Whether or not to halve the herd. Achieving the nitrogen target in 2030 or 2035. These are the wrong questions, says Sjoukje Heimovaara, who has been the new chairman of the board of Wageningen University & Research (WUR) since 1 July 2022, the combination of university and nine research institutes that is a global leader in the field of agriculture, food, environment, ecology and forestry.
Those goals for the short term, “that’s what it’s about in the issues of the day in politics and the media. But they are the wrong questions. We are not talking about the big dilemmas,” she says. According to her, the question should be: what do we want agriculture and nature to look like in the Netherlands in 2050? Without such a vision, Heimovaara fears that politics will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis. And without a clear prospect, farmers don’t want to move either. Because they do not dare to invest for fear of ever-changing rules. “If you ask them: what would help you the most, they say: give me a perspective for twenty years.”
A lot is about to change in the Netherlands, says Heimovaara in her office on the sixth floor of the administration building. “The Netherlands is one of the most fertile deltas in the world. But we are now producing too much for our small country.” It affects our health, the water quality is poor, biodiversity is decreasing. The course will have to change, if only under the pressure of all the agreements to which the Netherlands has committed itself – the Paris Climate Agreement, the European Green Deal, the UN goals for sustainable development. “It is clear that we cannot maintain everything,” says Heimovaara, who studied plant breeding in Wageningen and then worked at the TNO research institute and plant breeder Royal van Zanten. From 2017 to 2019, she was general manager there. She then returned to WUR and became director of the agrotechnology and food research group. There came the insight of the great pressure the current agricultural and food system exerts on the planet.
“The earth is suffering a lot from us,” she said last September in her speech at the opening of the academic year. Heimovaara sees it as “the greatest challenge of the world’s population to live within the planetary boundaries.” WUR can make a difference, she said, “with research into more sustainable food systems, better land use, better biodiversity and more sustainable behaviour”.
A few months ago, Heimovaara asked a group of WUR scientists what the biggest dilemmas are when it comes to the future of agriculture and nature in the Netherlands. “I asked them, just look at all the scenario studies and future perspectives that have been drawn up at WUR in recent years. What do you see then?” For example, there was the much-discussed map of the Netherlands in 2120, with agricultural land halved, urbanization in the east, and much wider rivers.
The group of scientists came up with seven dilemmas. Such as: does the Netherlands want to continue to export agricultural products, or rather agricultural knowledge? Do we see animals in livestock farming as beings with feelings, consciousness and rights, or are they subordinate to humans? Are we going to separate or intertwine agriculture and nature? Do politicians dare to develop policies regarding the food choices of today’s consumers, or not? For a real vision, it is necessary that politicians first answer these questions, says Heimovaara.
Why do we have to solve those dilemmas first?
“Because the answers point us in the right direction.”
And what if we don’t choose?
“That is not healthy for the agri-food system, nor for its environment. I dare say that.”
In what way?
“Now we are concerned about nitrogen. But in a few years we will have to deal with the guidelines for water quality. And then with ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture plays an important role in everything. So, integrate all those problems and then look for a solution. If you keep looking only at the short term, you will keep stumbling from ditch to ditch.”
You just said, we can’t enforce everything. For example, what not?
“It depends on the choices you make. But on which there was great consensus among scientists, is that the amount of animal protein that we produce here does not fit within our national borders. If we want to keep the Netherlands healthy, both nature and people, we will have to go back to that.”
But it is also said that the herd can be kept as it is now, and that we can solve the problems with new technology.
“It has long been said that technology will solve the problems. But the experts who wrote all those different reports all come to the same conclusion. Technology alone will not get you there. And more importantly, with technology we can now solve part of the nitrogen problem. But then we have not yet solved methane emissions, the pressure on the water, and the decrease in biodiversity. And you can’t do that to the farmers. You let entrepreneurs invest in good new technology to the best of their knowledge, only to find out five years later that there is a new problem.”
Can we still remain the world’s second largest agricultural exporter?
“The answer to that may well be yes. Only, the question is: what are we going to export? Are these high-quality, fermented proteins from plants, bacteria and fungi? Or our brilliant sustainable systems, such as strip cultivation, or plant-based alternatives to meat? As long as it falls within all agreed frameworks and guidelines. But as much animal production as we have now, that is not possible.
