The role of Dutch policies in the development of food forests in the Netherlands

(1)

The role of Dutch policies in the development of

food forests in the Netherlands

A research on the nature-culture dichotomy in Dutch agriculture and

nature policy division

Image Source: https://foodforestsgrow.weebly.com/permaculture--food-forest-roots.html

Manuka Khan

University of Amsterdam Student nr. 11868678

Supervised by Crelis Rammelt, Jordy Willems, Misha Velthuis, Katinka Wijsman

28 May 2021 Amsterdam

(2)

1

Abstract

Conventional agricultural practices in the Netherlands led to a variety of ecological

consequences. Food forestry, edible polycultures similar to self-sustaining forests, is one of the alternative agricultural practices that emerged as a response. Food forestry offers a form of multifunctional land management that combines both nature and agriculture, two fields that are perceived as conflicting in the nature-culture dichotomy debate. Although food forestry is a rising trend in the Netherlands, the practice is still marginal in terms of total land use and research on the topic is limited. Therefore, this research explored the divided agricultural and nature policies in the Netherlands and the potential barriers this could form for the

development of food forestry. For this research, qualitative content analysis was used for policy documents as well as semi-structured interviews with food foresters. The research argues that the division in nature and agricultural policy domains makes it complex for food forestry initiatives to establish. Agricultural and nature policies are not designed for

multifunctional land management systems and both have distinct priorities, as agricultural policies focus on production and nature policies on nature conservation. Therefore the nature-culture dichotomy forms an obstacle for the development of multifunctional food systems, such as food forestry. This research is beneficial for policymakers, food forest initiatives but also farmers that consider a transformation from conventional agricultural practices. Beyond this, the thesis provides new insights into the nature-culture dichotomy debate and sustainable agricultural transformation.

(3)

2

Introduction

Dutch agriculture is highly productive, innovative, and export-oriented. This has led to visible economic success, as the Netherlands is the second-largest exporter of agricultural products, and has the highest production per hectare in the world (Erisman, 2021). Scale enlargement and agricultural intensification are the main reasons for its success. But at the same time drastically transformed the agricultural landscape of the Netherlands, with ecological consequences as a result. Examples include habitat loss and a decline in the abundance and diversity of species (Runhaar, 2017). Moreover, Dutch agriculture leads to ecological and landscape impacts abroad. The Netherlands is the largest soy importer of Europe and the fourth largest worldwide (The Growth Lab at Harvard University, 2018), while NGOs argue that these imports contribute to deforestation (Milieudefensie, 2015).

From a degrowth perspective, these environmental impacts are the result of the idea that economic growth is a necessity. The idea of economic growth has been long accepted as a naturalized need, for both developed and developing countries. It was argued that an increase in economic growth would also lead to an increase in social welfare and environmental protection. However, degrowth theory argues that growth has led to ecological imbalance, an increase in inequality, and wealth concentration (Asara et al., 2015). Four out of nine

planetary boundaries: climate change, impacts in biosphere integrity, land system change, and altered biochemical flows, have been crossed as a consequence of human activities. Therefore Steffen et al. (2015) argue there is an urgent need for a new paradigm contributing to a

resilient and accommodating state of the Earth System. Degrowth criticizes the obsession with growth, but also offers an alternative way of living. Degrowth stimulates a social-ecological transformation that reaches beyond capitalism (Asara et al., 2015). Changing our current food and agricultural system is argued to be part of the required changes that are necessary for this transformation (Sekulova et al., 2013).

One of the alternative production methods for our current food production system is food forestry. Green Deal Voedselbossen (2020a) describes a food forest as a humanly designed productive ecosystem that mimics a natural forest, with a large variety of immature young woodland. Fruits, seeds, leaves, or stems that are produced can provide edible

products. The Netherlands is one of the countries in which food forestry is a rising trend and is starting to receive interest, which is caused by the increasing demand for healthy and locally produced food. It is argued that food forests have a lot of potential for Dutch society,

(5)

4

from contributing to CO2 storage to countering biodiversity loss (Dorp & Stobbelaar, 2020). However, food forestry is a relatively new subject on both an academic and policy level, and research on the topic is limited (Dorp & Stobbelaar, 2020; Riolo, 2019). This raises the question of whether and how food forests play a role in Dutch policies. For this reason, this thesis focuses on the role of food forestry in Dutch policies.

Two policy domains are explored in this thesis. The first domain is Dutch national forest and nature policies. The second one is agriculture policies from the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) active in the Netherlands, because of the significant impact the CAP has on Member States of the EU (Jack, 2020). Food forests can be categorized in both agriculture and forestry policy domains. Therefore, they cannot be clearly regulated (Valdivia, Barbieri & Gold, 2012). There is a division in these policy domains, on a broader scale known as the nature-culture dichotomy. This is defined as the naturalized division of reality into nature and culture (Saltzman, Head & Stenseke, 2011). Many scientific contributions criticize the nature-culture dichotomy and argue to increasingly recognize how the worlds of nature and culture are intertwined (Hobohm, 2021). It is argued that humans have the power to protect and even recreate natural protected areas, while in the current construction of nature, human interference is questioned as it could threaten the natural state of nature (Uggla, 2010). Food forestry is an example in which forestry and agriculture domains are combined,

therefore the impact of the nature-culture dichotomy and its debate are central in this thesis.

The goal of this research is to understand how agriculture and forest policies influence the development of food forests, and how the nature-culture dichotomy is involved.

Ultimately, this thesis aims to contribute to the broader study and debate of the nature-culture dichotomy and sustainable agricultural development, by studying the case of food forestry development in the Netherlands. This led to the following research question:

What are the barriers of existing national Agriculture and Forest policies for the development of food forests in the Netherlands?

To concretize this question, threesub-questions that contribute to the main research question are developed:

1. How are governmental regulations, incentives, and financial support systems in the Netherlands inhibiting or promoting the development of food forestry?

2. How are neoliberal capitalist influences present in the Dutch agriculture and forestry

(6)

5

3. Whether and how is the separation between agriculture and forestry noticeable in policies based on the retrieved data?

Answering these sub-questions allows a focus on conventional economic influences in existing policies, and how this might contribute to barriers or opportunities for the

development of food forestry. Furthermore, it helps explore the underlying causes of these possible barriers and/or opportunities, and how this could be connected with the

nature-culture dichotomy. To further understand the impact of the nature-nature-culture dichotomy, it is also analysed if the separation between agriculture and forestry directly comes forward from the retrieved data.

