the
DUTCH
AGROCOMPLEX
ity
Interactions between socio-‐economic context,
political measures and ecological impact after WWII
Martin Glabischnig
6143202
Kim Buisman
6076335
Lisanne Kraal
6033512
UvA Interdisciplinary Project paper
December 23th 2011
Abstract
Agriculture in the Netherlands has changed dramatically since the 1950s. The then predominant small traditional farming practices largely converted into a large-‐scale industrial agriculture, which affected ecosystems. This is a complex system which needs to be approached by severel disciplines in order to create insights on its dynamics. In this paper, dynamics of the socio-‐economic context, political measures and ecological impact are combined to create an integrated timeline. Based on a historical analysis of adaptive cycles and feedback loops (derived from resilience theory) it is possible to identify slow and fast variables. In the discussion of the integrated view on the developments it became clear that disciplinary differences were still underestimated. A theoretical alternative would be a radical separation of agriculture and natural landscape.
Index
1) Introduction p. 3
1.1) Introduction to the research subject & research question p. 3
1.2) Objectives & Social-‐ and scientific relevance p. 3
2) Theoretical Framework & Methodology p. 4
3) Dynamics of the Dutch Agrocomplex p. 7
3.1) Dynamics of socio-‐economic system: Socio-‐economic context p. 7 3.1.1) General picture: geographical characteristics p. 7 3.1.2) Historical trends from 1950 p. 7
3.2) Dynamics of political system: Political measures p. 10 3.2.1) International context P. 10
3.2.2) Policy arrangements P. 10
3.2.3) Key issues in policy arrangements P. 11
3.3) Dynamics of ecological system: Ecological impact p. 14 3.3.1) History of land use change p. 14 3.3.2) Ecological impact: Soil & Water p. 14 3.3.2) Ecological impact: Biodiversity p. 16
4) Results: Integrative view on the Dutch Agrocomplex p. 20
4.1) Timeline p. 20
4.2) Variables p. 23
5) Conclusion and discussion p. 24
References p. 27
Appendix p. 30
1) Introduction
1.1) Introduction to the research subject & research question
The Dutch agricultural system is considered as one of the most intensive and productive agricultural systems in the world. Nonetheless, some problems exist. Negative impact on ecosystem services (e.g. biodiversity loss, habitat loss and contamination) is recurring issue. Nowadays, interests of this sector and conservationists seem to be opposite. Kol & Kuipers (1991) and Karel (2010) state that the sector could not survive in today’s global market without state-‐imposed protective measures. In order to create a basis for the assessment and adjustment of agricultural and environmental policies, it is needed to not only understand the history of the agricultural sector, but create integrated knowledge on its development and driving forces.
Therefore, our research question is
Developments in post WWII Dutch Agriculture: What lessons can be learned from an integrated view on the interactions between socio-‐economic context, political measures and ecological impact?
1.2) Objectives & Social-‐ and scientific relevance
The main objective of this report is contribute to an integrated view on the complex post WWII developments of the Dutch agricultural system and formulate lessons that can be learned from this. To achieve this, underlying objectives are:
-‐ To outline dynamics of the postwar Dutch Agrocomplex, discussed with a changing focus from the -‐ socio-‐economic context to the
-‐ political measures, to the -‐ ecological impact, in order to
-‐ Identify the driving forces in the interactions between these, that help to -‐ Gain insights on this system, and eventually
-‐ Create lessons that could help in developing future policy for socio-‐economic and ecological sustainability.
The catalysis towards a increasingly unsustainable socio-‐economic and ecological state are to be sought in the historic events following World War II. Thus, the complex state of the Dutch agricultural sector, as well as current and future associated policies need to be seen against the background of its historic development mainly since the 1950s. Like Feng (1991) mentions: “Looking back on these historical aspects is an aid to understanding the mystery of Dutch agricultural development and gauging its future. 'Taking history as the mirror, the ups and downs can be understood correctly'” (p. 41).
In this report, first the theoretical framework and methodology will outline the theories, methods and techniques that provide the theoretical guidelines (Chapter 2). This is followed by a section that strives to analyze the dynamics of Dutch agrocomplex (Chapter 3). First, each perspective on the developments is described (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) and an integrated view on the interactions is given (3.4). Finally, conclusions are drawn and discussed (Chapter 4).
