The Rutte IV cabinet has unrealistically high expectations of the buy-out scheme with which it hopes to buy out thousands of farmers and which should drastically reduce nitrogen emissions. This is what researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) state in an as yet unpublished study, the conclusions of which are known to NRC.
Voluntary buyout of farmers is an important pillar and the largest cost item of the current nitrogen policy, which must ensure that nitrogen emissions are halved by 2030. The cabinet has reserved more than 7 billion euros for farmers who quit – on a budget of more than 24 billion – and that should lead to “tens” percent less livestock in the Netherlands, according to the PBL.
But that assumption is incorrect. Researchers from the planning office analyzed the buy-out schemes of the past 25 years. Their analysis shows that after a settlement there are often only ‘a few percent’ fewer animals. “The high expectations about cessation of livestock farms do not seem to be based on a systematic understanding of the effects of cessation schemes.”
Complete voluntariness is not enough
The PBL study confirms what the government has known for a long time: it is impossible to solve the nitrogen problem on a completely voluntary basis. In recent months, Johan Remkes has held talks with stakeholders from the agricultural sector about the nitrogen task. He will present his advice next Wednesday on how the cabinet can get out of this. He will probably say something in that advice about buying out the biggest nitrogen emitters. In a study that Remkes did two years ago at the behest of the then cabinet, he wrote that buying ups should be targeted and that “relocation and buy-out do not take place on the basis of general voluntary arrangements”. In other words: revoking permits and expropriating farmland are not taboo.
Read also Provinces: make it easier to expropriate farmers
Buying out under duress is very sensitive in the sector and creates a lot of resistance. The government would prefer to buy out on a voluntary basis as much as possible with the billions available for this – a multiple of previous stop schemes. But, according to the PBL, a lot of money does not automatically mean that more farmers will stop. In previous buy-out schemes, it is mainly older farmers, without a successor, who sign to stop. The question is whether it would be of much use to the cabinet if this group of farmers stops, and whether it is precisely these farmers who ensure high nitrogen emissions close to vulnerable nature areas.
More and more precious
The PBL notes a major difference between the schemes that ran in the past and the current squeeze-out scheme. In previous stop schemes, environmental policy was often also tightened and companies struggled with poor market conditions, such as low milk and meat prices. At the moment, for example, the milk price is very favorable (about sixty euros per hundred liters of milk; double that of the previous year), but it is uncertain what the agricultural policy will look like in the coming years.
Also read: Stopping farmer trades nitrogen space on the free market
In addition, according to the PBL, “it is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to entice the more profitable companies to participate”. In other words: the first euros are spent most effectively, because that is where you buy out the biggest polluters close to vulnerable nature areas. The further away from the nature reserve, the more farmers you have to buy out to have the same effect.
The PBL study opens the door to coercion, but also has some caveats. There is little experience with forced termination of livestock farms. The cabinet threatens to end up in a legal quagmire, in which it endlessly litigates against farmers who do not want to give up their business. Lawsuits for this can take more than ten years, the PBL writes. Moreover, this approach will lead to increasing tension in society between citizens and government.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of October 3, 2022