De Boer 2.0: design of new Mansholt doctrine?

The Dutch agricultural system is increasingly under discussion in 2021: efficiency is high, but the effects on biodiversity, environmental quality and landscape call for a new Mansholt doctrine in which agriculture, food and the environment are strongly linked.

In part 1 of this series I have shown that change is desirable and necessary to be future-proof. I also posit that this change will only be a success if the agricultural business once again forms the center of this development. It is precisely on the farm that it is possible to make the link with the environment concrete, to seek cooperation with colleagues and to restore the relationship with the citizen.

What does this mean for the future of an agricultural company? How can an agricultural company take into account the ecological capacity and at the same time meet the growing demand for sufficient and high-quality food? And what is needed to enable every company to contribute to these tasks? I describe 4 preconditions for this. Please note, 3 of the 4 preconditions are aspects on which the farmer himself has only limited influence. Even though his company is at the center of this development. 

1. A clear company profile
Both the consumer and the government expect transparency about the contribution that an agricultural company makes to food production and the quality of the living environment. This means that every company must also choose a position within the scope of existing ecosystem services: which tasks do you want to work on as a company? Not everything is possible, both the tasks and the action perspective depend on the region where the company is located. Moreover, different assignments can also conflict with each other.

Looking at current developments in the Netherlands, there are a number of options. There are companies that position themselves as product specialists (maximization of efficient production), or self-appreciation (expansion of local and regional chains) or as a broadener (broadening activities outside agriculture).

Within this, various content-oriented positions are also conceivable on the basis of the services provided or the chosen system vision. Think of sounding names such as Organic Farmer, Climate Farmer, Recycle Farmer, Nature Inclusive Farmer, Regenerative Farmer, Herenboer, Heideboer, Burgerboeren or Weidevogelboer. The common thread in many of these positions is a restoration of the food system, in which the involvement of citizens is directly or indirectly increased.

At the same time, as an agronomist and systematist, I hesitate here. Because although the names sound nice, they cause a lot of confusion. Because when are you regenerative as a farmer? When are you climate friendly? When are you a thrift farmer? And is this a guarantee for an agriculture in which the quality of the environment actually improves?

In my opinion, clear and simple positioning is important to avoid fragmentation and compartmentalisation. In order to restore the connection with the citizen and to provide clarity in discussions with parties in the chain and area parties (origin and production method are part of the value proposition). Finally, this also guides the management to be conducted and the performance indicators to be used.

2. Collaboration is necessary
A company does not stand alone, especially if we look at the various assignments. When we talk about the quality of the living environment, it is by definition a business-transcending matter. The challenges in the field of climate, biodiversity, soil and water therefore require cooperation. First of all, to have an impact on the quality of the environment, but also to gain some control over the regional economy and to strengthen the connection with the citizen.

Healthy food can be made available to consumers through a regional network where companies work together. Agreements can also be made with other networks or chain parties for the exchange of products, knowledge and management styles.

In addition, collaboration also yields technical improvements towards making the production process more sustainable. This can take the form, for example, through the exchange of plots (and thus a wider crop rotation), joint manure storage, continuous buffer zones along waterways (improvement of water quality and biodiversity) and the design and management of ditches (for water retention and ecological recovery). . And smart work planning (soil quality protection) and joint investments for soil and weather sensors that provide feedback on the efficiency of agricultural production.

In addition to smart collaboration between smaller companies, I expect many traditional family businesses to grow into larger business associations through acquisitions and mergers, as well as become part of cooperatives where economies of scale are realized in purchasing, sales, product development and innovation. In all these strategies for growth and cooperation, guidance is needed to make goals for environmental quality more concrete.

3. Monitoring and steering with performance indicators
Monitoring is necessary if a company is to aim for sustainable production. This is not only necessary for technically optimizing cultivation, but also for embedding it within policy. I see this wish emerging in the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the elaboration of circular agriculture started by LNV, the Delta Plan for Agricultural Water Management, the (ground) water and soil management of provinces, the Agricultural Nature and Landscape Management and the lease policy. Everywhere there is a call for customization and target management. This can only be achieved if the quality of the farm is monitored.

To monitor performance, it is important that standardized protocols and critical performance indicators can be used, in relation to both the agricultural production function and the quality of the living environment. This makes it possible to steer towards objectives in agricultural policy and stimulate entrepreneurship.

Good examples of this are the KringloopWijzer in dairy farming (with a focus on mineral cycles), the Open Soil Index (with a focus on soil quality), the Biodiversity Monitor (with a focus on biodiversity), and the BedrijfsBodemWaterPlan (with a focus on water quantity and quality). The performance indicators developed therein are result-oriented and establish a relationship between parcel and farm characteristics and the existing goals in a region. Unfortunately, performance indicators for citizen involvement in food production as well as socio-economic impact are not yet available.

Using a system of critical performance indicators, it is also possible to compare the costs and benefits of different business strategies and to make substantiated choices. The tasks as well as the challenges per region are different and there are also tasks that are not necessarily in line with a sustainable agricultural soil.

For example, the task to store substantial amounts of carbon in the Dutch soil (for the climate), the task to prevent nitrate leaching into the groundwater (for the quality of groundwater), the cultivation of biofuels (for the climate) and late mowing. or inundating plots to give meadow birds a place in the spring to forage or nest (for nature management). An integrated set of performance indicators makes it clear that the gains for one task can create a possible bottleneck for another task. And that either choices must be made in this regard, or appropriate measures must be proposed to prevent trade-offs.

