The press conference of Johan Remkes has just ended and Jesse Klaver (GroenLinks) comes in front of the NOS camera to give a reaction. It is succinct and remarkably cheerful: “Excellent report. The policy is still in place and Remkes is even going the extra mile.”
In the living room of Gerrit van den Heuvel (54), keeper of 85,000 chickens in Stroe, this political cheerfulness is completely wrong. “That boy really heard a completely different story than I did.”
Van den Heuvel, one of the organizers of the big tractor protest on 22 June, praised Remkes’ story just before that. “We don’t have to get in the tractor for this,” he says as soon as the driver has finished speaking. “Not really.”
The performance of mediator Johan Remkes – a VVD voter whose vote went to the BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB) last time – reminds him of the time when he still had faith in politics. “Men like Lubbers. And now Remkes. There’s a lot more to that than from someone like that, isn’t it?” he says, pointing to the large flat screen where Clover passes by again. Remkes’ story also takes him back in time in terms of content. In the good sense of the word, by the way: “We are back where we were at the beginning of 2000, before the PAS scheme derailed the approach to nitrogen. Innovation, zoning (determining per area which type of agriculture belongs there), a substance balance. Those are just good plans that go beyond just ‘we’ll buy you out’. Former agriculture ministers such as Veerman and Van Aartsen already talked about this.”
Although Van den Heuvel reads something completely different from Klaver in the report, his conclusion is more or less the same. “We can finally move on.”
no criminals
In the week of the Remkes report, there was a lot of talk about the tone in which the former minister addressed the farmers. His story actually made the entire House of Representatives, from D66 to BBB, hopeful; unique in times of polarization. As a Driving Judge, he briefly took the heat out of the Dutch neighbor dispute that has been raging since 2019. With obvious authority from all parties, including the farmers.
In many a farmhouse, Remkes’ story was even received with a swallowed sob and a rolling tear. Remkes said that during his summer of conversations he had seen despair on the faces of very reasonable people. “That rule touched me,” says 62-year-old dairy farmer Piet Boer from Biddinghuizen, near Dronten. “And now that I say it again, it moves me again. We desperately needed that recognition. That we are not criminals or polluters.”
Boer is chairman of the Zorg om Boer en Tuinder (ZOB) foundation, which provides psychological care to farmers in need with volunteers throughout the country. He was previously chairman of the board at FrieslandCampina. “Nitrogen minister Van der Wal told more or less the same story just after Remkes. But somehow you believe her less. There is something in it: here, apologies for that ticket, and now don’t be difficult anymore.”
The fact that Remkes took a different tone may seem of little relevance to outsiders – after all, the content remains intact – but it is of great significance to farmers, he says, while a number of his 180 dairy cows are mooing in the background. „C’est le ton qui fait la musique, huh? There is something in Remkes’ story that makes you believe him. When he says he comes from the countryside of Groningen and understands something about our reality, you feel that it is real. And yes, it is such a terrible cliché that we farmers always need appreciation. The baker has that too, right? But still, our work is so connected to our family, to our land. That is really different.”
Remkes’ tone also differs from that of the cabinet in another way, according to Piet Boer. “He is not hiding behind anything. With many other politicians the story is: sorry, you have to remediate. Not mine, but because of this report or that report. It is made way too legal. Remkes simply says: we have to tackle this, because the soil demands it of us. That is language that a farmer understands and that does justice to the reality that nature organizations point out. Overdue nature maintenance must be addressed.
All this farmer’s praise, more than three years after the nitrogen issue erupted, raises the question of how the crisis would have played out if this tone had been hit sooner. Is what looks like a clash of interests ultimately not much more a conflict between different mentalities, which demands a different communicative repertoire than technocratic confrontation?
Where does the peasant discontent come from? Reading and viewing tips for more context
The nitrogen discussion came to a head in September 2019 when D66 MP Tjeerd de Groot presented the sector with the doom of a halved livestock. Three weeks later, the Malieveld was full of tractors. Couldn’t it have been different?
Chicken farmer Van den Heuvel considers the Remkes report in any case to be ‘a beating’ for the cabinet. Rutte in particular has to suffer. “Isn’t this an issue for all Dutch people? But now [bij de presentatie van het rapport, red.] he’s not there again. Unbelievably bad.” Nitrogen Minister Van der Wal is also not doing well. Van den Heuvel once went to her house – in his own words only to hang a banner in front of her door. “How difficult is it, a little normal communication? It is unbelievable that they need such an old hand as Remkes.”
Leaked Conversation
Remkes perhaps cracked his most striking note about this communication. He held up a mirror to “politics, media and the cultural vanguard.” How the rural area “and the ideas that live there” was spoken of in those circles, “that is a stumbling block to many people.” Listen carefully and give substantive answers, he advises. “And do it at the right pitch.”
It becomes apparent immediately after the presentation that this pitch has not been found just like that. The NOS news talks about buying out 500 to 600 farmers, while Remkes in his presentation presents those farmers with a choice: change, move or sell. Moreover, the peak loaders do not necessarily have to be just farmers. The rest of the business community is also eligible. Those nuances were quickly lost, as farmer Van den Heuvel noticed in front of his television in Stroe. “The way Remkes puts it, that appeals to me. I would be happy to move to the Noordoostpolder, if the government helps me with that. But I don’t want to be chased away.”
To top it all off, a so-called hot mic, an open microphone that continued after the broadcast, later on Wednesday a conversation between Jesse Klaver and a journalist, just after the interview with the NOS. The clip immediately flew across the internet. For a moment, for a moment, the polarization seemed to have abated, but the politicization of the sustainability debate immediately took over again.
The ‘tone’ of the recorded exchange forms a sharp contrast with the tone that Remkes advocated just before. The politician whispered to the reporter that the cabinet must quickly respond to Remkes’ report before farmers really see what it contains and get back on their tractors. “Anything they were angry about just stays.” Indeed, some farmers weakened their support for Remkes’ advice again later in the week.
At the same time, farmers and their supporters don’t need more evidence that an urban elite is making the countryside pay for its own problems, thanks to the leaked recording.
A nuance was also lost in the excitement about Klaver: he does not represent the cabinet. It is not surprising that the leader of GroenLinks wants to speed up sustainability. But, will politics get the country along at this pace?
Anyone who registered the intensity of the indignation might think: this peat fire has not yet been extinguished, even after a brave attempt by firefighter Remkes.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of October 8, 2022