Is it a good start to 2018?

The first week of 2018 was not yet over when the Supreme Court ruled that the 300 hectare Hedwigepolder may be expropriated. Despite a negative advice from its own Advocate General, the Supreme Court has ruled that the depoldering may continue.

I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me that citizens often knock on the door of the judiciary in vain to challenge government decisions; no matter how bad those decisions are. As long as these decisions have been taken democratically and do not contain any procedural errors, there will be little or no substantive review and the decisions will remain in force. That's what we have to do, whatever we think of it.

Emotional damage
Of course I consider myself lucky to live in a constitutional state. Direct stakeholders, in this case the owner of the polder and the tenants, will be compensated financially. What is not compensated or compensated is the emotional damage. However, the loss of acreage, cultural-historical, landscape and natural values ​​are not compensated either. Just read 'This is my garden' by Chris de Stoop. Never before has it been so aptly described how government and nature and environmental organizations work together to achieve their goals, at the expense of farmers' lives.

Not unexpectedly, the Phosphate Rights Act has come into effect in the meantime. The discount percentage is set at 8,3% for those who do not belong to the pinch. Now that the phosphate rights are a fact, hijackers are coming into view again. The lessors claim part of the value of the property.

In response to a parliamentary question from Jaco Geurts, the government stated that the phosphate rights are allocated to the dairy farmer and that the latter can decide to transfer the rights. It does not matter whether the keeper of the animals is the owner or tenant of the land. Unfortunately, a trial process is necessary to determine the legality of the claim of the lessors.

Surcharge entitlements and payment entitlements
These kinds of claims are not new. Previously, the lessors successfully claimed part of the value of the milk and sugar quota. In my current knowledge, I am inclined to call this a historic mistake that has cost the industry a lot of money.

With regard to payment entitlements (later: payment entitlements), the court has ruled in favor of the tenant. That's a deserved win. The lessor will receive his share anyway, because the payment rights contribute to the tenant's income and thus to the land remuneration and subsequently to the amount of the lease.

Income supplements are partly reflected in higher rent prices and higher land prices. That is a reason for some to argue for its abolition. However, it should not be forgotten that these rights were established at the time to compensate for the reduction in the guaranteed prices to lower the supply (Mac Sharry).

As long as low yield prices continue, as is now the case in arable farming, part of agriculture will be subject to the infusion of payment entitlements. Due to the lower selling prices, the 2017 lease standards have been set lower for all areas. This reduction applies to the 2018 growing year, so it's still a good start.

Peter van der Eijk

Piet van der Eijk was the chairman of the Association of Land Tenants and Own Land Users (BLHB) from 2012 to the beginning of 2019. He also has an arable farm in the Biesbosch polder in the outskirts of the Eiland van Dordrecht.

© 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.