Has Johan Remkes succeeded in forcing a breakthrough in the overheated nitrogen talks between the government and farmers? The expectations of the ‘findings’ that ‘independent discussion leader’ Remkes will present this Wednesday are high.
Remkes himself had no illusions when, in August, he started a tour of agricultural and nature organisations, companies and governments. He hoped to “build some mutual trust” for further consultations on how to tackle nitrogen.
But certainly after the resignation of agriculture minister Henk Staghouwer, the image of Remkes arose as a kind of ‘shadow minister’ who had to avert the nitrogen crisis. Staghouwer’s successor Piet Adema (ChristenUnie) and nitrogen minister Christianne van der Wal (VVD) will receive Remkes’ report.
The talks of Remkes were mainly not intended to put the government’s nitrogen targets ‘up for discussion’, Staghouwer and Van der Wal stated beforehand. Nevertheless, Remkes will have looked with all parties at room for joint solutions in the approach to nitrogen. Which options are there and which are not?
More time for halving nitrogen
According to the coalition agreement, nitrogen emissions must be halved by 2030 compared to 2019. The Rutte IV cabinet brought the deadline forward five years, the law states 2035. The agricultural sector finds this target unrealistic: you cannot reach the countryside in a few turn the year around. Slowing down is not an option for environmental clubs: the longer you wait, the greater the damage to nature. In addition, the Netherlands must also comply with European nitrogen, water and climate regulations. By 2027, the Netherlands must already have the water quality of rivers, lakes, lakes and canals in order.
Remkes seems to want to divide the timeline into three blocks, say those involved, with or without an interim evaluation. The first two years are the ‘urgent phase’, says environmental professor Jan Willem Erisman: during that period a group of large emitters (‘peak loaders’) must stop. After that, until 2030, the focus will be on the provinces and how they will reduce emissions. After 2030, Erisman says, it will only be ‘agricultural restructuring’ next.
The question remains what Remkes will write about the 2030 nitrogen target. Should this be abandoned, and should the deadline be turned back to 2035 in the law? For Wopke Hoekstra of the ruling party CDA, 2030 is “not sacred”, he already said.
Tackle big emitters first
The government can save time by buying out large emitters first. So the peak loaders, often larger farms that place a heavy burden on natural areas. Some large factories are also peak-loaders, but the cabinet will not come up with a nitrogen approach for industry and transport until later.
Proponents of the accelerated buy-out of farmers who emit a lot say that the solution lies in Brussels. The government should request permission once to generously buy out a group of large emitters – against European state aid rules. Mediator Johan Remkes has also looked for a legal solution, together with consultancy firm Berenschot, says environmental professor Erisman, who was also consulted.
Practice should show how quickly such peak loaders are willing to voluntarily be bought out. The first tranche of a national, voluntary buy-out scheme yielded little: only twenty farmers signed, the NOS recently inventoried.
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) concluded this week that the central government has been mistaking the effect of buyouts for years. Johan Vollenbroek, founder of environmental club MOB that initiates many nitrogen procedures, also thinks that not many farmers will voluntarily stop. “You will also have to revoke nature permits from companies.”
Tinkering with technology
Is the measuring method that calculates how much nitrogen per year may fall on a nature reserve reliable? Farmers don’t think so. According to the farmers, the ‘critical deposition value’ (kdw), as this measuring instrument is called, is too black and white: everything above the kdw is good, everything below is bad. With technical innovation, such as smart stables that separate manure, nitrogen could easily be reduced.
The kdw is an important pillar in licensing for the expansion of farms. Remkes already indicated in September that the kdw is not ideal, and that alternative methods are being looked at. The cabinet also made a similar promise, but did not commit to it at any time.
The question is whether a different measuring instrument will be much more favorable for farmers. An alternative that the Ministry of Agriculture has been working on for the past four years is no less strict, ecologist Wieger Wamelink said in early September. NRC. Remkes emphasized earlier that a replacement system must be ‘legally tenable’ with a view to granting permits.
Hank Bartelink of the LandschappenNL partnership thinks the call for a different measurement method is nonsense at all: “When you’re standing at a red traffic light, you can’t say: it’s orange for me, I just keep driving. The kdw is a good, scientifically substantiated instrument, which we should cherish.”
Opinions in the countryside are more heterogeneous than it seems: ‘We farmers have to start moving’
Giving farmers a future
Give farmers ‘perspective’ for the future, everyone shouts. Although that word is a bit contaminated, since the resigned minister Staghouwer did not really succeed in making that ‘perspective’ concrete in a 49-page letter to Parliament. His successor Adema wants to help the farmers who do not stop in the transition to more sustainable and animal-friendly agriculture. Farmers in nature reserves will have to work (more extensively) with less livestock, for example in combination with agritourism, regional products or care, Staghouwer already suggested. The government can also support farmers in relocating their company, in order to spread nitrogen emissions better. Some of the farmers could start growing sustainable building materials, such as hemp, algae, flax, fungi, wood and straw, suggested CDA minister Hugo de Jonge (Spatial Planning).
In order to have a real ‘perspective’, farmers must be able to count on stable and profitable business operations. This is only possible if the entire agricultural and food chain cooperates in the transition to sustainable and animal-friendly agriculture: from banks and the transport sector, to supermarkets and the consumer. Obviously, this is not in a time of inflation and a decline in purchasing power, because agricultural products will often become more expensive.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of October 5, 2022