To check the results described in this chapter and to enlarge the general validity of this research, some experts in the field of food and agriculture in Noord-Brabant have been involved. They are referred to as respondents 16 to 19. Respondent 16 was interviewed alone and can be identified as a specialist in nature inclusive dairy farmer, working for the province of Noord-Brabant. Respondents 17, 18, and 19 were interviewed together, and all belong to the Foodup! Brabant team of the province of Noord-Brabant. They work on innovative projects in the field of food and agriculture. Expert respondent 16 was presented all six statements and respondents 16-19 only three. These statements were derived from the results of all previous interviews. The answers of the different experts are presented below.
- Statement 1 – The transition to more nature inclusive/sustainable agriculture should be a free choice for every farmer
Respondent 16 mentioned that on the one hand, it should be a free choice for every farmer, or at least a voluntary choice. Respondent 17 agreed that without intrinsic motivation it will be very difficult to sustain the transition a farmer has made: “To achieve more motivation, it should be made attractive to choose for nature inclusive farming, rather than pushing farmers in a certain direction from above”
(respondent 17).
However, on the other hand: “There are many tasks that the province has to fulfil, that do not allow the intensification of agriculture to progress further” (respondent 16). This is especially true for farmers that are situated close to nature areas, where it is more just to ask for more effort from farmers, as stated by respondent 19. Pesticides in the environment, nitrogen, and decreasing biodiversity are valid concerns, and as such the transition should be voluntary, but not without obligation is something that all respondents agree on. Respondent 16 added that the ones that are helped by governments to achieve this transition should meet certain measures, as financial help is money from society. As the production circumstances are getting worse for farmers, governments should work on this economic position to make nature inclusive farming a logical choice for the farmer himself. It is now not attractive for farmers to go for nature inclusive, as farmers that harm the environment are not punished yet. This will, however, “Require a complete transition of the current market circumstances” (respondent 16).
- Statement 2 – As long as the consumer is not willing to pay more for nature inclusive products, it is practically impossible to upscale nature inclusive farming
This is true, according to respondent 16. The consumer however pays what is asked for it, so if sustainable products would cost less and less sustainable products more, there would be a shift in the demand for more sustainably produced foods. The market and retail should therefore initiate this and take more responsibility, and the consumer will follow by themselves. An example is that Plus supermarkets only offer biological milk and no regular milk anymore: “The consumer can only choose one product, and no one complains about it” (respondent 16). So, the consumer buys this biological milk as this is the only option. The export and international position of agriculture is a bottleneck in this situation, but respondent 16 added that “If we don’t do it in the Netherlands, then what right do we have to judge other countries or expect it from them?”.
- Statement 3 – Nature inclusive farming is not possible for all farmers in a small country like the Netherlands
Respondent 16: “For all farmers, this is indeed true. If the number of farmers stays constant, we indeed have too little land to enable this. The number of dairy farmers is decreasing, but their land does often not reach the regular market but is rented out directly or used in another, more lucrative way. When other farmers do not have the opportunity to rent new land, not every dairy farmer can indeed become nature inclusive”. Both ground and price should be balanced to make it possible for farmers, but as stated by this expert, the province is unable to solve this issue as they cannot decide who the owner of the land is and thus only have little influence to settle this.
- Statement 4 – The province cannot give farmers a long-term perspective because of political influences
Farmers feel as if regulations are constantly changing. However respondent 16 explained that governments impose certain rules for farmers, especially in the field of nitrogen. The agricultural sector has lobbied for fewer regulations for nitrogen, although the European Union then opposed these more flexible rules and demanded stricter rules again. This is a constant interaction between governments
47 and the agricultural sector, causing fluctuation in regulations. It is therefore not only because of
political influences. The agricultural sector should form its own future perspective, not focused on maintaining the current situation. It can be concluded that “The polarisation is hindering the ability of the government to set up long-term perspectives and goals” (respondent 16).
- Statement 5 – The revenue model for nature inclusive farming should not rest on subsidies and compensations but should be an independently working system
“Absolutely. A farmer does not only produce food, but also landscape qualities, or ecosystem services, and he or she should be paid for this” (respondent 16). There can then be spoken of “The quantification of nature, rather than of subsidies or compensations” (respondent 17). There is however a dilemma occurring in this, as stated by respondent 19: “Farmers want to be both an entrepreneur, as well as long for continuity, but these two are difficult to merge into one”. In the end, all respondents agreed that the consumer should pay more for food to pay the farmer. Transparency is then important to explain to the consumer why he needs to pay more.
Which role does the province play in this?
Respondent 16 describes their role as: “A modest role, as we can make sure a farmer pays a lower rent for ground if we own that land because he provides certain environmental advantages. This is however only of very small influence. The province does not have that many instruments to provide a better revenue model, this is more a job of the European Union and the Dutch government. Especially the influence of Brussels is very significant financially. We do it indirectly via the Biodiversity Monitor, where we finance the above legal performances for about 200 farmers at this moment”. Respondent 19 mentioned that the province plays a role in compensating farmers for contributing to reaching provincial or national goals. However, to really make a higher profit than only compensations from nature inclusive farming is something that is the responsibility of the farmer himself.
- Statement 6 – I have no idea what the farmer of the future looks like
This is difficult to predict, but the respondents had certain personal, ideal visions of the farmer in the future. Respondent 16 pointed out that climatic changes have escalated so much during the last 20 years, that it is very unpredictable how this will evolve in the future and how the farmer will adapt to this. In his view, a part of agricultural practices will be less dependent on environmental conditions by producing differently, such as vertical farming. These initiatives will probably arise nearby cities and close to consumers. At the same time: “The recreational pressure is increasing and rural landscapes will therefore also gain importance, which provides opportunities for farmers. Managing the landscape will possibly become a large additional task for farmers, but then again, the financial situation can cause issues, as you cannot let every cyclist pay for the landscape they bike through” (respondent 16).
A certain system should be developed to give the farmer compensation for his services.
Respondent 17 sees this differently: “Looking at autonomic developments, scale enlargement will continue to exist, as it is an autonomic development. However, on the other hand, niche innovations will continue to gain importance. A farmer can make this decision him or herself: will I grow my company, or will I focus on a personal story and product and add value by going for the niche market?”.
He sees that the second development gains importance in Brabant nowadays. Respondent 19 feels like
“There will be more of a split between farmers that want to work with nature and farmers that will break with nature and will go for a technological way of producing”.
5 – Conclusion
This chapter will first provide an answer to the main research question, after which the findings are reflected in the discussion. Paragraph three will review the validity and reliability of the research and the final paragraph will give recommendations for further research and policy action.