News Elections
Politicians try to find each other in an agricultural debate
The agricultural election debate 'Beyond the polarization' promised last night (Thurs 18 February) to look beyond the contradictions and to look for similarities. Have the parties managed to rise above themselves and has the debate ended the polarization?
In any case, the will was there to listen to each other. There was a high turnout of both parties (11) and viewers (3.500 viewers according to the organization Team Agro NL, Food Hub and Agrio). At the beginning there is a poll among the viewers: 25% goes for CDA, 24% for BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), 17% for VVD, 9% for SGP and 5% for GroenLinks. The other parties score lower. SP ends up with 0% of the votes.
Nitrogen emissions and nature quality
The politicians will debate in pairs (and once in three) around 5 themes, led by Chantal Everaardt of RTV Oost. Laura Bromet (GroenLinks) and Cees de Jong (CDA) seem to be fairly aligned on the first theme, nitrogen emissions and nature quality.
Both believe that the farmer should be helped by the government and that nature and agriculture go hand in hand. "Agriculture and nature are often seen as black and white," says De Jong. Bromet: "A lot of nature is farmland, meadow birds flourish on meadows." When it comes to the earning model of the farmer, Bromet rubs the newcomer to the CDA list with De Jong that the GroenLinks has not been in power in recent decades and he should look at his own CDA.
De Jong believes that the focus is too much on the consumer. "We miss the connection between consumer and farmer." Bromet agrees. De Jong: "My position is always: translate every decision back to the impact at the kitchen table and then I don't believe there is that much difference between the parties." Bromet concludes that a place must be found 'where all interests are represented'.
Greening crops and sufficient income
Caroline van der Plas (BBB) and Pieter Grinwis (ChristenUnie) measure each other about greening crops and sufficient income. Van der Plas is more looking for confrontation. For example, if Grinwis says the price must be right. "Your party has been in the coalition for 4 years, had the chance to raise the price for 4 years." Grinwis responds by saying that Minister Schouten has instructed ACM to examine the market power of farmers.
Gradually, the 2 come closer together. Grinwis: "We were both the only parties to include in the program: put a levy on products, let it flow back to the farmer." Van der Plas points out to Grinwis that ChristenUnie also voted for Ceta, the trade agreement with Canada. That's right, says Grinwis, 'but we are against a trade agreement with South America, which is very bad for Dutch farmers'. Van der Plas: "Once upon a time." She concludes with: "I'm looking forward to working with ChristenUnie. Grinwis: "Just like that."
Intensify and extensify
It was already somewhat in line with expectations, but in the mini-debate between Jan Cees Vogelaar (JA21) and Tjeerd de Groot (D66) about intensification and extensification, the two failed to come together. De Groot wants to get rid of both intensification and extensification and sees a future for circular agriculture. "Many rules have been made, politics has always intervened too late."
Vogelaar believes that De Groot has 'a beautiful dream story', but that the revenue model is lacking. With what D66 wants - as he calculates - the livestock will not be halved, but reduced to a quarter. De Groot sees the revenue model. He points to Kipster and to €700 million from Brussels. According to him, a fair price must be paid in retail.
The presenter wants to know whether they can mean something for farmers together. It is doubtful. Vogelaar: "I have developed a sustainable model that is on the shelves at AH. He talks about it, I realize it."
More and less land for agriculture
Three parties will debate whether more or less agricultural land should be created: Roelof Bisschop (SGP), Nynke Koopmans (FvD) and Frank Futselaar (SP). Bishop finds it astonishing that solar parks are being built on farmland. "You don't need agricultural land for that, you can do that on roofs." He is supported in this by Koopmans. According to her, the land should remain available for agriculture and not be filled with solar panels and wind turbines.
Futselaar believes that the most important thing is that land development is organized in a coordinated manner. "What are we going to do where." He does not see it happening that there will be more agricultural land. Bishop: "Left-wing guys are more government-driven." He wants 'no dictation from above'. "But it can start well with the Agricultural Agreement to which we, with SP, have both signed. We seek each other out where possible. We are just different. Agriculture runs in our veins, that is the SGP's."
Futselaar and Koopmans both believe that the farmer should be offered perspective. Finally, the participants agree with all 3 in the statement that nature and the farmer should not be pitted against each other.
Nature-friendly agriculture and export
Joris Thijssen (PvdA) and Jan Klink (VVD) can close the evening with nature-friendly agriculture and export. They both agree that the government should stand next to the farmer. The vision is somewhat different. Thijssen: "Where it starts is: we have a climate and nature crisis in the Netherlands. In 2030, nitrogen emissions must be halved. In order not to be fooled by market powers, help from politics is needed."
Klink: "Agriculture is good in the Netherlands. It is about the goals, not the means. It is not the right path to say: the livestock should be halved. Don't act like this, but move beyond polarization. What Thijssen says: next to the farmers to stand." The two politicians are actually not so united at all. Thijssen: "Not to polarize, but on the one hand you say you want to solve the nitrogen problem, but you don't want to change anything."
For example, a little polarization cannot be avoided, but the participants did let each other finish and in many cases sought common ground. With varying degrees of success. Contradictions are of course also part of a democracy. At least there's something to choose from March 17th. This is also evident from the poll afterwards. 1 in 5 has changed party choice. 4% say they will vote now, even after seeing the debate.
Linda van Eekeres
© 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.