All language subtitles for stik_stof_tot_nadenken_-_docsfair_original (1080p)

We're now driving
from our main farm...

in the direction of
a nearby Natura 2000 area.

In this Natura 2000 area
we manage a great many fields.

Our cows graze those fields.

The nitrogen debate
revolves around one thing:

That the nature permits we've been granted
are supposedly impacting the area.

And thus, well... They're saying
our impact is too high...

but in reality we're conserving nature.

That's our main farm.
It's not Natura 2000, but farmland.

But if we cross the road...

over there we're in Germany.
That's the German border back there.

And over there we have our site
that's in the middle of Natura 2000...

that serves as a winter storage room
and winter stables for our cattle.

But the worst part for us is that
because we own a branch on the edge...

and one in the middle of Natura 2000...

the calculation tool adds up
both nitrogen production rates...

which have been calculated on paper only,
and are stacked on top of each other.

Therefore odds are
we will be considered peak polluters.

nitrogen,
food for thought

In my job I tend to encounter
the nitrogen problem a lot.

I'm a co-owner of a Rotterdam-based
office that works on transitions...

towards a future-proof society, so to speak.

We also work on the future
of Dutch rural areas...

where we need to find new ways
and collaborations to reshape...

farming, nature, recreation and all other
user requirements of our countryside.

If you want to understand this story
you must start with Sicco Mansholt.

He was a Dutchman
and Minister of Agriculture.

And in the period after
the Second World War he said:

'We will never want for food again.'

And during that time Dutch agriculture...

became incredibly professionalised
and was scaled up tremendously.

So we became extremely proficient
in producing agricultural products...

among which all types of meats
that are produced in the Netherlands...

on a massive scale
for a world population.

So what we're doing is
we're actually importing a lot of food...

animal feed, into the Netherlands.

We convert that into meat
very efficiently...

and sell this meat
to a world population.

So then you must make a choice.

Do we want to produce on a mass scale
for a world population...

and suffer the consequences, which is
impoverishment of our environment?

Or don't we want that?

The European policy is clear:
we don't want that.

And that's a really painful conclusion.

Especially for agricultural entrepreneurs
who for many decades and generations...

have been supported and pushed
to keep producing more and more...

and do so efficiently. And many
other considerations were added...

like animal welfare
as well as environmental aspects.

So you could say that the many kilos
of meat the Netherlands produces...

are made in a very animal-friendly way,
and highly efficiently.

This means it has a very small
environmental footprint...

but it does put a great many animals
in a small area.

So you've been pushed to produce
as much as you can for generations...

and now all of a sudden
they say you're doing it wrong.

That just doesn't sit right with me.
It's an outrage.

I agree that we need to change our ways.

So I think we should help
those entrepreneurs with that.

It's not about whether the measuring
methods are accurate or not.

Many huge mistakes are being made there.

Yet the problem remains,
so we need to solve it.

This here contains nitrogen.
But this is pure gold.

This isn't dirt, it's gold.

To us much depends on manure.

Manure is important in the natural cycle.
Manure can tell you a lot.

This cowpat shows you if an animal
is fed enough or too little protein.

When the dung is too runny,
when it contains more water...

it contains more nitrogen.
In that case we add more crude fibre...

by feeding the cows more herbs.

That's when the animals
get more hay with herbs.

So that's how we adjust their feed.

This here determines the quality.

All animals are different...

and sometimes there are circumstances
us humans don't know about either.

So in the end
we need to inspect the manure.

What's that you're saying?
-I couldn't keep that fence shut.

But it's closed now, isn't it?
-My son fixed it.

I believe that used to be farmland, too.
Or wasn't it?

Just like this.
-Yes, quite.

Do you know anything about nitrogen?
-No...

It's quite a problem...

See that flag? Over there?
-Yes, a farmer. A farmer lives there.

Are you not up-to-date
about the nitrogen problems?

No. I just like the flags.

Do you think the farmers are right?
-Yes, of course.

Right.
-It's just wonderful.

When looking at the reports coming out
of the government at the moment...

they say they want to get rid
of thousands of farmers.

I've been examining the nitrogen problem
for years and often visit measuring sites.

Just to see what the cause might be.

Usually I go on a hike
through the area.

Around the corner is a beautiful stream.
It's a magnificent area.

But according to measurements this stream
contains very high nitrogen levels.

Sometimes the cause is obvious.
You can see it right away.

