“There is now room to look at it differently.”

Finding space to put manure is the biggest challenge facing the agricultural sector right now. Farmers are looking to government for solutions. Politics is struggling. National Security Council member Harm Holman sees opportunities emerging. “There has been a realization in politics and in the ministry that things need to go in a different direction.”

With the new government in place and the introduction of the main lines agreement, there are clear signs that the winds are changing. National Security Council member Harm Holman is already seeing the impact on the agricultural sector. “There is a more positive mood among farmers.”

Agriculture Minister Femke Wiersma is now tasked with developing the framework agreement into a coalition agreement with detailed policy. “She has the will to work with the House of Representatives to address the problems in the sector,” says Holman. “I am optimistic that she will succeed.”

How do you view the main lines agreement?

A number of principles have been set out in the framework agreement: we do not want expropriation, we do not want forced reductions, and we will do everything we can to prevent a general deduction for animal rights or phosphates. But if you say that, you are obliged to take action to ensure that it does not happen. Given the 10 percent reduction in the fertilizer cap, dairy farmers in particular are at risk of having a large surplus of phosphates. A general deduction of 10 to 15 percent for dairy farmers is looming.

There is also a lot that is not included in the agreement.

‘Right. The agreement did address key points like the fertilizer issue and the loss of the exception. What it didn’t mention, what we didn’t talk about, is the next step: Where do we want to go? We can have a discussion about what the biggest problems are, how to solve them and how to get a strong, future-oriented agriculture. There is now real scope to look at the material differently.

How should we address the fertilizer problem?

It’s a big task. You can turn on three buttons. One is Brussels. The second is innovation, but that can’t be arranged overnight. The third is reducing the amount of fertilizer. We have two tools for that. The first is to skim the animal rights by 30 percent when you sell. And that’s not at the expense of the farmers who want to survive. The second is the permanent buyback plan. In fact, that means you have to implement the plan of the former Minister of Agriculture, Pete Adema, in full as soon as possible.

What do we do with the nitrogen issue?

“The first proposal we made was for a mathematical minimum of 1 mole per hectare per year for nitrogen deposition. The legal feasibility of this is now being studied. I hope that the State Council will soon make a decision on this so that we can move forward.

“The question is how do we ensure that nature is preserved. Every EU country has dealt with this differently. But we have created a complex system by linking nature conservation so closely to nitrogen. We are certain that we will never achieve a number of targets. How long will we continue with this? Or do we look at other pressures at play and what are the realistic targets?”

What do you think of the Lbv and Lbv-plus chart?

“I think the maximum loader purchase scheme (Lbv-plus scheme) is suboptimal and illogical on a number of points because you are buying the wrong companies. Why buy a large modern company 20 km away from the Natura 2000 area, because it has no demonstrable deposits on the nature reserve? That doesn’t work for me.

What do you think of Brussels’ role?

“Based on the European regulations, there are a number of clear tasks in the area of ​​emissions and nature. We can discuss the targets that we have formulated on the basis of European policy. Have we translated this correctly?

“If you then go to Brussels to see what could be done differently, you should bring a good package of proposals with you. If you don’t take anything with you, you go home with nothing. I honestly believe that if you have a good plan, you can make an exception for grasslands, for example. But if you think that the whole exception will be reversed and everything will stay the same, that is too optimistic.”

What is the alternative?

“The alternative is innovation.” You can go for that with expensive technology, but that’s a huge challenge for the farmer. What I find to be the simplest form of innovation is to feed the cow better. Feed more efficiently, but especially use the manure more efficiently to grow grass and crops. That’s the shortest hit.

This more efficient use must be demonstrated.

“Yes, and that’s the big challenge. How do you get something certified? This applies to innovation in general. There are a lot of initiatives and the challenge is to legally protect those innovations. The third point is to put those innovations in a toolkit, so that farmers can also prove what they’re doing. Then they can be held accountable for it. For example, if they reduce urea, they get the benefit of spreading more animal manure.

“We can work on these kinds of principles. Farmers who do well should be rewarded for their good behavior. Then we move on to managing the company’s goals and measurement.

And use of rainer?

“Raynor is too expensive.” For many farmers, that would be too expensive and uninteresting. It would be much cheaper to apply less fertilizer and use more manure.’

Work harder to get support

The cooperation between the government parties PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB is different from what it was in recent governments. If there is a proposal from a government party in those ministries, the other coalition parties support it. The vote is a formality. The current government parties give each other more room to express their position. “That is one of the principles of the new social contract: a new management culture,” says MP Harm Holman. “So coming up with good proposals is also a challenge. For us, but also for the minister. The MP or minister who comes up with proposals has to work harder to get support for those plans.