This thesis is beneficial for policy-makers that want to contribute to the development of food forests, as well as organizations involved in food forestry but also farmers that consider a transformation towards nature-inclusive agriculture. Overall, the aim of this thesis is to contribute to the nature-culture dichotomy debate and sustainable agricultural

(7)

6

Theoretical Framework

Food Forests

Food forests provide a perennial and edible polyculture system that functions similarly to a natural, self-sustaining forest. Its design depends on ecological, environmental, and

socioeconomic conditions but generally exists of a high diversity of canopy and small trees, shrubs, and herbaceous root, and/or vine species in a way that maximizes beneficial plant interactions (Park, Turner & Higgs, 2018).This is a form of agroforestry which is a broader movement containing all forms of agriculture with trees involved (Green Deal Voedselbossen, 2020). There are no universally accepted boundaries to what can be considered a food forest, which causes the use of the term in a wide variety of projects such as urban food initiatives but also in conservation and restoration planning (Park et al., 2018).

The benefits of food forests can be found in a variety of areas. According to Clark & Nicholas (2013), food forests can integrate ecosystem services, such as water and climate regulation, oxygen production and improvement of air quality, erosion control, and the offering of biodiversity habitat. At the same time, food forests contribute to increasing community food security, public health, social capital, and microenterprise opportunities. A case study of the Picasso Food Forest in Italy demonstrated how urban food forests can successfully contribute to biodiversity loss, community segregation, food insecurity, climate breakdown, and unsustainable consumption/production systems (Riolo, 2019). Therefore, it is argued that food forests, with the right implementation, can contribute to an alternative food production system while increasing sustainability.

Agriculture and Forest Policies in relation to the Nature-Culture Dichotomy

Agriculture has for a long time been a priority of the Dutch government, the sector has over the years been supported through several policies (Hoes, Jongeneel, van Berkum, & Poppe, 2019). From the 19th until the end of the 20th century, Dutch agricultural policy promoted the boost of low prices and food availability with the tremendous increase of food production per hectare of animal and/or labour unit. Agricultural knowledge infrastructure was heavily invested in by the government to modernize the agricultural sector (Karel, 2010). To add on, policies were implemented on investment, agricultural taxes, and land reclamation that facilitated to promote the modernization of the Dutch agricultural sector in the 1960s and 1970s (Hoes et al., 2019). In contrast, forests and forestry policies in the Netherlands have

(8)

7

rapidly lost significance and visibility as an independent theme since the 1970s. Forest policy is now entirely integrated as nature conservation, while in early days, timber production used to be the dominant focus. There has been a major shift in Dutch forest policy in which forests switched from production purposes to nature conservation (Veenman, Liefferink & Arts, 2009).

There is a clear distinction between nature and agriculture in Dutch policies. On a broader scale, this is mentioned by scholars as part of the nature-culture dichotomy within Western thought and practice. This is a fundamental discourse within nature conservation, as untouched nature is to be protected from human interference. Although this view has been criticized by scholars, it remains present in the conceptual structures of the world. This is despite the realization that human activity is fairly present in many natural landscapes (Wall-Reinius, Prince & Dahlberg, 2019). Saltzman et al. (2011) argue that this division in framing within policy decisions has received limited scholarly attention and is important to recognize in debates over multifunctional agriculture.

An important social and intellectual transition that led to the social construct of “nature” was the Enlightenment. Capitalism emerged as a result of scientific and industrial revolutions, and nature became a source of consumption, progress, and continuous economic growth by using its materials. However, modernism challenged and criticized this idea of nature as environmental concerns started to rise. Wild nature was idealized and praised and humans were seen as the root of environmental degradation by a variety of actors (Uggla, 2010).

At present day, this view on nature and culture is still used to conceptualize the world (Reinius, Prince & Dahlberg, 2019). This causes tension which can be traced back to for example the Dutch nitrogen crisis in which agriculture and nature are complete opposites of each other. In this case, it can be argued that the tension is a result of the harmful effects of agriculture on nature, while at the same time the state of agriculture and the economy is threatened (Stokstad, 2019).

Neoliberal Capitalistic Forces

According to Görg et al (2017), the root causes of present ecological consequences are the result of powerful economic actors in line with their political allies. A transformation towards sustainable agriculture thus requires actions and strategies that are mainly against dominant economic and political actors. Moreover, it is argued that neoliberalism is increasingly

(9)

8

criticized and under pressure as a result of its environmental impacts. (McCarthy & Prudman, 2003). Considering this, the role of neoliberal capitalist forces in Dutch policies was explored in sub-questions to discover how this might contribute to potential barriers.

In this research, neoliberal capitalist forces are defined as ways in which current policies are linked to market-orientated interests. Polices that therefore aim to support the free market system that is interested in efficiency, economic growth, and technological progress (Kotz, 2015).However, the agricultural system these policies created challenge sustainable transformation within the agricultural sector. Agri-food chains are optimized in terms of production and economies of scale, which means that some companies might benefit from a sustainable transformation while others may lose. Furthermore, there are less visible

economic benefits of nature-inclusive farming compared to conventional agricultural practices (Runhaar, 2017). Besides, Jordan (2013) argues how various political challenges, including regulations, incentives, and financial support systems obstruct farmers from adopting more sustainable practices. Examples of this can be found in governmental subsidies and

regulations designed for conventional farmers.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. conceptual framework

In figure 1 the main concepts within this thesis are visualized, including their impacts on each other that were further explored throughout this research.Neoliberalist capitalist forces can be linked to the nature-culture dichotomy, as the capitalistic perception of nature has been the

Neoliberal capitalist forces

Food forests Nature and Agriculture

Policies

Nature-Culture Dichotomy

Agricultural Transformation

(10)

9

root of the tension between nature and culture and is still present in neoliberal capitalist views (Uggla, 2010). The nature-culture dichotomy also influences neoliberal capitalist forces as the tension between nature and culture leads to criticism and pressures the neoliberal capitalist vision (McCarhy & Prudham, 2004). The interaction between these two phenomena and the impact this has on nature and agriculture policies have been researched throughout this thesis, as this impacts the development of food forests, and ultimately agricultural transformation.

(11)

10

Operationalisation

In figure 2 the operationalisation is visible with the relevance between the main concepts, dimensions, and indicators that have contributed to understanding the role of the concepts throughout the research process.

Concept Dimensions Indicators

Nature-culture Dichotomy The impact of the separation between forest and agriculture policies (Valdivia et al., 2012)

- (no) Mentioning of multifunctional agriculture (and food forestry) (Salzman

et al., 2011)

- Delineation of nature in relation to farming and other way around (Saltzman et al., 2011)

- Biodiversity and rural land protection in agricultural contexts (Saltzman et al., 2011)

- Farming understood as conflicting with nature (Saltzman et al., 2011) Debates on Multifunctional

Agriculture (Saltzman et al., 2011)

Neoliberal capitalist forces Support of economic growth (Kotz, 2015).

