The Dutch government plans to drastically reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which are produced by livestock and fertilizer, by 2030. Cuts could reach 70% and even as high as 95% in some areas, under a plan recently adopted by Netherland lawmakers. For some Dutch farmers they see the writing on the wall and are fighting back because of it.

According to a Foreign Agricultural Service report, on June 10, 2022, the Dutch Minister for Nitrogen and Nature Policy, Ms. Christianne van der Wal, presented a plan laying out the objectives for Dutch nitrogen greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. The plan included both national and area-specific objectives. The Dutch Provinces are responsible for developing corresponding measures to reach the nitrogen emission reductions between 12 and 70% , depending on the area. Farmers in some provinces will be particularly hard hit by the area-oriented approach, and the Dutch government acknowledged “there is not a future for all {Dutch} farmers within [this] approach.” 

The Federalist reports “dozens of farmers in trucks and tractors parked outside major supermarket distribution centers in cities throughout the country. The blockade comes on the heels of a convoy protest of approximately 40,000 farmers in ‘central Netherlands’ agricultural heartland’ last week, which clogged up local roadways and led to standstill traffic.”

The Netherlands is the second-largest exporter of agricultural products, with estimated exports of 104.7 billion euros ($111 billion) in 2021, according to Wageningen University. Cattle and fertilizers are key sources of nitrogen emissions, Bloomberg reports in its recent coverage of the ongoing Dutch farmer response.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte stated in his press conference following the presentation of the proposal that: “It is not a goal on its own to be the second largest agricultural exporter in the world. The goal is to be and remain a country that is a global leader when it comes to the agricultural sector and our farmers.” 

With such a strong contributor to the Dutch economy, you would think farmers’ voices would be heard. However, other reports this week indicate Dutch police fired shots at the tractor-riding farmers who were protesting the plans to cut nitrogen emissions in northern Netherlands.

The EU’s Farm to Fork strategy aims to accelerate its transition to a “sustainable food system” that would have a neutral or positive environmental impact and help to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts. However, the restrictions to follow for chemical usage and essentially forcing all agriculture to follow organic standards will not help the environment, or address global food security concerns.

U.S. agriculture is the world powerhouse, and at least at the world level it is communicating the importance of all types of agriculture to address both mitigating climate change and remaining productive.

At the G20 Meeting of Agricultural Chief Scientists this week, USDA underscored the importance of agricultural research and development in tackling the challenges of global food security and climate change. They called on G20 members to support the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate. USDA’s Chief Scientist Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young led the U.S. delegation to the meeting, where agricultural science leaders from around the world convened to discuss global challenges facing agriculture and to align both national and global research and development priorities.

Jacobs-Young also highlighted the United States’ leadership role in the global Coalition for Sustainable Productivity Growth, as well as the United States’ continued focus on innovative technologies and approaches to reduce food loss and waste in the agricultural supply chain.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack launched AIM for Climate at the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change to counter the one-sided message of the EU’s strategy to strangle holding its farmers and limiting overall production.

The number of no-till acres worldwide has increased by 93% in 10 years, bringing the total number to 507.6 million acres. No-till offers substantial environmental benefits, but would not be possible without technology such as glyphosate and other weed protection tools. However, if key weed and insect protection tools go away, more farmers will be forced to return to more passes across their fields. And that brings more greenhouse gas emissions and higher use of fuels.

Ted McKinney, CEO of the National Association of Departments of Agriculture, recently shared during a House Agriculture Republican forum that no-till and minimum till saw huge increases in adoption with the inventions of chemistries that could go over the top of crop. “When and if those go away, whether it’s because Europe disallows it and therefore, we can’t trade with Europe, or because our own EPA or someone else, it is draconian.” And the only way to continue to produce will be with additional tillage or run the extra pass with the tractor. “That is not the answer we seek,” McKinney says of the dual environmental and food security challenges.

Those in agriculture have a great story to tell on farmers’ ability to reduce GHG and sequester carbon. The Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance has done an excellent job of bringing farmers, environmental groups and agribusinesses to the same table to provide policy recommendations that encourage voluntary, incentive-based tools to encourage actions that mitigate climate change while also encouraging policy that offers incentives for farmers to reduce energy consumption.  

There is not a one-size approach that will allow environmental and food security issues to be solved without chemistries such as glyphosate and genetically-engineered crops to increase production, while reducing tillage and chemical use. Europe has apparently not figured that out. And now they’re wanting to impose these draconian limits on nitrogen use and livestock production.

We continue to see other parts of the U.S. government or activist community slowly gaining momentum in attempting to force their will on U.S. farmers, such as the concerning Securities Exchange Commission reporting rule on emissions that has farmers gravely concerned.

Let’s hope U.S. farmers continue to have strong advocates – such as Vilsack, McKinney and the many others - to keep U.S. farmers in business. Otherwise, U.S. farmers might be next storming the streets of our capitol to object to policy decisions.