Manure crisis hits Dutch farmers

Just before Christmas, Dutch farmers received long-feared news from Brussels: they would have to drastically cut the amount of manure they put on their land because too much nitrogen was leaching into watercourses, damaging local wildlife.

The disposal of animal excrement has convulsed Dutch politics for years. When the government tried to compulsorily buy out livestock holdings to reduce production, it sparked a wave of rural protests that could return just as a new and fragile governing coalition takes office.

The densely populated nation of 18mn has almost as many farm animals as people, and the strain on nature is showing. Hundreds of farms are closing every year, and pig, sheep and cattle numbers are declining as their impact on the environment hits strict EU limits on nitrogen, phosphorus and nature restoration. It is a wrenching process for a country that is the world’s second biggest food exporter by value after the US (some of that is re-exports).

The impact of environmental rules has combined with subsidy reductions, soaring prices for inputs such as herbicides and fertilisers, and volatile agricultural prices to cut into morale in rural communities, Bart Millenaar of farmers’ union LTO told he Financial Times. Nitrogen levels are constantly monitored, while farmers must secure permits to add to their livestock herds. The crisis has fed into the country’s turbulent politics.

Rural disaffection and the pure PR system propelled a populist coalition of parties led by the far-right Geert Wilders to power in 2024. But within a year Wilders had pulled out, leaving a caretaker cabinet to limp on until this month. The Farmers-Citizen Movement, part of the outgoing government, was punished for failing to deliver on promises to farmers that it could solve their problems — including by convincing Brussels to extend the exemption to the nitrogen limit.

Following elections last year, the liberal D66 in January announced a minority government with the centre-right VVD and Christian Democrats. After two years without a clear farm policy, incoming prime minister Rob Jetten has pledged to cut nitrogen emissions from agriculture by 42 to 46 per cent from 2019 levels by 2030, and said the government will continue buying up farms to reduce livestock. He also wants to fund innovation including plant-based meat alternatives and sustainable pesticides.

Millenaar, of the farmers’ union, said farmers had been buffeted by the changes. “They want stability. In six years we’ve had three governments with different policies,” he told the FT.

Now one more safety valve is being taken away. While the EU limits nitrogen emissions to 170kg per hectare per year, the European Commission had allowed Dutch farmers to use 250kg because of its large animal herd. The Commission ended that exemption in a letter on December 23.  Jessika Roswall, the EU’s environment commissioner, wrote that “the Netherlands continues to face very serious challenges in managing nitrates and nitrogen. A further derogation would add to these pressures at a time when water quality and nitrogen pollution remain a pressing concern.” She said the government had not implemented an action plan to cut nitrogen emissions, which also come from vehicle fumes, industry and households. The limit will be gradually reduced to 170kg over the coming year.

The Netherlands is not alone in struggling to meet the nitrogen ceiling: it is being breached across the wet, northern countries that produce much of Europe’s milk and cheese. Ireland has been given three more years of higher limits but is reducing its dairy herd before it is too late. Belgium and Germany have been given warnings by the Commission.

Analysis by academics at Wageningen University in January found there were only three potential solutions to the crisis: reducing livestock numbers, improving manure processing to export more or reducing the protein content of cattle feed. But such measures come too late for many farmers.

The limits of Dutch lessons for farmer protests

This article by a political scientist looks at the impact of farmer protests in the Netherlands and their implications for the UK: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/farmer-protests-lessons-from-the-netherlands/?mc_cid=6bb3292f21&mc_eid=a47fa58ca7

What it doesn't mention is that the Netherlands has a very pure system of proportional representation which makes it easy for insurgent parties with a narrow support base to win legislative seats.

Is the UK ready for new challenges in food production?

The Financial Times yesterday had a 'Big Read' article about the transformation of food production by new technology. Like all FT articles on new technology, it's a bit 'gung ho'. It doesn't consider that many farmers may be resistant to new technology or may not have the resources to acquire it. Nevertheless, it makes some good points.

The central thrust of the article is to be found in a sentence some way down: 'Once an unfashionable backwater, agricultural technology has started to capture the imagination of investors.' It reckons that 'annual global investment in food tech, from farm management systems to robotics and mechanisation, more than tripled to $10bn' in the five years to 2017. The main areas of innovation are identified as gene editing, artificial intelligence and digital technology.

