Since 2019, regular (and at times violent) protests featuring convoys of tractors and inverted flags have brought parts of the Netherlands to a standstill. The core issue cited by protestors from the agricultural industry has been what they perceive as abrupt and heavy handed Dutch government policy calling for a drastic reduction in nitrogen emissions from industrial-scale farming. The government has offered buy out schemes for farmers to contribute to realising that transition, with between 500 and 1,000 farmers at least expressing interest in the deal. But as recently as this week, a small but very visible group of protestors have driven farm vehicles onto Dutch motorways and created dangerous traffic blocks.
Similar demonstrations have been expanding across Europe, although their specific demands and concerns vary by country. But how representative is this vocal minority for the Dutch agricultural industry?
In an interview in NRC, the editor-in-chief of Dutch agricultural trade magazine New Harvest, Esther de Snoo, says that the majority of Dutch farmers are realistic about the fact that the industry has to change, and that they feel like a silent majority. “On online farmer forums, I see that the sentiment among many is: we understand the frustration, but condemn the methods. People are even afraid it will backfire.”
Wageningen Economic Research identified five groups of instruments to offer a future economic perspective for dairy and arable farms:
- market instruments (like a premium price for sustainable products)
- subsidies for non-productive investments (such as subsidies for sustainable animal feed)
- payment for ecosystem services (such as compensation for extensification – the opposite of intensification – in peatland areas to combat it from drying out)
- depreciation of land (such as by reducing its value or rent)
- other instruments (such as a guarantee for small to medium enterprise agricultural loans).
But if the goal of subsidies is to make it affordable for less affluent people to benefit from them, are subsidies actually having the desired effect if they’re being used by individuals or businesses that are well off enough to afford to pay full price? An income estimate, also conducted by Wageningen Economic Research, found that the average income for farmers in the Netherlands in 2023 was €112,000 euros (even though income can vary significantly from one sector to the next). By comparison, the average Dutch gross salary in 2023 was estimated to be €50,600.
Farmers themselves may be wealthy in assets, but they are also susceptible the demands of the supply chain of which they are just the beginning. “Farmers don’t determine the price paid for their products, and they are subject to rules from the government”, as well as multinationals “which have committed themselves to ambitious nature and environmental goals, ” De Snoo says. She also pointed out that European sustainability subsidies “are lower than the post-war income guarantees that farmers were used to”, which are being phased out.
Environmental psychology can offer some perspective on at least a couple of aspects of this dilemma, namely the role of a vocal minority and the usefulness of subsidies.
In the context of planned green energy projects, opponents were more willing to take part in public participation discussions than supporters. This may at least partially be due to the assumption among supporters that the project will ultimately be implemented anyway, which means that opponents are overrepresented in public debate. (Opposing out loud versus supporting in silence: who wants to participate in decision-making about energy projects? Lu Liu, Goda Perlaviciute and Lorenzo Squintani, Environmental Research Letters)
This could be applicable to the ongoing farmer’s protests. As Esther de Snoo says in NRC, “[Many farmers] agree that we have to let go of the old system and move towards a new form of agriculture.”
And subsidies aim to remove financial barriers, but more often than not end up serving as a cue to action instead. Subsidies for sustainable technologies often go to households with a high income, which means that it likely did not help individuals overcome financial barriers because there were no financial barriers to start with. A subsidy scheme is generally considered effective if it attracts a new group of people who would not have taken the measure without the subsidy. Climate subsidy schemes in the Netherlands are less effective in reaching people who would not have considered taking action otherwise, and often fail to reach people beyond innovators and early adopters.
(Are subsidies for climate action effective? Two case studies in the Netherlands, A.M. van Valkengoed E. van der Werff, Environmental Science & Policy)
