If the government does not intervene, agriculture will head towards “uncontrolled chaos” this year, fears Member of Parliament Harm Holman of coalition party NSC. Stricter manure rules from Brussels and lawsuits from environmental organizations could lead to “forced shrinkage” of the livestock herd. At the expense of smaller, vulnerable farms and without guidance on regional nature restoration where necessary.
At the insistence of the House, Agriculture Minister Femke Wiersma (BBB) is working out how she wants to reduce emissions of harmful substances at the beginning of this year. But the policy for cleaner agriculture is not going fast or far enough for many parliamentary groups, including coalition parties NSC and VVD. “A breakthrough is needed,” says Holman. “A convincing plan that shows Europe and the courts that the Netherlands is on the right track.”
Do you have no confidence in Minister Wiersma’s nitrogen approach?
“Well, I’m very curious to see what she comes up with. We as a House have had good discussions with the minister. She works hard. But the question is: how do we create a breakthrough? And is the minister capable of creating a breakthrough? There is no clear picture of the future, no vision. No structural policy on what agriculture should look like in fifteen years.”
Isn’t that precisely the task of a cabinet: to have a vision of the future, to turn it into policy?
“Yes, and there isn’t.”
The Rutte-IV cabinet had more of that.
“No, neither.”
Not elaborated, no, but there was a clearer purpose, right? Of sustainable, more ‘animal-worthy’ circular agriculture in 2040?
“Yes, okay. So far, this coalition has mainly said what it does not want – the BBB first – and not what it does want. As spokesperson for agriculture for NSC, you can also blame me for that.”
Agriculture is not the most important issue for ‘rule of law party’ NSC, Harm Holman (67) admits. His own life has always revolved around farmers – and politics. Holman took over the family business in Steenbergen, Drenthe, from his father and was a dairy farmer for forty years. “With great pleasure. Working in nature, with animals. I’ve never had to say thank you to a boss.”
Holman sometimes plays the court jester, who wraps uncomfortable truths in jokes, he says. During a debate in October with party leader Caroline van der Plas plus Minister Wiersma and State Secretary Jean Rummenie, he compared the three BBB members to the string orchestra on the Titanic that continued to play during the sinking. “We discussed that. In that sense the proportions are good enough.”
Before NSC, Holman was a classic CDA member. He served for years in the Provincial Council of Drenthe, local politics and the water board. He thought the CDA had become an “old administrative party”, and he was affected by the Chamber work of Pieter Omtzigt in the Benefits Affair. Holman applied to NSC; As number twenty on the list, he just got the last seat.
As long as it lasts, Holman is now trying to correct “years of failed government policy” regarding agriculture in The Hague. “As a then active member of the CDA, I simply contributed to this,” he admits. “Even if it was with the belief that what we did could work. If you now look at the PAS reporters” – the 2,500 farmers who are without a permit because the Council of State rejected the Nitrogen Approach Program in 2019 – “that is the caliber of Benefits Affair, where people are being crushed by a government that does not manage adequately. ”
There is an outline agreement from four coalition parties, including NSC. Minister Wiersma of BBB will implement it. And then she keeps clashing with a parliamentary majority, including NSC.
“The minister faces a very difficult task, but we also believe that it is taking too long. You see the House becoming more impatient with every debate and meeting. Regarding the Outline Agreement, we must also conclude that everything is going differently than we had estimated last year. The chance that we will get a relaxation of the fertilizer rules from Brussels this year is nil, and next year very small, I think.”
If, as a coalition party, you sign unrealistic ambitions, you know: this will go wrong, right?
“I also had reasonable confidence in achieving at least some form of relaxation of manure use. But in practice it turns out to be much more difficult. With the current European standards, and without a plan for nature restoration, it will not be possible to regain a manure exception in the next four years.”
Or was it a political game? We give BBB what they want, including the ministry, and then they find out that’s impossible.
“Well, the PVV has been given the space to shape their main theme, asylum policy, differently. We are now six months later and the start has been made, but whether it will actually be a success remains to be seen. You could compare that a bit with BBB and agriculture.”
In any case, everyone is in this situation because of a political trade-off.
“This was the way to arrive at a government program with the consent of four parties.”
Where is agriculture headed?
“There are two very big problems that will become acute. This year, 20 percent less manure may be spread on the land, next year 30 percent: together, that ultimately amounts to 600,000 trucks of manure that we will have left over. The additional costs for livestock farmers to dispose of this manure run into tens of thousands of euros. This will particularly affect young, starting farmers, who already have a lot of financing costs. And the smaller family businesses, I fear.”
