The derogation must be reinstated, if necessary only on grassland

Less own manure and more fertilizer. This is what happens when the derogation is abolished. The consequences for dairy farmers are already major. Now that research shows that this measure does not improve water quality, this may also have consequences for support and investments in the entire agricultural transition. The derogation must be returned. 

Measures whose effect cannot be demonstrated, are at odds with the pursuit of circular business operations and cost a lot of money are unbelievable. They affect support for innovations and desired environmental investments in livestock farming.

Clay grassland
A practical example. For dairy farmers on clay, loss of derogation means that they can no longer use 36 kilos of active nitrogen from their own manure. This is even accelerated if they have land in a so-called nutrient-polluted area. For clay grassland, a total nitrogen use standard of 345 kilos per hectare applies. With the original derogation of 250 kilos per hectare, an additional 232 kilos of artificial fertilizer nitrogen can be applied during grazing. Without a derogation, the permitted fertilizer dose increases to 268 kilos per hectare. The higher dose of 36 kilos of fertilizer nitrogen therefore compensates for the loss of use of own manure. According to researcher Herman de Boer of WUR, water quality is not better off with this shift in nitrogen fertilization.

Present
The derogation from the Nitrates Directive has always been sold as a gift from Brussels. In fact, the derogation is a well-substantiated correction for a higher fertilizer dose for Dutch growing conditions. The uptake of nitrogen for crop growth in our fertile delta is not at all comparable to, for example, the arid interior of Spain. Yet the same European nitrate standard from manure of 170 kilos of nitrogen per hectare applies to both areas. The well-substantiated arguments for derogation in our country are: a long growing season, high nitrogen uptake by the crop and agricultural land with a high denitrification capacity. Grass now continues to grow longer and absorb nitrogen.

Manure placement area
he abolition of the derogation has been presented as an environmental measure for better water quality. So it isn't. So what is it? I think it is a political measure for fewer livestock in our country. By accelerating the reduction of the manure placement space, a large amount of surplus manure is created on dairy farms at the same pace. The sale of this manure on a now overcrowded manure market costs (dairy) farmers handfuls of money. The licensing procedures for investments in technical solutions take too long. In short, a financially untenable situation arises, which sends livestock farmers to purchase schemes, cold restructuring or keeping fewer livestock. Lack of time and money, but also the frustration of a practically feasible solution-oriented approach are decisive factors that will undermine the entire agricultural transition.

Time and security
For a credible policy and 'supporting support', the phasing out of the derogation must be reversed as quickly as possible. If necessary, limit the derogation to grassland only. Provide more time and certainty so that livestock farmers can utilize innovations and business solutions. There are great opportunities for manure as a bio-raw material for green gas production and renure as a fertilizer substitute. Livestock farmers must be able to seize these opportunities from politicians. And even with a derogation, livestock and manure production will shrink in the coming years.

Jaap Uenk

Jaap Uenk is the owner of consultancy Mestem and has more than 40 years of experience in various positions in the Dutch fertilizer 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.