system according to carefully defined standards. It has even been refined over the years by, among other things, better techniques. As a result, each country fills in this form in the same way and periodically. 

When designating the areas, a T-zero measurement was made, an inventory of the habitat types that existed at that time. For example, in areas of the so-called qualitative habitat types, ie important habitat types that must be protected. In addition to these habitat types, the Netherlands wants to protect even more, but that is an aside. It now concerns the damage that nitrogen deposition would cause in nature. 

Numbered habitats
The Habitat types are all numbered on, for example, H6410 (=Blue Grasslands) or H91D0 (=Alluvial Forests). These are judged on: 

• Representativeness: How well is the habitat type developed in the area? Class A=excellent, B=moderate or C=poor.
• Relative surface: Share of the area of ​​that habitat type in the area in relation to the rural area of ​​that habitat type. Class A, B or C.
• Retention status: How likely is it that the habitat type will persist, improve or deteriorate? In other words, what is the effect of autonomous development (eg nitrogen deposition) and what is the chance of recovery measures? Class A, B or C.

Then a final assessment is made of this division into classes. For example, ACA then becomes B. ACB can become C, in connection with the heavy counting of the C for 'small relative surface area'. 

Now you would expect that some Natura2000 areas are in poor shape because of their location, size, environment or presence of many nitrogen-sensitive habitat types. Therefore, some examples of areas for which LNV has completed the SDF assessment. 

Brabant and the Biesbosch 
The most discussed province at the moment is Brabant, because of carnival, but also because of nitrogen deposition. It is the province with the greatest density of livestock and a much-discussed stove is also produced there: the Amer power station of RWE. A lot of shipping also comes right through the province via the Hollands Diep. 

A well-known large nature reserve there is the Biesbosch with an area of ​​9.640 hectares, with nitrogen-sensitive habitat types. So this can never go well, the Biesbosch is critically ill or dying. But nothing could be further from the truth, because the Biesbosch has SDF final report figures from I got you there: A,A,B,A,A,A. 'Cum Laude'. It won't get any better! 

The largest, the Veluwe 
What about the Veluwe, the largest area in the Netherlands with an area of ​​88.378 hectares? There must be bad nature in here. Ecologist Jansen from WUR about the Veluwe: Vulnerable Veluwe is in bad shape: 'It's like mopping with the tap open' . And in The Stentor: 'Old oak forest in the Veluwe threatens to disappear due to nitrogen'.

Here are the SDF report figures for the Veluwe: in 2004 there were 2 habitat types in class A (excellent). In 2019 there were no fewer than 11 habitat types in class A. That is more than 5 times as good as in 2004! The figures (final assessments 2019) in a row: A,A,A,B,A,A,A,A,A,A,C,B,C,B,B,A,A,C,B. But….. I hear the nature friends shout in unison, there are also 3 times C in between, so: bad.

The 3 Cs
That's right, but let's take a closer look so why there are still 3 C's in the report. These are the 3 Cs. H6410 with a total area of ​​0,0 hectares. Yes, nil, nil, nothing. So it's a bit logical that this isn't going so well? H91D0 with a total area of ​​0,6 hectares. Also logical? Yes, because this type belongs in the wet Biesbosch and not in the Veluwe. H7140 with a total area of ​​1,9 hectares still a little area.

But…… were these 3 habitat types also present in 2004 when the Natura 2000 areas were designated? No. And can they be included in the report? No. 

Highest ammonia concentration
Bennekom has the highest ammonia concentration in the Netherlands (12,7 in the period 2005 to 2018). Not too surprising, because there is still a stall with cattle here. Theoretically, this is also the highest deposition in the Netherlands and nitrogen-sensitive habitat types have no chance of success. 

Binnenveld is a relatively small Natura2000 area, so here's an overview of the facts. There is 1 habitat type H6410 (Blue Grasslands) here that was the reason for designating this area. And you will not believe it, but this very nitrogen sensitive type is classified in class A (excellent) and the varieties in this area are also doing well.

This comes according to experts through exceptionally good management, but the ammonia concentration is unchanged high (12,7). Bennekom is also located next to the Veluwe. There are arguably other factors of deterioration of certain nature. Very natural causes often. Continuing to 'tambour' solely on nitrogen deposition is also the most harmful for nature. 

René de Jong, dairy farmer in Hoornsterzwaag (Frl.) 

Boerenbusiness

below Boerenbusiness opinions are posted from authors who, in principle, give their opinion once Boerenbusiness.nl or from people who prefer to remain anonymous. Name and place of residence are always known to the editors.

© 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.