In this newspaper, livestock farmer Luc Huyghe and his wife Kathleen recently testified about their business that went from orange to red(DM 20/5). “Our business is not very large,” they said. “We have 25 horses and 200 pigs. (…) Our impact score was 44.8, so below the threshold of 50. Now we suddenly sit at 55 and are considered peak polluters.”
There is rightly reference to manipulated search areas as one of the reasons for the problems with the red lists. A second element remains underexposed, the stable systems and measures that are supposed to reduce nitrogen emissions are not delivering the promised returns.
Flanders has 1.3 million cattle, 5.8 million pigs, and 45.6 million chickens. The amount of nitrogen they emit is responsible for the decline of Flemish nature. To get the nitrogen problem under control, the Programmatic Approach to Nitrogen (PAS) was established. From 2015, there was a first, provisional PAS. With the recent nitrogen agreement, a second, definitive PAS should be introduced. This is still under public consultation until mid-June.
The PAS is a package of measures based on a nitrogen accounting system. In the measures, the Flemish government had two choices: reduce the livestock population or prevent nitrogen emissions through technological measures.
The choice between shrinking or technology also concerns the agriculture we want. In the current system, Brazilian rainforest is being cleared for soybean cultivation. We feed this to Flemish chickens, cows, and pigs. One third of meat production meets our needs. Two thirds is exported worldwide. What remains in Flanders is a surplus of manure and nitrogen. Focusing on technological measures means maintaining this export-oriented agriculture. In a shrinking scenario, the import of soy and the export of meat decreases, allowing for a focus on short supply chains and circularity.
Both paths are being followed in the second PAS, but for the majority of the reductions, reliance is placed on technological measures. Financial interests took precedence.
Livestock farms can implement a wide range of technological measures to reduce nitrogen emissions. Examples include animal feed with less protein, cattle spending more time in the pasture than in the barn, barns with slatted floors, manure removal systems, and air scrubbers. The measures with their corresponding emission reductions have been listed and published.
These measures missed their target. Instead of reducing emissions, they served as an alibi for the expansion of agricultural businesses. This practice is reflected in the increase of the livestock population. The number of pigs and cattle remained relatively stable over the past decade. The poultry sector increased from 27.5 million chickens in 2014 to 45.6 million chickens today. A doubling, although there was already a significant nitrogen problem in 2014.
In recent years, more and more problems have come to light regarding these measures. The emission reduction through concentrated feed did not yield the expected results. Measurements at the company showed that slatted floors and air scrubbers do not achieve the promised percentages. Air scrubbers are turned off because they consume too much electricity.
In a case before the Dutch court of North Brabant, all relevant research reports on emission-reducing measures were compiled. In its ruling of 8 April 2022, the court stated unequivocally that the current lists of emission-reducing stable systems and reduction percentages are unreliable. They cannot be accepted at face value. The lists in the Netherlands and Flanders contain the same measures and reductions. The technological path is at risk of coming to a standstill.
This ruling has far-reaching consequences. The nitrogen accounting included these technological measures and is therefore incorrect. The Impact Score Tool, the nitrogen calculator, also accounts for these technological measures and produces an incorrect impact score. The impact score is the basis for granting permits but is therefore flawed. This is a problem for permits issued in the past, future permits based on the PAS, and – indeed – the red lists.
Is the nitrogen agreement dead and buried? Is there a risk of a “Dutch scenario” where the granting of permits comes to a halt, and Flanders also irrevocably locks down? I think not. However, the errors in the nitrogen accounting, Impact Score Tool, and the list of emission-reducing measures must be corrected. This way, the focus can shift from lists, search areas, and stable systems to the restoration of our natural areas. Otherwise, only the second option remains: a reduction of the livestock population.