Why don't we throw Aerius overboard?  

Environmental organization MOB is sweeping up the nature permits, including in court on 11 March. The permit issuer could not prove that the emission factor of a low-emission stable floor corresponds on paper to how it works in practice. These factors are determined with 3 digits (!) after the decimal point and are important in the calculations of the nitrogen model Aerius. The government normally omits uncertainty margins.

The Dutch governments make precision calculations with models, up to 2 or 3 decimal places. The effects of a fraction of a gram of nitrogen are meticulously made clear, on paper that is. The models take little account of reality, so uncertainty margins are not mentioned either.

Environmental organizations do point to these uncertainties and demand a lot of attention from judges. Judges also find those margins of uncertainty relevant. Because if something is uncertain, it is not a hard guarantee. The nature policy does require that hard guarantee. So the nature permit does not pass.

Aerius not fit for purpose
The Hordijk Committee, an expert panel set up by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, reported in June 2020 that the uncertainties in the Aerius calculations are very large. Not just big, but very big. The Commission spoke of 'false certainty' and 'unfit for purpose'. You can therefore conclude that every Aerius calculation does not give a hard guarantee because of the very large uncertainty. How a judge assesses such a calculation can be guessed.

Will things get better with the new nitrogen law? No, rather worse. The new nitrogen law relies even more heavily on Aerius than was previously the case with the PAS. The new nitrogen law has included environmental values ​​that require result. Yes, they are calculated with Aerius.

Gate to more lawsuits open
But how can you give firm guarantees for the nitrogen effects on the environment with a model full of assumptions and very large uncertainties? Judges demand hard guarantees, or model outcomes that reflect absolute reality. Something that is impossible with Aerius anyway. The gate to more lawsuits will be opened further with the new nitrogen law.

Is it a European regulation to implement the Habitats Directive in this way? No, this is a Dutch choice. Why is the Dutch government holding on to Aerius at all costs? Wouldn't we be better off throwing those very large uncertainties (read: Aerius) in the trash? At the time, the government opted for a deposition policy. This policy choice has led to nitrogen models with very high uncertainties and complexity, which regularly fail to withstand the scrutiny of criticism in legal evaluations. As a result, the Netherlands is gradually being further locked up.

Looking at other options
Why does the Netherlands not dare to look at other options, such as emissions policy? Emissions policy is less complex and emission models have fewer uncertainties. A switch does, however, require a redesign of the nitrogen policy. You can't do that overnight, but you have to start somewhere.

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.