Background Nitrogen mood
Lessons for a new Agricultural Agreement
Since the Agricultural Agreement fell through, there has been a lot of discussion about the process. The proponents of a deal never fail to emphasize the missed opportunity, the doubters continue to do what they did and continue to torment themselves with the question: 'what if…?' The opponents are satisfied for now. There are delays and there are new opportunities.
'Independent' chairman Chris Kalden now really has his hands free and also participates in the above-mentioned party game. In his final report, which went to the House of Representatives at the beginning of this week, he also reflects on the process. Kalden had set it up differently and defined it more clearly in advance, he says. It is an observation that has also been made more often in previous episodes of the Nitrogen Mood.
Wishing tables and negotiating tables
Kalden states that the set-up with sector tables, where the wish lists were drawn up and a main table, where negotiations then had to take place, did not work. The secrecy and therefore not being allowed/able to take the supporters with them also hindered the process. And then of course the division in the agricultural sector, which is always there (but that drivers of LTO apparently did not notice or did not want to see). Kalden lists quite a list. Kalden had no problem with the extensive representation to 'demanding' parties (the various site managers and/or nature organizations and local authorities). They are barely mentioned in the report.
Kalden would do it differently
Should there ever be a new consultation on an Agricultural Agreement – Kalden apparently does not rule out the possibility – then he would approach it very differently, simply, more concisely, more openly.
His remarks about financial guarantees to farmers for the expected earnings after an Agricultural Agreement have been widely picked up by other media. He rightly notes that it should be about earning capacity of farmers, not about income guarantees, but his statements about the expected earning capacity sound very much like the projections of a civil servant or politician who does not experience reality himself.
Political and official projections
Something similar can be found in the report of the conversation that Minister of Agriculture Piet Adema had with European Commissioner Frans Timmermans at the end of last year. The NOS reported At the beginning of this week, the European Commissioner had warned that in 2023 there would still be bad fertilizer news from Brussels for farmers. Adema contradicted this and sent a partially readable conversation report as proof.
It also contained Timmermans complaints about organic farming. According to the European Commissioner, he felt 'abandoned' by the Dutch government. Ignoring the fact that it is mainly the consumer who does not need the more expensive organic product. Apparently he hadn't realized that consumers were even passing over the more expensive conventional products (the A-brands) en masse in favor of the cheaper private label product.
Timmermans did have a lot of praise for one case though. That was about the integrated Dutch approach to water. He called it brilliant.
Derogation and groundwater
Somehow that feels a bit strange, while Adema has just been brushed off about the constant 'not delivering' of the Netherlands in the field of legislation. After all, the (laws and regulations for) water quality are also at stake here.
When it comes to derogation and water quality, there is something else striking. According to reports from the Netherlands and Brussels, the Netherlands itself does not meet the standards, and this also applies to surface water, but when it comes to groundwater quality, the derogation has not jeopardized its quality since 2006. the RIVM in a report also released this week.
Soil diseased and full of residue
However, with Timmermans and the environment commissioner Virginius Sinkevicius who is functionally subordinate to him, the glass is (figuratively speaking) not easily half full. In a speech in Brussels they once again sounded the alarm about climate, environment and soil this week. Agriculture in particular had to suffer, although Timmermans also denounced the enormous food waste in the EU. Every year 59 million tons of food is thrown away, not used. "If food waste were a Member State, it would be the fifth largest emitter of CO2 in the EU by volume."
Sinkevicius reported that as much as 70% of agricultural soils are not healthy and that 83% of those soils are contaminated with pesticide residue. According to him, this costs € 50 billion in damage per year. Drought damage alone costs €9 billion annually. Inquiries with the European Commission have not yet clarified how Sinkevicius arrives at his calculations.
In The Hague, politicians from D66 and GroenLinks are concerned about the amount of crops grown purely for livestock farming and wonder whether more cultivation directly for human consumption would not be more efficient. It would also make a lot of livestock farming obsolete. Wageningen UR has figured that out and is likely to disappoint them somewhat. According to the WUR researchers, there is hardly any benefit to be gained from this in the Netherlands.
Competitive offer?
While the cabinet has now fallen and it is uncertain what will happen next, the buy-out of farms and, in particular, of peak loaders has started and this process will continue. There are not many results to report on this yet, but various signs indicate that the process will not go smoothly. Minister Christianne van der Wal will not be the only interested party for various locations. With 20% outbidding for only a few selected parts of companies and probably a long wait for a financial settlement, she is not immediately well pre-sorted or first in line, as can be heard in the field.
Billions or not, the government is not an agile buyer. Laws and regulations do not change that easily. Perhaps it would be instructive if the chief negotiator for the peak tax squeeze-out scheme also writes a final report in due course on what, in retrospect, went well and what did not go well with that scheme.
Klaas van der Horst
© 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.
