In the Netherlands there is no threshold value for nitrogen deposition for permitting purposes. So that even the most minor sources of nitrogen (like dance festivals, militairy training grounds, and house building) are regulated. This leads to ridiculous ecological bureaucracy where you have to show that traffic from your dance festival does not produce deposition on Natura 2000 areas. Festivals have been banned because of this (I speak from experience).
In Germany there's a much higher threshold value for permitting purposes, which has been ruled legal by their highest administrative court. The Bundesverfassingsgerecht says it's not a matter of 'interpretation of EU law' (in which case you would have to ask the ECJ if your interpretation is correct), but of 'application of EU law' (in which case you don't). Whether they are right is the question (they might not be), but there's now no way they are ever going to to change their threshold value.
So you now have two neighbouring countries who interpret the same EU law in a completely different way (with far reaching consequences). Great!
A problem with the nitrogen regime is that it regulates the consequences (in the Netherlands: deposition of nitrogen on Natura 2000 areas that exceeds the critical load), not the sources (farmers, industry, road traffic).
To draw an analogy: it would be like a system where we regulate greenhouse gas emissions by saying, we have a dyke, and you have to show that your activities don't lead to higher dykes. It's not the way to do it.
To be fair: nitrogen has more local consequences. But in the Netherlands you still have about 1/3 of all deposition which is from foreign sources. It's been shown that even if you were to delete all meat and dairy production in the Netherlands, you would still end up with Natura 2000 areas which exceed the critical load, because of foreign nitrogen. And when you draw a circle of 25 km (the threshold for permitting purposes) of all Natura 2000 areas that exceed critical load just from foreign sources it basically covers the entire Netherlands.
It would be preferable to split ammonia emissions (from agriculture) from nitrogen oxide emissions (from construction, industry, transport). The second are going to fall anyway if you stop burning fossil fuels and electrify. For ammonia it would be good to have some type of emission trading. But this is complicated because of more local consequences of ammonia emissions (there's exponential decay in nitrogen depositions, so that sources close to areas are responsible for more deposition).
Extremely interesting, thank you. Is my understanding correct that while the permitting threshold differs between member states, the critical load value is the same bloc-wide? Also, do you have any theory for why no political party is correctly able to articulate a viable path to changing the regulatory constraint rather than simply labouring under it (the left) or ignoring it (the right)?
Critical loads differ depending on habitat type. But about every ecosystem in Europe is exceeding the critical load for nitrogen. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/eutrophication-caused-by-atmospheric-nitrogen Which is interesting, because as far as I know only the Dutch courts have interpreted habitat directive in an extremely restrictive way so that no permits can be given anymore. This might also be because NGO's haven't tried to go to court over this in other countries. The habitat directive does prohibit any form of deterioration of natural habitats, so that it's not a completely crazy interpretation of EU law.
From what I've heard: the jurists at the ministry of agriculture feel that the courts have disallowed any sort of emission-based system. And you will never get permits unless you reduce deposition to below the critical load. And we just have to press foreign governments to reduce their emissions as well.
I think this debate is extremely polarized, and not many people in media or politics are able to look at this in a rational way. So the left isn't really thinking about how crazy this regulatory regime is, they mainly want to put the blame on the government that just doesn't want to reduce emissions from agriculture (which, to be fair, is probably true). And the right is divided. But the farmer's party (BBB), who is in charge of agriculture policy, really doesn't want to force farmers to quit or reduce the amount of animals (which to some extent is probably needed if you really want to reduce ammonia emissions). So they are trying to convince Europe to change the Habitat directive.
Also interesting: you might want to buy out some farmers close to Natura 2000 areas, because they are responsible for a lot of deposition. But State Aid prohibits paying them more than 120% of market value. Even tough the damage to economic activity is probably way larger.
Crazy! And an excellent post. I take two issues. First, with time: we should be more careful with policymaking that constrains future generations' policy options. One generation imposing their will on voters ten-twenty years down the line is not exactly democratic. Second, with place: you note correctly that the Netherlands are constrained by the EU's yesteryear decisions. To the extent that the Dutch PM didn't veto those rules in the European council, Dutch voters have themselves to blame (for voting in the PM). To the extent that other countries' supermajorities imposed the regulation on the Netherlands, Dutch voters have noone to blame. They can only resent the other countries (and exceedingly the courts) for imposing their policy preferences on them. That's not a good recipe for European friendship or trust in institutions. Now, there have been hopes that the European parliament, the Spitzenkandidatmodel and what not could overcome the perceived lack of legitimacy. But to date this hasn't quite worked. Few could list the names of European parliamentarians, whereas national MPs are household names. If you draw these two issues to its logical conclusion, two principles of institutional design might receive a rethink: First, we may have gone too far in relaxing unanimity (as it existed before the Lisbon treaty) in the European Council. (Considering that the European Council enjoys greater legitimacy as its members contest fierce elections and are therefore well-known to the voting public.) Second, as you note, many measures that pass are not well-crafted; others unduly constrain future generations. So how about drafting legislation that comes with an expiry date?