But I've asked someone who lives
in this area, in old Wageningen...

and they told me that the farmers
have been downsized for years now.

The lion's share of this land
used to be farmland.

There was an industrial park, but it's
converted back to nature years ago.

But still nitrogen levels are too high.

So that makes me wonder:
where does it come from?

See, this is a mix of...

It's one of our experiments.
It's a mix of grass and leaves.

And we also use it in public parks,
in the plant boxes.

It gives a wonderful organic substance...

and all soil life
fares very well on this stuff.

The right bacterial composition...

will result in a fantastic organic cycle.

It retains water better. That's a plus.
You get far less dehydration...

and it captures more minerals...

which in turn become available
for vegetation, which is ideal.

And this is a product
that's given us by nature.

We can only change our environment by
changing bacterial cultures in the soil.

At the moment what we often hear...

is that we should skip meat,
since cows produce a lot of nitrogen.

But cows mostly eat grass.

And the protein in grass
is hard to use for cows.

But now we start eating
plant-based foods instead of meat...

which is grown the same way,
and contains the same proteins.

So all that does is shift the problem.

That means us humans will produce
a lot of emissions ourselves...

as our food contains the same
hard-to-digest proteins.

And therefore we have to eat even more
to meet our energy needs.

We discovered there's a bacterial culture
that works in the direct opposite way.

One that locks in the nitrogen
into the soil in body proteins.

And that gives you
a completely different cycle.

If we can switch up the bacterial cultures
that means the farmers can stay...

because then we can use these farmers
to create a different living environment.

That will double the effect,
for nature will join in...

changing our living environment as well,
and everything stays in the soil.

That way farmers need far less artificial
manure, which in turn saves energy.

They need far less pellets, which costs
less energy either. It stays in the system.

We can solve the environmental
problem with farmers.

What will come of this?
I don't have a clue where this will end.

It's not about finding solutions.
We need to think in solutions.

And what are we actually talking about?
What is our goal?

We've had a lot of meetings with farmer
collectives and individual farmers...

and it's...
We have a good relationship with farmers.

But of course it's all one-on-one.
Together you look for possibilities.

There's much to achieve on a small scale,
but it should happen on a large scale too.

We've had the Euro crisis,
we have the energy crisis...

the Covid crisis, the Ukraine crisis,
the pandemic crisis...

and now we have the nitrogen crisis.

What governments like about crises
is that they can push through matters...

people wouldn't accept in a normal world
by means of a democratic process.

People in the Netherlands
simply cannot reverse this.

A law coming in from Brussels
cannot be improved or cancelled...

by the Council of the European Union,
the European Parliament...

and it can no longer be corrected
or cancelled by the Dutch government.

So we're stuck with it.
The people are side-lined, as it were...

once a law from Brussels
has been passed.

The so-called nitrogen crisis,
and its origin...

lies in the Habitats Directive that came
into force here in Brussels in 1992.

But back in 1992 we couldn't foresee
the impact on our country by 2023.

In a democracy the people should be able
to decide what their country looks like.

Do we want our farmers who belong
to our culture, and who feed us?

Or do we want red tape from Brussels
that is utterly useless to us?

The actual nitrogen crisis
broke out in 2019...

with that court case
and verdict of the Council of State.

Years before that Jaap and I
were already asking the question:

What is the scientific argument
in favour of this nitrogen policy?

If a farmer wants to build new stables
he has to use the AERIUS tool.

And when that says that the stables will
cause too much nitrogen to descend...

on the neighbouring natural area,
you simply won't get a permit.

Then the obvious follow-up question is,
and Jaap and I had started on that...

We had this very interesting conversation
at RIVM about the AERIUS tool.

But we hadn't yet arrived at the heart
of it: How good is this tool really?

Jaap Hanekamp. Originally a chemist.

I work at the university in Utrecht.
University College Roosevelt.

Former member of the Advisory Committee
on Measuring and Calculating Nitrogen.

Also known as the Hordijk Committee.

The cabinet had given us the task...

to analyse the scientific part
of the nitrogen policy.

One of the things I advocated
was to show that the nitrogen model...

the AERIUS tool, or so-called OPS,
deserved critique on the licensing part.

The idea that such a tool can calculate
how much a farm contributes...

to the nitrogen deposition
in a nearby natural area.

The Committee has decided that the tool
was unsound and not accurate.

It doesn't work that way. You're asking
too much of science. Impossible.

