Government is betting on derogation, but has no plan B

While Minister Wiersma and State Secretary Rummenie of the new Ministry of LVVN are developing their plans for Dutch agriculture this summer, it is becoming clear which atmosphere Dutch farmers can count on. The signs show little prospect for farmers.

The LVVN ministers prepared themselves July 30 It is known that the provincial plans that should, among other things, get the nitrogen dossier going can be shelved. According to the planning drawn up under Rutte IV, the provinces should have submitted plans as of October 1 in the context of the National Rural Area Plan (NPLG).

Under Rutte IV, the government assigned the implementation of environmental and spatial planning tasks to the provinces. In their PPLGs (provincial plans for the rural area commissioned by the NPLG), they would develop measures that would contribute to improving the quality of the rural area through nitrogen reduction, better water management, nature restoration, and stimulating circular agriculture.

They had to - and officially they still have to - take measures to reduce nitrogen emissions. This may involve adjusting permits for companies, buying up farms in vulnerable natural areas and encouraging low-emission technologies in agriculture. The provinces are responsible for restoring and strengthening nature reserves. This includes improving habitats for endangered species, expanding nature reserves, and connecting existing nature reserves to promote biodiversity.

In collaboration with the Water Boards, the provinces must work to improve water quality and adapt water management to ensure it meets the goals of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). It will have to include measures that pollute surface water less. Furthermore, the provinces must take measures to make their rural areas more resilient to the consequences of climate change, such as drought, floods and heat stress. They will have to do this in collaboration with not only farmers, but with all stakeholders such as other entrepreneurs in their work area, nature organizations, water boards and citizens. And to top it all off, they must also ensure that agriculture - which consists of thousands of individual entrepreneurs - switches to nature-inclusive business operations that promote regional cycles.

Old agreements, major renovation plan
Anyone who takes in all these tasks realizes that the NPLG entailed a complete organizational renovation of the countryside that had to be developed and programmed. It is not without reason that the provinces budgeted €60 billion for the total project. The cabinet had allocated €25 billion for it. During the outgoing Rutte IV, the new House of Representatives, led by BBB, decided that even that 25 billion was no longer necessary. It was perhaps logical because BBB is against the decline in livestock farming, while that word is quietly written in pencil across the statements. But whether it was smart is another question. The NPLG is   the implementation of plans based on agreements with the European Commission: the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Nitrate Directives and the Water Framework Directive, plus national policy regarding circularity and adaptation to changing climate conditions. What Rutte IV did was delegate responsibility from The Hague to the provinces, but it cannot be shifted away. Especially not because the work that needs to be done must implement old guidelines and agreements.

Rabobank wants to agree, LTO wants the derogation back
Rabobank CEO Stefaan Decraene spoke out about the farming issue at the beginning of this month during the presentation of his half-year figures. He believes that another attempt should be made to reach an agricultural agreement. The reason? He's in a hurry. He knows that the cabinet and the farmers will not reach an agreement if they do not want to take the bull by the horns.

Chairman Ger Koopmans of the LTO farmers' association also spoke out last week. He did that in one interview op Boerenbusiness in which he sounded like a man with a plan. However, for the good listener, he only said that he wants the European Commission to give the Netherlands back the derogation, otherwise our dairy farming will collapse along with the processing industry. Brussels must understand this well, says the farmers' chairman. The derogation is the now well-known exception for countries with growing soil to be allowed to apply more manure than European rules allow. A number of countries in the northwest of the European Union had such a derogation, but it has now disappeared everywhere or the right is being phased out. This is also the case in the Netherlands.

Koopmans remained silent about the complete NPLG renovation plan that has piled up, as if its goals do not continue to exist. But they do, the minister also acknowledges. Koopmans also remained silent about a plan B if Brussels does not do what he wants.

Koopmans has no plan B for the derogation. The minister probably doesn't have that either, although she seems to think it is realistic that the Netherlands will find a profitable market for our manure surplus on other continents. Koopmans also does not seem concerned about the reasons why the NPLG was developed. He shows even less that he could develop new plans for this with the minister and commercial partners.

Rabobank wants such plans because the bank can no longer finance farmers if the rules of the game are not clear. Farmers are in danger of being confronted with unenforceable legal demands that will drown them. The bank therefore wants an agreement with their customers so that the incoming cash flows for the farmer are visible. Koopmans indicates in the interview that he does not give such an agreement a priority. First the derogation must be returned. The buyers just look at it, because there is no point in negotiating in such a situation.

The chance that Minister Wiersma will bring back the derogation for the Netherlands is really small. On the one hand, because countries that had a derogation have all had to hand it in or know that the end is in sight. This applies, for example, to: Ireland which is even more dependent on cows and milk than the Netherlands. On the other hand, because it concerns old agreements that have a history in the Brussels negotiating circuits that is too complex to break open. It is theoretically possible, but the Netherlands must be able to offer something to the EU or important member states. What, is the big question. The Netherlands also wants pulse fishing back on the agenda in order to obtain permission for it. This government is mainly focused on collecting and has not yet found the way to delivering. It also has the disadvantage that it has a prime minister who still has to build his reputation in the Brussels circuit. And on top of that, the question for Brussels is whether this cabinet will last long because it is based on a narrow basis for a marriage of convenience.

It may be surprising that LTO focuses on the derogation and does not even mention the host of other swords hanging over the farming sector. That is perhaps as understandable as BBB voting away the 25 billion, because LTO also does not want to anger its members by proactively making progressive plans. But unfortunately, this does not make the old and even stale tasks disappear. This will only become clear when Wiersma returns from Brussels empty-handed and NPLG goals also appear to exist. Then it becomes clear that even a farmer-friendly government can no longer reverse the chaotic consequences of years of stagnation in making and implementing plans. Farmers will be deprived of the illusion and the cabinet and LTO will say that they have done everything to serve their interests. In reality, they end up in an ice-cold restructuring. Too bad, because it could have been so different.

Staying in the lead
How? Former LTO director Annechien ten Have stated this earlier this month a column know. Farmers know what needs to be done and should have made their own plan years ago, she says. And they can still do that now. The problem is that they sit around waiting for someone to fix the past. But that past will not return and has been gone for years.

There is a plan to set up an ambitious renovation project. It is a plan for a plan; there is actually still no more, while the ambition is gigantic and the demands of Brussels are high, but no different from those of other EU countries. It is not as easy as Ten Have makes it out to be. But she does ask the right question: why doesn't anyone seem to want to make a plan and at least start building momentum? It is crazy that a pro-farmer government gambles on yesterday's derogation, but does not think about a plan B that should have been plan A years ago to in the lead to stay. That shouldn't be a problem, especially with this government.

This article is part of the content collaboration between Boerenbusiness en foodlog.

Dick Veerman

Editor-in-chief of Foodlog.nl

© 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.