Chairman Henk Brink of Agricultural Nature Drenthe thinks that farmers can make a significant contribution to the extensive scenario with agricultural nature management. “We now have 116,000 hectares of agricultural nature management, 280,000 hectares is the goal in 2030. When I see the hectares from the planning agency… I’m not saying we will achieve it, but this will go a long way.”
But Brink doubts the strategy that more nature automatically leads to achieving the goals. “Can these goals still be achieved given climate change? Climate change is leading to a change in nature and the disappearance of plants and animals, and other species are returning. Nature cannot be fully engineered.”
Brink also wants a social cost-benefit analysis to be carried out on the last 15 to 10 percent of the goals. “The last part will be the most expensive. Where will all that money come from? Is it realistic?”
“If we add even more nature, will we achieve the goals?”, LTO-Noord leader Dirk Bruins also wonders. “I think that is too simplistic. Intensification and scaling up also leads to social discussion. You cannot choose one production method here as in Denmark, our soil type and agricultural regions are too different for that. And extensification on extremely fertile soils is irresponsible. If we put a fence around our land we might get by, but it is extremely inconvenient for our trade.”
Bruins also warns: “Once agricultural land becomes nature, you have no agricultural co-use and the farmer cannot contribute anything to nature.”
Reinder Hoekstra of the Drenthe Nature and Environment Federation calls the report stimulating. “We can’t just mess around a bit.” The Drenthe approach ‘it has to come from the areas’ is not enough, he thinks. “This requires strong political guidance and major choices.”
Hoekstra thinks the timing is good for this report. “We will have a new government and House of Representatives. It is good that the planning agency also indicates that something must be done to end the polarization between agriculture and nature/climate.”
Hoekstra calls the scenarios two extremes. He sees major disadvantages in both scenarios: “In the intensification model, fewer farmers can survive, the farms become larger. In the extensification model we will have to help farmers, land prices are absurdly high, so help is needed with fewer livestock per hectare.”
The NMFD director takes Remkes’ nitrogen report out of the drawer: not everything can be done everywhere. “His report also contains very good directions for the future of agriculture.” He also notes that the planning agency is still giving a justified sneer to politicians in The Hague: “if the national government keeps stripping away the resources as has happened in recent years and the goals remain in place, then you will never achieve it.”