Column | The farmers’ protest, what’s behind it?

I knew that the slide of the great transitions that roars us into a new world, is full of splinters, edges and sudden right-angled bends with a part of the population always toppling over the edge. But I am always amazed that there are sensible people who laugh out loud at the fallen groups or even cheerfully kick them. I found the reactions to the protesting farmers extremely harsh. No sympathy, even after a long search, tweeted the townspeople. It was a strong example of ‘dynasty thinking’ that the peasants, even when a forced sale hung over their heads, thought they had the ‘absolute right’ on the grounds of their forefathers. Author: future heir to estate Sander Schimmelpenninck†

Pieter Hein van Mulligen of the Central Bureau of Statistics – you know them, the agency that provides purely reliable numbers, a completely objective fact machine – did not tweet on the day of the farmers’ protest about the ammonia reduction that farmers had achieved in recent decades thanks to air scrubbers and innovative stable floors . Not even about improving the water or air quality, or the reduced use of antibiotics. No, he shared some pretty irrelevant detail from a three-year-old report, which shows that when you add up all the farmers’ land, machinery and real estate, they are often millionaires on paper. So no pity, he just tweeted.

What’s behind this? Parliamentarian Caroline van der Plas (BBB) ​​wondered aloud in the House. In times when this country seems smaller than ever, and everyone is looking for space to put down windmills and build houses and emit nitrogen, this seemed a fair question to me. But Van der Plas was dismissed as a nitrogen conspiracy theorist.

“This hurts me a lot,” said CDA agricultural spokesman Boswijk. Her words can be interpreted as an appeal to threaten scientists, said GroenLinks party chairman Klaver. In passing, he labeled her words as “poison.”

One coarsening is not the other, apparently.

It becomes very difficult to debate when those involved are personally hurt or label questions as conspiracy theories. Certainly because the other way around, there are almost continuous doubts about the integrity of Van der Plas and the farmers. Time and again they are asked what is behind their resistance. Former MP Boekestijn asks aloud whether someone can investigate the links between the BoerBurgerBeweging and Friesland Campina? And what about the feed manufacturers? Or was the farmers’ protest actually a kind of play, directed by three companies of Quote500 families that are not waiting for nitrogen-related loss of turnover, as in NRC was suggested? Didn’t that farmer from Stroe mention that damage to his land would be compensated by a cattle feed company?

Apparently that’s how difficult it was for people to believe that the farmers came to protest on their own, despondent with the hopelessness, the lack of clarity, the new hoops they had to try to jump through with their business.

The reality: of course there is a lot behind it. On both sides. The emission reductions that agriculture reduces literally means room for other sectors. And yes, farmers are indeed facilitated by partners in the chain. In their business operations, they are surrounded by wealthy giants with interests. A so-called mega stall pales in comparison to the average company size of suppliers and buyers, animal feed suppliers, seed breeders, buyers from supermarkets, dairy, meat and potato giants, and slaughterhouses. Thank God there is, in addition to that one Member of Parliament, some help in this battle.

The farmers are not Schiphol, I would almost say. Schiphol is the opposite of a fragmented, vulnerable sector. The company that has never been able to achieve any reduction in emissions, pollution or noise nuisance, has only been allowed to grow and still does not have a nature permit. This week it appears that Schiphol, for the first time, also has to dim a bit. I hardly dare to ask, but what could be behind that?

Rosanne Hertzberger is a microbiologist.