Minister for Nature and Nitrogen Christianne van der Wal: ‘I will not let the farmer dangle’

It has subsided a bit due to corona and the war in Ukraine, but nature is “on the brink of collapse”, warns Christianne van der Wal, Minister for Nature and Nitrogen (VVD). She sees it herself when she cycles across the Veluwe or drives through the Netherlands, she says in her office in The Hague.

“Blackberries everywhere along the roads. Just pay attention.”

Because there is too much nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands, more blackberry bushes, nettles and grass grow – and there are fewer other plants, animals and insects in nature. It is also bad for soil and water quality. “Soon we will no longer be able to drink clean water from the tap,” says Van der Wal (48). “It’s a huge problem.”

The minister sees two types of solutions, she wrote on Friday in a letter of more than twenty sides to the House of Representatives: voluntary or forced. Farms and factories that emit too much nitrogen and severely damage nearby natural areas must become more sustainable or be bought out and leave. The faster entrepreneurs cooperate, the more money they receive from the government. Those who do not cooperate risk expropriation by the government.

The legal goal is to halve nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands by 2030. The Rutte IV cabinet is allocating 25 billion euros for this. “Then you think: wow, what a lot of money!” says Van der Wal. But buying out a farm costs an average of one and a half million euros, she calculates. That is still without land: the average land price is 60,000 euros per hectare.

Read the article: Nature is doing ‘downright bad’ in the Netherlands. What are the four main problems?

Van der Wal struggles with harsh interventions such as the expropriation of farmers, as appears during her first extensive interview as a minister. “I don’t want there to be losers,” she says enchantingly.

We have gone “too much and too long” over the borders of nature, you write in your letter to parliament. The VVD, in power for ten years now, is the party of entrepreneurship, driving and building. As a VVD member, do you also feel responsible for the damage to nature?

“Also as a VVD member, yes. As a government, we have stimulated an agricultural sector for decades in terms of production and efficiency. This leads to nitrogen emissions. At the same time, we said together: we are going to restore nature. And we have not done that.”

How did you, as a VVD member, get this post? Are you there to get entrepreneurs – farmers and factories – along? Does the coalition party CDA not have to take painful measures for farmers? Or were you promised this post when you were party chairman of the VVD?

“No, nothing has been promised. It was also a complete surprise when Mark Rutte called me and said: we want you as minister for nature and nitrogen. But I did understand him: when I was a deputy in Gelderland, it was often about nitrogen. It is also useful if you know the provinces and municipalities well. And VVD member or not: I love nature.”

At present, half of the Netherlands still consists of agricultural land. What is a good balance, also with a view to housing, energy transition and defence?

“If we express all our ambitions in the Netherlands in square meters, it is no surprise that the Netherlands is too small. We need to combine smarter. For example, more land and less livestock, or a combination of agriculture and nature management.”

We’re not going to make it with that. Reduction of agriculture is necessary.

“Absolutely, but downsizing is not an end in itself. As a government, we aim for targets for nature, nitrogen, water and soil. Not on fewer square meters, a smaller livestock or fewer farmers.”

Provinces will soon be able to decide for themselves how they reduce their nitrogen emissions. Shouldn’t you, as a minister, maintain national control?

“Yes, my fear is of course that all provinces will come back with an approach, and that the sum will not reach the national target of a 50 percent nitrogen reduction. So we set targets for the reduction per province in advance, which we will legally establish by 1 July 2023 at the latest. And there are quite a few areas where it is one to twelve. We don’t have the time for years of voluntary work there and I quickly take control. I realize that not everyone is happy with this message, but it does provide clarity to governments, farmers and the construction industry.”

The damage to nature from nitrogen precipitation is greatest in North Brabant, Overijssel, Gelderland, Drenthe and the Gelderse Vallei. Are those regions going to feel the most pain from your nitrogen policy?

“The nature reserves that really turn red, where there is a lot of agricultural activity, will be tackled more radically than in Zeeland, Flevoland or the north of the country. Those differences will really become visible.”

Nature actually runs out of time in those red areas?

“Yes, on the one hand we don’t have time anymore, given the state of nature. On the other hand, not because we want to build a lot of houses and build roads. At the same time, the agricultural sector is facing a major turnaround. And you want to give those farms time.”

Do you realize that nature is going to deteriorate there? That is not allowed by law.

“That is the dilemma we are in. Walking directly onto the farmyard and expropriating – that seems like a tough measure, but it is not. First, I think it’s unfair. Secondly, expropriation does not yield speed. It takes years.”

In Belgium, the government announced a rigorous decision last month. By 2030, pig farming must be reduced by 30 percent. The sixty farms with the most nitrogen emissions must stop before 2025. Why not do that in the Netherlands?

“We pay more attention to the agricultural sector here. The biggest difference is that Flanders has only one goal: less nitrogen. We look much broader: also at soil and water quality.”

Relocation of farms is a recurring theme in your letter. Doesn’t that move the problem?

“No, not all farmers will be able to be relocated. But there are areas where this is conceivable. Look again at Flevoland, Zeeland or the north. It’s a sliding puzzle.”

They are also not waiting for large nitrogen polluters there.

“No, if they move, they have to do so with a huge nitrogen reduction.”

There are already several voluntary buy-out schemes for farmers. So far they have yielded very little. Why would it work now?

“Yes, that’s why the schemes really need to be more attractive.”

You mean: more money?

“Yes.”

You say that you want to clarify, but in principle you leave the farmers dangling for a while. Left or right, it also comes down to expropriation.

“That is up to the farmer himself. I won’t let the farmer dangle. This is a letter to Parliament about the main points, in which you agree on the rules of the game. I cannot yet say what this will mean for the farmer in Overijssel.”

Minutes of the staff meetings show that the nitrogen targets for 2030 are no longer attainable. More coercion must be applied, officials write.

“Expropriation is more likely in the ‘red’ nature reserves, yes. That is also in my letter.”

Are there other coercive measures than expropriation?

“Expropriation is really the last card. I will do everything I can to prevent that.”

Also read the main commentary: Dutch ecosystems ‘are on the brink of collapse’ and that requires a structural approach

Expropriation is serious. Do you have a problem with that as a liberal?

“A lot. I myself am married to an entrepreneur, in a completely different sector. With an office and a warehouse. I can hardly imagine the uncertainty for farming families.”

What measures can you take if a province does not meet its nitrogen targets?

“In extreme cases, I can intervene myself and take over the approach.”

Provinces are then, say, put under supervision?

“I expect not. I know the provinces well.”

But is it possible?

“Yes, theoretically it is possible. But guys, we have the same goal.”

Nitrogen leaves little room to build. Fellow minister Hugo de Jonge (Public Housing and Spatial Planning† CDA) wants to build one million homes before 2030. Isn’t that completely unfeasible?

“I think it is feasible with this broad nitrogen approach. Otherwise I would have agreed with you. But in the cabinet we are currently discussing all the ambitions. And then I say to Hugo: ‘You have to deliver too.’ Sustainability does not only come from the agricultural sector, but also from construction.”

You are optimistic, but therein lies also a dangerdid you ever say. “If you repeat the positive message often enough, you will all automatically believe in it.” Are the nitrogen targets for 2030 achievable?

“The goals are achievable. And let me put it another way: you don’t solve problems with pessimism.”