And the second acute problem is?
“The judges cut through everything. Before Christmas, the Council of State determined that it is no longer possible to settle nitrogen within the space of a permit. This month there will be a ruling in proceedings on the merits of Greenpeace, which demands the restoration of around 80 percent of vulnerable nature. And environmental group MOB has announced a ‘tsunami’ of lawsuits if the government does not enforce the now tolerated PAS detectors. I am not a lawyer, but my common sense tells me that this will have far-reaching consequences.”
That sounds like you are blaming judges, while they only say: government, obey your own laws.
“Yes, you can blame us as a government for that.”
The coalition and the cabinet wanted to legalize the PAS detectors as a priority, but Minister Wiersma has now said: this is not possible, there is no nitrogen room for this, I want a three-year postponement.
“Unacceptable. I asked the minister in a motion in December for an additional plan, because many PAS reporters are doomed. The Outline Agreement states that we do not want a forced reduction in the livestock population. Well, this could just end up in forced shrinkage. The judge will soon tell PAS reporters: you have expanded to 150 cows, but according to your previous, valid permit, you are only allowed to milk 80 cows. The same thing will happen if the judge rules in favor of Greenpeace. The government will then have to withdraw nature permits from farmers and other companies. That will also simply be forced shrinkage, even though we don’t want it.”
The government wants to allocate a maximum of 2.5 billion euros for a new scheme to voluntarily buy out livestock farmers. That is not forced shrinkage, but shrinkage is indeed the goal. Isn’t it a play on words?
“Yes. A year ago your head might have been cut off, but there is now more acceptance in the sector that a reduction in the livestock population is inevitable.”
How much shrinkage? 10 to 20 percent?
“I don’t make any statements about that, otherwise the discussion will be about that. In any case, we want to move towards a permanent, voluntary buyout scheme. Only: no money has been reserved for that. The previous government had 25 billion euros for sustainable agriculture, but that money was thrown overboard. There are now 5 billion euros left.”
You were there yourself when that money was thrown overboard, weren’t you?
“The formal answer is: that was the outcome of the negotiations.”
An open secret is: BBB did not want billions to buy out farmers.
“That is your perception. If you want a breakthrough in the nitrogen dossier, you will need resources. That recognition will come when the minister starts making plans, I think. I would not be surprised if this also became apparent in the Spring Memorandum.”
What is your solution? What should the government do in the coming period?
“Well, good reforms are being worked on, but they will take years, and we don’t have that time for the farmers. Such as a more precise nitrogen policy, focused on emissions instead of precipitation. No general standards for harmful substances, but new emission standards per farm. Ultimately, we can only get out of this crisis through less nitrogen and more nature restoration.”
And how do we achieve that?
“To achieve this, you must at least make a switch to land-based agriculture, where the land of livestock farmers is in balance with the amount of animals and manure. Farmers can then grow enough animal feed themselves and spread all the manure themselves. A kind of circular agriculture, then. This has already been agreed with Brussels in 2021, the House has now asked Minister Wiersma for a plan before May to achieve land-based agriculture. But I can’t really gauge whether she wants to take it seriously.”
Land-based agriculture is also not included in the Outline Agreement.
“No.”
Why not?
“The need was not felt to dedicate a passage to this.”
Didn’t BBB want that?
“Well, it is not done to talk about negotiations in detail.”
Land-based agriculture means shrinkage, and the dreaded ‘grassland standard’: a maximum number of animals per hectare. The Agriculture Agreement in 2023 was partly due to this. LTO, the largest farmers’ organization, does not want it.
“A lot of other parties are providing constructive input. But in that sense I am disappointed in the management of LTO. That is ‘ploughing back’ and undermining things a bit, with a lobby against land-based agriculture. A majority in the House is prepared to submit an initiative bill for this, if the minister himself does not come up with a plan.”
Isn’t the world turned upside down? The House is considering an initiative law and citizens must enforce laws through the courts: because the government does not want to act.
“I haven’t looked at it that way yet. Maybe you could put it like that, yes.”
How much influence do you have in the coalition? NSC has zero to three seats in polls.
“That doesn’t mean much to me. It is very simple: this government has 88 seats, of which we have 20.”
And can this shaky coalition handle such a critical, internal discussion? Will the cabinet collapse?
“I don’t think so. Agriculture comprises only one percent of the national budget. And the rural area, healthy nature, our food and the peasantry are too important to do nothing. The nitrogen problem simply needs to be solved. Otherwise we will continue to mess around for another five years.”