Interview Pieter Grinwis (Christian Union)
'Don't problematize farmers, but give them confidence'
Pieter Grinwis (44) has been in the House of Representatives for the Christian Union for more than two years now and his portfolio includes agriculture. On the list he is directly behind party leader Mirjam Bikker.
The son of an arable farmer in Goeree Overflakkee has sometimes found it difficult in the past period: "I have found it difficult to be an agricultural and horticultural spokesperson, while instead of connection, there seemed to be more and more separation."
You have a broad portfolio, from climate and energy to finance. If we zoom in on agriculture, what are you most satisfied with so far?
"The advantage of a small faction is that you have a large package and I always try to look beyond the boundaries of a subject. In the spring we succeeded in building biobased, including fiber crops, elephant grass and straw, and so on. to give an impetus in the additional climate package. At my proposal, Hugo de Jonge has tightened it up so that the use of bio-raw materials grown on Dutch fields also becomes an obligation in construction."
"Building with bio-based materials is a win-win-win situation. Production of materials such as concrete and bricks causes a lot of emissions. Bio raw materials contribute to CO2 reduction and circularity and you can use them very well in modular construction in factories. It can also be a revenue model for the farmer. The balance per hectare is often lower, but miscanthus (elephant grass) in particular is growing rapidly. If strong market demand arises, it is an alternative for those farmers who want fewer livestock and do not want a care farm or want to start camping. It is crucial that there is a strong biobased chain in our country and that the balance per hectare becomes interesting for farmers."
Are there things that haven't worked out yet?
"I have been able to make a few small movements for the better, but we have not been able to solve the big questions in agriculture and horticulture and the environment in which farmers have to operate. That causes headaches, not only for the farmer, but also for politicians like me."
Two years ago you stated the goal of contributing to the position of farmers throughout the chain. Is it a great disappointment that no agricultural agreement has been reached?
"It is a shame that the Agricultural Agreement that Piet Adema enthusiastically committed himself to a year ago has not been concluded. Unfortunately, very important agreements about what we can expect from banks, supermarkets and the processing and feed industry have not been finalized. But it is The glass is also half full: after the abolition of the old Product Boards, agriculture has become more of a collection of individuals. The negotiations on the Agricultural Agreement have set in motion something of solidarity that we should not throw away."
"To be honest, I always had a hard time about such a polder agreement, but when I see to what extent the dairy farming sector also realized that it will have to do with fewer animals, then I think we could have come to an agreement. There was such a tour de force from the agricultural parties and there was also momentum in June to make a lot of money available. That is over, but I hope that the consultation tables can again form the start of a new tradition in the agricultural Netherlands to work together in this way."
"An agricultural entrepreneur is a price taker in the economic structure and remains the weakest in the chain. I believe that the party that does the most work and takes the most risks, the farmers, should not be left hanging at the end of the line. Many farmers can only improve their position through cooperative chain power. Former minister Schouten had already initiated that cooperation will no longer be punished in advance. What was on paper in the draft agricultural agreement must be continued or enforced through legislation."
"Some products are real cash crops where the price is determined by supply and demand. For example, Dutch onions. 90% of these cross the border. You just know that one year the price is good and the next year it is bad. You can go from Don't give any certainty in advance: you are guaranteed that much. The farmer is first and foremost an entrepreneur."
There have been no fewer than two Ministers of Agriculture in the last two years. How do you look back on that?
"That was quite a difficult time. Ultimately, the first part with Staghouwer - and that was only over six months - was not a happy match between the person and The Hague. That is a shame, for himself and for agriculture. Especially since you suddenly had two ministers in the department, it would have been nice if Adema had been able to start immediately. He has brought about a change in tone and demonstrates a hands on mentality.
"I look back on the past few years with mixed feelings. Also on how the nature and nitrogen problem has developed. That lies with Van der Wal. The conversation must start with appreciation for farmers and the food they produce. Agriculture has become enormously problematic. I used to fill out the Minas accounts for my father. A large group became aware that you can create the same output with fewer inputs. I would like to get back to that way of approaching at company level. There has been talk about this, but I think too little has been done about it. It starts with us as a government giving farmers confidence that they can reduce emissions. No system of rules that is based on distrust."
How should it be done?
"We need to switch to an emission reduction policy instead of model-based deposition reduction. That policy is inexplicable. The recently published UvA research underlines that it only makes sense to establish a relationship between nitrogen emissions and deposition in the first few meters around a farm. Beyond you can no longer make a measurable connection with the 500 meters. To this end, I also submitted a motion with Thom van Campen (VVD) and Eline Vedder (CDA) (which was adopted, ed.). The core is: away from deposition and more races on emission."
"The nitrogen discussion is not only a discussion between politicians and farmers' practices, but also between The Hague and Brussels. What have we done there in all the years? I expect a much more active minister who tries to be a bit assertive. I think Adema has made a good start with this, with an assertive attitude in Brussels."
But Adema abstained from voting in Europe on glyphosate.
"There is a completely different discussion with glyphosate. There is also a health aspect. We have discovered that the EFSA assessment framework for neurotoxic aspects is not up to date. The question then is: should you first investigate, as a precaution, whether there really is no relationship between glyphosate and Parkinson's or you have to continue and if there turns out to be a connection, then you have trudged on for a few years."
As a Member of Parliament, you have been very concerned about parties that buy up nitrogen rights, while PAS detectors cannot obtain a permit. Schiphol has now received its permit.
"Yes, thanks to bought-up farms, you could say. I have said in recent years that powerful players on the market, Rijkswaterstaat, Schiphol or Tata Steel, are looking for nitrogen space. And where can it be found: with farmers' permits. That If we don't pay attention, Schiphol will not shrink, but will continue happily. And that is how it happened. I find that so cynical and it does not contribute anything to solving nature problems. I have tried to put a stop to it and I am very disappointed about it that the nature permit was issued just before the elections."
"All sectors have the task of reducing emissions. This includes making Schiphol smaller. It is important that every sector - large or small and whether it contributes much to nitrogen or not - contributes. It is not right that there is one-sided focus is on dairy farmers who emit ammonia."
You are stable in the poll on the 5 seats you now have, but some of the farmers' supporters no longer have confidence. Is that unjustified?
"No, because you have to earn trust. That is why I have found the past two years quite complex. I know agriculture from the inside out. When I speak to farmers, they feel understood, they know that I understand. I have found it difficult to be an agricultural and horticultural spokesperson while instead of connection there seemed to be more and more separation."
"Where we have a challenge is to convert the connection into trust in us. In Rutte IV we did not have love. It was a cabinet that no one liked, not the people in the country, but so did we in The Hague not. That has not contributed to confidence. A nitrogen card has not contributed to that either. I know what is going on in the agricultural and horticultural sector and that is why it has hurt so much that the sector was seen as a problem , while farmers supply fantastic products at an incredibly low price. The challenges are large. There must be a balance with the environment while a living must be earned. Then you should not start dismissing agriculture as a problem."
"Let's not make the gap between city and countryside wider than it is. If you look at agriculture and horticulture around The Hague, you see that there are warm ties and cooperatives are emerging where food finds its way locally. I support with one foot in the city and one in the countryside. If possible, I try to go to Goeree Overflakkee in the summer and jump on the tractor. I sometimes still think: How nice it would have been if I became an arable farmer have become."
Linda van Eekeres
© 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.