- Regulations for conventional farming methods (Jordan, 2013)

- Price incentives for conventional farming methods (Jordan, 2013) - Financial support systems for

conventional farming methods (Jordan, 2013) Support of agricultural efficiency (Kotz, 2015). Support of technological progress/innovation (Kotz, 2015). Figure 2. operationalisation

(12)

11

Methodology

Research Strategy and Design

For this research, a case study on the development of food forests in the Netherlands was executed, to allow an intensive analysis of possible barriers that could obstruct the

development of food forests (Bryman, 2016). A qualitative strategy was used because of the emphasis on words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data, which is necessary when researching written data. Moreover, the epistemological focus of this research can be described as interpretative as the aim of this research is trying to understand

developments in the social world through the interpretation of policies and the objectives of these structures of power (Bryman, 2016). For this research, it was necessary to gain a deep understanding of the existing policies by analysing discourse used in policy documents as well as the perspective of initiatives that experience the barriers. This research design consists of a qualitative case study for which data was collected with qualitative content analysis and semi-structured interviews. By using both methods more variables and details could be taken into account which otherwise might not have been considered. This was helpful as it allows a broader vision, which could prevent my bias worldview as a Future Planet Studies student from affecting the results.

Methods

1. Qualitative Content Analysis

In the first phase of the research, qualitative content analysis was executed in which underlying themes are searched in the materials that were analysed. The benefit of using qualitative content analysis for this case study is that it allows an interpretative approach that dives beneath the surface to understand underlying causes (Bryman, 2016).

The data that was used for this content analysis is based on policy data from 2014 till 2020, as the CAP reform has been active throughout these years (Jack, 2020). Primary sources in the form of policy documents, policy reports, briefings, and notifications from the

agriculture and forest policy sector were collected. The primary focus was policy strategies and plans launched by Ministries that were responsible for agriculture, forestry, and nature throughout these years. Moreover, strategies from the CAP (2014-2020) were collected. The website of the Rijksoverheid was used to retrieve data from forest/nature and agricultural policies, as well as the website of the European Commission for CAP documents.

(13)

12

A conventional approach to content analysis was used as described in Hsieh & Shannon (2005). The software ATLAS.ti was used for the coding process. Categories for coding were created during the coding process to allow categories and names of categories to flow from the data. Benefits from using this approach include that researchers can immerse themselves in the data to allow new insights to emerge. Information can be directly gathered without preconceived thoughts on what categories to include. First, all data was read to obtain a sense of the whole. Next, data was read word by word and coded by highlighting keywords from the text that capture primary thoughts and concepts. This resulted in circa 200 initial codes. Hereafter, notes were made for initial analysis on impressions and thoughts. The process continued by creating an initial coding scheme, based on labels for codes that

emerged after reflection on the highlighted keywords and initial analysis, which decreased the initial amount of codes. Finally, codes were sorted into 21 categories based on how different codes are related and linked.

2. Interviews

The next phase of the data collection consisted of anonymous semi-structured interviews to understand how actors involved in food forest projects experience policy barriers from a personal perspective, to provide a further in-depth study of the research question. Semi-structured interviews were a suitable method for this phase of the research because the preparation beforehand allows a structure while being flexible enough to discuss other topics that are considered important according to the interviewees that may not have been considered yet (Bryman, 2016).

The selection of the interviewees was based on purposive sampling, the primary targets were food foresters that are involved in the development of food forests as they directly experience possible barriers. At first, the website of Green Deal Food Forests was used in search of participants because of the map with initiatives that the website offers. As the process continued, also initiatives that have not been recognized by Green Deal Food Forests were searched for and interviewed. This is because Green Deal Food Forests has a specific definition for the word “food forest” and some initiatives that argue to be food forests are therefore not mentioned on their website. These initiatives were considered equally

important for this research as the potential barriers could vary among different food forests.

According to Bryman (2016), the sample size of the data collection should be large enough to establish theoretical formation, but not too large that it makes data analysis too difficult. Therefore, this thesis aimed to interview at least three people from different food

(14)

13

forest initiatives, it was taken into account that the extension of the interviewees could be necessary to provide more detailed research. However, due to limited time and the extensive policy document analysis, the number of interviews could not be extended. In preparation for the interviews, the results from the policy document analysis were used to develop the main structure and a basis for interview questions. The interviews were immediately transcribed and later analysed with help of the software ATLAS.ti. The same conventional approach was used as described in the qualitative content analysis section.

Limitations

Although this thesis can provide valuable information for nature-culture dichotomy theory and debate, this thesis also has a few limitations. The primary limitation is that this thesis specifically focuses on policies as possible barriers while other factors could form barriers as well, such as the perception of Dutch citizens and farmers. Moreover, only a few involved stakeholders could be interviewed because of the limited time. This cannot represent all barriers that are experienced by involved stakeholders. For further research, it is necessary to also interview experts on policies concerning food forestry, as stakeholders with more

experience could add valuable information on potential barriers. Lastly, even though the semi-structured interviews were used as a method to overcome bias, my own bias as a Future Planet Studies student could have affected the research process as I am personally interested in food forestry and the idea of multifunctional agriculture.

(15)

14

Overview of the Policies

This section serves as an overview of the agriculture and nature policies that were researched in this thesis to acquire an overall understanding of policy-making processes active in the Netherlands.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

The CAP is an EU funding mechanism, to provide financial support for farmers within the EU Member States. CAP payments are branched into two separate programs; Direct Income Support (Pillar 1) and Rural Development (Pillar 2). Within the period of 2014 – 2020, the CAP priorities are: sustaining viable food production, balanced rural development, and sustainable management of natural resources and climate action. (European Commission, 2013). Specifically, funding of the CAP is targeted at:

• Increasing agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and efficiency. • Ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers.

• Stabilizing markets.

• Ensuring availability of supplies.

• Ensuring reasonable prices for consumers (Jack, 2020).

The first Pillar budget is substantially larger than the second Pillar and focused on income support for farmers, as well as market measures. This is in its entirety financed by the EU and further managed by national governments (Jack, 2020). There are three main requirements for budget spending that all Member States are obligated to apply. The first of the requirements is a basic payment for farmers, based on payment per hectare of land. The total amount is based on national or regional economic criteria and should take circa 70% of the total first Pillar budget. For the second requirement, circa 30% of the funding is obligated to be spent on a greening payment scheme. This payment is also based on payments per hectare and is

supposed to promote climate-conscious farming practices. The last mandatory requirement is that young farmers need to receive extra financial support for agricultural practices (Albert Massot, 2021).