2) Theoretical Framework & Methodology
Theoretical framework
The research question examines the interactions between the political measures, socio-‐economic context and ecological impact related to the Dutch Agrocomplex in the period of 1950 -‐ 2010 (figure 2.1). From a system thinking approach, we identify the socio-‐ecological system on multiple scale levels in time and space, supported by insights from stakeholder theory (see disciplinary section of chapter 3.2). In this, the Dutch Agrocomplex can be defined as the whole agricultural primary sector with related trade and industry (Van Leeuwen, 2010).
Ecological and social resilience theory is part of system thinking, attempting to provide ‘organized complexity’. Resilience thinking provides an alternative theoretical framework to the balance of nature paradigm (classical concept of equilibrium in nature). Mostly, the concept of resilience is investigated on basis of case studies, which are analyzed and interpreted through the so-‐called model of the adaptive cycle (e.g. Peterson, 2000; Anderies, 2006; Walker & Salt, 2006). Through the adaptive cycle it is possible to describe the dynamics of a system. Today, resilience thinking finds its application in different scientific fields -‐ such as e.g. ecology, economics, social science, political science – to qualitatively describe the magnitude of disturbance impacting a system and the equilibrium and/or non-‐equilibrium state(s) of it (Wu & Loucks, 1995; Gunderson, 2000; Folke et al., 2002; Walker & Salt, 2006; Fabinyi, 2008).
Figure 2.1 Theoretical framework, visualising the common ground between disciplines
As pointed out by Fabinyi (2008)1, the (a)political implications of resilience thinking about socio-‐
ecological systems can conflict with the political aspects of the issue.
Methodology
In understanding our system, resilience thinking helps to create common ground among the social-‐, political-‐ and ecological dynamics. We therefore adapted shared and overlapping concepts and methods of Ecological Resilience Theory and Social Resilience Theory. The integrative techniques we used are redefinition, extension and reorganization (Repko, 2008) to make concepts and methods of resilience more suitable for our interdisciplinary research approach.
Systems in Resilience Theory are never stable and “move” through recurring states. The dynamics of a system can be divided in four processes2 (Gunderson, 2000; Peterson, 2000) as seen in figure 2.2. In this
figure, arrows are representing the rate of the occurrences whereby the change from growth to conservation is relatively slow while from release to reorganization this change occurs sudden and in a small time span. Systems can move parallel through different adaptive cycles that are not necessarily interlinked and through different stages of the adaptive cycle. The speed of change, as well as the time scale of the adaptive cycles varies greatly between social and ecological systems. Both systems, ecological and social, are partly interlinked and impact each other directly or indirectly through feedback loops. It is possible that “smaller” nested cycles can be part of or driving force of “larger” cycles.
Interdisciplinary Project FPS Assignment IV
Kim Buisman (6076335) - Lisanne Kraal (6033512) – Martin Glabischnig (6143202)
4
-Transformability
Transformation to a different kind of system is always possible. This implies that if a system is in a undesirable regime (thus the configuration of states is changed with no chance to “bounce back”) it is always possible to deliberately transform the regime into another one - thus creating new variables and panarchy.
Adaptive cycle
Systems are never stable and “move” through recurring states. The dynamics of a system can be divided in four processes; (r) growth, (K) conservation, (!) release and (") reorganisation (Gunderson, 2000; Peterson, 2000) as seen in figure 2 on the next page. In this figure, arrows are representing the rate of the occurances whereby the change from growth to conservation is relatively slow while from release to reorganization this change occurs sudden and in a small timespan. Ecological an social systems can move parallel through different adaptive cycles that are not necessarily interlinked and through different stages of the adaptive cycle. The speed of change, as well as the time scale of the adaptive cycles varies greatly between social and ecological systems. Both systems, ecological and social, are partly interlinked and impact each other directly or indirectly through feedback loops. It is possible that “smaller” nested cycles can be part of or driving force of “larger” cycles. These nested cycles are non-partisan, which means that they are not restricted to cycles of their origin, but e.g. a social cycle can be a nested cycle within a larger ecological cycle.
Figure 2: A schematic representation of the adaptive cycle (Peterson, 2000) Adaptability
The key variables that define the properties and characteristics of an ecosystem, are also determining the stability variables of the system. In case of continuous pressure or disturbance, these key variables have the ability to change and “adapt” to the disturbance in order to keep the system in the current stable state. The key variables that configure the stability variables of an ecological system change at relatively slow rates (without human intervention).
Adaptive capacity in socio-ecological systems refers to the ability of humans to deal with change in their environment by observation, learning and altering their interactions. In this way, a social system has more “active” possibilities to deal with disturbance and might configure the stability variables of the social system at a relative fast rate.
