PlanetProof is especially a 'must have' in arable farming

Just like with dairy farmers, the majority of Dutch arable farmers think that the sustainability label On the Way to PlanetProof does not make them financially wiser, or does not make them any wiser. They also fear that the added value will evaporate as soon as the label becomes a market standard.

This emerges from the second PlanetProof survey that Boerenbusiness and Foodlog among Dutch agricultural entrepreneurs. Respondents wondered what the added value of the label is, in addition to, for example, Global GAP, which is already an international purchasing standard that exceeds the statutory requirements for trade, food industry and retail. The majority also appears to be of the opinion that consumers do not really know what PlanetProof stands for. 

Mixed feelings
The label evokes mixed feelings. It promises the farmer added value, but it also costs the farmer more because the cultivation costs rise. That's not a bad thing, as long as it yields covering benefits and preferably a plus. The farmer wants to increase his lagging income, but that added value is not forthcoming.

Because there is not enough left at the bottom of the line, vegetable processor HAK is setting a good example by paying customers more for products with the quality mark. That cannot go on indefinitely, because it erodes profits. It can go off for a while and as a sign of how it should be done. This is seen as an investment in a future in which the market sets a good example. 

Survey among arable farmers
's survey Boerenbusiness and Foodlog was completed by 162 entrepreneurs, including 4 advisors and 158 arable farmers. More than 94% of these are heads of business and 35% participate in the PlanetProof quality mark. The result looks like this:

94% are business owners. 35% cultivation under the PlanetProof label.

Of the respondents, 76% grow potatoes, 28% onions and 18,5% carrots. Another 37% grow other products such as strawberries, sweet potatoes, white cabbage, white cabbage for industry, chicory root, brown beans, chicory, fruit, Brussels sprouts, zucchini, asparagus, cauliflower, green beans and asparagus. There are no wheat growers among the respondents.

The survey also shows that 61% of the participants have a farm of more than 70 hectares, 35% are above 100 hectares and 14,3% above 150 hectares. A small part of the respondents (4%) have a farm with less than 20 hectares, 11% cultivate between 20 and 40 hectares and 24% have 40 to 70 hectares of land. In total, 35% cultivate for PlanetProof.

Demand customer the most important motivation
A majority of 55% of the respondents indicated that it was the customer's requirement that forced the choice for PlanetProof. Of the participants, 36% chose the label in order to realize a higher price. Motives such as differentiating from competitors (1,9%) and cultivation with a lower environmental impact (1,9%) play a minor role.

The number of respondents who provide an explanation is remarkably limited compared to the rest of the survey. One of the participants stated "In circumstances where the farmer has to deviate from the standards due to weather conditions, he incurs all costs for the label, but these are not covered because his product cannot be sold as PlanetProof." Similar reactions occur regularly in this sample.

When asked why arable farmers do not participate in PlanetProof, almost a quarter say that they do not support a certificate that sets requirements for the product that exceed the statutory requirements. In addition, 18% say that the promised additional price does not outweigh the extra costs and 14% does not agree with PlanetProof's methodology. According to 11% of the participants, the buyer is not prepared to pay a higher price, 9% think that there are already enough sustainable labels and 15% say they have motives other than those mentioned.

The explanations given by the respondents mainly express doubts about the added value for nature, the management of the field and the income of the farmer. 

The enthusiasm in arable farming about PlanetProof is not great, just under 70% do not welcome the arrival of such a label. The current production method is sufficient, according to 38.3% and according to almost 30% PlanetProof leads to fragmentation and unfair competition. More than 22% say that PlanetProof offers arable farmers an opportunity to distinguish themselves and 3,4% think that consumer demand for products from sustainable cultivation offers an opportunity.

In addition to a lack of enthusiasm among the respondents, 67% also indicated that they did not look differently at the production method. Financial profit has been the goal for 37,3% to participate and 29,4% say they would not have started farming otherwise. On the other hand, 33% say they have started to think and work differently. Of these, 25,5% are more aware of fertilization and 7,9% have started farming with more attention to nature and the environment. 

The respondents are also not very positive when it comes to brand awareness. More than 43% say that there is too little awareness of the label among consumers and 22,3% think that awareness should be improved. A small group of 4,7% think that label is becoming well known among consumers.

To the question whether PlanetProof provides sufficient understanding of the added value of the label, the answers are even more negative than to the previous question: 77% think that the label is not or insufficiently known. According to 52,7%, consumers who know the label do not know what it stands for and 24,3% have no opinion. Of the respondents, 21,6% say that an improvement in the understanding of what the label stands for is desirable. Only 1,3% think consumers know what the label means.

The financial side of PlanetProof turns out to be the most important motivation for arable farmers after all. The additional price and sales opportunities are mentioned by 66,6% of the respondents as a motive for continuing to opt for the label and 7,8% are motivated by making arable farming more sustainable.

Explanations of this question show that farmers see the label as a new standard in the market. Anyone who doesn't belong will be dropped. Belonging and staying there also seems to be a financial motive.

The farmers still have something to say about the PlanetProof system. For example, 49% say that the administration is complicated and takes too much time. And 11,7% think the permitted limits for active substances are too limited. 19,6% believe that the volume of PlanetProof product should be controlled.

The explanations for this question show 2 clear lines. On the one hand, the costs and efforts do not sufficiently outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, the question arises why there should be another label next to existing labels such as organic and GLOBAL GAP. If there is a need for a market standard, it is better to choose 1 clear international label that has already become a well-known value in trade, according to the responses.

The financial aspect is also an element that according to the respondents should change in order to convince farmers to participate. A large quarter thinks the extra income is too small (27.4%) and a fifth (exactly 20%) does not agree with the points method that PlanetProof uses. Almost 18% think that the sustainable meaning of the label should be better highlighted. Another 10,5% think that processors and retail see too little value in it and 7,4% think that consumers are insufficiently prepared to pay more for it because they do not know enough about the content.

The explanations accompanying the answers indicate that the costs are disproportionate to the benefits and that participating farmers do not want extra-statutory demands, because they play them apart while they gain too little benefit from it.

According to the arable farmers, sustainability labels do not play an important role in the sale of the products (55%). Almost 23% disagree and do see the benefits of a larger network of buyers. Another 20,8% are positive and say they can sell the products with the label at a better price.

New customers
Finally, the questionnaire asked which customer does not currently support PlanetProof, but should do so. Albert Heijn, the supermarket formula with its own set of requirements, is often mentioned. Cosun is also often mentioned as an option.

Typical of the answer to this question are the 'against' attitudes that arise from the cost/benefit imbalance, the interference with the farmer's management and the strong feeling that his way of farming is the best. If the farmer is given the space to achieve goals, he will do so.

Local hallmark
The most important insight that emerges from the survey seems to be that PlanetProof is seen as a local quality mark. If there is still a need for a quality mark, then choose GlobalG.AP, for example, because it is already a well-known standard internationally.

At the beginning of next year, Foodlog and Boerenbusiness a web chat in which the explanations provided by the participants and their significance are discussed in more detail with agricultural entrepreneurs. Follow the websites for the announcement.

© 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.