For the second Pilar, Rural Development, a combination of EU funding and

co-financing of Member States is mandatory. The primary goal of the second Pillar is supporting rural development projects and strategies (European Commission, 2013). Therefore, main objectives include: enhancing competitiveness investment for rural employment and growth,

(16)

15

ensuring sustainable natural resource management with the support of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices, and lastly achieving balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities (European Commission, n.d.).

Dutch Forest and Nature policies

Although European agreements on nature and forestry exist, policies regarding nature and forestry remain a national matter (Nègre, 2020). Forest coverage differs widely among the EU Member States, creating a variety of forest and nature strategies within the Member States (ibid.).

Forest coverage has known a major decline throughout Dutch history. This is the consequence of agricultural intensification and wood production for fuel and building materials (Verdonk, 2004). Because of this decline, the Forest Law (Boswet) emerged in 1962, to ensure no further decrease of the total amount of forest coverage in the Netherlands. Trees could only be cut after notifying governmental institutions. Moreover, for every cut tree, a tree replant was necessary, known as the replant obligation (herplantingsplicht) (Verdonk, 2014; Wettenbank, 2015). Forest owners’ control over forests decreased and were dependent on government subsidies to manage forests, such as planting new trees or

developing recreational nature areas (Verdonk, 2004).

Since 2017, the Forest Law has been included in Law Nature Protection (Wet

Natuurbescherming) and also replaces other nature protection and biodiversity laws. The goal of this law is to protect biodiversity, decentralize nature protection, and simplify rules for provincial nature management. The original Forest Law regulations are also adopted in his new law (RVO, 2021). The Dutch ministry of agriculture, nature, and food quality (LNV) has become responsible for forest management in collaboration with the National Forestry

Commission (Staatsbosbeheer) and set four main priorities.

• Protection of forests.

• Making forests multifunctional and useful for human necessities. • Planting new forests.

• More natural forests (Verdonk, 2004).

Present forest policies have been included in general nature policies in the Netherlands (Verdonk, 2004). The Netherlands, therefore, had no specific forest policies during the years 2014 - 2020. Policy integration, decentralization, and privatization caused water, nature,

(17)

16

forest, and landscape elements to increasingly merge in the nature policy domain. This is criticized as nature policy is primarily ecological orientated and has limited wood production orientation (Duinhoven, 2016). The Dutch nature vision has a few objectives for Dutch nature management and protection. The first is to grow societal involvement in the development of nature, and therefore shifting nature policies towards provinces, citizens, and companies. The second objective is that nature should be perceived as part of societal and economic

development. Thus, nature should be combined with other societal and economic functions. For example, nature-inclusive agriculture is perceived as a valuable practice that should be stimulated. Furthermore, the Netherlands values international involvement in increasing sustainability, as the government believes an exemplary function for society is necessary (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2014b).

(18)

17

Analysis

In this section, answers to the three sub-questions are researched by analysing the retrieved data from policy documents and additional data from the interviews. An overview of the policy documents can be found in figure 3. The numbers are used throughout the analysis to refer back to the source documents.

Number Name Policy

Domain

Document Type On behalf of

1 Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020 (European Commission, 2013). Agriculture Policy Perspectives Brief European Commission

2 The Common Agriculture Policy: Investing in Rural Europe (European Commission, n.d.).

Agriculture Factsheet European Commission

3 Factsheet on 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for the Netherlands

(European Commission, 2020).

Agriculture Factsheet European Commission

4 European Commission approves the Netherlands' Rural Development Programme for 2014-2020 (European Commission, 2015).

Agriculture Press Summary European Commission 5 Plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma 2014-2020 (POP3) Samenvatting (Plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma Regie Bureau, 2017).

Agriculture Summary Plattelands- ontwikkelings- programma Regie Bureau

6 Europees Landbouwbeleid in Nederland 2014- 2020 (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2014a).

Agriculture Factsheet Ministerie van Economische Zaken 7 Kamerbrief Internationaal Landbouwbeleid

(Dijksma, 2014a). Agriculture Government letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken 8 Kamerbrief Aansluiting vergroening GLB

en agrarisch natuur en landschapsbeheer (Dijksma, 2014b). Agriculture Government letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken 9 Kamerbrief Implementatie Gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid (Dijksma, 2013). Agriculture Government letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken

(19)

18 10 Kamerbrief Invulling Plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma (Dijksma, 2014c). Agriculture Government letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken 11 Kamerbrief vereenvoudigen gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid (Dijksma, 2015). Agriculture Government letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken 12 Kamerbrief uitwerking directe betalingen

gemeenschappelijke landbouwbeleid (Dijksma, 2014d). Agriculture Government letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken 13 Kamerbrief wijzigingen in invulling van de

vergroening gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid (Dijksma, 2014e).

Agriculture Government Letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken 14 Nederland Natuurpositief

Ambitiedocument voor een gezamenlijke aanpak in natuurbeleid (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2019a).

Nature Policy vision Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

15 Natuurlijk verder Rijksnatuurvisie 2014 (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2014b).

Nature Policy vision Ministerie van Economische Zaken 16 Realisatieplan Visie LNV Op weg met

nieuw perspectief (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2019b).

Agriculture Policy vision Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

17 Op weg met nieuw perspectief: Van visie naar resultaten (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2020a).

Agriculture Policy vision Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

18 Kamerbrief Inwerkingtreding Wet natuurbescherming (van Dam, 2016).

Nature Government letter

Ministerie van Economische Zaken 19 Nationale Bijenstrategie Bed & Breakfast

for Bees (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2018).

Nature Policy strategy Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

20 Actieve Landbouwer 2020 (RVO, 2020a). Agriculture Web page Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland

(20)

19

21 Landbouwgronden 2020 (RVO, 2020b). Agriculture Web page Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland 22 Kwaliteitsimpuls natuur en landschap

(SKNL) (RVO, 2020c).

Nature Web page Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland 23 Kamerbrief met kabinetsreactie op advies

'Ruimte voor een duurzame landbouw' (Dijksma, 2014f).