General vs. specific resilience
Efforts to increase resilience of some aspect of a system regime to a specified set of disturbances can unwittingly reduce the resilience of other aspects of that system or another system that is interlinked.
Figure 2.2 A schematic representation of the adaptive cycle (Peterson, 2000)
In this report, three disciplinary sections are used to shortly investigate the key features of the system dynamics. Within these disciplinary sections, relevant features are underpinned before integrating them in the next section. Our integration process starts by integrating the relevant features in an extensive timeline (featured in appendix 1) which will be discussed in chapter 4. With this timeline and the visualization in appendix 2, slow and fast variables could be identified according to the format suggested by Armitage (2006). These will help to map the interactions within this period of time, to identify its current regime and to formulate lessons from this.
1 “Resilience and activities undertaken to promote resilience at the scale of social-‐ecological systems, must be
seen as a political concept. Resilience, like any other concept for ecological management, including those that emphasize good governance, cannot remove the need for political decisions and negotiations among diverse stakeholders to be made in particular local contexts.” (Fabinyi, 2008)
3.1) Dynamics of the Socio-‐economic System: Socio-‐economic context
3.1.1) General picture: geographical characteristics of the Netherlands
In a moderate sea climate3 and with a flat, fertile soil, the Netherlands could be said to have several geographical characteristics favorable to their agricultural system. Subsequently, their position in relation to other countries and regions is beneficial on a strategic level, speaking of ‘a gateway to Europe’ and its convenient infrastructural opportunities (e.g. the several large rivers). However, its geographical location also poses possible weaknesses like a threat from the sea and the growing population density on a limited space (Feng, 1991). Socio-‐economic developments in Dutch agriculture have not been gradual and were influenced by economic trends and social aspects. In this context of the Dutch agriculture, dynamics of this socio-‐economic system will be outlined in the next paragraph. Various elements are elaborated in the timeline of the appendix.
3.1.2) Historical trends from 1950
The socio-‐economic agrosystem of the Netherlands transformed from a traditional, small-‐scale, widespread system with numerous farms to a (particularly) industrialized, modernized agricomplex with environmental problems to be tackled. The primary sector’s share in the labour force decreased from 19% to 5% between 1947 and 1990, while the amount of capital goods increased by 80% (Grin et al., 2004). Key trends in this transformation are rationalization of the agricultural practices, specialization, expansion of production, scale enlargement and mechanization (Karel, 2010; Bieleman, 2009) which are discussed in this paragraph. The dynamics of this transformation and the accompanied socio-‐economic trends can be analyzed through time.
In the start of our historical overview, the beginning of the 1950’s, the Dutch economy almost completely recovered from the Second World War (Bieleman, 2009). Various structures (e.g. the SER) facilitated institutionalization of policy cooperation between famers and government. However, the agricultural sector coped with problems. High international prices and the resulting subsidization were not stimulating this sector to improve their productivity or to lower their costs which – together with a traditional agricultural climate (e.g. knowledge passed on from father to son) – resulted in a lack of investments. The numerous small-‐scale farmers were incompatible once the world prices lowered (Karel, 2010).
Modernization -‐ a worldwide trend – answered the need of the Dutch agriculture to reform, influenced by various programs and actions4. In addition, sociologist science5 demonstrated the necessity of modernizing the society (Karel, 2010). The resulting modernization trend involved a strong growth in production and a remarkable one in productivity resulting from a changing trend, technically and on the level of business organization (Bieleman, 2009). The focus of innovation
3 The Netherlands is situated latitude 51 to 54 of the Northern hemisphere and nearby sea.
4 The Rural Area Development program in 1956 (Karel, 2010), the European Common Market in 1958 and the
Common Agricultural Policy in 1962 (Bieleman, 2009).
5 A theory which was developed by sociologists (with E.W. Hofstee as initiator) underpinned these
development plan by stating that society was in a transition phase from agriculture to the modern industrial era (Karel, 2010).
changed from “land-‐saving” to “labour-‐saving” (Bieleman, 2009) and specialization (both horizontal and vertical in the production chain) reduced the diversity on farms (Karel, 2010) what was beneficial in terms of scale advantages (Feng, 1991). This can be seen in the graph of figure 3.2 where next to a decline in numbers, the diversity of farms also declined6. Scale enlargement and its mechanization resulted in a more intensive use of means of production (Freng, 1991; Karel, 2010), efficiency and a decrease in number of small farms (figure 3.1)
Figure 3.1: Number of farms with categories of size. Source: based on Table 1 of Karel, 2010, page 5.