You'd expect that when the ministry
establishes an Advisory Committee...

validation studies are put on the table.

That's scientific morals.
We should be open and transparent.

That didn't happen, so we didn't know
those validation studies existed.

They have been revealed according to
the WOO, the 'Open Government Act'.

They were put on the table
more or less involuntarily.

And that slightly changed the story.

Colleague Brix, an expert in this field,
carried out an in-depth research.

And then we found that the tool
was even more useless than we thought.

You can't do anything with it.

Let me be very blunt. When you put
a primate or a monkey behind a keyboard...

it will be more accurate
in predicting numbers than the tool.

This model is completely useless. It can't
predict concentrations in the atmosphere.

Or how much nitrogen will come down
eventually. OPS can't predict it.

Not even...
We're not even sure what it does exactly.

It is so vast that we don't even know how
unsure we can be of the tool's results.

We therefore said the tool needs to go.

The sad thing about it is that we've known
for a long time OPS is worthless.

It's not recent knowledge.
We already knew this fifteen years ago.

Those studies had not been hidden
for no reason.

Not even when the Measurements and
Calculations Committee was online.

Because the RIVM wasn't exactly proud
of what these validation studies said.

Standards have been set,
and a tool was built.

So we link those two together
into this law.

But we don't know
if it has anything to do with reality.

In this case to the detriment
of the lives of farmers.

Right now we're in this very weird impasse
where everybody looks the other way.

'Just keep calm and carry on.'

In other words:
It doesn't matter what you do.

This is the epitome of science denial.
Denying scientific knowledge.

Look away and muddle along.

It makes you wonder
what's really going on.

Is this about nitrogen? The answer
should be: No, it's not about nitrogen.

This is about something else.

Perhaps parliament
should start arguing about that.

So what are we talking about?
Is it nitrogen or...

is this some cheap power struggle?
Loss of face? You name it.

It's not about nitrogen,
and definitely not about science.

So at the moment we're in denial,
apparently. For whatever reason.

What I see happening right now is that the
nitrogen issue has become so political...

and so urgent that it's almost impossible
to have a normal conversation.

Especially between farmers
and the government.

And let's be honest, the government
has made such grave mistakes.

Take for example the AERIUS calculations.

A large part of those
seem to be incorrect.

Entrepreneurs have been incredibly
worried, fearing for their companies.

The message based on those models was:
This is where your business ends.

But after recalibration of the tool
this doesn't seem to be the case.

Well, that doesn't build trust.

Even when the government says
that 'together we will pull through...

but you, you, and you have to go.'
That's no basis for a good conversation.

It's a joy to be a farmer...

but not necessarily
in the Netherlands with this government.

With increasingly difficult rules
and an inconsistent government...

There's no fun in that.
There's no security.

Most famers are running on loans
that are up in the millions of euros.

They invest in low-emission floors,
and all of a sudden...

the investments no longer apply.

Suddenly you can write off
hundreds of thousands of euros paid.

Dutch farmers have no security.

My family, the Schuiling family,
has been farming for hundreds of years.

I don't even know which generation I am.
At least seventh or eighth.

And I think it was the same before that.

I think the last generation of happy farmers
was my granddad's generation.

The fact is that you're being criminalised
as a farmer by this government...

even though you contribute to food
production for your country and the world.

It's actually one of the most
important professions...

yet it's not appreciated.
And that's not right.

Moreover, I don't understand
the environmental side to how this works.

Dutch farmers produce their products
in a very animal and nature-friendly way.

Plus we're incredibly efficient.
We're the best in the world.

If we quit, another country
will take over.

And they won't work as efficiently
and animal-friendly.

Dutch farmers have the lowest
environmental impact in the world...

but they are not rewarded for it.

I used to have land in Schipborg, and
whenever I came up with my crop sprayer...

I first checked the crops
to see how they were doing.

And then the citizens tell you
it's not right to spray so often.

I explained to them
that I pop by 20 times a year...

but that my granddad did so
10 times a year.

He used to drop ten times
2 kilos per hectare...

so that's 20 kilos of spray in total.

I come twenty times with 200 grams.

That's 4 kilos in total.

'So it's better if you come more often?'
I say: 'Now you understand.'

So you explain it to them.

And the next time you see them
they wave at you.

In hindsight us farmers should have,
and it's not too late...

We should explain to citizens and
The Hague what we're doing and why.

I think LTO missed an opportunity there.
They should have done better.

