Where is the substantiation of the nature map for nitrogen?

The cabinet's current nitrogen policy is in fact based on the nature map in the Aerius calculation model. Where nitrogen-sensitive nature is marked on that map, the environment is restricted in terms of nitrogen emissions. But how logically is that map put together? Time to put it to the test.

Agriculture Minister Carola Schouten attaches great importance to a nitrogen policy at hectare level, in other words via a hexagon (diamond). However, the Aerius calculation model is not suitable for this. If the cabinet wants to make nitrogen policy at hectare level, this also requires a nature map at hexagon level. That nature map must then be correct for every hectare.

Some provincial administrators are now angry with me, because I announced that they have added nitrogen-sensitive nature. Almost against companies. They defend themselves by stating that nature has only been added within the boundaries of Natura 2000 areas. They do not say that nature has been added to the edge of areas.

And that the Netherlands has so many nature reserves that half of the farmers are on the edge of a Natura 2000 area. Minister Schouten stood up for the provinces: the provinces have registered the nature that is actually present. But is that really so?

I'm in the floodplain go and see, van IJssel, Nederrijn and Waal. A great deal of nitrogen-sensitive meadow bird grassland has been added here. But in some areas you just don't expect those meadow birds, such as under the trees and directly behind a high embankment. I am therefore very curious on the basis of which factual information this nature has been drawn up.

On the edge of the Veluwe there are areas where every meter has been mapped as 'nitrogen-sensitive nature'. The 'nitrogen-sensitive hexagons' extend relatively far into residential areas and take entire campsites and recreational forests with them. I would like to know on the basis of what factual information those areas have been drawn. 

On the Sallandse Heuvelrug A highly nitrogen-sensitive forest was drawn, always consisting of a few trees, on the edge between nature and the countryside. The 'forests' were recently removed from the nitrogen calculations. During field visits, it had become apparent that these had no ecological value in practice, according to the province. I would like to see the substantiation on the basis of which these were registered and the field test on the basis of which they were recently 'written out' again. Surely this has been substantiated and documented? 

For months I have been asking for insight into the substantiation of the nature mapping. On the basis of which facts is a plot (small) registered as nitrogen-sensitive nature? For nitrogen policy, it is all-important which nature type is drawn in which hexagon. You can expect a sound and publicly available substantiation for this.

I had already come across that the procedure for signing up had not been laid down in writing. But it is not the case that the substantiation of much nature mapping at hexagon level has not been laid down, is it? And that the (often minuscule) areas are only put on the map 'with the loose wrist'? 

Ghost Rotgers

Investigative journalist in the agricultural sector

© 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.