Debate on agricultural land with incorrect facts and actors

At the beginning of this month there was an opinion piece in the Financial Newspaper, entitled "Use agricultural land more often for housing", by Joris Winters, sector leader property & investment at Arcadis Netherlands. I would like to nuance this and provide comments. 

Let me start by listing a number of statements - or rather opinions - from his article:

1. "Agricultural land, especially grassland for intensive livestock farming, will have to be repurposed on a significant scale for large-scale housing construction."
2. "It is clear that the current agricultural emissions policy is not sufficient to meet water quality goals". 
3. "Increasing misunderstanding about the uneven distribution of space is inevitable: why should the percentage of agricultural area remain significantly higher in such a densely populated country with a high demand for residential areas"
4. "While the agricultural sector makes a marginal contribution to GDP."

First of all, I would like to contrast these opinions with some facts:

1) Intensive livestock farming does not use grassland. It is a fact that all new developments (other than infill and redevelopment) that take place in the Netherlands always come at the expense of agricultural land. New roads, new residential areas and new work locations are always developed on agricultural land, and nowadays "nature compensation" must also take place... Three guesses on which land these take place... yes, also on agricultural land.   

2) If we look at the water quality goals, the problem here is not primarily with agriculture. Since the Olympic Games we know where the biggest problem is: the sewage treatment plants and in particular the sewer overflow. For the Netherlands, there is also the inflow from abroad (which for many substances already exceeds Dutch standard sit).

3) And then the "unbalanced distribution of space"... For 1 million homes you need less than 30.000 hectares of land. For comparison: The introduction of buffer strips for agriculture would already amount to more than 75.000 hectares. So let's be clear: Availability of land is not the problem for housing! (then we end up with, among other things, licensing and grid congestion...)

4) It is mentioned that the agricultural sector generates 1,5% of GDP. The most recent figures according to the Wageningen Economic Board from 2022 indicate a contribution from the entire sector of 8% of GDP. Let us not forget that agriculture and farming have a very broad impact on sectors and create added value across a wide range. In addition, agriculture makes a major contribution to exports, which has major (positive) economic consequences for our country

So you might wonder why Mr. Winters, on behalf of Arcadis, is once again advocating the large-scale repurposing of agricultural land, and unfortunately for him with incorrect figures in hand. It doesn't make his case any stronger.
Not long ago it was in the same newspaper an article entitled "New green investment fund will buy up farmland". Arcadis joins the ReTimber investment fund to purchase agricultural land with €200 million and engage in forestry there... All under the guise of biodiversity and sustainability.

The real reason? Rock hard euros. Arcadis earns its money by helping to develop and research projects within the "nature industry" as well as housing construction and many more. That's fine, but why aren't they just honest and open about it?

Winters only creates more misunderstanding with his unqualified and unsubstantiated position on agricultural land for houses. The misunderstanding of the agricultural sector is mentioned in each of the points in his piece. I don't think he's ever spoken to a farmer before. But also misunderstanding about the use of space. You cannot simply divide them. You have to make integrated considerations about this. And you have to be able to explain those considerations. It is precisely this position that creates even more misunderstanding of policy. If we want and need to make choices together for our country, we must continue to talk to each other, we must understand each other and we must be transparent about our interests. Above all, we must rely on facts, not vague assumptions and opinions. You don't build a foundation on that, and certainly not an entire residential area.

Within the province of Gelderland, I would like to advocate taking a very critical look at future tenders to see whether it is still possible to collaborate with parties that are clearly wearing double hats. Nationally, the Ministry of LVVN (Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature) should abolish the "depreciation subsidy" (conversion from agriculture to nature = approximately 60-75% of the agricultural value) as soon as possible. Because - fun fact - ReTimber can obtain approximately €200 million in write-down subsidies with an investment of €600 million. In other words, plus 300%. That's what I call a good initial return (but for the wrong party).

© 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.