Agriculture Parliament letter Ministerie van Economische Zaken

Figure 3. policy document overview

Regulations, Incentives, and financial support systems

The first sub-question is: “How are governmental regulations, incentives, and financial

systems in the Netherlands inhibiting or promoting the development of food forestry?” First Pillar: Direct Payments

The first Pillar of the CAP consists of direct payments aimed at producers of EU Member States, to offer direct financial support and a safety net to producers (1). Member States have certain flexibility in developing concrete plans on how to spend their direct payments budget. This is the result of the wide diversity of agriculture production potential across the Member States, such as the variety of environmental and socio-economic conditions (1). However, there are regulatory and budgetary limits as the Member State’s plans should meet common European objectives and conditions. Every Member State has to agree to a Partnership Agreement, in which each Member State highlights its broad strategy for the CAP funding (1). Besides basic subsidies, producers are eligible for greening subsidies if certain

biodiversity and environmental performance requirements are met (1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13). According to the CAP, the goal is to reward farmers for the services they deliver to the wider public, including farmland biodiversity and climate stability, even if they have no direct market value (1). The three main requirements for greening subsidies include crop

diversification, permanent pasture maintenance, and management of ecological focus areas (EFA’s) (9,12).

In the Netherlands, a company is eligible for direct payments of the CAP if they are registered as an “active agrarian” (9). Active agrarians are required to have agricultural activity as the main function of the owned agricultural land. Moreover, the land must have a minimum of 0.3 hectares of land that is directly used for production (9, 20). In the

(21)

20

an active agrarian can receive another 120 euro per hectare (9, 12). According to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the long-term goal is to make biodiversity performance both

manageable and effective for companies (9).

Member States can exclude certain land from the basic subsidy scheme if the main function of the land is something other than agriculture. Examples are infrastructure or nature, as this land can only be used for agriculture to a limited extent (9, 12). Excluded land can occasionally be used for agricultural activities such as farm animal grazing, for these land-use purposes a grazing premium (graaspremie) is introduced (12).

Direct payments can be accessible for food forests. However, the same rules apply to food forests as other forms of agriculture. Thus, owners must be active agrarians with eligible land, and agriculture is the primary function of the land. Food forest can both be interpreted as agriculture and forest (Valdivia, Barbieri & Gold, 2012). This could form an obstruction, as nature could also be interpreted as the primary function. Green Deal Food Forests offers a solution to the direct payment problem by creating crop code 1940 (Green Deal

Voedselbossen, 2019). The crop code indicates specific crops farmers grow on their land. Every year, farmers are required to register the crops they grow to receive the direct payments (9). The food forest crop code is something farmers can use to request direct payments, without having to explicitly explain every specific crop that is grown on the land. This makes food forests a recognized form of agriculture. However, this code can only be used by strictly using Green Deal Food Forests’ definition and requirements of a food forest. If farmers use this code without fulfilling all requirements this could cause problems (Green Deal

Voedselbossen, 2019). The requirements of Green Deal Food Forests include:

• A consecutive area with a minimum of 0.5 hectares.

• Domination of canopy trees with edible function; at least three other vegetation layers (shrubs, secondary trees, climbers/ herbaceous).

• No annual plants and no livestock within the concerning parcel.

• No manure/fertilizer use within the concerning area (Green Deal Voedselbossen, 2019).

Second pillar: Rural Development

CAP funding from the second Pillar: Rural Development, must be spent on six main rural development priorities that are stated in the policies of the CAP. These priorities include:

(22)

21

1. Fostering of knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas.

2. Enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture in all regions and promoting innovative farm technologies and sustainable management of forests. 3. Promoting food chain organization, including processing and marketing of agricultural

products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture.

4. Restoring, preserving, and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry. 5. Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and

climate-resilient economy in agriculture and forestry.

6. Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction, and economic development in rural areas (1).

Member States of the EU are obligated to spend 30% of their CAP Rural Development Programme funding on voluntary measures that are beneficial for the environment and

climate (1, 9). Examples of these measures are organic farming, sustaining Natura 2000 areas, forestry measures, and investments that are beneficial for the environment or climate (1). Natura 2000 areas are part of a European nature network and should promote maintenance of European species and habitats according to the EU Bird and Habitat protocols (15). The Rural Development Plan of the Netherlands in the period of 2014 – 2020, is given the name POP3 (Plattelands Ontwikkeling plan 3) (3, 5, 6, 10). There are seven forms of subsidy available from the POP3 (5).

A few of these subsidies are specifically aimed at farmers. The first of these subsidies (M03) is a measure to stimulate the veal sector, for which 30 million euro CAP funding is available. The second subsidy (M10) is aimed at environmental and climate support in rural areas for a total of 248 million euro CAP funding and 248 euro million national funding. This funding is meant as compensation for additional agricultural nature management costs. Provinces decide what companies receive the funding with a provincial nature management plan. The last of these subsidies (M17) is an optional risk management weather insurance for a total of 14,7 million euro CAP funding and 39,3 million euro national funding. The focus of this support is to develop an instrument that functions as a safety net for farmers (5).

Other subsidies are aimed at developing innovations for sustainable agriculture. The first subsidy (M01) is for the promotion of transferring knowledge, to stimulate sustainable development of the agricultural sector. This is realized by supporting professional

(23)

22

14,4 million euro CAP funding and 21 million euro national funding available. The third subsidy (M04) is an investment measurement for which 367 million euro CAP funding and 432 million euro national funding are available. This subsidy is meant for the innovation and modernization of the agricultural sector. Moreover, it is meant to stimulate young farmers to take over the company. Also, non-productive investments for biodiversity, nature, landscape and ecological functioning of water systems in agricultural areas are available. The fifth subsidy (M16) is for cooperation and consists of 28,5 million euro CAP funding and 46 million euro national funding. This funding is meant to improve productivity and

sustainability, starting cooperation and innovation for new products, practices and processes and technologies to innovate and modernize the agrarian sector. The last subsidy LEADER (M19) with a total of 40,1 million euro CAP funding and 70,4 million euro national funding is a European rural development program that is used in the Netherlands to stimulate twenty chosen areas with bottom-up cooperation for agriculture development (5).

On the one hand, these subsidies have the potential to stimulate the development of food forests. M01 for knowledge transfer and M04 with investment possibilities could be beneficial to increase knowledge and implementation of food forests. To add on, M10 for agricultural nature management could also be used to develop a food forest as a form of nature. On the other hand, the subsidies directly aimed at farmers are focused on supporting farmers with conventional agricultural practices, such as support for the veal sector and weather insurance, and do not necessarily stimulate alternative forms of agriculture.

Nature and Forest policies

Dutch nature policies have over the years been decentralized by transferring the policy process to provinces (14, 15). As a result, governmental regulations, incentives, and financial systems differ among different provinces. However, there are agreements and rules on the implementation of policies at a national level (15).

