Almost everyone in The Hague is clear that making agriculture more sustainable is going to cost extra money. Only, what exactly should that be paid for? This cabinet cut the 20.5 billion euros that the previous government had made available, and wiped regional plans to make agriculture from the table. In the meantime, a concrete plan is missing about how agriculture should achieve climate and nitrogen goals.
A proposal to find more money came from CDA, CU and GroenLinks-PvdA and was suddenly able to count on the support of the BBB in the Senate on Tuesday. The idea was to get money from the so -called Climate Fund, which contains 25 billion euros to make the Netherlands more sustainable. One problem: the remaining 14.5 billion from that fund is mainly intended for nuclear energy. And the coalition does not want to let go of the ambition of four nuclear power plants, it turned out on Wednesday in the Lower House.
The BBB had a lot to explain in the debate. Does the party want fewer nuclear power plants, while it is a strong supporter of nuclear energy? In November, the BBB voted away from an amendment from CDA, CU and GroenLinks-PvdA, in which it was called to remove and use 5 billion euros from the Nuclear Energy Fund for agriculture. Why now, while the cabinet has cut 20 billion? Is this about ‘free beer’?
According to MP Henk Vermeer, the BBB wants to ‘absolutely not’ not ‘on the roughly 14 billion euros that the cabinet has reserved in the climate fund for nuclear energy. The BBB is said to have only supported CDA, CU and GroenLinks-PvdA’s proposal in the Senate because it only indicated that the agricultural sector should have access to the Climate Fund.
Read also
All coalition parties are also impatiently waiting for the elaboration of agricultural policy
The only remaining option – to meet both farmers and to continue the plans for nuclear power stations – is then to “pay money” in the Climate Fund, Vermeer said. The idea of Vermeer in turn caused raised eyebrows for coalition colleagues.
How then?!
How are we going to pay for that, NSC member Wytske Postma asked. “Are we going to throw up the VAT? What is the plan behind it? It all seems so careless. ” And outside the microphone: “How then?!” Vermeer replied that he expected that the budget is in reality much better than is now assumed. Any ‘windfalls’ could then be used to supplement the climate fund. The VVD compared the proposal to purchase a new car before you win the lottery.
It’s like purchasing a new car before you win the lottery, the VVD thought
Even elsewhere among the coalition parties it was not comfortable on Wednesday. Party leader Geert Wilders had tweeted on Wednesday that he found the proposal of CDA, CU and GroenLinks-PvdA “interesting”. As far as he is concerned, the money from the Climate Fund could also be used for other matters, such as compensating for the gas account of citizens. At the same time, PVV MP Alexander Kops did not think to put more money in the climate fund, as BBB suggested.
According to Kops there was “no contradiction” between or money for farmers or nuclear energy. “It was both possible,” he said. VVD MP Silvio Erkens, in turn, found that suggestion “baked air”. After the VVD insisted, the PVV poked back. The party also saw an option in extra cuts on development aid, referring to the recently presented VVD agenda for “working the Netherlands”. That plan also had to be paid for from development aid.
Resentment
The resentment within the coalition gives a glimpse into the discussions that are conducted behind the scenes about the search for enough money for all kinds of cabinet wishes. For example, is the coalition going to take more money to achieve the climate goals? The PVV does not want to do that, but the BBB showed on Wednesday that it would have an ear for more money for making agriculture more sustainable.
Because, opposition parties, agriculture also had to be made more sustainable. This is necessary to achieve climate goals for 2030 (55 percent less emissions than in 1990). And that the government must present extra plans for this is the big assignment that Minister Sophie Hermans (Climate and Green Growth, VVD) stands for.
Read also
‘Agriculture is heading for forced contraction, even if we do not want that’
“We will need money in the farmer’s sector in the coming period. And otherwise, farmers have to pay more sustainability from their own pocket, “CDA-er Henri Bontenbal in debate to the minister told. Bontenbal called it unfair that the government does help industry with more sustainable and not agriculture.
Climate minister Sophie Hermans was not in favor of the plan. The minister thought that the call from the Chamber to make a hurry with nuclear power stations and then not to cut back. Moreover, Hermans said that “potential investors” from nuclear power plants might withdraw if the cabinet would now cut back on the intended investments in nuclear energy.
She was far from that there is no money to make agriculture more sustainable. For example, farmers have access to subsidies with which they can make tractors greener or install solar panels, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature has 5 billion euros available.
In the Chamber, it was openly disputed whether that is enough to effectively make the agricultural sector more sustainable for 2030. According to the CDA, the proposal was “an emergency” and the minister needed the billions for agriculture in the coming years than for nuclear power stations.