Updated nitrogen map and new strategy: How can we meet the nitrogen targets?
Nitrogen professor Jan Willem Erisman and Ton Brouwer have released a new report presenting scenarios to actually meet the agricultural nitrogen targets for 2030. Their message to politicians in The Hague: ‘Look at this approach — it is possible.’
What prompted this new report?
There’s a clear court ruling the government must comply with: by 2030, and in the years beyond, 50% of the most vulnerable Natura 2000 areas must be protected from nitrogen pollution. Greenpeace argued this was feasible, but didn't back it up with calculations. Now, professor Jan Willem Erisman, together with Ton Brouwer — owner of consultancy firm Gispoint — and other experts, has done the math. Their starting point: reducing nitrogen emissions in agriculture. They recently presented their calculations in the Dutch House of Representatives.
What’s the key message to politicians in The Hague?
Erisman and Brouwer outline several scenarios. The most important one: current nitrogen targets are based on emissions from three sectors — agriculture, traffic and industry, and international sources. Erisman explains: ‘They lump all of that together, and that’s how they end up with the figure of 53%. That’s supposedly the percentage agriculture would need to reduce in order to achieve the 50% protection target for nature areas. But we’re saying: that’s not fair. A more just approach would be to make each sector responsible for its own share of the problem. That would change the numbers completely.’
‘It means we’d also need international policy on this. And we should calculate nitrogen oxides (NOx) separately — so separate calculations for traffic and industry, and for agriculture. Using this method, we end up with a much lower target for agriculture: a 30% reduction instead of 53%. But then the other two sectors will also need to reduce their emissions sufficiently.’
Erisman refers back to the previous nitrogen map and the 2021 report: ‘If we used that method, the required reduction would be even lower — and the policy would be even more targeted and effective.’
Why is this the solution?
Splitting the calculations in this way creates room for granting permits — for example, for housing construction and sustainable energy projects. Erisman argues that due to nitrogen and climate policy, emissions of nitrogen oxides have already gone down in recent years: ‘That means you could introduce a threshold value and allow permits for housing and renewable energy projects, because they only emit small amounts of NOx.’
However, Erisman is firmly against trading emission rights between sectors: ‘There should be no offsetting between sectors. Permits must be allocated within each sector. So, for example, Schiphol airport shouldn’t be allowed to buy out farmers just to meet its own targets. Schiphol must reduce its own emissions — it should innovate. In terms of permits, the agricultural sector is still in a tricky position, because the downward trend in emissions hasn’t really started there. That may explain the political hesitance. I hope that by publishing this report now, we can shift some attention towards this issue.’
What’s most important for farmers right now?
‘Farmers want clarity. Set clear targets per sector, and do it for the long term: 2030, 2040 and 2050. Not just for nitrogen, but also for climate and water quality. That way, farmers know what they’re dealing with. Uncertainty is paralysing for them.’
You can read the full report here.