Consumer demand is, as always, of key importance. As the populations of developing companies become wealthier, they demand protein products, especially meat. The total amount of meat consumed globally is forecast to rise by 76 per cent by 2050. But, as we know, meat production is not good news for climate change (fossil fuels, methane), nor is increased red meat consumption good for health.

Coincidentally, The Economist has a big feature on the vegan trend. Veganism as such, it concluded, is a niche market, but large numbers of people who are not vegans or vegetarians are interested in healthier eating which has led to an increased demand for plant based products.

One of my concerns about Brexit was the impact of the loss of migrant labour on fruit and vegetable production in the UK. Food miles issues can be exaggerated: it makes more sense to produce tomatoes in Spain in the winter than to heat glasshouses around Littlehampton.

I am somewhat sceptical of claims made about automated picking. The FT notes, 'Given that fruits and vegetables are not of uniform shape and ripeness, the technological challenges are extensive. On top of the mechanical dexterity and spatial cognition that the machines need to demonstrate, researchers hope that AI can help them to learn to pick only the ripe fruit and vegetables.'

The FT rightly praises what is going on in the Netherlands in this area, particularly in 'Food Valley' near Wageningen University (it is, of course, as flat as a pancake). When I was doing research on biological alternatives to chemical pesticides, I was impressed by the way in which the Netherlands was ahead of the curve. As the FT notes, 'The country has made food science one of its strategic priorities and hosts one of the world's most efficient agricultural systems.'

Among the advantages that the Netherlands has is Rabobank, one of the biggest lenders to the food industry and a central location in Europe with an excellent port in Rotterdam.

The FT notes, 'Some investors believe that the food business is about to face the sort of disruption that technology has based on hosts of other industries.' Is the UK ready? Is domestic policy prepared? I doubt it.

'We are not sleeping on the job!'

That was the assertion of Ladislav Miko, Deputy Director General for the Food Chain in DG Sanco, at a symposium at the European Parliament yesterday on feeding Europe with less pesticides. The event was organised by Greenpeace, the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association, Pesticides Action Network Europe and other organisations.

He insisted that progress in the approval of low risk substances was dependent on progress in the member states. It was also constrained by the legislation and the capacity available to DG Sanco. This capacity was not increasing.

Miko was optimistic in the sense that he felt some difference in practices was observable in the field. However, a report on the implementation of the Sustainable Use Directive that was due in November 2014 will be submitted to the institutions in the first half of 2016. National Action Plans had been delayed.

I am afraid that this reflects the typical glacial pace in the European institutions, the inadequacy of implementation and enforcement and the usual resort to wheeling out shortcomings by the member states, or more specifically the subsidiarity principle, as an excuse.

One might hope for more progress under the Dutch presidency from January. They intend to propose a 'road map' to the Council which would include the acceleration of approval and authorisation procedures and the finalising of low risk substances criteria.

The Netherlands has been operating its own Green Deal since 2014. However, when I heard the lessons learned listed, they were mostly identical with those that we derived from our RELU biopesticides project which was completed seven years ago. So much for impact. If the Dutch weren't interested in a British project, they could have learnt lessons from their own Genoeg project.

Other dispiriting news was that the 'grey area' of plant strengtheners is to be dealt with in a review of fertilisers, which is inappropriate as these products are often marketed on the basis that they enhance plant protection. Their effect on human health is unknown.

It also became apparent that the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Agency are treading on each other's toes despite pious expressions about better coordination. Sometimes I think that the EU has too many agencies with too many overlapping jurisdictions, but I don't think this is on David Cameron's reform agenda.

Czech MEP Pavel Poc said that member states needed to respect the commitments made. More needed to be done to tackle the illegal trade in pesticides. As far as low risk substances were concerned, every data gap should not be used as an excuse for non-approval.

IBMA executive director David Cary said that we had not yet built the toolbox we needed. There were far too many approvals for emergency use of synthetics under Article 53. Five low risk substances had now been approved, two of which would be available from January.

Summing up, chair Michael Hamell, a former DG Environment official, said 'A new direction for plant protection is here and it's better to step on the train now. We know where we want to go. Are we sure that everything in our regulatory system is in place?'

My answer is a resounding 'No'. The directives and regulations do the job, the problem is the lack of implementation.

My own presentation on 'The Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture' can be found here: Benefits