Horses don't have to produce anything.
Cows eat grass.

And where do we grow grass in the
Netherlands? That's another puzzle.

That's when they say: 'Why won't that
farmer grow other crops on his land?'

No, he would have done so if he could.

Grasslands only grow on land
with a low soil density.

You can put a potato in it,
but you won't get it out.

There's nothing you can do
with this land than grow grass on it.

Grass is essentially a worthless product,
because we can't eat it.

But cows can turn this grass
into meat and dairy products.

So it has no value, and you can't do
anything else with this land...

but if grass grows there, it captures
lots of CO2 which makes us very happy.

So relatively worthless land
can produce a high-quality product.

But nowadays that's a no-no, apparently.

Bureaucrats in The Hague and Brussels
have come up with a picture...

of what the countryside
should look like...

how people in rural areas should live,
and how farmers should farm.

But they don't know how it actually works.

It's a skewed situation.

If this policy is implemented, I hope
it won't happen and farmers protest...

but if this policy is implemented, we won't
have any farmers left in 10 to 20 years.

And in 30 years there's a public poll
about why the Netherlands has no farmers.

Why do we depend on other countries
for food? That's where we're headed.

And it gets even worse.

Because the Habitats Directive
from 1992 was only a guideline.

Member states were allowed
to choose how to organise it.

The same goes for all member states,
but the Netherlands is very rigorous.

Our values or standards
are far more strict...

than for example Germany's
or Belgium's.

Now the EU Nature Restoration Law
is coming into force.

And this law is not a guideline,
but a regulation.

That means Brussels
will decide how it's done.

So it's no longer voluntary, and that
means we can't do a thing with it.

Because you now have this
Habitats Directive, which is about...

the Natura 2000 areas.

Those have been appointed,
and nature may not degrade there.

Now the upcoming
Restoration Law means...

that nature in all of the Netherlands
may not degrade.

Plus that areas are appointed, especially
in ecosystems along the water...

where habitats need to grow,
which means in terms of biodiversity.

That means no new buildings are
forthcoming in the Netherlands.

If that law is passed we're finished.

Then the Netherlands will lockdown.
I call it the Netherlands Lockdown Law.

Come on, you guys.

Come. Come here, guys.

Come on, come along.

Current legislation appears to negate what
society wanted these past 30 years.

We wanted extensification and animal
welfare, and both have been picked up.

We put the two together.

We fitted circular thinking
into our companies, in cultivation.

And now it seems, because
we happen to be in the wrong place...

working together with nature...

with stables in one location for animals
in the middle of a Natura 2000 area...

and this spot
on the borders of Natura 2000.

So when you happen to be an entrepreneur
who works with nature...

you're now judged on a nitrogen tool...

where, come April, you probably hear that
'We're sorry, but you're not wanted, sir.'

And to me that's a very bitter
pill to take, of course.

Should someone who manages
and takes care of nature...

now be punished for doing that?

The line of trees across this field
is the German border.

I think there's a huge fence around
the Netherlands, like a glass wall.

We can see through it, but no wind
or nitrogen is blowing this or that way.

Anyone standing on two feet can
understand that it's nearly impossible...

that in this area where we are now...

a farmer on the German side,
at 100 metres, can do almost anything.

But farmers in the Netherlands 2 to 3 km
away is held accountable for nature here.

That's just mind-boggling.

Shouldn't Europe look at something
together as a group?

We're a democracy...

and people in the Netherlands
should be able to choose their own future.

The majority decides
what we're going to do.

But now the committee
makes most decisions.

The law is passed,
and citizens are being side-lined.

That's not how it should be.
This needs to change.

That's why I've said that the new
EU Nature Restoration Law...

has to be approved at least every
five years by the European Parliament.

That way it won't automatically
remain in force forever.

And I would like to appeal to the people
who aren't interested in EU elections...

and ask them to vote anyway, because...

between 60 and 80 percent of legislation
in our country is decided here.

So go to that ballot box, next year
in 2024, and cast your vote.

Our strength is that
the horses go outside every day.

And we have a lot of land per horse.

Here we have two horse paddocks.

That's a 20 by 60 paddock,
and this is a 42 by 80 one.

Here the customers
can ride dressage figures.

In here are our own horses.

It's the storage for straw and machines.

I used to be a cropper, but I sold
as much land as I had funds.

At the time we already
had horses for customers.