Dutch farms per sector 1950 - 2008
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Periode Number of farms x 1000 Total farms Tillage Cattle Pigs Chicken
Figure 3.2: “Modernisation” of the Dutch agricultural sector. Source: CBS
6 Figure 3.2: at the 1950’s the farms had multiple functions as adding up the coloured lines transcanded the
This was mainly due to government intervention (Karel, 2010). However, the “Dutch disease”7 accelerated this reduction of small scale farmers and and addition, the formation of the CAP8 involved a positive influence on productivity.
This modernization continued in the 1970’s. The number of farms further decreased and efficiency, rationalization and scale enlargement formed the basis for industrialization of agriculture (e.g. factory farming of cattle). This was founded on scientific knowledge about methods and innovations of agricultural production and processing (Karel, 2010) This industrialization process can be said to ‘surpass’ modernization of agriculture regarding its emphasis on efficiency like a factory.
This trend of farms ‘becoming a factory’ can also be illustrated by the growing awareness on the environmental impact of this sector, which was increasingly recognized during the 70’s. Intensification of agricultural practices increasingly caused pressure on nature and environment (Karel, 2010; Bieleman, 2009). The book Silent Spring (by Carlsen in 1962), the publication Limits of growth (Club of Rome in 1972) and the oil crisis of 1973 seem to have influenced this paradigm switch (Karel, 2010) which put more pressure on the industry in the 1980’s. This stimulated the rise of organic farming and several industrial reforms (Bieleman, 2009). Subsequently, the overproduction of milk involved a lot of criticism, resulting in the milk quota in 1984 and reforms of the CAP (1992 an 2003).
In a few decades the agricultural system dramatically changed in its structure and created an agri-‐ business, a complex network focusing on the chain instead of the farm (Bieleman, 2009). This process of modernization in agriculture at the same time also sheds light on the process of individualization: the farms became individual businesses instead of communities of farmers and globalization which led to less involvement by the government (Karel, 2010). Later on, environmental problems in agriculture still posed a great issue while globalization and government withdraw cause a further shift in the balance of power to companies in a world market (Karel, 2010). This trend was already identified in social science by Benvenuti in the 60’s9 and Van der Ploeg in the 90’s10 (Karel, 2010). Nowadays, another trend could be added regarding agriculture’s role in society which is broadening: next to production, goals like managing nature and environment are getting more integrated in this sector (Klijn et al., 2008) building on an existing trend11.
7 Dutch Disease, also known as a resource curse involved the discovery of gas reservoirs which caused
economic deflation. (because increase in export of resource caused general salaries to rise while prices stay the same). Manufacturing sectors lose their competitiveness on the international market.
8 CAP: Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union
9 Benvenuti stated that to great extent, institutions and corporations decide the strategy of the agricultural
enterprise (Karel, 2010).
10 Van der Ploeg posed the term ‘virtual farmer’ who was created by the system, with whom the upcoming
plans and models do work (Karel, 2010).
3.2) Dynamics of the political system: Political measures
3.2.1) International context
The Dutch Agrocomplex after WWII had three main problems: international competition, inefficient production and high numbers of small farmers (Karel, 2004). Governance therefore was focused on stimulation of knowledge and technology, financial measures, land redistribution to enable concentration and specialization and improvements in water management (Grin et. al., 2004). Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), intangible barriers with mutual recognition of standards and common regulations based on protectionist attitudes were steady. With the adoption of the Single European Act in 1992 paved the way for the EU to ‘seek to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people within the EU's 27 member states’ (European Commission, 2011). What key features explain Dutch political measures afters WWII?
3.2.2) Policy arrangements
Different types of policy arrangements (Van Tatenhove, Arts and Leroy, 2000), are essential features of the political dynamics of the Dutch Agrocomplex. A policy arrangement is the ‘temporary stabilization of the organization and substance of a policy domain at a specific level of policy making’ (see scheme 3.2). The macro-‐processes of political modernisation12 are reflected quite accurately in the development of
agricultural policy in the Netherlands (Wisserhof, 2000). Policy arrangements (figure 3.4) are ideal-‐types, in fluctuating levels represented in the Dutch situation (see figure 3.3).
