Interview Bert-Jan Ruissen
'Make sure the farmer can earn a living'
The new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been approved by the European Parliament, the formal discussion of the 7th Action Program Nitrates Directive (7th AP) has been postponed by the European Commission and the Green Deal is starting to take shape. In short, important decisions have been taken in the past year for agriculture at European level.
Boerenbusiness spoke with MEP Bert-Jan Ruissen (SGP) about these developments and their consequences for Dutch agriculture.
The new CAP was approved by the European Parliament last year. How do you view the agreement that has been reached?
"A number of important changes have been made in the new CAP. For example, more attention is being paid to sustainability and biodiversity. This means that additional requirements are imposed on farmers to qualify for direct income support. The CAP is a framework in which the Member States can implement the objectives of the CAP in a manner tailored to their own agricultural sector with the National Strategic Plans (NSP).This regional approach is an important change of course in European agricultural policy.A farmer in the Netherlands faces very different challenges than, for example, his colleague in Spain and that is better recognized with the CAP."
"In the national implementation, it is important that the economic viability of the sector is not lost sight of. Some parties pretend that direct payments to farmers are free money and therefore think it is fine to attach additional requirements to this. For many However, farmers need this support to survive. Goals in the field of sustainability, for example, are good, but make sure that the farmer can continue to earn a living."
How does the Netherlands approach the national interpretation?
"Let me state first that I am a Member of the European Parliament and that the elaboration of the CAP through the implementation of the NSP is a matter between the Member State and the Commission. I am, however, amazed at some of the choices that the Netherlands makes. For example, the House of Representatives voted for a gradual maximum transfer of 30% of the budget from the first pillar (direct payments) to the second pillar (rural development).As far as I can see, other Member States are not making that choice. As a result, Dutch farmers are lagging behind compared to their European colleagues who maintain higher direct income support. It is striking that parties such as the CDA, CU and VVD, who promote their agricultural mindedness, have also voted in favor of the transfer."
"The CAP provides tailor-made solutions, such as for buffer zones along water. The general rule in the CAP is a three-meter wide strip. In the negotiations, we stipulated that Member States with many ditches can receive an exemption for these buffer zones. There is almost an exception came in especially for the Netherlands. There is a possibility, but the Netherlands is very reluctant to make use of it. The same is the case with the non-productive area. Member States can opt for 7% non-productive area, of which 3% consists of non-productive elements such as ditches and trees and where the other 4% can be filled with catch crops, protein crops or via an eco-regulation. I think it is unwise that the Netherlands does not include catch crops in this, because the consequence is that farmers with catch crops have the opportunity to limit set-aside to 3% instead of 4% 1% seems like a small difference but has major consequences for example of well-parcelled companies with few ditches in Flevoland or Noord-Beveland. The use of catch crops with a weighting factor as in the current CAP is better suited to those companies than taking 1% extra land out of production. The CAP offers the opportunity and I would say: take advantage of that."
Another important theme this year was the Nitrates Directive. How do you view the discussion from Brussels?
"It is incomprehensible to me that the discussion of the 7e action program Nitrates Directive in the Nitrate Committee in Brussels has been postponed by the European Commission. The Netherlands has presented an ambitious plan, perhaps even too ambitious if you hear the practical objections from the sector, even though the quality standards for groundwater are being met in a large part of the Netherlands. Extra measures do not add anything to water quality in those regions, but - which is understandable - generate a lot of resistance in the agricultural sector."
"There is a hard European standard for nitrate in groundwater that applies to all Member States. However, Member States draw up their own standards for surface water. As a result, surface water that flows into the Netherlands from Germany or Belgium meets the standard in those countries, but causes problems in the Netherlands, creating inequality between the member states."
Is the Netherlands interpreting the rules too strict?
"From the Netherlands, some parties point very easily to Brussels with these rules. The European directives usually offer options for adapting to the local situation. In that case, the bottlenecks must be clearly and well-substantiated in Brussels. the Dutch representatives in Brussels may not be aware of what steps Dutch agriculture has already taken and where the sector is doing well."
MEP Bert-Jan Ruissen
"In the discussion about emissions, for example, I hardly heard anything about production per hectare. Relatively speaking, Dutch agriculture emits relatively few emissions per tonne of harvested product or liter of milk. If it is not denounced, it will not be included in the assessment of the Dutch plans."
"Directing too much towards objectives and drawing up a package of rules in order to achieve them, is a broader trend in European and Dutch politics, in my opinion. Most farmers want to do well and that should be the starting point. we must work more with achievable and realistic objectives and offer farmers tools to implement them instead of rules imposed from above, for example the European target to grow to 25% organic agriculture. In the Netherlands this percentage is now about 3%, that is not easy to increase by 22% Questions that are easily ignored include: is there sufficient demand from the market for so many extra organic products? What does the expansion mean for the existing organic companies? : how achievable and realistic is that objective and is it not exceeded when it is enforced from above?"
In line with this: how do you view the European ambition to reduce the use of PPPs by 50% by 2030?
"Diseases and plagues occur and opportunities are being sought in agriculture to control them. PPPs are an important instrument in this respect and that will not change in the short term. During my working visits I regularly hear from farmers that the 'medicine cabinet starting to get empty' and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the crop healthy and thus maintain production. That is something that worries me."
"Innovation can reduce the use of substances, but that cannot be done overnight. Alternatives, for example green resources or breeding, are being worked on, but this takes time. In the field of breeding, Europe could help by allowing new breeding techniques - with which traditional breeding can be accelerated. These currently still fall under the category of genetic modification. The new breeding techniques offer opportunities not only to make crops more resilient but also to improve the quality of the products or increase yields."
"Incidentally, the question could be asked whether the 50% reduction is in line with the intended goal. From an environmental point of view, it makes more sense to encourage the use of resources that have less or no impact on the environment. Focus on kilograms active ingredient per hectare can be counterproductive for the resources that are less harmful to the environment."
Jurphaas Lugtenburg
© 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.
