Background Elections
Last agricultural debate spicy without a real winner
With a few days to go until the elections (15, 16 and 17 March), the agricultural spokespersons pulled out all the stops again on Thursday evening (11 March) during the LTO Rural Debate. The parties differ on whether innovations can solve the nitrogen problem and how you can improve the earning model for the farmer.
The debate between the agricultural spokespersons was more heated than before. Perhaps spurred on by LTO leader Sjaak van der Tak, who expressed the wish beforehand that it would be a debate with 'a little fire', in which he does not fall asleep. Or simply because the elections are really just around the corner.
Shrinkage of agricultural land
The debate, led by presenter Roelof Hemmen, is kicked off by agricultural spokespersons from CDA, GroenLinks, BBB and JA21, who are discussing shrinking agricultural acreage. Only Femke Wiersma, number 2 of the BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB) believes that the agricultural area should not shrink by any metre.
CDA member Cees de Jong accuses Wiersma of populism: "It's just a calculation. You let populism predominate. It doesn't fit in terms of homes." BBB also wants to build, says Wiersma, within the village centres, high-rise buildings or empty office buildings'. Jan Cees Vogelaar (JA21) sneers: "It's not Dubai in a village."
Vogelaar puts forward the land price. According to him, you don't hear a farmer complaining when buying for housing. "It's no fun for infrastructure, a disaster for nature." Laura Bromet (GroenLinks) is 'surprised that expropriation is assessed so negatively'. "You will always be reimbursed for all costs." Vogelaar: "You get the average value of 3 years, you can't buy anything back for that." De Jong gives the example that he lives in an area where the A27 comes through. "The offer is at agricultural value, then the function changes." He is therefore for the equalization of values.
Leader or not
With the statement 'To remain a frontrunner, billions are needed for innovation. Not for sale', the intended agricultural spokesman for VVD, SGP, D66 and ChristenUnie will enter into a debate. Tjeerd de Groot (D66) disputes whether we are a frontrunner and also whether everything that is called innovation is really innovation. "I don't think air washing is an innovation." According to Roelof Bisschop (SGP), this is indeed an innovation. Bishop believes that innovations should be subsidized. "Then you solve problems."
The statement can of course count on support from Jan Klink of the VVD, the party that is fully committed to innovation in the election programme. "The Netherlands is a frontrunner because of new innovations. Especially for ammonia in livestock farming, a solution must be found. That is also allowed with more animals of mine if it is possible with new techniques." Hermen Vreugdenhil (ChristenUnie) is in favor of acquisition and innovation. He insists that land must remain available for agriculture.
De Groot sees no point in innovation in any case. "If we are now going to invest billions in innovation, you will not help the pig farmer with that." For D66, real innovation turns out to be 'if you renew the entire system'.
gut feelings
The representatives of CDA, GroenLinks, BBB, ChristenUnie all agree on the statement that politics should not be about the gut, but about facts. According to De Jong, framing is a problem. He mentions glyphosate. "Some political parties get involved in the scientific discussion while we have an admissions committee. I can also mention pulse fishing. It is the most sustainable way of fishing, but it is framed and then it breaks."
Bromet states: "We are very critical of all chemical pesticides. Admission is now done per agent, it is about accumulation. According to Wiersma, farmers are very frugal with glyphosate. "BBB is against banning if there are no alternatives. Then often more must be used of other substances " She says that the farmer is often framed as a polluter, but that the substance is mainly used privately. Bromet notes that if Wiersma does want to ban it for private individuals, they can work together on this.
Earning power
Young farmers were guests at the latest debate between JA21, SGP, VVD and D66: international relations student Peter Meedendorp, who later wants to take over the parental arable farm, and poultry farmer Anne van Lith. The poultry farmer says that until a few years ago she was still able to take steps by increasing scale and by farming more efficiently. She doesn't know how to make it even more efficient. Meedendorp sees the high debt that has to be repaid as a major challenge, while the revenue model is under pressure.
The statement is: 'You increase earning capacity through lower costs or higher benefits'. Vogelaar: "Make sure you have a better structure and ensure that the costs for farmers are reduced. We are making our regulations unaffordable for the farmer." brings to farmers.
Bishop considers an agricultural agreement to be of crucial importance in this context. "A dot on the horizon: this is where we will go as a sector in 10-20 years. Not like Ja21 and D66 abolish income support. The sector needs it. The rules need to be overhauled." Vogelaar speaks to Bishop's dismay about 'Bisschop's subsidy tit'.
Klink believes that we must be careful not to get 'a kind of communist regime' 'where the government determines what the farmer has to earn'. He does, however, advocate that the SME test, in which new regulations for the business community are tested, should also be introduced for agriculture.
According to De Groot, retail has an important role to play in improving the revenue model. "Make the entire range of supermarkets and the processing industry sustainable. Retail determines what people buy." And, according to him, feed, soil, animals and manure must be handled differently. The revenue model is just mediocre. We have to leave Mansholt behind us."
Vogelaar thinks 'the whole recycling story is a fatamorgana'. "French eggs, German milk, we can't keep them out. There is no fence around the Netherlands."
'At least thought of farmers'
Guest Peter Meedendorp notes that he finds it positive that 'farmers are at least thought of here'. Whether he has become wiser on who to cast his vote for, the story does not tell. LTO leader Van der Tak (from CDA) is keeping to himself who was the winner of this debate. We will know late Wednesday evening who the real winners are and whether the agricultural spokespersons will have the chance to represent them in the House of Representatives.
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.
