How can we can we ease the pressure around the nitrogen issue?

To start, what is the biggest challenge?

Kortman: "At its core, the key question is: how do you develop an area-specific approach that actually works? How do you ensure that the national government, provinces, and municipalities align their interests for the benefit of the region? And how do you make sure that all these different layers of stakeholders truly collaborate? Organizing this is already extremely complicated in the case of nitrogen. Technical aspects also play a significant role in this dynamic, such as the type of model you use to measure nitrogen and whether the outcome of such a model is definitive. Once you’ve made decisions and struck a delicate balance between all interests, you also need to test it against the human dimension. In other words: after all those agreements, models, and rules, how do you still create space for individual customization? Not an easy task by any means."

What specifically is expected of the government?

Duijzer: "In the end, it all revolves around two questions: 'What will the policy be?' and 'How are we going to implement it?'. In this dossier, we are talking specifically about offering perspective and clarity to farmers. As government, you will have to provide farmers with clarity in the short term. Only then can they make well-founded choices. And in the long term, reliability and predictability are crucial, but also be transparent if that clarity cannot be provided yet on all fronts."

Who should be in charge?

Duijzer: "The central government, provinces, and municipalities all have crucial roles to play. The central government must provide stable frameworks for local authorities, enabling them to implement these frameworks effectively. But who formally decides on the nature permit? That’s the province. It is the competent authority that can make a determination about the long-term prospects of a farm in a specific location. And these provinces have just come out of elections, with newly appointed deputies who have many questions. They look to the national government, the RIVM, and Europe for guidance... This complicates the ability to provide quick clarity. Finally, we must not forget the role of municipalities; they know the farmers best and often enjoy a high level of trust.

Where do we stand at the moment?

Kortman: "Many problems in our time come down to redesigning the balance between economic activities and our natural environment. That's not easy. How do you protect the environment and our food production? How do you accelerate the reduction of emissions, but not lose people along the way? As central government, you are not always equipped to handle this. Many issues transcend individual policy departments, involve internal contradictions reflected within the government itself, or lack a natural coordinating partner in society. And then the nitrogen issue has its own minister — which is not the case for many other integral issues." 

Duijzer: "And let's not forget: society is not always waiting for government to take control. In the countryside, the plans from The Hague are viewed with suspicion. This is not surprising, because the livelihoods of farming families are affected and very different social expectations are expressed towards the farmers. On top of that, the current arrangements are of course open to farmers who want to stop — but there are many who want to continue. And they, too, are currently on pause. They don't know if they can continue, how and where. And what their neighbours are going to do... People don't know where they stand."

Does that require a different role for the government?

Kortman: "Absolutely. The government must learn to deal with uncertainties in a structural way. After all, technology is complex, science doesn't offer clear-cut answers, and the divide between collective and individual interests is widening... In the last decade, governance has simply become much more complicated. And it won't get any easier. We have to adapt to that. It's about changing how we communicate, reassessing the roles of implementers, and improving interdepartmental cooperation. While this is currently evident in the nitrogen issue, it applies to many other areas as well, largely due to climate change."

Duijzer: "At the same time, we do have to reduce that complexity wherever possible. Otherwise, you simply won't get out of the starting blocks. At a certain point, you have to say: in the places where we can start with an area-based approach, we will start. That requires administrative courage: implementing it while there are still questions unanswered." 

Maybe a silly question, but what doesn't work?

Kortman: "We make it terribly difficult for ourselves if we all keep looking for that silver bullet, for that technical way out. Clinging to technological solutions is not the answer. And if we commit to overly complex agreements that leave no room for flexibility, it can be problematic. It is distracting and has many undesirable side effects. Because anyone who falls just a little outside the norm ends up outside the scheme — while there is only a fraction difference with the neighbours. We have to be realistic and recognize that sometimes small steps forward is the maximum achievable."

Duijzer: "And be honest about that. Many certainties from the past are no longer there today. Take the bank, for example. It always financed farmers on the basis of two certainties, in addition to the collateral: the permit and approved technology. Both are now under discussion. And that could well be permanent. Everything can change. And the same goes for the government. If provinces are now looking for guarantees for farmers in fifteen years' time, they will not find them. We must not forget: at the moment, livestock farming is practically at a standstill. The bank hardly receives any new financing applications. As a government, you need to be willing to provide clarity and direction for the coming years and longer term, but not promise certainty for the decades ahead.” 

And what does work?

Duijzer: "As part of our work for the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, we're currently touring provinces, municipalities, organized agriculture, and other stakeholders to assess the current situation. Our commitment is to avoid being paralyzed by complexity. There are many areas where clarity can be provided and concrete steps can be taken, even if the message isn’t ideal. Some locations may already have a clear perspective for farmers, while others may not. Focus on providing clarity in those areas where it’s possible."

Kortman: "Exactly. Begin with small steps where you can and don't wait until every problem is fully resolved. Initiate a constructive dialogue with interest groups, banks, and farmers, and ensure that all levels of government are involved. As a director, it's important to be open and acknowledge that you don’t have all the answers, but you must take action and drive progress."

Finally, are there any do's and don'ts that can give the nitrogen issue more breathing space?

Kortman: "A final agricultural agreement or a technical fix that solves everything isn't the answer here. The uncertainty and complexity are simply too great for that. The key is to be transparent about the uncertainties, which makes the nitrogen issue more understandable and manageable. When seeking support from consultants, insist that they don’t simplify the problem into a short-term fix. They should grasp the strategic challenges thoroughly and provide practical, long-term solutions."  

Duijzer: "At Deloitte, we approach our work by deeply understanding the situation, the issues, and the context. This includes both the content and technology aspects, as well as the dynamics among stakeholders. A good example of this approach is our recruitment of case managers for the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the provinces. They are engaging directly with farmers to collaboratively seek workable solutions. We understand which profile is needed and know how to find the right people. We also conduct thorough assessments with all relevant parties involved. What does it take to offer farmers perspective? And what is the minimum requirement to be able to start with a solution? Above all, we serve as connectors, facilitating the actual implementation and organization of improvements. But to do that, you have to be able to build that bridge. After all, what's the use of a consultant who has never seen a cow up close in this situation?"