2023-06-23 04:16:00
Dairy farmer Amber Laan is disappointed that the negotiations on an agricultural agreement have broken down. It needs a government that makes clear choices about the future.
Lukas van der Storm23 June 2023, 06:16
She has a dairy farm with 70 cows on about 60 hectares of land. She can easily dispose of the manure from her animals on her own property. She also participates in ‘agricultural conservation of nature’: she leaves the grass high to protect meadow birds and sows herb-rich grassland. “Just about the company that the government and society like to see”, concludes dairy farmer Amber Laan from Warder, just north of Volendam.
And yet there is also an unruly reality. Although she does receive cost compensation for that agricultural conservation of nature, she receives no real reward. Moreover, she is not only a farmer; Laan also works 32 hours a week as a sustainable agriculture consultant. She doesn’t complain about that. She has too much fun in her work and farming life for that. But of course there is some friction: with the agriculture that society wants, it is now difficult to raise a full salary.
Too bad
An agricultural agreement is of course never a panacea that solves all problems and dilemmas. But it could have been a much-needed push towards more clarity about the future for young farmers, Laan thinks. For example, better remuneration of farmers who support nature was an important point in the negotiations.
Farmers’ organization LTO feared that the government was getting no further than intentions and intentions, and pulled the plug on the talks. “Very unfortunate,” says Laan, who is also involved in the young farmers’ organization NAJK as regional chairman. The young farmers would have liked to continue talking, but not without LTO. “I hope that we will still implement the good things from the agreement.”
A vision of the future of agriculture is particularly important for young farmers. “Our stables are now outdated”, Laan gives as an example. “Within a few years I will be at the point where I have to invest in a new system.” But what then is wisdom? A technically high-quality barn that reduces nitrogen using new techniques? Or a more traditional straw barn that suits a farm that wants to work in harmony with nature? “You don’t want to run the risk of choosing a stable of which the government says after a few years: we want it different, this no longer meets the requirements.”
Clear choices needed
It is typically such a question with a much broader dilemma behind it. Will the Netherlands opt for an agriculture that is intertwined with nature? In which farmers co-manage nature and allow the boundaries of ecology to be leading in their business operations? Then a straw stable fits best. Or is there a preference for a separation between agriculture and nature? Where nature is protected, and high-productive agriculture mainly takes place in isolation from that nature? Then a closed barn that efficiently reduces nitrogen emissions is more effective.
The government now tends mainly towards interweaving agriculture and nature. Amber Laan’s efforts for meadow birds are generally regarded as desirable. At the same time, there are also companies that produce food intensively and that try to reduce their environmental impact mainly through technical measures. The government has not yet made explicit choices about what can be done where – and to what extent.
It is one of the seven major issues that a group of researchers from the University of Wageningen (WUR) recently listed. Partly in response to the agricultural agreement, they went in search of fundamental questions about the future of agriculture in the Netherlands. ‘Separating or intertwining’ is one of those dilemmas.
Another: what is the actual role of farm animals in the Netherlands? Will we keep it in the future to provide the world with high-quality proteins? Or do we see them as part of a cycle, in which cows are used to convert grass into protein and pigs are used to process our leftover food? In the latter case, the herd will be considerably smaller in any case.
Invest in plant proteins
Clear answers are needed to such big questions, says WUR researcher Bram Bos. Those answers are still lacking in the policy, and by no means all were discussed in discussions about the agricultural agreement. “If you look at climate goals and the growing world population, we cannot feed 10 billion people with a Western diet with a lot of meat and dairy. The government could communicate much more clearly: if you have to invest now as a young farmer, do so in vegetable proteins, for example.”
Another question: what should the Dutch contribution be to the world food problem? Only small-scale and local production also has disadvantages, Bos suggests. “We are also in a fertile delta here, in which we have a certain responsibility to produce food. But what kind of food do we produce then?”
The answers to these questions are urgent, the WUR researchers emphasize. “Each choice has advantages and disadvantages. But postponing only makes the task bigger.”
Simon Wilms (37), arable farmer, Anna Paulowna
“Of course I heard all along that those talks about the agreement were difficult. It is also difficult when less moderate parties such as Farmers Defense Force and Agractie are at the table. I’m a member of LTO myself and I’m always into interaction, you have to try to work things out together. But they are now throwing a lot over the fence of the sector. That’s why I think it’s a good thing that they’re drawing a line now: this far and no further. Especially if you look at the government’s package of requirements. It’s fine that requirements are imposed on you, but then you have to be financially satisfied. Morally, I think the ideas about sustainability are going too far. I’m a practitioner and not a researcher, but when I’m working in the field, I sometimes think: guys, is it that bad? There is simply no belief in the policy, at least for me. I find it worrying that LTO no longer participates in the conversation. Because if you don’t talk to them, you will be talked about.” (Joost van Velzen)
Karin Meijer-Buist (33), dairy farmer, De Lutte
“I wanted to be extra aware of the news lately. But then you’re watching and you think halfway: never mind, they’ll stop, it’s done. There is simply no future in an agreement. Of course I don’t know exactly what has been discussed, but it must be possible that something will come to light of which we all say: yes, we want that and we can do that. The sector is really not afraid of a challenge. If cows have to go, okay, we’ll do that. I think the rubber band has snapped because LTO has to stand up for all farmers and if that fails it will stop. You can never do it right for everyone, but if a certain group of farmers is seriously disadvantaged, then there must be something in return. Now that they are continuing without LTO, I find it exciting. If the government says, ‘we’ll do it ourselves’, it’s going to be a very hot summer.” (Joost van Velzen)
Read also:
Agricultural agreement collapsed, differences between the cabinet and farmers turned out to be unbridgeable
The difficult negotiations on an agricultural agreement finally broke down on Tuesday evening. In fact, LTO CEO Sjaak van der Tak wanted nothing more than to sign. But the differences were insurmountable right from the start.
1687694343
#put #money