To begin with, there are subsidies available for nature management. The first is SKNL (Kwaliteitsimpuls Natuur en Landschap) and gives access to two different subsidies that may be combined. The first is an investment subsidy, accessible to nature-landowners willing to further develop the area. The subsidy is given once to cover planting costs or improve nature quality. Provinces decide whether the area is suited for investments based on their provincial nature management plan. The other accessible subsidy is for function change, available for agricultural land owners. This subsidy is specifically aimed at transforming agricultural land

(24)

23

into forest or nature territory. As a result of the function change, the economic value of the land decreases. For this reason, the subsidy offers compensation to the owner (22).

Moreover, the Dutch Nature Vision (15) argues that nature is the driver of the economy and is necessary to support. Therefore, nature should become more valuable to companies. Economic incentives for nature-inclusive entrepreneurship are developed to make nature more attractive to companies. In the Nature Vision the government also supports the forest and wood sector for cooperation with nature organisations, to stimulate legal and sustainable wood harvest. It is argued that biomass from nature and landscape have economic value and stimulate investment in nature. In the Dutch Realization plan (16), an investment strategy to invest in circular agriculture and sustainable initiatives is explained. Part of the plan are investment regulations for the stimulation of landscape and agroforestry elements.

The SKNL subsidies (22) offer opportunities for the development of food forests, as the investment subsidy can stimulate initial development. However, this primarily depends on provinces and can thus vary depending on the location of the land. The function change subsidy could also offer opportunities for the development of food forests. However, it is questionable if farmers are willing to transform their agricultural land into nature as this decreases the value of their land. The Realization plan (16) offers investment opportunities for agroforestry and thus also the development of food forests.

Neoliberal Capitalist Influences

For the next sub-question: “How are neoliberal capitalist influences present in the Dutch

agriculture and forestry policy sector?” a perspective on economic growth, innovation, and

efficiency was analysed in the policy documents.

Agriculture Policies

Over the last twenty years, the CAP argues to have successfully increased market orientation for agriculture. The objective of past reforms was to enhance the market orientation of EU agriculture, and this continues in the 2014 - 2020 CAP, by adapting policy instruments to further encourage farmers to base production decisions on market signals (1). Therefore, the CAP 2014-2020 spends 277.851 billion euro on direct payments and market-related

expenditure (1, 9). Market measures are developed to deal with potential threats of market disturbances and leave limited choices on national market and price policies (1, 9).

According to the CAP, agriculture within the EU needs to attain higher levels of production of safe and quality food, while preserving natural resources that agricultural

(25)

24

productivity depends on (1). This is argued to only be possible with a competitive and viable agricultural sector, which contributes to the maintenance of a thriving rural economy (1, 7, 9, 11, 12). Competitiveness is addressed directly by changing market mechanisms, such as by removing production constraints. This means that for example sugar, dairy, and wine

production restrictions are removed for farmers, to allow production increase for the growing world demand (1). However, the CAP does believe it is necessary to produce sustainably, and increasing agricultural productivity is argued to be the solution. It is argued that this can reduce deforestation, as the expansion of agricultural territory is not necessary (1).

In the Netherlands, the competitive position of the agricultural sector is considered to have national importance, because of its position as the second-largest exporter in the world (7, 15). Therefore, Policies should focus on a strong and competitive economic position of the Dutch agricultural sector (3, 7, 9, 10, 15). It is stated that investing in the productivity of the agricultural sector is a driver for economic growth (15). Increasing productivity is argued to be necessary to keep food prices affordable and overcome price volatility. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs argues that in the long term, controlling market volatility requires

investing in agricultural productivity and well-functioning infrastructure (7, 23). Moreover, international trade is considered important and should increase. The international free trade system allows expanding of Dutch production, by producing in more suited geographical locations (7). Green Growth is considered a useful strategy to carefully intensify the

production and sustainable development of the agricultural sector (15, 23). Green Deals are an example of how this would be managed. The Green Deal approach allows governments and companies to work together for removing barriers to green growth development (15, 23).

Innovation is also an integral part of CAP funding for rural development. The CAP argues that innovation is crucial for linking environmental and climate priorities with

modernization measures (1). This is taken into account in the Dutch Rural Development Plan (3, 5, 10). The Dutch Rural Development Plan has four Rural Development priorities that include: restoring, preserving, and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture (3, 5). Strategies of the Dutch Rural Development Plan (POP3) plan include investing in rural jobs and growth, improvement of living conditions in rural areas, and increase of innovation and co-operation activities (3, 5). Its main goal is smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth, while also contributing to competitive, innovative, and future-proof agriculture (10).

Based on de retrieved data, it can be argued that productivity increase, innovation, competitive position, and economic growth are fundamental themes in both the CAP as well

(26)

25

as Dutch agriculture policy documents. Food forests require approximately five years of development before they can offer high production value (Boulestreau & van Eck, 2016). In the current system that strives for production increase, competitive position, and economic growth this could form an unattractive alternative, as food forests offer limited production value in the short term. Implementing food forests could contradict the vision of having a competitive position, as the Netherlands might have to import more in the short term instead of exporting agricultural products.

Nature and Forest policies

In 2014, the Dutch Nature vision (15) emerged and argued that a new perception of nature is necessary. The link between nature and economy must become more obvious and recognized, as it has long been underestimated by companies. Nature and economy are interdependent according to this new nature vision. The vision argues that companies should increasingly realize the role of nature and biodiversity in production requirements, and the opportunities they offer for competitiveness in the world market. Therefore, this nature vision promotes nature as a part of green growth development. Nature-inclusive growth, which is described as growth based on using natural capital in such a way that natural capital itself also grows, is a primary strategy in this vision. Sustainable consumption and innovation are key elements that are necessary for nature to become part of a green growth vision.

The ideal scenario of the Dutch national government in the Nature vision of 2014 (15) is a future in which society manages to strive for nature goals, without governmental

measures except for a stimulating role. Therefore, the “Natuurpact” was formed, to transfer nature policy responsibilities to provinces, and thus closer to citizens. Moreover, it is argued that nature policies should become less focused on specific species and habitats and more focused on natural systems on a national level. As a result, it should become easier to integrate nature with societal and economic developments. To add on, nature-inclusive farming is argued to offer huge opportunities for increasing both agriculture and nature. Therefore, this is also stimulated by the Dutch government. Similar is the Dutch support initiative for the forest and wood sector to work together with nature organizations, to create strategies on forests’ contributions to a green economy.

