The leaders of the Department of Environment, the Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO) and the Flemish Environment Agency (VMM) refuted in this newspaper the claim from the agricultural sector that the PAS decree operates with 'corrupt' figures (DS 14 March 2024). However, their opinion does not tell the whole story. There are indeed some issues with the nitrogen figures.
To determine the amount of nitrogen that a (livestock) farm allows to deposit on a nature area, VITO developed a nitrogen calculator. This allows for the calculation of what percentage of the nitrogen deposition can be attributed to the farm. VITO did excellent work in developing this calculation tool, but the problem lies with the figures that are inputted and the data that the calculator consults. Specifically, there are three issues.
Firstly, the calculator uses outdated critical deposition values (CDVs). The CDV determines how much nitrogen a habitat can absorb. According to the current Flemish CDVs, for example, one hectare of beech forest can absorb 20 kg of nitrogen per year. The CDVs are recalibrated every ten years by a panel of internationally renowned scientists, and the most recent revision dates from October 2022. In this revision, the CDV for beech forest was tightened from 20 kg to a range of 10 to 15 kg of nitrogen. It is then up to the member states to determine which value they choose.
The Netherlands immediately took action and less than a year later, the adjusted Dutch KDW’s came into effect. The KDW for beech forests was set at 15, which is considerably stricter than in Flanders. However, in Flanders, Minister Demir announced that she does not intend to apply the new KDW’s (DS 4 September 2023). A Dutch beech forest is therefore more sensitive to nitrogen than a Flemish one.
Secondly, the PAS decree has chosen to assess the effects of nitrogen emissions not on the entire nature area but only on a part of it. Specifically, only in the places where the habitats currently exist and where they are expected to develop in the future. The rest of the nature area is disregarded.
This also inflates the figures. The closer a business is to a nature area, the higher the impact is, in principle. By fragmenting and shrinking the nature area, the calculation tool shows a more favourable figure.
Finally, a livestock farmer must not only enter how many animals he has in the calculation tool but also what type of barn they are housed in. There are ammonia emission-reducing barns that would limit nitrogen emissions. Nitrogen is produced when urine mixes with manure, and by keeping both as separate as possible, one attempts to reduce nitrogen emissions.
However, a report from Wageningen University in 2023 showed that these low-emission barns for cattle have no effect and do not achieve the intended effect for pigs and poultry. Nevertheless, the use of the calculation tool adheres to the incorrect, overly high reduction percentages.
In the preparation of the nitrogen programme approach (PAS) and the granting of permits, outdated and inflated figures are being used. The refusal to engage with the best available scientific knowledge and the tinkering with the size of nature areas violate European law. Both the PAS and the permits issued are therefore legally shaky.
The blame for the manipulation of figures does not lie with VITO or VMM. They each do excellent work in their domain. It is the Flemish government that lacks the political courage to work with the correct figures. The PAS decree was adopted and the permits for Ineos, Zaventem, the Brussels Ring, etc., are to be issued before the elections. After the elections, these are at risk of being overturned in court again. As long as the Flemish government keeps its head in the sand, the nitrogen issue will continue to fester. The opposition between nature on one hand and agriculture and business on the other is a false dichotomy. They are all three paying the price.