This article was written by journalist Jurgen Tiekstra, who closely follows the nitrogen issue. He is an editor at Binnenlands Bestuur, works as a freelancer, and wrote the book: The climate debate as a distorting mirror.

The time has come: Femke Wiersma is stepping down as Minister of Agriculture. Her party, BBB, rose to prominence on the wave of farmers' protests against her predecessors' nitrogen policy. But those days are over: the BBB now has only four seats left in parliament. Wiersma herself will remain a member of parliament, but from now on she will speak on completely different topics, such as defense, housing, and the royal family. Three motions of no confidence and one motion of censure did not bring her down as Minister of Agriculture, but the recent elections did.

Does this mean another major shift in nitrogen policy? Well, no.

On the contrary. The incoming cabinet will continue the policy she initiated as minister. There will be no real return to the policies of her predecessors: Christianne van der Wal (VVD) and Carola Schouten (ChristenUnie).

The only thing that is back on the table are the so-called provincial area processes, which the Schoof cabinet put an end to. As you read this, the provinces are currently sorting through the government funds that will hopefully be coming their way. These funds can be used to devalue farmers' agricultural land or to establish nitrogen-free zones around nature reserves.

But otherwise, a lot remains the same.

Wiersma is leaving, but what remains?

Because, just like Wiersma, the new cabinet also wants to remove the Critical Deposition Value (KDW) from the nitrogen law, which dates back to the time of Carola Schouten (2021). This KDW indicates how much nitrogen pollution the various vulnerable nature areas can roughly withstand.

The new cabinet also wants to introduce a mathematical lower limit in the Aerius calculation model. This model calculates how much nitrogen falls on each hectare of nature reserve as a result of emissions from dairy farming, motorway widening, or the construction of a new residential area. The reason for this is that it has been known since at least the Hordijk advisory committee in 2020 that Aerius is not suitable for modeling the deposition of such small units on such small areas.

The new cabinet also wants to replace Schouten and Van der Wal's old deposit policy with an emissions policy, with emission ceilings per farmer. This means that the focus will no longer be on how much nitrogen falls on a hectare of nature, but how much is emitted by a dairy farmer.

Like Wiersma, the new cabinet also wants to replace means-based management with goal-based management. This means that farmers will have more control over how they achieve the mandatory targets and will be less constrained by regulations.

Like Wiersma, the new cabinet also wants agriculture to emit 42-46 percent less ammonia in 2035 compared to 2019 (Ammonia is by far the most important nitrogen compound for farmers.) Even though the government knows that Johan Vollenbroek's action group MOB cited this as a reason to initiate new legal proceedings: MOB has calculated that these percentages are too low for the reduction targets that are currently still in the law.

New minister, different policy?

Is former alderman Jaimi van Essen from Deventer a secret agricultural lobbyist? Surely not. But for the time being, it seems that in the coming cabinet term, he will not be pursuing a nitrogen policy that is any different from that of his predecessor, who was indeed considered a lobbyist.

Perhaps some people will now say: Unlike the cabinet with BBB, the incoming cabinet is putting farmers under pressure. Consider this sentence from the coalition agreement: "If the 2035 nitrogen target is not met, the ultimate remedy will be to cut animal or phosphate rights for agricultural businesses."

That seems crystal clear. Yet in September 2025, almost the same thing was stated in a letter to parliament from Wiersma: 'If this does not happen and the livestock farmer does not meet the standard in 2035, a sanction such as a fine or an order subject to a penalty will follow. And: 'As the most severe measure, in exceptional cases of structural and culpable exceedance, the government will enforce the number of animals that may be kept on the farm, for example by (temporarily) freezing or revoking production rights.'

Others may now argue: At least the new cabinet is introducing a €20 billion nitrogen fund, just like the Rutte IV cabinet. That is true; for example, more money will go to the provinces again. But don't count your chickens before they hatch: the Schoof cabinet looked at funding up to 2030, while the new cabinet is looking at funding up to 2035. In practice, the difference over the next few years will only be a few billion. That is not going to make a big difference.

The fact is that recent nitrogen policy cannot be reduced to agricultural lobbying and BBB. I already wrote this in September 2024. I emphasize this not out of vanity, but out of genuine surprise at the persistent misunderstandings in the ever-contentious nitrogen issue.

Will it now be possible to lift the nitrogen ban in the Netherlands?

Tagged in:

nitrogen