Twelve subsidy schemes for Dutch agriculture may have harmful consequences for biodiversity. This is evident from a recent analysis by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV).
The RVO has looked at 34 agricultural schemes – from income support to farmers to subsidies for innovative stable techniques and grassland conservation. The effect of each was assessed on nature and biodiversity, the variety of plants, animals and fungi. The service, an agency of LNV and Economic Affairs, uses four categories: possibly positive, protective, neutral and possibly harmful. Twelve subsidy schemes, together amounting to more than one billion euros on an annual basis, fall into the latter category.
The government is in fact working against itself with these subsidies. The Rutte IV cabinet has earmarked 24.3 billion euros until 2035 for the ‘nitrogen fund’, which should make agriculture more sustainable and promote biodiversity.
Read also: Sustainable cultivation means less money for farmers
Scaling up
Most of the regulations that can be harmful encourage agricultural intensification. They promote scaling up of the farm. This is bad for biodiversity, because the number of animals kept and production often increase. For example, a lot of income support still goes to farmers – more than 400 million euros this year – which drives up land prices and rent payments. According to the researchers, this leads to an increase in scale.
Financial support for technical innovation in stables and greenhouses also leads to intensification and thus has a negative impact on nature. Farmers who receive this subsidy must co-invest. Because it often involves tens of thousands of euros that they have to earn back, this further pushes up production and intensification, according to the researchers.
A total of 34 agricultural schemes were examined, from income support to farmers to subsidies for innovative housing techniques and grassland conservation
They also have reservations about a regulation that aims to prevent grassland from being used for maize cultivation. Large areas of maize land are not good for biodiversity, say the researchers, but the regulation makes it difficult to switch from grass to a more varied crop.
Focused on food security
The researchers note that some schemes, such as those for income support, date back to a time when Europe was concerned about food security. In the decades after World War II, the focus was on modernizing agriculture and high food production to prevent hunger. Less attention was paid to the consequences for the environment and biodiversity. In the meantime, the researchers write, there are also other priorities: climate, nature and water quality.
Read also: In addition to the 2,500 already known farmers, thousands of other agricultural companies may also emit nitrogen illegally
It is striking that the Ministry of Agriculture has only now extensively screened its subsidies for side effects. The Netherlands has been in a nitrogen crisis since 2019, after the Council of State ruled that governments were too generous in allowing nitrogen emissions. The agricultural sector is responsible for a large part of these emissions. The Netherlands also signed a UN biodiversity treaty back in 2011. One of its aims is to stop or make greener subsidy schemes that are harmful to biodiversity.
Outgoing Minister Van der Wal (Nature and Nitrogen, VVD) has sent the House of Representatives the RVO study and calls the conclusions a “serious outcome”. In her letter, she writes that the 34 schemes will be examined in more depth.
At the same time, she points out that the research also shows that the negative impact of a number of schemes has already diminished in recent years, for example by cutting benefits if additional animals are kept. Subsidies that are harmful to nature and biodiversity must be adjusted or stopped “before 2030”, according to Van der Wal.
A version of this article also appeared in the September 6, 2023 issue.