FIGURE 3.3: Developments in policy arrangements in Dutch agricultural politics
12 From Bekke et. al. (1994) the following:
1) ’45-‐80 ‘early political modernization’ (organizational stability)
2) 1980s ‘anti-‐modern criticism’ (growing concern, changes set in motion)
Overview of policy arrangements in Dutch agriculture policy arrangement central discourse13 governing coalition(s)14 power and resources15
rules of the game16
Corporatist ‘growth’
‘rationalization’
‘Green Front’
State: influence, authority, information, monopoly
Interest organizations: co-‐ operation, information, discipline, legitimacy consensus elitism technocracy de-‐politization insulation
Statist ‘Limits to Growth’
Ministry of Agriculture and
Environment
ecological knowledge, legal expertise, legislative power
‘general’ administration, autocracy, secrecy Civic ‘sustainable development’ and liveability’ Regional networks
knowledge and information, managerial and communicative skills, finances consensus, de-‐ politicisation, egalitarianism, public-‐private partnership
Liberal ‘free market’ Market players at (inter)nation al level(s)
knowledge and technology (innovation), quality standards (certification) market orientation, less government intervention, self-‐regulation Figure 3.4. Typification of agricultural policy arrangements (Wisserhof, 2000)
3.2.3) Key issues in policy arrangements
The corporatist system was institutionalized based on the ‘wet publiekrechtelijke bedrijfsorganisatie’ (PBO) in 1950. This provided legal grounds for a Sociaal Economische Raad (SER) and a new organisation of interest. The PBO is the system of ‘schappen’17; cooperation agreements between entrepreneurs and
employees to secure the interest of the sector (SER, nd.). In 1994, the horizontal relations eventually has been completely replaced by the combined farmer union ‘Land-‐ en Tuinbouw Organisatie Nederland’ (TLO). The redistribution of land was heavenly affected by the overlap of interest between the MoA and farmer union (Karel, 2010), although the state was still the main policy maker.
13 ‘set of ideas, concepts and categorisations’13
14 ‘number of players identify and pursue similar policy goals’
15 ‘changing interrelations between state, market and civil society’
16 ‘how politics is played’
17 The ‘productschappen’ are a vertical relation within sectors of the product chain, and have decentralized
decision making powers on the policy of their concern, the ‘landbouwschappen’ are horizontal relations between sectors.
Within this PBO, Dutch agricultural policy making was in the hands of an Iron triangle -‐ strong connection agriculture ministry, agricultural branch and agricultural specialists in parliament (Bekke & de Vries, 1994; Wisserhof, 2000). This ‘Green front’ was a result of the ‘formation of the ministry of agriculture’ (MoA), redirecting far-‐reaching responsibilited to farmer unions, and the prominent position members of parliament took within their parties (Karel, 2004). In this front, the participants could take many decision without democratic control (Frouws, 1994) which caused a fast increase of the impact of the state on agricultural developments (Krajenbrink, 2004).
In relation, technology and innovation was organized in an OVO triad (Dutch acronym for research, information and education) -‐ financial government support for agricultural research, communication and education (Wisserhof, 2000). As part of the knowledge infrastructure, this close association between researchers, often originally from farmer’s families themselves, and farming practices facilitated utilization of new knowledge and technology (Grin et. al., 2004) .
Related to the emergence of environmental concerns in the political discourse, Greenpeace and other NGOs imposed pressure on the political agenda, and a number of negative effects of agricultural efficiency came to attention. The effect on policy arrangements however was not significant, the criticism mainly caused a shift to more statist policy arrangements (see table 3.4). The merge of ‘nature conservation and outdoor recreation’ in ministry (1982), change from a sector client ministry (Agriculture and Fisheries) to becoming a ministry of general administration (including Nature Management in 1989) (Frouws and Van Tatenhove, 1993), strong criticism media on fish quota and an audit of independent commission (1991) caused ministry large-‐scale reorganization in the 1990s, the ‘Swallow process’ (Bekke et. al., 1994). Despite critical evaluations imposed by the government on PBOs in 2006, the financial support to agribusiness continues, based on farmers ‘historical rights’. Karel (2010) concludes that the remains of the green front still prevent powerful environmental policy today, and according to Wisserhof (2000) the corporatist Dutch ‘polder model’ is still present in the current agricultural policy making. Controversies in current development (GMO’s) indicate possible connexions between international companies, sector interest groups, knowledge institutes and parliament are still highly significant.
New agricultural ministers promote a ‘stronger market orientation’ and ‘nature as well as agricultural policy in the rural areas’ (Bekke et. al., 1994). Fusions of agribusinesses formed large international companies (auction: The Greenery, milk: Campina and meat industries: Vion) in the Netherlands, who have a substantial share in the world market and impose power towards more liberal policy arrangements.
