Criticism of the Drenthe plan to restore nature, officially called the Drents Plan Rural Area, continues to swell. Not only nature and environmental organizations, but also the agricultural sector and a number of political parties in the Provincial Council (PS) are dissatisfied.
The Provincial Executive, or the provincial government, only sends a draft version of the plan to the minister. Deputy Henk Jumelet has deliberately opted for a ‘half version’. Because no agricultural agreement has been concluded and PAS reporters are still in uncertainty, it is not possible to make a complete plan, says the CDA politician.
Drenthe is therefore not yet asking the government for money, because the province is still keeping part of the approach open. The fact that a new board is eager to get started, and the current board is coming to an end, also plays a role.
The opponents fear that Drenthe will miss out on money because of its attitude to restore nature, solve the nitrogen problem, improve water quality and help farmers work in a different way. They fear that this will lead to more delays and standstill in the nitrogen file.
PvdA, PvdD, D66, Volt, GroenLinks, JA21 and the ChristenUnie want the provincial government to proceed as soon as possible with the preparation of a complete nature recovery plan, officially called the Drents Plan Rural Area (DPLG). PvdA member Rudolf Bosch: “The time of the goat paths is now definitely over.”
According to party leader Renate Zuiker of the PvdD, the new council, with the BBB, will put even more pressure on the brakes.
As far as CDA, VVD, PVV, Sterk Lokaal, FvD and the BBB are concerned, half the plan is a good move by the provincial government. CDA member Sonja Hilgenga: “This DLPG is a product of an impossible task.” Alfred Schoenmaker of Sterk Lokaal: “This puzzle cannot be put together.”
This afternoon the issue degenerated into a lengthy debate that went in all sorts of directions. For example, PVV member Bert Vorenkamp started about a far-reaching industrialization of agriculture in order to smooth out the nitrogen problem and help nature. “Everything in closed stables, storing and purifying all emissions.”
It should be the other way around, argued Volt and GroenLinks. With even more industrialization, there will be even fewer farmers and we will not solve the nitrogen problem. We have to solve that at the source, they think. According to both parties, not fewer farmers are needed, but more, they just have to work more extensively. The farmer’s security of existence must be a precondition. And circular agriculture: more grazing, fewer cows, less manure.
Henk van de Weg of the SP added that the current industrialization of agriculture and economies of scale are ‘the source of all evil’. And there’s not a word about that in the plan. “Think of the Rabobank, the Bayers and other makers of pesticides, the large dairy giants and supermarket chains”, he pointed out the culprits in his eyes.
The debate took another turn when VVD member Roelof Oosting stated that climate change would be of all times. He blamed the grassification of moors on the wolf, which eats other animals such as hares, which in turn eat the grass.
The animal party then sneered at the liberals whether they, after this claim, also fall under the category of ‘climate deniers’.
Jumelet persisted: it can’t get any better than this at the moment. “There is no agricultural agreement, the cabinet will come up with its own measures in September. The agricultural agreement is necessary to make a complete plan. The minister understands our position.”
Jumelet assured the Provincial Council that the money from the so-called transition fund, from which the measures are funded, will go to Drenthe no matter what.
Natuurmonumenten, Stichting het Drentse Landschap and the Natuur en Milieufederatie Drenthe consider the plan ‘meaningless’ in its current form. “No choices are made and there is no answer whatsoever about how Drenthe wants to tackle the major challenges.” Moreover, not claiming money in The Hague is dangerous, Jan Gorter of Natuurmonumenten Provincial Council argued.
“Drenthe only receives money for nitrogen reduction, among other things, if the province makes concrete plans for the rural area. If there are no objectives and there is no budget, then the government will not provide any money.” According to Gorter, Drenthe should reverse this: make your own plans and put pressure on the government to deliver.
According to Gorter, land (exchange) is the key: “Many farmers would be willing to extensify and with less livestock. But that requires land. A small part of that land must be used for nature restoration and the completion of the Netherlands Nature Network. The vast majority must go to agriculture and to create transitional areas where there will also be permanent agriculture.”
Urban planner Bernard Hanskamp came up with an idea that he believes can be put into practice immediately, and is also good for agriculture and water quality. “The many streams in Drenthe have wide open spaces and differences in height. Use that.”
Hanskamp calls the Oude Hoofdvaart, Beilerstroom and the lower reaches of the Vledder Aa extremely suitable for livestock farming, for example. On the other hand, streams that are necessary for nature and water extraction, such as in the Drentsche Aa area and the Reest, should not be eligible for agriculture. “And make better use of the water to solve dry or wet periods in agriculture and nature. 700 million cubic meters now flow unused annually from the Drenthe streams to the sea via canals.”
Farmer foreman Arend Steenbergen of LTO Noord called on the Drenthe Parliament and the board to make a ‘real Drenthe approach, area-oriented with customization’. “Don’t reinvent the wheel. Sustainability and emission reduction have already been introduced. Do involve farmers much more at the front of the plans.”
Steenbergen further emphasized that much is still unclear. “What options are given to farmers who stay and do not let themselves be bought out? What is their revenue model that it is always about? And there is still no solution for the PAS reporters,” he was disappointed.
Steenbergen mainly wants to solve the nitrogen problem with technology and innovation. Grain on the mill of BBB Member of Parliament Willem Vossebeld, who elaborated on this further. “Expropriation is not in the BBB dictionary. Everything on a voluntary basis. And there is no revenue model at all for more organic agriculture or circular agriculture.”
Steenbergen warned the Party for the Animals, which wants to drastically reduce the number of livestock. “Sustainability has a higher cost price, we also sell our products in countries that do not have these strict rules.”
In addition to the criticism from agriculture, nature and environmental organizations during the debate, the joint water boards, the recreation sector and a number of municipalities also sent a letter with strong criticism of the province’s ‘half’ nature plan that has now been drawn up.