Rules for nitrogen deposit in the soil of so called nitrogen sensitive nature areas are in the Netherlands 0,07 mol per hectare and in Germany that's 300 mol per hectare. The nitrogen deposit in het Netherlands it the same as in Northern Germany, whilst Germany doesn't have a "nitrogencrisis". Change te law into something like the German version of it and the problem is over.
This is a made up problem by radical mediocre ideologues who don't know the difference between an atom and a molecule.
Superb post. It is crucial to change this mentality that hinders progress in so many areas in Europe. The example of the Netherlands is great, we didn't know it in Spain, but the fact that they have been stuck for so many years, accepting any trade-off except for changing the norm itself iis symptomatic of the general situation in Europe (and makes it easier to understand the latest Dutch political developments). Let's see if things start to change if Merz achieved sufficient plurality.
Btw, it does not have any importance, but are we really sure the Netherlands is the second-largest exporter of agricultural products in the world by value? Aren't these figures distorted by the port of Rotterdam? Net exports would be a better metric.
"The Dutch economy is estimated to have earned 50.4 billion euros [profit!] from the export of agricultural goods in 2023 (4 percent higher than in 2022). Of that total, 45.7 billion euros was from agricultural goods produced in the Netherlands and 4.7 billion euros came from the re-export of agricultural goods produced elsewhere" (from the Dutch bureau of statistics). If I recall correctly, it's mostly due to flowers and high value greenhouse crops like chili peppers.
Thanks for these interesting insights, the situation seems quite similar to the nitrogen pollution in the Po river valley where intensive farming creates lasting air pollution. More housing and less intensive farming would be a welcome turn.
Like most of the advanced world we have to think of new solutions for new problems. There are too many 'low-rise' buildings in our cities. For example we could have high rise buildings on top of a data center. These data centers are needed for AI processing on a vast scale. Current designs have very flat single story structures. That design can be improved by adding multi-story domestic residences built on top. In winter the residents would benefit from waste heat. In summer hot waste air would be directed through chimneys and discharged above the homes.
Some more context:
In the Netherlands there is no threshold value for nitrogen deposition for permitting purposes. So that even the most minor sources of nitrogen (like dance festivals, militairy training grounds, and house building) are regulated. This leads to ridiculous ecological bureaucracy where you have to show that traffic from your dance festival does not produce deposition on Natura 2000 areas. Festivals have been banned because of this (I speak from experience).
In Germany there's a much higher threshold value for permitting purposes, which has been ruled legal by their highest administrative court. The Bundesverfassingsgerecht says it's not a matter of 'interpretation of EU law' (in which case you would have to ask the ECJ if your interpretation is correct), but of 'application of EU law' (in which case you don't). Whether they are right is the question (they might not be), but there's now no way they are ever going to to change their threshold value.
So you now have two neighbouring countries who interpret the same EU law in a completely different way (with far reaching consequences). Great!
A problem with the nitrogen regime is that it regulates the consequences (in the Netherlands: deposition of nitrogen on Natura 2000 areas that exceeds the critical load), not the sources (farmers, industry, road traffic).
To draw an analogy: it would be like a system where we regulate greenhouse gas emissions by saying, we have a dyke, and you have to show that your activities don't lead to higher dykes. It's not the way to do it.
To be fair: nitrogen has more local consequences. But in the Netherlands you still have about 1/3 of all deposition which is from foreign sources. It's been shown that even if you were to delete all meat and dairy production in the Netherlands, you would still end up with Natura 2000 areas which exceed the critical load, because of foreign nitrogen. And when you draw a circle of 25 km (the threshold for permitting purposes) of all Natura 2000 areas that exceed critical load just from foreign sources it basically covers the entire Netherlands.
It would be preferable to split ammonia emissions (from agriculture) from nitrogen oxide emissions (from construction, industry, transport). The second are going to fall anyway if you stop burning fossil fuels and electrify. For ammonia it would be good to have some type of emission trading. But this is complicated because of more local consequences of ammonia emissions (there's exponential decay in nitrogen depositions, so that sources close to areas are responsible for more deposition).
Extremely interesting, thank you. Is my understanding correct that while the permitting threshold differs between member states, the critical load value is the same bloc-wide? Also, do you have any theory for why no political party is correctly able to articulate a viable path to changing the regulatory constraint rather than simply labouring under it (the left) or ignoring it (the right)?
