Which party is the most arable-minded?

Words such as derogation, phosphate regulation, stopper regulation and pasture grazing manage to make the headlines time and again. What the individual political parties think about this is known. But what about points that are important to arable farmers?

The Dutch Arable Farming Union (NAV) held a debate in mid-February in which the current agricultural spokespersons in the House of Representatives discussed important themes in arable farming. How arable-minded they are can be deduced from the reactions of Elbert Dijkgraaf (SGP), Jaco Geurts (CDA), Helma Lodders (VVD) and Carla Dik-Faber (CU) and the candidate MPs Niels van den Berge (GroenLinks). ), Anna-Lena Hedin (PvdA) and Inez Staarink (SP) on the following NAV positions. 

• Farmers should be able to earn a good income without income allowances in a market with rules of the game. They can only get a better position in the market if they are allowed to mutually agree on volume and price for 50 percent of the market instead of 5 percent.
  A number of politicians (Dijkgraaf, Staarink, Van den Berge) felt that the government should sometimes be able to regulate in order to limit the supply, but that this is not politically feasible at the moment. There was agreement, however, that farmers should be given just as much room in the competition law as buyers and suppliers.
  
  Geurts argued for the creation of a food arbitrator (what the NAV calls an Authority for Producers and Markets, APM) and found widespread support, except at Lodders. Dik-Faber believes that ACM should be able to perform this additional task. Everyone thought that the position of the farmer in the chain should be strengthened and Dijkgraaf stated that there is Parliamentary support for this, but that the cabinet does nothing with the adopted motions.
  
  In this context, Dijkgraaf also argued for a Ministry of Agriculture, which was seen more as a Ministry of Food and Agriculture by GroenLinks and PvdA.
   
• Agriculture and food are so important that they must be kept out of free trade agreements.
  The most outspoken were Dijkgraaf, Van den Berge and Staarink (agree) and Lodders (disagree).
   
• The minister must ensure that the BO Akkerbouw will receive contact and area data in 2017 in order to be able to impose levies.
  All politicians except Staarink agreed that the Ministry of Economic Affairs must ensure that the Brancheorganisation (BO) Arable Farming receives all complete data in order to be able to impose levies within the generally binding declaration. This was immediately used by the director of BO Akkerbouw who was also present in a letter to the political parties to follow up on this in the House of Representatives.
   
• The subsidy for broad weather insurance must be increased and the insurance tax on it must be abolished.
  A mixed picture, according to the responses. Everyone was in favor of increasing the budget, but GroenLinks, SP and PvdA in particular were against abolishing the insurance tax. The SP did think that it should be cheaper with broader coverage.
   
• The restrictions that the current manure policy imposes on effectively increasing the organic matter content in the soil must be lifted in order to combat climate change.
  The statement found broad support. This can be done by not including compost, mushroom compost, beta-kal, etc. Dijkgraaf argued for region-specific standards and then company-specific standards, Lodders for direct company-specific.
   
• When making crop protection more sustainable, a sufficiently broad and effective package of resources must always remain available.
  People were clear about crop protection: the VVD is against banning chemicals based on emotions and was supported. LTO-Akkerbouw chairman Van Wenum stated that politicians should not interfere with the admissions, but that went too far for several parties. Dijkgraaf, Geurts and Lodders also clearly spoke out in favor of retaining the sprout inhibitor MH. Furthermore, Dijkgraaf proposed to increase the subsidy for the replacement of asbestos roofs from the energy policy.
   
• Integrated cultivation is more sustainable than organic cultivation. With modern integrated cultivation, Dutch, highly productive soils can contribute more to global food production than organic cultivation. Globally, integrated cultivation is therefore more sustainable. The more favorable environmental effects of organic cultivation in the Netherlands do not outweigh this.
  It was generally shared by the politicians that conventional (integrated) agriculture is doing well, that we should be proud of what has been achieved in terms of improvements and that there should be no contradiction between organic and conventional. but that we can learn from each other.

© 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.