In the run-up to the European parliamentary elections on Thursday 23 May, Boerenbusiness daily 6 agricultural questions for people with a vision on European agricultural policy. Today that is Jan Huitema, MEP for the VVD.
Do you want more or less European agricultural policy for the Dutch farmer?
"I argue for fewer greening rules and more flexibility. Today a farmer has to implement the rules from Brussels, but I think that the farmer should be given the choice. It should be much more a matter of temptation than of coercion. The steering wheel has been knocked out of the hands of the farmer, while they can often do it much better themselves. I therefore think that the rules are now much too rigid."
"Look at Skylark, for example. Those growers try to increase the organic matter in the soil, but greening rules force them to maintain different crop rotations. Those crop rotations are not useful at all in the Oldambt, for example. Another example is that 5% of agricultural land is taken out of production and must be used as an Ecological Focus Area. In my opinion, this can be done more flexibly: if a grower wants more or less Ecological Focus Area, then that should be possible. Of course, the grower will receive more or less subsidy."
If we look at the Common Agricultural Policy, should there be a hectare premium or not?
"In my opinion, we have to take a critical look at the hectare premium, because it ensures that the land price is driven up. Ultimately, it is not the farmer, but the landowner in particular that benefits from this. If you are the tenant farmer, the premium will simply go up. are included in the lease. The same applies if you buy land. The seller of the land also knows that you will receive hectare support and simply settles this in the price. In addition, money leaks from the sector in this way: Natuurmonumenten leases the land for a higher price because they calculate with that hectare support."
Looking at the implementation of the chain report by Cees Veerman: how do you achieve a 'level playing field' in the European Union?
"I think mutual recognition is very important. It cannot be the case that plant protection products are authorized in one Member State where they are prohibited in another. In addition, national governments must be careful with their own rules. That can create a level playing field in the In the Netherlands, for example, we have made a vigorous start with the designation and maintenance of the 'Natura 2000 areas'.However, the Netherlands is stricter than other countries, because the buffer zones (in which intensive agriculture is prohibited) are located from Brussels. not required at all."
"In addition, I believe that more clarity needs to be created from Brussels about how guidelines are monitored. For example, the water boards in the Netherlands are allowed to set their own standards. They also determine how they measure themselves."
Is the Brussels power with regard to the authorization of plant protection products too great?
"No, I don't think it's too big. I even think it's important that we arrange this at European level. If one country gets an exemption for a certain drug, then another country should get it too. I do believe that the current system is wrong There are 5 criteria that must be met (for example that it must not contain carcinogenic or endocrine disrupting substances), but the risk is not taken into account.In greenhouse horticulture, for example, substances are sometimes allowed that are never used outside the greenhouse The risk to people and the climate is then minimal."
"You also see this in the case surrounding glyphosate. A whole smear campaign has arisen because of 1 study. It describes, among other things, that the drug may be carcinogenic, but it is not about normal use. For comparison: alcohol is also fatal in too high amounts. We need to look more holistically. As an example I will mention the case of neonicotinoids. They are indeed strong insecticides, but they are used precisely (by means of coatings). Because of the ban on these herbicides, substances have to be used which are more harmful."
"I also think that the approval of alternatives should be accelerated. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) currently has too little money, manpower and expertise. It mainly employs chemical analysts, but I think there should be more biological analysts. Finally, I believe that the importance of crop protection is underestimated. Without these products, crops will fail."
What should be made a spearhead in Brussels agricultural policy?
"I think it is important that the agricultural sector becomes less vulnerable to calamities and bad prices. If the milk is not collected for a few days, for example, it immediately costs a lot of money. I think it is important that European farmers become less dependent on the Brussels income support. They must be able to obtain the income from the market."
"To achieve this, the competition law must be amended. This makes it easier to pass on investments for animal welfare or sustainability in the consumer price. In addition, European farmers must have a better negotiating position with supermarkets. In fact, the supermarkets are currently taking the lead, but there needs to be more equality."
Which myth about the European Parliament is not correct in your view?
"The fact that as a MEP you have no influence. If I had not been there for the past 5 years, for example, no working group would have been formed to adjust the definition of animal manure. This is important in my opinion, because the processed animal manure (mineral concentrate) now no longer falls under the definition of animal manure and can be used above the application standard for animal manure."
Read all interviews about the European elections here.
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.