“There is still something to it. If we reduce the livestock here, it will be good for the local nature, the local emissions, the local quality of water and air. But if we Dutch continue to eat the same amount of animal protein, we will export the problem across the border. Then we save the godwit, but we sacrifice the gorilla.”
You mean that we also have to change our diet? Eat less meat?
“Yes.”
Are you already doing that yourself?
“We eat meat at home, but not very much. Cheese is a weakness of mine, I really like that.”
What else are you doing for the environment and climate?
“I am frugal with leftovers. I throw away as little as possible. Waste is a big problem. A third of all food produced worldwide does not reach our mouths. Also, I don’t have a dryer at home. I find it unnecessary to waste energy on things that come naturally. Like drying laundry. Or cycling, that doesn’t have to be electric for me. I also try to fly as little as possible. And I mainly buy my clothes second-hand.”
Heimovaara nods her head down, pointing to her clothes. “Not everything, but a significant part is second-hand,” she says. “But then again I have a weakness for coffee. I know that cultivation has a great impact on the environment. But I can’t manage to drink less.”
How do you get people to change their consumption behaviour?
“A lot of research is being done into this, not just in Wageningen. Important incentives are legislation and economic motives. The latter has once again become abundantly clear with the recent high gas prices. Suddenly we were able to reduce consumption by 15 to 20 percent.”
And appeal to people’s morals?
“That’s a good one, but also a difficult one. For example, many people choose sustainable food until it becomes more expensive. Then they shoot back.”
So the VAT reduction for fruit and vegetables should continue?
“I don’t have an opinion on that. We must promote that people eat more fruit and vegetables, that is clear. At the same time I say that the current price of food is not the real price. Because the damage to nature, water, health, climate, is not included. That’s many billions of dollars in costs. And that is ultimately what we citizens pay for. Also the poor welfare mother who is trying to make ends meet.”
You say that you lack a vision of agriculture and nature. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has previously pushed for a vision on urban and rural areas. The Board of Government Advisors as well. Why is a university president joining this debate now?
“We do not want to get involved in the political debate. It seems like everyone wants to suck us into it. I’m just saying that the current agri-food system has a major problem, a problem that we here in Wageningen are trying to tackle with 7,000 employees and over 13,000 students. We have three tasks: teaching, conducting research and sharing knowledge. We have a lot of knowledge to share.”
Despite all this knowledge, there hasn’t been a minister of agriculture in Wageningen for a very long time, you recently said critically.
“I have to straighten that out. They have both been here now.”
You yourself went to the House of Representatives in The Hague this morning. Why?
“We organized a breakfast. There were agricultural experts from political groups, policy officers, and also employees of the House of Representatives. My team and I have tried to explain those dilemmas. And what it means if you say, for example, that you want to contribute to the food security of Europe. Due to climate change, you see a lot of drought and forest fires in Southern Europe. The Po plain, where there is a lot of agriculture, threatens to become too dry again this summer. How do we deal with that? We can say, let’s wind down everything here. We are only going to feed ourselves. On behalf of WUR, I have no answer to that. But it shows that these are difficult problems that you have to look at in their entirety.”
You also said earlier that WUR should make itself heard more clearly. What did you mean by that?
“That was not about the agriculture and nature debate. That is about how well people know Wageningen. I am talking, for example, about policymakers, but also about prospective students who are interested in agriculture, food and nature. Some think that there are all types of goat wool socks here. Another, slightly larger part thinks that this only concerns intensive livestock farming. Both images are incorrect. Everyone is looking very hard for a good balance here. How are we going to feed the world, how do we take good care of our animals, how do we get nature healthy again. That is why those dilemmas are so life-size.”
There is also the perception of WUR that the large business community determines the research agenda. What do you say to that?
“It’s essentially about how independent we are. And we are. I’m not saying that nothing ever goes wrong. It has been researched nationwide. Scientists are under pressure. But it also appears that the pressure from the government, as the client of research, is greater than from the business community. We continue to protect our independence. Everyone attends scientific integrity workshops. And we talk about it together. If we are not independent, we have no real value.”
You have become more idealistic over the years, you said in the Wageningen university magazine. Can you explain that?
“It has increased yes. As humanity, we are increasingly crossing the boundaries of the planet. In my previous job as chairman of the board of the plant breeding company Royal Van Zanten, I have been to many places in the world and that has become increasingly clear to me. And it is precisely the weakest who are most often the victims. The poorer among the people, the animals, nature.”
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of April 15, 2023.