The erosion of Iron triangle was a result of the division of the ‘green front’ into ‘a variety of new arrangements -‐ statist, civic and liberal’ (Wisserhof, 2000). This can be explaned by a reduction of the national TLO’s power of representation, due to a diminishing amount of voting farmer’s they represented decreased their political relevance. But more important, the interests of the MoA and the LTO increasingly did not coincide, causing alienation between farmer and government. A differentiation of interests between the agricultural sectors due to unequal interest in subsidies, arrangements and
quota. Producers of starch potatoes, sugarcane, milk and cow meat receive many payments, whereas producers of ‘free crops’ including potatoes, onions, vegetables, fruit and flowers receive little or no payments, and also within sectors, whereas some farmers innovate more than others. Moreover, outside actors entered the field and agriculture lost the monopoly of land planning within the government.
Causes for the continuation of an OVO triad can be found in reduced government spending for knowledge institutions in the 1980s, which increased the need for private investments. This stimulated inclusion of commercial attitudes, in a ‘complex networks of knowledge creation’ (Wisserhof, 2000). Since 1994, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR) is the combination of the agricultural university, the discipline-‐based institutes and the commodity-‐oriented research stations management (Spiertz and Kropff, 2011). This means a continued interrelation between farmer business and technologic developments, in a shared ‘quest for change’ for society, where agrotechnology and business interest are not separated.
3.3) Dynamics of ecological system: Ecological impact
3.3.1) History of land use change
Throughout history, the Netherlands advanced their land into the shallow sea and since 1950 the overall land area increased more than 1.850 km2 due to land reclamation projects, such as the “Zuiderzee” works (CBS, 2011). Contrary to this the overall agricultural area in the Netherlands decreased since the mid-‐1960s (CBS, 2011). Despite this trend, the size of the sector remains substantial, making agriculture by far the largest user of land in the Netherlands (Figure 3.5 and CBS, 2011).
The modernisation process, initiated in the 1950s, lead to a more intensive, specialised and productive agriculture sector. In the shadow of this development, Dutch agriculture started to significantly contribute to environmental disturbances: e.g. air, soil and water pollution, desiccation and destruction and fragmentation of natural habitat, which threatens intact ecosystems with its native plants and animals that provide
vital ecosystem services. Figure 3.5: Land-‐use 2000 (Source: CBS)
To tackle these problems, the Dutch government introduced -‐ next to several environmental policies – the “main ecological structure” in 1990, with the aim to establish a continuous network of important nature areas in order to enhance connectivity of important wildlife habitats and thus create larger protected habitats and enable wildlife to migrate among areas. However, most recently the Dutch government spoke their intention to cancel undertakings that are formulated in the original plan (e.g. further enlargement and creation of corridors among nature areas) (Berkhout & van Bruchem, 2011).
3.3.2) Ecological impact: Soil & water
The growth and intensification of agriculture has led to excessive inputs of nitrogen (N) and phosphate (PO4), which deteriorate the quality of shallow groundwater and surface water, and thus impact nature on land and in water. Not only through leaching and runoff, but also through deposition of ammonia (NH3) in the environment caused by nutrient surpluses in agricultural fertilisation practices. These ammonia depositions are responsible for of eutrophication and acidification of nature. Although the overall amount of acidifying deposition decreased from more than 5600 mol acid/ha to about 2500 mol acid/ha between 1981 until 2010, the associated contribution from agriculture remained at around 50% throughout the period (CBS, 2011). Concerning the situation of substances causing eutrophication, agriculture is the main domestic contributor with ca. 38% of all emissions (CBS, 2011). The ecological effects of eutrophication by nitrogen and phosphates are more important than the acidifying effects of sulphur (main emitter is industry) and nitrogen.
Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7 show the development of phosphorus and nitrogen surpluses in agriculture from 1970 until 2008. Growing intensive animal farming largely caused the increase of nitrogen and phosphorus between 1970 and 1986. The surplus of nitrogen and phosphorus decreased 53% and 77% respectively between 1986 and 2008, which was driven by targeted policies and monitoring. A surplus is the amount of nutrients that is not taken up by plants and thus mainly accumulates in soil, where one part is leached to ground and surface water and another part “evaporates” into the atmosphere through oxidation and de-‐nitrification. In 2009, the annual governmental publication on water issues in the Netherlands states that more than 3/4 of surface water in the Netherlands is significantly impacted by chemical disturbance originating from agricultural operations; with nutrients and heavy metals as the main pollutants (NWO, 2009).
