Rather new round stopper arrangement within a month

With the election recess approaching, the Agriculture and Fisheries Council is being deployed to close as many loose ends as possible. For example, there are concerns about the transfer of land between companies in the phosphate plan. Elbert Dijkgraaf also asks whether the next round for the stopper arrangement can be earlier than in the aforementioned 4 weeks.  

• What went wrong in the transfer of land during a company takeover?
• Was the oversubscription of the stopper regulation provided for?
• Can the next round stop earlier
• Are land-based companies really not cut
• How does Van Dam respond to concerns about RVO

It was foreseeable that due to the volume of large files currently in progress, the Agriculture and Fisheries Council would be used for many other purposes than those for which it is intended. This is immediately apparent during the speaking time of the agricultural spokespersons.

For example, there are concerns about the transfer of land in the event of business transfer, the VVD and CDA. This is partly in response to messages from the Dutch Agricultural Youth Contact (NAJK). It appears to be the result of the amendment to spare land-based companies in the distribution of rights. For this, only the companies as they looked on 2 July 2015 are considered. In the event of a transfer, someone who was previously in a partnership will receive a number from the Chamber of Commerce (KvK), but technically does not comply with the amendment. State Secretary Martijn van Dam is going to see if he can repair it within the law. He will come back to that in a few weeks.  

Another topic that has been receiving a lot of attention in recent days is the stopper arrangement. This is because it was already well oversubscribed on the first day and the next round has to wait a little longer. SGP member Elbert Dijkgraaf argued for a faster opening of the second round for the stopper arrangement.

Van Dam states that it was known that many dairy farmers have waited in recent years to sell the company. That is why a great deal of enthusiasm for the stopper arrangement was taken into account. The expectations were met and Van Dam spoke of an enthusiastic subscription. †The first round is almost 4 times oversubscribed† The average company that subscribed has 80 cows. In total, approximately 1,5 million kg of phosphate was subscribed. The fact that it takes 4 weeks until the next round is because this is the minimum time needed for processing. Van Dam did not give much hope for an earlier subscription. 

Geurts wanted to know whether it was really not possible to honor all requests. Something that, according to Van Dam, is not possible based on the available budget. 'I talk to the business community to see what is possible within the framework.' Van Dam's businesslike tone in this sensitive matter did not sit well with everyone.    

Another important point is the pinch points. Henk van Gerven wants a phosphate rights bottleneck committee to be set up much sooner than promised. He mentions organic companies as an example. For example, 6.000 organic cows are at risk of being slaughtered. Now it is also the case that the fine for LU for more intensive farms is 30 euros per 100 kg of milk, compared to 38 euros per 100 kg of milk for extensive farms. Carla Dik-Faber (ChristenUnie) also mentions the much too late determination of the committee for pressure cases. This has to be faster. However, Van Dam can do no more than guarantee that the committee will get there as soon as possible.  

It doesn't stop there, because Koser Kaya also signals, based on calculations by the CLM, that those who will not be shortened by a land base in 2018, will have to get rid of cattle in 2017. 'In 2018 they will receive rights for cows that are not there. .' Van Dam responded to this by saying that anyone who was land-bound on 2 July 2015 is also for 2017. However, the response was that this is not correct because an estimated milk production will be used in the LU scheme in 2017 and the real production will count in 2018. Which means that various companies will also have to shrink in 2017. Van Dam has to take another good look at this.   

Apart from all this, there is the phosphate reference that is far from being correct for all dairy farmers. ChristenUnie especially sees the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) as a bottleneck, because of all the work that comes at them. 'A fair question'. Van Dam is reassuring, however, and states that part of the work is carried out by the business community. For example, the surcharges and fines. RVO concerns the data from I&R, that of non-dairy farms and the intended bottlenecks. Additional staff has also been recruited.    

Another topic mentioned is how State Secretary Martijn van Dam deals with motions. For example, there is the motion for postponement of AGR-RPS pending the e-CMR of Jaco Geurts, which was accepted, but was ignored by Van Dam, which raises questions.  

© 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.