A few years later, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food launched the Realization plan in 2019 (16), which offers a plan to transition to a circular economy. The Realization plan recognizes how the current food system is essentially based on the cheapest and largest production volume possible. The circular economy plan offers a food system that

(27)

26

is more based on economic value for natural resources. Ambition document Nature (14) also adds to the circular economy plan by stating the benefits of a circular economy for

biodiversity repair. Moreover, the National Forest Strategy (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2020b) was developed in 2020 because of the national and international pressures on forests. The Forest Strategy is created to realize healthy, futureproof, and society-valued forests in the years that follow from 2020.

Based on the retrieved data it is transparent that in the development of nature and forest policies, the relationship between nature and economy is highly valued. Nature is perceived as a necessary element and driver for the economy. Nature has an economic value as it offers production opportunities. At the same time, the recent emergence of circular economy in policies present criticism on the effects of the conventional food system. As a result, strategies that form alternatives for convenient agricultural practices are introduced.

Nature-Culture Dichotomy

For the last sub-question: “Whether and how is the separation between agriculture and

forestry noticeable in policies based on the retrieved data?” the relationship between

agriculture and forests/nature in the policy documents was analysed and led to the following results.

To begin with, nature is argued to be conflicting with a variety of themes, including agriculture, urbanization, industry, and infrastructure. Agriculture is seen as conflicting for nature and forests. Multiple sources recognize the damaging impacts of agriculture on forests and deforestation as a result of agriculture (1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 15). Therefore it is stated that more productive agriculture is necessary, to counteract the further expansion of agricultural land (7). Moreover, the European network of Natura-2000 protective nature areas was created, to protect species from the damaging impacts of agriculture on nature (15). Furthermore, it is argued that nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands led to tension between nature and economic growth (15). However, nature is also experienced as an obstruction because of the technical character of policy instruments, this is a consequence of the strict protection rules such as the Law Nature Protection (15).

The analysed policy documents also recognize the separation between a variety of functions and nature and strive for more function combinations (7, 15, 16). Particularly, the Nature Vision (15) mentions how in earlier nature policies, the primary thought and strategy was to manage the nature decrease with a reduction of as much human interference as

(28)

27

possible. As a consequence, nature became a sector itself, that is not intertwined with other sectors. However, the Nature Vision is against this thought and strives to integrate nature in other sectors. As the vision notes, there exists limited nature in the Netherlands that is not defined by human interference or management. Integration of nature policies with other policy domains is argued to be insufficient, as nature and culture are intertwined according to the Nature Vision. For this reason, policies are supportive and see opportunities with

integrating nature and agriculture (3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17). It is argued that agricultural nature management is necessary to turn negative impacts of agriculture into something more positive (7, 15). Nature and other sector combinations are agued to only be able to succeed if they offer added value to society, and mixing nature with other functions should therefore not be seen as contradicting but complementing.

Another perception is that a balance between ecology and economy is necessary because biodiversity and a healthy environment are crucial for sustainable agricultural

production (7, 9, 12). It is argued that the current imbalance in economy and ecology leads to environmental impacts such as decreasing soil fertility and water scarcity, and this is closely related to agricultural production (7). With this perception, it is argued that the required greening measures of the CAP, should not lead to unnecessary production loss. But at the same time greenwashing to meet the requirements should also be prevented (12). Moreover, the Dutch nature vision, argues nature to be an economic factor and stimulates nature inclusion in economic activities (15). Green Deals are used as an example of combining nature with the economy (15).

The separation between nature and agriculture is highlighted throughout the policy documents. Agriculture is seen as damaging for nature as it leads to negative ecological consequences (1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 15). Moreover, strict nature protection policies are argued to cause tension in a variety of areas and obstruct development (15). Food forests can also face obstructions as a result of nature regulations, as have come forward from interview data. Habitat of protected species could for example be disturbed with the introduction of certain species, which could restrict certain food forestry developments. At the same time, the

separation of nature and other policy domains is recognized and it is argued that nature should be more intertwined with other domains. There has been a realization that nature in the

Netherlands cannot be seen as “the natural” as human interference with nature has been a common practice for ages (15). Lastly, Dutch policy documents argue for a balance between ecology and economy (7, 9 12).

(29)

28

Conclusion

In this thesis, the impact of policies on the development of food forests in the Netherlands was researched. Both agriculture and nature policies, active in the Netherlands, were investigated, as food forests can function both as nature and an alternative agricultural system. With the help of sub-questions, the following research question was answered:

What are the barriers of existing national Agriculture and Forest policies for the development of food forests in the Netherlands?

In concluding the findings, it can be argued that the development of food forests and the potential barriers that involved stakeholders have to come to terms with vary between agriculture and nature-owned land.

Agricultural landowners, generally have more financial support systems that could help with the development of food forests, as various subsidies are available for agricultural landowners. One of them is the direct payments that are funded by the CAP. However, in order for agricultural landowners to become eligible for direct payments, they have to meet several requirements. Owners need to own the title “active agrarian” with eligible agricultural land and have agriculture as the primary function of the land. Green Deal Food Forests created a crop code for food forests, to make food forests officially recognized for direct payments. However, if agricultural landowners want to use this crop code for direct payments, they also have to meet the requirements of the Green Deal Food Forests description of food forests. Other subsidies that are accessible to agricultural landowners are multiple rural development plan (POP3) subsidies, such as the agricultural nature management subsidy, and the function change subsidy, which is used to transform agricultural land into nature land. This causes a decrease in the value of the land, for which the owner receives compensation with the function change subsidy. Therefore, this may not be an attractive option for agricultural landowners.

Agricultural landowners have access to subsidies that offer financial support for the development of food forests. However, agricultural policies highlight productivity increase, competitive position, and economic growth as important themes in both CAP and Dutch agricultural policies. It can be argued that these policies stimulate the agricultural system to be highly productive and competitive, which makes a transition to alternative agricultural

practices a risk for farmers that are highly productive with conventional agricultural practices. Food forests can take years before they can produce a large amount of quantity and with no

(30)

29

further financial safety nets, farmers can potentially lose income when transitioning from conventional agricultural practices to food forestry.

Nature landowners face other laws and regulations throughout the development of food forests. Dutch national nature policies have been decentralized over the years, and as a consequence provinces create and decide on their own nature policy plan. Generally, financial support systems for the development of food forests are relatively limited on nature land, compared to agricultural land. However, support for the development of food forests

primarily depends on the province and the regulations of the province. The SKNL subsidies do offer possibilities for nature landowners, as an investment subsidy is available for the planting or further development of a natural area. However, strict nature protection

regulations, such as the law Nature Protection could also prohibit the development of food forests when protected species are established on the land.