Figure 3.6: Phosphorus surplus 1970-‐2008. Source: CBS
Figure 3.7: Nitrogen surplus 1970-‐2008. Source: CBS
Desiccation, due to decreasing groundwater levels, is caused by several factors, e.g. drinking water production, industry, irrigation, artificial water level management to make land workable. Thus, desiccation in the Netherlands is a structural problem and has nothing to do with a lack of precipitation. In the Netherlands about 60% of the overall desiccation is caused by agricultural operations (RIVM, 2000). Artificial management of water levels in agricultural areas also showed to have substantial negative effects on surrounding nature areas (van Zijts et al., 2010). About 40% of Dutch plant species depend on a high water table or from an upward flow of groundwater (Tamis et al., 2001). By lowering the water level such plants become increasingly rare, which has consequences for the food supply of wild animals that depend on these plants. Communities of plants and animals (ecosystems) are thus affected. Sometimes polluted surface water is utilised to combat desiccation (van Vliet et al., 2002). The polluted water often contains minerals and phosphates that attribute to eutrophication, which changes the vegetation structure and can cause the overgrowth of aquatic ecosystems (Beugelink et al, 2006). The area’s most affected by drought are often also precious and rare habitats, e.g. dunes with dune slacks, wet heaths and bogs (Beugelink et al., 2006 & PBL, 2010).
3.3.3) Biodiversity and wildlife conservation
Biodiversity is a useful indicator to understand and show changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services due to biological, chemical and physical impacts (Niemeijer, 2002; and Osinski et al., 2003). Since birds are among the most well studied animal species, selected groups of bird species are recognised as valuable and convincing “indicator species” to track environmental developments and determine the success of restoration attempts and associated policies (Piorr, 2003; and Padoa-‐Schioppa et al., 2005).
The general breeding birds associated with the agricultural area (farmland birds) in the Netherlands are continuously declining since 1990 (Figure 3.8). This development mainly is due to the measures that were taken to modernise the Dutch agricultural system and which consequentially impact particular ecological features that are vital for certain bird communities (CBS et al., 2011; and Dijk et al., 2010); namely: the decrease of grassland area and the ratio of permanent pasture (Figure 3.9); changes in crop choice and the scale of farming (Figure 3.10); impaired prey availability due to desiccation; degradation of reed areas due to desiccation and eutrophication; disappearance of small landscape elements such as hedgerows.
Agriculture also had a big impact on the dispersal of certain plant species. Between 1980 and 2000, plant species adapted to infertile habitats (nitrophobes) declined, while species adapted to fertile habitats (nitrophytes) greatly increased (Figure 3.11). This illustrates the effect of eutrophication on ecosystem structure and composition at a national scale. Since most of the nitrophobes are uncommon and endangered in the Netherlands contrary to nitrophyte species (Tamis et al., 2001), an increased biodiversity loss impairs the functioning and adaptability of the present ecosystem.
The Dutch nature policy aims for so-‐called “sustainable conditions” in 2020, which is reflected in the goal to ensure the survival of all species that were present in the Netherlands in 1982 (LNV, 2006; and Van Zijts et al., 2010). Since 1990, environmental and water conditions improved in areas reserved for floral wildlife, however, have not yet reached sustainable levels as defined by the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) (Figure 3.12), which is the consultative research body of the Dutch government. The downward trend of environmental impact appears to stagnate and it was needed to adjust the original scheme to achieve sustainable levels by 2020. For example, ecological sustainable levels of surface water are not expected to be reached before 2027 (Van Zijts et al., 2010),
Figure 3.8: Dutch farmland birds 1990-‐2010. The largest breeding population of Black-‐tailed Godwit is found in the Netherlands, which makes the conservation of the breeding sites of this species especially important. The Skylark was considered the most abundand Dutch farm bird before 1950. Source: CBS
Grassland 1950 - 2009 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 2002 2005 2008 Period x 1000 ha Temporary grasland Permanent grasland
Figure 3.9: Grassland area 1950-‐2009. The total area of grassland decreased since 1968 and from 2000 until 2005 there was a significant transformation of permanent grassland into temporary grassland. Permanent grassland includes areas that are not used for crop rotation for at least 5 years. Source: CBS
Figure 3.10: Crop area 1950-‐2009. The cultivation of the previous most common crops, rye and oat, dramatically slumped in the 1960s; while silage maize started to dominate the Dutch agricultural landscape. Silage maize is used as animal feed. Source: CBS
Figure 3.11: Changes in the occurance of plant species
while there are no statements made about when the goals concerning desiccation could be reached. In fact, PBL concludes in their 2010 assessment report that none of the formulated goals, except one regarding greenhouse gas emissions, can be achieved with the current environmental policies (Van Zijts et al., 2010).
