Nitrogen decrease a two-two WWF and cabinet advisors

This must be roughly the Hague game that has been played to raise the nitrogen reduction target to 50 to 70%. First, nitrogen reductions of roughly 30 to 50% were discussed. In mid-March, the much higher percentage is suddenly thrown into the media. How is that possible?

The extremely high reduction target of 50 to 70% stands in the cabinet advice of ABDTopconsult, the consultancy of the central government† Only calculation model work? New. This time, the percentage was also ecologically substantiated, according to ABDTopconsult. An ecological study had made it clear that such a percentage is necessary to save nature.

When I wanted to see this ecological study, there was a setback. Exactly this study was not available. The national government had decided to broadly communicate the contents of the cabinet advice via the media, everyone had to rely on the ecological foundation.  

omit information
The ecological study was published a month later. Although under a different title than stated in the government advice, but à la. What is not permissible is that ABDTopconsult did not mention that it was a study by the World Wildlife Fund with the support of Natuurmonumenten.

Why does this consultancy of top civil servants mention the origin in all other sources, but not in this study? Why was the government advice not simply stated: 'A study by the World Wildlife Fund has shown that nitrogen emissions must be reduced by 50 to 70% in order to save nature?'

Types of return
If this information has been omitted in the government advice, what more information? The World Wildlife Fund omits a lot of information, according to our audit. The 60-year-old species research in the hay meadows near Wageningen had been thoroughly conducted. This study had provided a wealth of information, such as: species counts and soil samples. Great material.

The conclusion drawn by the World Wildlife Fund report is thought-provoking. The species decline in 60 years is almost entirely attributed to nitrogen. Earlier studies on this area by Wageningen UR (or its predecessors) attributed this decline to desiccation. These reports are completely ignored by the World Wildlife Fund.

Suddenly the disappearance of almost all species is completely attributed to nitrogen (and then also to the calculated nitrogen, but that aside). And yes, extrapolating these figures results in a nitrogen reduction of 50 to 70% required to arithmetically retrieve the disappeared species.    

Complex matter
The loss of biodiversity is a complex matter and has many causes. In the report of the World Wildlife Fund, the cause of species loss is reduced to one: nitrogen. You can expect this from organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and Natuurmonumenten. The fact that the central government consultancy does not mention that it has obtained the mustard from the World Wildlife Fund is, in my view, significant and also unacceptable.

I would therefore strongly advise the new Cabinet to have the advice issued first tested by independent third parties, before adopting anything from it.

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.