The Hague is a world of followers and individuals with courage. It was the same this week, although the contrast is not often so sharp.
Christianne van der Wal, Minister of Nitrogen (VVD), presented nitrogen plans at the end of last week, which had already been alluded to three years ago. In the evening the tractors were at her door. The next day, the VVD congress turned against her. On Sunday morning, she continued to defend her plans at WNL.
Farmers angry, own party angry, colleagues with pale faces – and yet persevere.
But it remained The Hague: two days later there were still enough followers on their feet. After the VVD members voted against, the CDA faction started to wobble. The CU was missing elements in the plans.
At D66 they thought that the resistance was not much – not one coalition faction contested the objectives – but you could also think: if three coalition parties meet the angry farmers after only four days, nobody knows what it will be like in four months.
Especially now that the VVD shows traits that we saw earlier in PvdA and CDA: reduced popularity of the prime minister, rebelliousness in the party.
It makes the nitrogen dossier a defining issue of our time: political high voltage, new organization of public space, and – it is often forgotten – a confrontation between private big business and the government.
Because not only the interests of farmers and their tractors are at play here, but also of relatively unknown Quote 500 companies that are prepared, supported by some MPs, to fight against the impending loss of turnover.
And, incidentally, never had any trouble collecting subsidies from the same government.
Minister Henk Staghouwer (Agriculture, CU) had been in office for less than three months before he had, on March 25, an interview with Jan Anker. Jan Anker is the boss of Royal A-ware, a dairy giant (last year turnover 2.2 billion euros, profit 51 million) with dozens of subsidiaries in cheeses, cream, yogurt, etc.
The shareholders’ equity of Royal A-ware stood at 120 million euros in 2020, with which Jan Anker reached the Quote 500.
With two other agricultural giants annex family businesses, A-ware is also active in the nitrogen debate: soft on relations in The Hague, hard on content. They are the animal feed giant Royal De Heus (turnover in 2020: 3.2 billion, profit 125 million), whose owner, the De Heus family, according to Quote the fifth richest family in the country with equity capital of 1.4 billion euros. And the VanDrie Group (2020: turnover 2.3 billion; profit 75 million), a global player in fattening calves. The equity of the Van Drie family is estimated at 1.2 billion euros.
For these agricultural giants, a smaller livestock population almost certainly means a decline in turnover. De Heus would sell less animal feed. Van Drie would slaughter fewer fattening calves. For dairy giant Royal A-ware it is also important that the company recently expanded its production capacity expanded (with 1.5 billion liters of milk, in Heerenveen) and increased its dependence on dairy farmers: company is looking for farmers.
In this way, these three each have sufficient motivation to combat the nitrogen policy. Private self-interest versus national nature interest.
Their PR is sometimes sophisticated, sometimes confrontational. People need to be made aware that without agriculture they will have no food. An old idea from a now famous politician. In 2017, the company magazine organized forward van De Heus a conversation about the image of the sector, in which Caroline van der Plas (then of the pig farmers’ association NVV) launched the approach: “We make your food.”
The three also want to soften the image of the farmer. This spring RTL4 broadcast the series Who does not know the farmer in which Dutch celebrities ‘discover’ that ‘farmers, animals and sustainability’ go together. The series was sponsored by A-ware, De Heus and VanDrie. Action group Agractie, which organizes next week’s farmers’ protest, responded enthusiastically.
But the three also launched a different ambition earlier: shortly after the coalition agreement with the nitrogen plans came out, it was announced that they had founded the Agri Facts Foundation. to support financially.
Agri Facts is sometimes referred to as part of ‘De Twijfelbrigade’ by opponents in The Hague. Shortly after the outbreak of the nitrogen crisis in 2019, the foundation made a name for itself with its own extensive research, commissioned by the Mesdag Dairy Fund, in which the contribution of agriculture to the nitrogen crisis was incorrectly presented afterwards. And this year Agri Facts Tjeerd de Groot (D66) threatened legal action after a critical statement about the foundation.
It’s the hard side of the resistance: stimulate doubt, tackle critics. Jan Anker from A-ware started in autumn 2019 in the FD already over uncertain calculations and measurements: “As long as there is a discussion about the numbers, standards and method of measurement (-), we should not let companies disappear.” Farm: “I have (-) no understanding of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, but the question is whether it actually all comes from the cows.”
a-ware† De Heus and VanThree This week, they turned head on against the nitrogen plans with their own statements. A-ware called the buyout of farmers “unnecessary and unacceptable”. De Heus, whose lobbyist previously worked for the VVD group: “We support the announced actions.” VanDrie: “We are right next to the farmer!”
How paradoxical it all is: in the database of the Agri & Food top sector of Economic Affairs and in other databases, you can find numerous partially subsidized projects (sustainable dairy chain, sustainable meat, safe food, optimal baby food, combating food waste, etc.) in which the same companies have the latest ten years with others.
I emailed them about it. Only animal feed De Heus responded substantively: participation in public-private projects does not deprive a company of the right to ‘stand up for your interests’.
VanDrie remained silent. While I found by far the most projects and schemes that are beneficial for this company. In 2014, for example, because of its “important role in the veal sector” the company was invited for a meeting with the then State Secretary Sharon Dijksma (Agriculture) after the European slaughter premium for fattening calves was abolished. To compensate, Dijksma offered the sector a sustainability subsidy of 60 million euros in six years she wrote to the House, and according to those involved it was clear that VanDrie benefited in particular.
And when LTO reported at the end of 2021 that 30 million of this had not been paid out, which the ministry is fighting, you saw another aspect of the new agriculture: Caroline van der Plas (BBB) asked parliamentary questions†
And the question now is: should politics be guided by this complex of mega-corporations and agricultural-friendly politicians?
It would be a special outcome of the new governance culture for everyone, especially coalition parties. Then coalition parties exhibit exactly the incalculable behavior that led to previously criticized habits such as tight coalition agreements, coalition consultations and sensitization of MPs.
Meanwhile, the order is weaker than ever. If the VVD collapses – no longer inconceivable – the formation of a new cabinet will no longer be self-evident in view of the fragmentation. That too is at stake.
For example, the nitrogen policy presents The Hague with elementary choices. Between public interest and that of mega-powers. Between courage and mini-politics. Between governability and something that is starting to look dangerously like the big klaadadatsch.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of June 18, 2022