Critical loads differ depending on habitat type. But about every ecosystem in Europe is exceeding the critical load for nitrogen. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/eutrophication-caused-by-atmospheric-nitrogen Which is interesting, because as far as I know only the Dutch courts have interpreted habitat directive in an extremely restrictive way so that no permits can be given anymore. This might also be because NGO's haven't tried to go to court over this in other countries. The habitat directive does prohibit any form of deterioration of natural habitats, so that it's not a completely crazy interpretation of EU law.
From what I've heard: the jurists at the ministry of agriculture feel that the courts have disallowed any sort of emission-based system. And you will never get permits unless you reduce deposition to below the critical load. And we just have to press foreign governments to reduce their emissions as well.
I think this debate is extremely polarized, and not many people in media or politics are able to look at this in a rational way. So the left isn't really thinking about how crazy this regulatory regime is, they mainly want to put the blame on the government that just doesn't want to reduce emissions from agriculture (which, to be fair, is probably true). And the right is divided. But the farmer's party (BBB), who is in charge of agriculture policy, really doesn't want to force farmers to quit or reduce the amount of animals (which to some extent is probably needed if you really want to reduce ammonia emissions). So they are trying to convince Europe to change the Habitat directive.
Also interesting: you might want to buy out some farmers close to Natura 2000 areas, because they are responsible for a lot of deposition. But State Aid prohibits paying them more than 120% of market value. Even tough the damage to economic activity is probably way larger.
By the way: even ASML expansion is now experiencing difficulties because of nitrogen. https://www.instagram.com/buitenhoftv/reel/DFkydwnt5JS/
Crazy! And an excellent post. I take two issues. First, with time: we should be more careful with policymaking that constrains future generations' policy options. One generation imposing their will on voters ten-twenty years down the line is not exactly democratic. Second, with place: you note correctly that the Netherlands are constrained by the EU's yesteryear decisions. To the extent that the Dutch PM didn't veto those rules in the European council, Dutch voters have themselves to blame (for voting in the PM). To the extent that other countries' supermajorities imposed the regulation on the Netherlands, Dutch voters have noone to blame. They can only resent the other countries (and exceedingly the courts) for imposing their policy preferences on them. That's not a good recipe for European friendship or trust in institutions. Now, there have been hopes that the European parliament, the Spitzenkandidatmodel and what not could overcome the perceived lack of legitimacy. But to date this hasn't quite worked. Few could list the names of European parliamentarians, whereas national MPs are household names. If you draw these two issues to its logical conclusion, two principles of institutional design might receive a rethink: First, we may have gone too far in relaxing unanimity (as it existed before the Lisbon treaty) in the European Council. (Considering that the European Council enjoys greater legitimacy as its members contest fierce elections and are therefore well-known to the voting public.) Second, as you note, many measures that pass are not well-crafted; others unduly constrain future generations. So how about drafting legislation that comes with an expiry date?
Rules for nitrogen deposit in the soil of so called nitrogen sensitive nature areas are in the Netherlands 0,07 mol per hectare and in Germany that's 300 mol per hectare. The nitrogen deposit in het Netherlands it the same as in Northern Germany, whilst Germany doesn't have a "nitrogencrisis". Change te law into something like the German version of it and the problem is over.
This is a made up problem by radical mediocre ideologues who don't know the difference between an atom and a molecule.
Greetings a Dutch dairy farmer.
Superb post. It is crucial to change this mentality that hinders progress in so many areas in Europe. The example of the Netherlands is great, we didn't know it in Spain, but the fact that they have been stuck for so many years, accepting any trade-off except for changing the norm itself iis symptomatic of the general situation in Europe (and makes it easier to understand the latest Dutch political developments). Let's see if things start to change if Merz achieved sufficient plurality.
Btw, it does not have any importance, but are we really sure the Netherlands is the second-largest exporter of agricultural products in the world by value? Aren't these figures distorted by the port of Rotterdam? Net exports would be a better metric.
"The Dutch economy is estimated to have earned 50.4 billion euros [profit!] from the export of agricultural goods in 2023 (4 percent higher than in 2022). Of that total, 45.7 billion euros was from agricultural goods produced in the Netherlands and 4.7 billion euros came from the re-export of agricultural goods produced elsewhere" (from the Dutch bureau of statistics). If I recall correctly, it's mostly due to flowers and high value greenhouse crops like chili peppers.
Thanks for these interesting insights, the situation seems quite similar to the nitrogen pollution in the Po river valley where intensive farming creates lasting air pollution. More housing and less intensive farming would be a welcome turn.
Like most of the advanced world we have to think of new solutions for new problems. There are too many 'low-rise' buildings in our cities. For example we could have high rise buildings on top of a data center. These data centers are needed for AI processing on a vast scale. Current designs have very flat single story structures. That design can be improved by adding multi-story domestic residences built on top. In winter the residents would benefit from waste heat. In summer hot waste air would be directed through chimneys and discharged above the homes.