Dutch experts warn of challenges in meeting ambitious nitrogen emission targets

An EU-approved €1.5 billion buyout scheme for Dutch farmers to halve nitrogen emissions by 2030 has divided opinion, with some stakeholders questioning how to keep meeting targets decided in Brussels while stepping up production to meet demand.

While the Dutch scheme hopes to scale back nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions in the Netherlands, the world’s second-largest agricultural exporter, most EU states have surpassed critical nitrogen loads since 2005. This poses a critical risk to climate change, biodiversity, and the EU’s climate goals.

“Out of every 100 kg of nitrogen spread, the global average is that 14 kg ends up in the crops we eat, and four kg in animal feed – that’s at the global scale,” Wim de Vries, professor of environmental systems analysis at Wageningen University and Research, told Euractiv’s Advocacy Lab.

“And Europe is only slightly better. That’s a huge loss,” he added.

De Vries believes that Europe can do much better and argues the redistribution of nitrogen fertiliser across global croplands can help achieve food security within a holistic blend of environmental boundaries.

These include addressing climate warming due to emissions of nitrous oxides, air quality due to ammonia emissions, and water quality due to nitrate leaching.

But de Vries questions how farmers can deliver on biodiversity, water quality and climate targets while feeding Europe and the globe’s expanding population, a sentiment echoed by other stakeholders.

A delicate balancing act

Environmental groups such as the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) have criticised the European Commission for prioritising the “short-term benefits of the increased use of harmful synthetic fertilisers.”

The EU farmers’ association COPA-COGECA complains that the nitrates directive is squeezing farms’ profitability, capacity to afford climate innovation, and, ultimately, farmers’ survival.

The food manufacturing industry, led by FoodDrinkEurope, has called the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, a key part of the nitrogen reduction plan, unrealistic and under-resourced.

De Vries noted that “when fertilisers were invented around 1900, the world’s population was around 1.6 billion, whereas today there are eight billion. This five-fold increase would never have been possible without the invention of fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertiliser. Crop yields have increased by a factor of three to six with nitrogen. We need it!”

“We need fertiliser, and nitrogen remains a major nutrient for our proteins – 30 to 50% of the population depends on it, and two million people [in Europe] still lack it”.

However, unlike other nutrients, nitrogen occurs in limited amounts in soil, therefore farmers look to external inputs such as fertiliser. But this requires a delicate balancing act as too little nitrogen impacts yield while too much degrades the environment.

Spatial variations

Part of the problem de Vries identifies is spatial variations, which are regional differences in availability and fertiliser usage, partly because of different farming techniques.

“There are places like sub-Saharan Africa where there is a shortage of fertiliser, resulting in famine,” he explains, adding, “There are great inefficiencies and wastage in places like China.”

He says optimal management of nutrients, crops and soil to increase the efficiency of the end use of nitrogen is needed.

A 2021 paper by Lena Schulte-Uebbing and De Vries, “Reconciling food production and environmental boundaries for nitrogen in the European Union”, considers the issue of nitrogen boundaries and measurement.

“These are regional boundaries within Europe, and people often talk about a ‘planetary boundary for a region’ – but that is a “contradictio in terminis“.

“The problem with discussing a ‘planetary boundary for nitrogen’,” said de Vries, “…is that there is no such a thing as a planetary boundary – it’s a regional problem. We must be region-specific, and of course, you can add all these regions up to a planetary value. You can do that. But that assumes optimal allocation.”

“In the Saharan region, for example, they are mining the soils. More nitrogen or phosphorus is taken from the soil than is coming in. And if you talk about environmental problems, you could be degrading the soil and getting erosion.”

But a key concern for de Vires is that nitrogen is a volatile element in many forms: ammonia ends up in nature and affects biodiversity, but there’s also nitrous oxide.

Carbon dioxide has been the cause of warming, approximately ten times more than nitrous oxide during the industrial age.

However, nitrous oxide has a greater impact: a single pound of this gas can heat the atmosphere around 300 times more than the same amount of carbon over 100 years, and nitrous oxide is of more significant concern because it stays in the atmosphere for a century, or more after it’s released.

Unfair burden on farmers

If we want to get serious about balancing our use of nitrogen, de Vries says we cannot simply burden the farmer, we must change as a society by reducing food waste and changing their diets.

“As I see it, there are four issues we must address: firstly, reduce meat consumption—secondly – food waste reduction. Thirdly – more circular agriculture,” which includes recycling animal and human waste as using compost means less fertiliser.

Fourthly, de Vries says more efficient farming practices are necessary, but “the real point, however, is that we need all of them.”