Where do we want to go with the agricultural and food system in the Netherlands? For a successful transition to a better system, we must first answer that question together. Because without a common goal, parties continue to struggle over every means without making real progress. As soon as there is a shared ambition, governments and market parties can take all kinds of measures to accelerate development in the right direction.
Do not expect substantive statements from Lucas Simons about what Dutch agriculture should look like in 2040. He does have ideas about this, but prefers to limit himself to what he has the most knowledge about: the question of how a transition - including that in the agriculture and food sector - can best take place; with the best chance of success. That is the field of activity of his consultancy NewForesight, which advises companies and governments on transitions in the context of sustainability.
The concept of 'transmission' is central to the model for successful transitions that he developed together with Nyenrode Business University and the Copernicus Institute. By this, Simons means that it is not just about the right private initiatives, actions by companies or government measures, but even more about their coordination: the right timing and sequence. In this way, the market and government can stimulate each other in every phase of the transition. "It's about shifting gears at the right time so you get real acceleration."
Four questions
With complex sustainability issues, it is important to first answer four simple questions, as Simons learned in his previous work in the international trade of tropical agricultural products such as coffee, cocoa, tea, cotton and palm oil. The answers to the four questions provide insight into why many things are not yet sustainable and how the transition to a better situation can take shape.
Question 1: Why is the market not sustainable?
In every transition you see that different parties blame each other, for example by saying 'the farmers did it'. But almost always all parties involved (market parties, governments, banks, knowledge institutions) are jointly responsible. "As far as I am concerned, the right question for Dutch agriculture is: What do we want to compete on? On efficiency, volume and the lowest price? Or on quality and sustainability?" In the Netherlands, food is relatively cheap and much of the production is for export, where we compete against world market prices. In Simons' view, this competition on price leads to continuous increases in scale and intensification in agriculture. "The aim is to keep the cost price as low as possible, whereby costs of environmental pollution, for example, are often not included."
Question 2: What have we promoted so far?
In recent decades, efforts have been made unilaterally towards high production and low costs, partly by placing risks and (hidden) costs elsewhere. This concerns, for example, the policy of the EU and the Netherlands with regard to the training of farmers, which permits are granted, which developments are stimulated, which infrastructure is available, which tax rules apply, what is subsidized and when you do or not get a loan from banks. "You also see it in the premiums per hectare; the more land you have, the more subsidy. I think it is no exaggeration to say that almost all policy in recent decades has been unilaterally aimed at scaling up and intensifying agriculture and food production." concludes Simons.
Question 3: Who is affected by it?
The system has worked well for a long time. At least, for the parties who know how to benefit from it. But there are also losers who have virtually no voice in the game of market forces. Like farmers in developing countries. And nature has had no voice for a long time, so that the carrying capacity of the planet is now greatly exceeded. As a result, future generations in particular will be affected, Simons analyses. But also involved parties themselves, such as European farmers who experience that they are stuck in a system in which they cannot earn a reasonable income. But the negative feedback from the system does not affect those who benefit from the system in the short term.
Question 4: Can it be more sustainable, how do we make it attractive?
In order for people to make more sustainable choices, alternatives to the usual must be available. They are often there, but they are not attractive. They are more expensive, involve more uncertainty, the demand is not yet there, it goes against the permits or it does not fit in with the subsidy rules. In other words: the sustainable alternatives have to compete with the market power of traditional suppliers, while they also have to contend with economies of scale in the start-up phase.
The combination of the above four factors leads to an unsustainable system. Such a situation does not change by itself. Too many interests have built up to keep the current system afloat. This also has to do with the self-interest of politicians and governments. It leads to the fact that the parties - governments, companies and NGOs - are increasingly trapped in a system where they fight each other. "I always say: don't blame the players, blame the game." By which Simons means that you should not keep looking for the culprit, but ask yourself what you can contribute to a better system. This is the best way, because the traditional role of the government acting as market master no longer works, Simons sees. "There is no longer any confidence in the government that enforces sustainability with clear regulations."
How then?
So much for the unattractive current situation. How should it be? Simons shows pictures of how a transition works. At the top a red line, which represents the existing situation. Below that are a number of green lines, which together reach an increasingly higher level. And finally ensure that the red line goes down. "Such a picture shows that there is no simple solution, no 'quick fix' possible. So the current bickering about nitrogen will not yield a solution, because it is about a sub-aspect, while you should approach it in context."
Luke Simons
The lines show that this is a complex process in which all parties must always take the right actions. Simons compares it to the growth of a human being. "You take care of a baby and you don't explain that beer and pizza are unhealthy. An adolescent does not accept care, but it is good to point out the dangers of unhealthy food to him or her." So different interventions and actions are needed in each phase. In the transition to sustainable agriculture, for example, we see initiatives emerging, such as regenerative agriculture, eating less meat and new forms of cooperation between citizens and farmers. "You can't suddenly say: that is now the norm. After all, it is still too small to provide enough food for everyone. So you have to cherish those kinds of developments, you have to take care of them as you would a baby; for example with subsidies by the government."
On their own
But there comes a time when such an initiative, if it does not disappear, must stand on its own two feet, like a child. "Then it becomes a business that can keep its own pants. That is also the time to impose more restrictions on the traditional approach. After all, there is a serious alternative available. It means that the red line goes down, for example because meat consumption is heavier This way you can always stimulate the initiatives that contribute to the ambition for the future in the right way at the right time."
If we compare the course of events in recent years with Simons' ideal model, the picture is not very promising. "It is not considered at all who should do what in which phase. In fact, part of the playing field does not fully recognize the real problem - the need for radical sustainability." This means that new stopgap remedies are constantly needed, which are therefore almost structurally subsidised. There is no vision of where things should go, it is only said what is no longer allowed and is not possible. And entrepreneurs who are sustainable are not stimulated. "To top it all off, a huge amount of money is now being released to buy out companies, while there is no clear perspective or new revenue model for anyone. That can only lead to great misery."
Bad movie
The parties involved in the transition of the Dutch agricultural and food system are in a stalemate. Accusations are made back and forth and guilty are pointed out. In short: the case is deadlocked and it is time for all parties involved to acknowledge that they are each jointly responsible for this clamping situation. "I'm now watching a bad movie about a bad marriage," said Simons. He advises taking an example from other sectors such as the construction or energy sector. "There, the parties will actively work together to formulate an ambition for the Netherlands in 2040. That will not all happen automatically, it takes effort and pain." The Dutch agricultural and food sector also deserves something similar, believes Simons. He calls on those involved to all acknowledge that they have contributed to the impasse. "Say sorry and go to the table with those parties that do want to change. Then we will talk about how we will all shape the necessary transition together and how we will deal with parties that do not want to or cannot participate."
This article is part of the series 'Spokespersons of the Future', an initiative of the Food Transition Coalition. In this series of interviews, written by Jeen Akkerman, visionaries give their views on the future of food production in the Netherlands. The editors of Boerenbusiness is not responsible for the content of these publications.