‘You cannot expect farmers to cooperate in their own shrinkage if nothing concrete has been arranged yet’

Hi Yvonne, after the talks on Friday, Farmers Defense Force announced ‘the hardest actions ever’. Has the government’s rapprochement attempt failed?

‘The sounds afterwards were not positive. Remkes’ conclusion was that the confidence gap is still huge. But I don’t find that surprising in itself. It was an exploratory conversation and it was clear that the gap between farmers and cabinet could not be bridged during the first conversation.

“It is therefore too early to say that the talks have failed, although Friday’s result shows that it will be difficult in the coming months. LTO, which joined the cabinet on behalf of the farmers’ organisations, is in a dilemma. On the one hand it is a polder organization that is always looking for a compromise, on the other hand they are losing members to more radical organizations such as FDF.

‘The words of LTO chairman Sjaak van der Tak could be explained in several ways. He said: at the moment the cabinet has not yet made enough concessions, with which he is critical, but also keeps the door ajar.’

Has the cabinet really not yet moved?

‘Friday, the ministers again held their ground. They continue to focus on halving nitrogen emissions and the timeline of the measures will not shift from 2030 to 2035 for the time being, as the farmers would like to see.

“They’ve made only a few minor concessions so far. But on one of the most important themes, the farmers and the cabinet still seem to be far apart. The farmers prefer to achieve nitrogen reduction through innovation so that they do not have to hand in livestock. The cabinet says it is open to it, but only to ‘proven innovation’. And that’s for good reason: previous techniques, such as air scrubbers, turned out to reduce emissions much less in practice than had been promised on paper.’

Is there still a way out of this impasse?

‘Even if the cabinet stands firm, they will have to make concessions. I’m curious what those are. Adjusting the timetable was one such option, but Minister Van der Wal of Nature and Nitrogen and Prime Minister Rutte have both said that they will send a scientific substantiation to the House showing that it cannot be done five years later. Once you’ve substantiated that, it’s hard to go back.

‘In any case, all concessions have drawbacks. For example, the farmers propose to reduce nitrogen by keeping cows in the pasture for longer or by driving manure diluted with water over the land. It is very difficult to verify that this is actually happening. There is a very high risk that farmers will cheat and that these solutions will ultimately not lead to nitrogen reduction.

‘If the situation does not change, you will reach the point where the government can only give in to farmers’ demands. But then they pass the problem on. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that Van der Wal and Rutte will bind if agreement is not forthcoming. It remains political.’

How high is the pressure on the cabinet to find a solution?

‘There is not yet a total crisis. Van der Tak has not definitively run away and there is time. The provinces must first consider nitrogen policy and come up with their area plans. Only then will we know what this policy will look like in concrete terms.

‘In anticipation of this, the cabinet must mainly improve communication with farmers. They lost a lot there. Not all plans of the cabinet are detrimental to farmers. There are already many farmers who want to stop voluntarily, for many others it is probably possible to keep a limited amount of livestock without loss of income.’

One of the most important ministers, Minister Staghouwer of Agriculture, is barely visible. Why doesn’t he make himself heard?

‘Staghouwer has been given homework by the cabinet. He had to reassure the farmers, but as a result of the nitrogen map, he wrote a worthless letter that actually contained nothing. He is now working on a new letter due in September.

‘In that letter, the cabinet should provide more perspective. There must be more clarity about new price agreements with supermarkets, which will have to pay more for products such as meat and dairy. It must be more than a view. You can’t expect farmers to cooperate in their own shrinkage if nothing concrete has been arranged yet.’

–