1. Protect agricultural land
The fiercest debate concerns agricultural land prices. It is becoming too expensive and too scarce, the farmers complain. This means that agricultural land ends up in the hands of wealthy bidders – often not farmers. There is no consensus within the Flemish government about how these prices should be moderated. The N-VA and CD&V are opposing each other. The Christian Democrats especially want to put a stop to Natuurpunt in that discussion. That organization would buy up too much agricultural land and thus outcompete farmers. But that suggestion mainly irritates Minister of the Environment Zuhal Demir (N-VA). She talks about an unnecessary polarization between nature and agriculture and points out that it is not only ‘nature’ that is stealing agricultural land.
Because the coalition partners cannot reach an agreement among themselves, it is difficult for them to present proposals during discussions with the agricultural delegations. “Very technical discussions” are being held at the conference table, it sounds. There would be a consensus to leave agricultural land alone, with exceptions. Furthermore, a working group would consider activities that would be considered ‘foreign to the zone’.
2. Fair prices
There is a broad consensus about the prices that farmers receive for their products. It’s too low, it sounds in unison. In the long chain, farmers are not in the link where a lot of profit can be made, Prime Minister Alexander De Croo (Open VLD) pointed out. He therefore sees merit in a solidarity mechanism. This should ensure that profits are better distributed in every part of the food chain.
Federal Minister of Agriculture David Clarinval (MR) set up working groups to tackle unfair trade practices and gain a better view of the distribution of margins within the chain. This is combined with a campaign for local products. The Flemish government supports these initiatives.
Fair prices also mean fair competition. In this way, the European trade agreement with the South American Mercosur countries came into focus again. That agreement has been fruitlessly negotiated for twenty years. Opponents fear that the EU will thus open the gate wide to cheaper (and less sustainable) agricultural products. French President Emmanuel Macron wants to pause negotiations. De Croo also wants that.
3. Climate and environmental measures
Farmers’ narrow profit margins make it difficult to go green. That is why various governments are considering whether climate or environmental measures can be discarded. At European level, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pulled the plug on plans to halve pesticide use by 2030. Farmers will also not have to leave 4 percent of their land fallow to protect biodiversity, as previously agreed. That measure will be postponed for another year.
On February 27, the European Parliament must finally vote on the European Nature Restoration Act. It remains to be seen to what extent the farmers’ demonstrations will influence voting behavior. The largest faction in the European Parliament, the EPP (to which CD&V belongs), is traditionally ‘farmer-minded’.
At Flemish level, the new manure action plan in particular is causing nervousness. CD&V is in favor of a less strict design. It is unclear whether the entire government wants to participate in this. For the time being, the idea is to return the negotiations to the farmers’ organizations and nature associations.
This approach was tested at the end of last year, without results. There are no signs that positions have changed since then. In concrete terms, the two sides cannot agree on the issue of ‘zero fertilization in VEN areas’, protected nature reserves of the Flemish Ecological Network. Zero fertilization is a must for nature, but unacceptable for the farmer.
4. Administrative simplification
A modern farmer is also a bit of an accountant. This must change, say politicians at all levels. Everyone is in favor of reducing the administrative burden for farmers. How that will happen is still under discussion.
The biggest discrepancy between the field and the administration is ‘calendar agriculture’, where certain crops are sown or harvested at times set by the government. This needs to be overhauled, the farmers say. They find it extremely difficult to comply with the proposed schedules in practice. “For example, we are obliged to sow catch crops (which, for example, must retain fertilizers in the soil between the main crops, ed.) on a certain date. If we do not achieve this, for example because the soil is too wet to work on, we will have to pay fines of approximately 1,000 euros per hectare. Absurd,” explained the chairman of the General Farmers Syndicate, Hendrik Vandamme.
5. Legal certainty
Many farmers mainly want to know whether they can continue farming. Guarantees in this regard are summarized under the heading ‘legal certainty’. The ultimate example of this is the latest nitrogen decree. The Flemish majority is convinced that it will help farmers get back on track. But coalition partner CD&V sees it as a ‘transitional decree’. The Flemish government is already discussing “a preparatory process” for another nitrogen decree.