An additional advantage of benchmarking is the mutual discussion between farmers. The mutual conversation facilitates the transfer of knowledge between farmers, between farmers and their advisors and between farmers and the consumer or chain parties. Standardization of management and operations based on measurements and (shared) practical knowledge also has the advantage of increasing efficiency and reducing environmental impact.

4. Reward based on company specific goals
Changes in the soil and landscape as a result of measures often only show results in the long term. Many measures entail costs that as yet cannot simply be reimbursed from the market. Implementing measures therefore involves a financial risk and long-term investments.

As long as the market price for the products does not cover the necessary investments in sustainable soil management, there are 2 ways to stimulate this. The government regulates market prices or the farmer receives compensation for the work or performance in the field of ecosystem services. An area-oriented approach, taking into account the variation within and between companies, should therefore be part of the EU Green Deal and the reform of the CAP. If all parties use the same system, it is also possible to work on stacked rewards.

The financial sector can play a role in the development of new revenue models, as can local governments. First, agricultural subsidies can be reformed through a stronger link with the impact on the quality of the living environment. These funds can be supplemented with national funds for the transition to circular agriculture, the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and nature policy.

An alternative track is to reward through extra policy space in the context of irrigation policy, the fertilizer policy (in this context, for example, the track of equivalence in usage standards or more flexible usage instructions with proven expertise), access to leased land or access to investment subsidies. Private investments can be stimulated through social investments in land funds or by charging lower interest rates for sustainable companies because of the more favorable risk profile.

If individual companies or networks of companies are able to restore the connection with citizens locally or regionally, this also has effects. This is precisely where many opportunities lie to restore the exodus from the countryside through progressive young entrepreneurs who strengthen the relationship between citizens, food and the market. 

Time for a new Mansholt program?
It is essential that there are parties in charge of the transition from agriculture to new forms, in which the relationship between citizens and food production is strengthened and in which non-agricultural goals also play a role. This is an exciting development, because to date this has never happened (or only very locally). I think it is therefore time for a new Mansholt doctrine and program to facilitate farmers, governments and market parties to realize this transition.

In my opinion, an area-oriented approach that is in line with the action perspective for each company should form the core of this renewed Mansholt doctrine. In concrete terms, this results in area arrangements in which stakeholders develop and valorize area values ​​through new sets of rules (including rights and obligations).

If area management is used on the basis of agricultural, socio-economic and environmental performance, then a management mechanism is needed in which either the government (as the main actor in environmental issues) or a market party (as investor or buyer or groups of consumers) makes agreements with preferably a collective consisting of all relevant participants within a region.

Agreements here go further than just establishing rules and standards; it also includes an understanding of responsibilities and a billing structure to reward non-agricultural ecosystem services and social innovation (food revaluation). The collective referred to here can become a new legal entity with which agreements are made. This is responsible for correct implementation and the distribution of costs and benefits among its members.

This mechanism is not new and resembles the role of agricultural collectives within the current Agricultural Nature Management (ANLB). Its concrete elaboration requires further consideration in relation to the parties involved, as well as the current (manure) policy and financing models.

It is important for the success of these area arrangements that public and private parties are involved on the basis of equality. Such cooperation does require a new common language, clarity about everyone's interests and a long-term horizon of at least 20 years. The chance of success increases if a) there is one arrangement and point of contact per region, b) all actors are involved in setting goals and governance structures, c) area goals are negotiable and multiple policy files are involved, d) there is an economic perspective remains for agriculture and there are e) instruments to address and settle individual companies.

An obvious role for central government or province is to provide clear frameworks and to facilitate the implementation process, for example in the translation of international goals into the regional tasking and in dealing with conflicts of interest and conflicts. This also includes the task of adjusting the current compartmentalization of policy (across several ministries as well as central and decentralized).

In addition, input from the national government remains necessary, because interventions on a certain company can limit or increase the possibilities of achieving the goals elsewhere. Region, product and food-specific developments require new applied laws and regulations.

Role for area arrangements?
Based on my concern that the production of sufficient healthy and safe food for humans and animals will be overlooked within the scope of environmental goals, it is important that parties jointly with the agricultural sector take control in the region. Supported by science and policy. To facilitate this transition, input is needed from:

• up-to-date knowledge of the agricultural business and the craftsmanship to steer towards agricultural and environmental goals through sustainable soil management and management.
• an up-to-date and innovative approach to a set of measuring instruments to map, monitor and embed soil quality and landscape 'soil functions' within business-oriented advisory programmes.
• an active network of both knowledge developers and business consultants, with which the necessary knowledge for area solutions can be made concrete into measurable goals and new revenue models.
• a committed partnership to search with financial parties, chain parties and governments for the added value of ecosystem services within realistic financing constructions or policy instruments.
• a bond with local and regional educational institutions and citizens in order to increase the bond and interaction between city and countryside and to involve citizens in food production.

How further?
And what does this mean for every farmer in the Netherlands? How can he/she design a business strategy, with which agricultural and environmental tasks reinforce each other and with which the connection with the citizen is restored? More on that in part 3 of this series.

Gerard Rose

Senior project manager in soil, water and agriculture at the Nutrient Management Institute (NMI).

© 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.