Separation of nature and agriculture policy domains is transparent in regulations, price incentives, and financial support systems, as the agricultural sector has a significantly broader support system. Agriculture is perceived as the cause of negative environmental and

ecological consequences. At the same time, strict nature protection regulations are perceived as the cause of tension in a variety of fields and an obstruction for development. However, the policies also proclaim an increasing realization in the value of intertwining nature with other domains, especially for economic purposes. Nature is perceived as a crucial factor for the economy and offers both production and recreation opportunities. In Dutch agriculture

policies, creating a balance between ecology and economy is highlighted as a necessity for the future.

To conclude, it can be argued that the policy separation between agriculture and nature policies makes a multifunctional food system, such as food forestry, complex to establish as diverse barriers can emerge during the development process. Food forestry is not suitable for categorization in current nature and agriculture domains as these policies are not designed for multifunctional land-use systems and both have distinct priorities. Therefore this thesis argues the nature-culture dichotomy forms a barrier for the further development of multifunctional and sustainable agricultural systems, such as food forestry.

(31)

30

Bibliography

• Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability Science, 10(3),

375-384.

• Boulestreau, Y., & van Eck, W. (2016). Design and performance evaluation of a 1ha productive food forest model (Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University and Research

Centre [WUR]).

• Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

• Clark, K. H., & Nicholas, K. A. (2013). Introducing urban food forestry: a multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 28(9),

1649-1669.

• Dijksma, S. (2013). Kamerbrief Implementatie Gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid. [Letter of government]. Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en- tuinbouw/documenten/kamerstukken/2013/12/06/kamerbrief-over-implementatie-gemeenschappelijk-landbouwbeleid

• Dijksma, S. (2014a). Kamerbrief Internationaal Landbouwbeleid. [Letter of government].

Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en-tuinbouw/documenten/kamerstukken/2014/03/25/kamerbrief-internationaal-landbouwbeleid • Dijksma, S. (2014b). Kamerbrief Aansluiting vergroening GLB en agrarisch natuur en

landschapsbeheer. [Letter of government]. Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en- tuinbouw/documenten/kamerstukken/2014/12/18/kamerbrief-over-aansluiting-vergroening-glb-en-agrarisch-natuur-en-landschapsbeheer

• Dijksma, S. (2014c). Kamerbrief Invulling Plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma. [Letter of government] Retrieved from: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en-

tuinbouw/documenten/kamerstukken/2014/04/02/kamerbrief-over-invulling-plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma-2014-2020

• Dijksma, S. ( 2014d). Kamerbrief uitwerking directe betalingen gemeenschappelijke landbouwbeleid. [Letter of government]. Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en- tuinbouw/documenten/kamerstukken/2014/06/05/kamerbrief-uitwerking-directe-betalingen-gemeenschappelijk-landbouwbeleid

• Dijksma, S. (2014e). Kamerbrief wijzigingen in invulling van de vergroening gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid. [Letter of government]. Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en- tuinbouw/documenten/kamerstukken/2014/07/29/kamerbrief-wijzigingen-invulling-van-de-vergroening-gemeenschappelijk-landbouwbeleid-glb

• Dijksma, S. (2014f). Kamerbrief met kabinetsreactie op advies 'Ruimte voor een duurzame landbouw'. Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2014/02/03/kamerbrief-met-kabinetsreactie-op-advies-ruimte-voor-een-duurzame-landbouw

• Dijksma, S. (2015). Kamerbrief vereenvoudigen gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid. [Letter of government]. Retrieved from: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en- tuinbouw/documenten/kamerstukken/2015/09/10/kamerbrief-over-vereenvoudigingen-gemeenschapplijk-landbouwbeleid-glb

• Dorp, D. V., & Stobbelaar, D. J. (2020). Voedselbossen (Doctoral dissertation, Van Hall

Larenstein).

• Erisman, J. W. (2021). Setting ambitious goals for agriculture to meet environmental targets.

(32)

31

• European Comission. (n.d.) The Common Agriculture Policy: Investing in Rural Europe.

Retrieved from:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/rdp-2014-20-factsheet_en.pdf

• European Commission. (2013). Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-policy-perspectives-brief-05_en.pdf

• European Commission. (2015). European Commission approves the Netherlands' Rural Development Programme for 2014-2020. Retrieved from:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/rdp-netherlands-press-summary-13-02-2015_en.pdf

• European Commission (2020). Factsheet on 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for the Netherlands. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/rdp-factsheet-netherlands_en.pdf

• European Parliament (2021) De eerste pijler van het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid (GLB): II — Rechtstreekse betalingen aan landbouwers. Retrieved from:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/nl/sheet/109/first-pillar-of-the-common-agricultural-policy-cap-ii-direct-payments-to-farmers

• Görg, C., Brand, U., Haberl, H., Hummel, D., Jahn, T., & Liehr, S. (2017). Challenges for social-ecological transformations: Contributions from social and political ecology.

Sustainability, 9(7), 1045.

• Green Deal Voedselbossen (2019). Gewascode ‘Voedselbos’ benutten voor agrarische bedrijven. Retrieved from: https://www.greendealvoedselbossen.nl/gewascode-voedselbos-benutten-voor-agrarische-bedrijven/

• Green Deal Voedselbossen (2020). Factsheet voedselbossen voor gemeente, provincie en waterschap

• Hobohm, C. (2021). Nature-Culture Dichotomy and Environmental Consciousness: Do We Fear the Right Things?. In Perspectives for Biodiversity and Ecosystems (pp. 17-41).

Springer, Cham.

• Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/common-agricultural-policy

• Jack, M.T. (2020). Common Agricultural Policy. Institute for Government. Retrieved from: • Jordan, C. F. (2013). Political and Economic Challenges to Creating a Sustainable

Agriculture. In An Ecosystem Approach to Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 63-81). Springer,

Dordrecht.

• Karel, E. H. (2010). Modernization of the Dutch agriculture system. Paper for the

International Rural History Conference.

• Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Harvard University Press. • McCarthy, J., & Prudham, S. (2004). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism.

Geoforum, 35(3), 275-283.

• Milieudefensie. (2015). Nog steeds op grote schaal oerwoud gekapt voor veevoer.

Milieudefensie, Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://milieudefensie.nl/veevoer/nieuws/Nog-steedsop-grote-schaal-oerwoud-gekapt-voor-veevoer

• Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2014a) Europees Landbouwbeleid in Nederland 2014- 2020. Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/landbouw-en- tuinbouw/documenten/publicaties/2014/12/01/europees-landbouwbeleid-in-nederland-2014--2020

The role of Dutch policies in the development of food forests in the Netherlands