Figure 3.12: Environmental impact (Source: PBL)
4) Results: Integrative view on the Dutch Agrocomplex 4.1) Timeline
In this section, the dynamics of the different perspectives are integrated in a timeline (see figure 4.1 and appendix) that shows important cross-‐scale interactions and feedback loops that determine the Dutch agrocomplex.
After the Second World War the Dutch government started a large-‐scale reorganisation of the agricultural sector to adapt to the new economic situation of an increasing global market. Therefore the so-‐called “Green Front”, a corporative policy coalition, and farmer unions were utilised to transform the relative low productivity sector, which then was mainly based on small-‐scale farms. The practical modernisation process started with the Land Consolidation Program (1954) and the Rural Area Development Program (1956), which facilitated measures for intensification, specialisation and rationalisation of the agricultural sector. “Modernisation” in this context need to be seen as a larger process that resulted into fewer but larger farmers (Figure 3.1 and 3.2 earlier in this paper).
In the 1960s a growing market pressure triggered by the so-‐called “Dutch disease” and the establishment of the European Economic Community (and the subsequent Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)) made the survival of small-‐scale farmers increasingly difficult and accelerated the trend towards the creation of a new kind of farmer. This regime shift in the agricultural sector had a strong impact on the environment, which lead to national (water pollution act 1970 & Relation memorandum 1975) and European (Birds Directive 1976) environmental policies. Against the background of the obvious water pollution in the Netherlands and international important events, such as the publication “The Limits to Growth” or the first global oil crisis supported a growing environmental awareness that pushed environmental policies and the establishment of environmental organizations (e.g. Milieudifensie). Environmental degradation caused by agricultural practices remains an urgent issue and is the driver of the adjustment and establishment of environmental until today.
Another consequence of the modernization process – not only for the Netherlands, but throughout the European Economic Community -‐ was overproduction of diary goods, which was tackled with the introduction of “milk quotas” 1984. The milk quotas together with the interim-‐act for pig-‐ and poultry farms (1984), and the soil protection and fertilizer-‐use act (1986) effectively managed to reverse the trend of increasing nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses that are the main causes of eutrophication. However, despite the critique on political modernization in the 1980s, government payments to agribusiness continued, based on ‘historical rights’. This means the agricultural sector defends the PBO, and more specifically their rights to the same payments they received in the past. The CAP is reinforces and this decision indicates a continuation of corporatist policy arrangement, which protects a status quo situation. At the same time, the 1985 Land Reconstruction Act ended the agricultural “monopoly” on rural areas and recognised the importance of conserving “natural” areas and associated values, such as cultural-‐ and recreational values. However, the growing environmental awareness and the recognition of wildlife conservation caused an alienation of governmental institutions and the agribusiness. Farmers started to feel as scapegoats for environmental problems and the green front eroded.
In the 1990s several European policies were issued to mitigate nitrogen surpluses, conserve natural habitat and wildlife (Main Ecological Structure 1990; Nitrogen Directive1992; Habitat Directive 1992), and proceed on the way to a more market driven vision of the agricultural sector (revision of CAP (1992). Between 1990 and 1998 the phosphorus surpluses decline significantly, while the nitrogen
surpluses stagnate. This is due to the initial focus of fertilisation policies on tackling phosphorus. Eventually in 1998, a system (MINAS) was launched that obliged farmers to account fertilizer use, and which effectively translated into a further downward trend of N and P surpluses. This trend is broken in 2003 due to failures in crop production (tremendous heat wave) and thus impaired mineral uptake and fixation of plants. The downward trend continuous however in 2006, which is facilitated, amongst others, by an improved New Fertilisation Policy (2006) that focuses on the regulation of the practice of fertiliser-‐usage rather than only regulating and monitoring surpluses. Also from importance is the 2002 Reconstruction Act, which created so-‐called “concentration areas” to geographically restrict certain agricultural practices and the establishment of a network of protected areas within the European Union (“Natura 2000”).
Figure 4.1: Timeline.
The different colours determine the underlying driving forces of each event. The grey ellipses symbolise mayor processes over a longer period and the dashed lines illustrate long-‐lasting (slow) forces with delayed effects.
Red: “Modernisation”
Blue: “Europeanisation”
Orange: “Environmental Awareness”
The events with orange background colour and a differing shadow-‐ colour indicate actions that aim for environmental protection, but have a second underlying driving force or agenda.
