Pause button or speed up? What can and cannot be done with a nitrogen policy?

The cabinet is getting itself into a stalemate by debating the nitrogen crisis that has been going on for years without the possibility of a dynamic nitrogen approach. This is what scientists say about NOS. The now emotionally charged year 2030 has been much debated in more than fourteen hours of parliamentary debate this week, but they consider it very central to the debate. The Dutch Environmental Inspection Authority (PBL) also says that years are not that important for solving problems.

As of this week, the CDA has set 2030 as its “unacceptable” goal. Nitrogen targets should be met this year. Other coalition parties seem to want to stick with it. After a week of crisis consultations and an incomprehensible discussion for many, the question arises: What’s next? The coalition has suspended talks for the time being. But what could it mean to leave 2030?

As both PBL and Professors Backes (Constitutional Law, Utrecht University) and De Vries (Environmental Systems Analysis, Wageningen University) say, nature will not notice a year in law in the coming years. In other words, something should be done as soon as possible. De Vries: “For forty years it has been released a lot. It will take a long time to restore nature.”

Now, three years later, the PBL sees that little has changed, except for a few minor measures such as slowing highways and reorganizing pig farms.

Billions of dollars are available, but according to emissions calculations by the PBL and RIVM, the government seems unlikely to meet its 2035 targets, let alone 2030. Sticking to the 2030 target is therefore risky if not accompanied by robust action, as the planning office has warned: “Failure to meet targets can undermine confidence in government”.

Fixed measures instead of deadline orientation: Professor Chris Backes also favors it. He says action should be taken quickly, especially when it comes to endangered nature. This speed is important not only for nature restoration, but also for not objecting to permits.

Environmental organization MOB announced last month that it would move the permits of the so-called top taxpayers, especially farmers, to the provinces. According to the PBL, provinces must be able to demonstrate in court that serious work has been done on justifiable safeguards for each Natura 2000 site. A year to achieve overall goals says little about the course of action in a single area and will not matter much to a judge.

Allowed State Aid

According to the PBL, just meeting general nitrogen targets is not enough to re-obtain building permits. These aim to count square meters below the “critical deposit level”, which is the maximum amount of emissions allowed in a given area. The nitrogen law should be further revised.

For example, nowadays complex calculations are required to obtain a building permit. Low-emission projects can be excluded from this process if nitrogen emissions per area decrease and nature noticeably improves. For each area, how high the threshold is should be well justified.

Nitrogen has been discussed in the Netherlands for years. Not only in politics, but in farmers, factories, etc. But what are they actually talking about? What is nitrogen and why has it been seen as a problem by many in recent years?

Scientists Backes and De Vries also believe that focusing on every square meter is not the solution in our country. Many other projects could be shut down if you take steps to buy truly premium trucks and reduce other emissions.

To reduce emissions, the Remkes Committee has repeatedly called for the purchase of best-in-class trucks. The methods for this are up to the European Commission, which should check if there is a case for state aid. The Netherlands will have to wait.

good income model

But dealing with it is the only solution, according to De Vries. “No matter what year you pass the law in, it needs to be done right now.” He advocates clarifying whether they are near or far by giving farmers emission targets per hectare or per animal.

If the goal is too far, investing in low-emission barns or fewer animals can come into play. According to De Vries, this requires a good revenue model. “Only then things really get moving and you can go a long way in eight to ten years.”

Chris Backes says mandatory purchases are important if enough farmers don’t give up voluntarily. If purchasing is off the table, the Netherlands, nature and economy will “really be 0:2 behind”.

“2030 sets the direction in law”

Don’t get too focused on the 2030 discussions, scientists advise. But the year in law can of course “set direction” or be a stick behind the door.

Meanwhile, Minister Van der Wal (Nitrogen) seems to be running away from 2030 more and more. Asked on Thursday if he still understood what the coalition parties wanted, he said he would now go to work “day-to-day”. He referred to the “adjustment moments” that Remkes had already proposed in the years 2025 and 2028.

Source: NOS

follow:
\