They pay for garage,
and I've expanded that part.

Us farmers have to specify
everything we do.

What crops we're going to sow or plant.

We have to record everything
involving manure.

My dad was an educated farmer as well,
so he managed alright.

But he got stressed trying
to pull everything together...

because one mistake meant
you could start again.

Plus you'd run the risk
of getting huge fines.

That's what I remember from the nineties.

Customers can go into the woods
back there, riding around...

In the nineties things got harder as well.

So my dad used to have a lot of stress.

But there comes a time when a straw
breaks the camel's back, and that's it.

That might trigger something.

And unfortunately
there are farmers who give up.

It happened on a Friday.
I called home that day...

because I knew he wasn't doing well.

But someone else picked up the phone
who told me my dad had passed away.

My first question was:
'Has he had a heart attack?'

Thankfully they immediately told me
what had happened.

So I rode my bike through town
yelling and cursing all the way...

and I went straight home.

It was horrific. Somehow it pulls
the rug from under your feet.

I miss my dad every day.

I wish I could discuss things with him...

and work together with him.

I'm a farmer now, but my dad
didn't want me to become a farmer.

He wanted me to have a better future
and told me I shouldn't be a farmer.

A few days after my dad had passed away
I was out of tears.

And I've never been able to cry since.
That's all gone now.

Grief is a tough process,
so I reached out for help at one point.

But even then
it was still very hard for me.

I simply shut down
even though I was open to it.

All I did was work like a dog
and keep going.

Sometimes I think to myself...
You hear stories about people who...

who decide to end it all.

I might as well find him somewhere...

You know?

And you don't want that.

Sometimes when I'm waiting,
when supper is ready...

and then you wait for him.

Then he'll tell me: Let me pop out
for a sec, just to check something.

But then I think:
Wait, I have supper ready.

So you wait a bit longer,
and a bit longer...

until at one point you say to yourself:
I'll just check on him.

To see if something bad
has happened, or whatever.

But you know? That's...

This is the truck my dad and granddad
bought in general partnerships time.

So I will never let it go.

The consequences are simple.
It's a destruction of part of society.

That will not be replaced. It breaks
down, and nothing will grow back.

Food prices have been a longstanding
problem, and they keep rising.

The Netherlands is not the only producer
of food, but a very efficient and good one.

In other words,
we transfer nitrogen emissions...

that basically form
a natural part of agriculture.

Doesn't matter where,
you will always lose nitrogen.

Not by design, though it's annoying,
but it can't be avoided completely.

And the Netherlands is quite good
at avoiding nitrogen emissions.

So you move the food away.

But then you need logistics
to get it over here again.

So prices won't get any lower.
In fact, they will rise even more.

Plus we're demolishing our landscape,
for what will be the alternative?

Larger and better natural parks? Nonsense.

It will probably be housing,
or windmill parks instead...

so it's not getting any better.

Instead what we're doing is ruining
our agricultural qualities permanently.

I'm sure that's what's going to happen.

Not all of it,
but part of it will disappear.

And with it much auxiliary
agricultural industry will be lost...

which agriculture needs to exist.

Apparently it's a select group's
conscious choice.

It has nothing to do with democracy,
it's just another exciting story.

'If we don't act now,'
I never know who 'we' is...

'...something will go very wrong.'

We've heard this story
too many times before.

It's the typical European, utopian chatter
because it can only be replaced...

by misery, problems, poverty, et cetera.

I once called the nitrogen policy
a ball pit for politicians.

You can spend a lot of money...

but nobody can measure, calculate
or see what you get out of it.

It's simply a spending spree.
For nothing.

Ideally you'd carry out
a cost-effectiveness analysis...

because I want something for my money.

But it begs the question:
How much should it cost?

Can it be 25 billion euros?
That doesn't seem right.

The return on investment
on a pure nitrogen policy is nil.

Or even negative, because
we're chasing thousands of farmers away.

In other words, we get nothing in return.
Especially not nature.

At least not the visible, tangible kind
that improves before our eyes.

It's just a baseless assumption.

Bureaucrats in The Hague and Brussels
have come up with a picture...

of what the countryside
should look like...

how people in rural areas should live,
and how farmers should farm.

But they don't know how it actually works.

It's a skewed situation.

It's ridiculous, but someone
behind a desk came up with this.

This person has thought up a standard
that's completely unrealistic.

Take for example my business
with our horses.

The government decides a standard for a
horse's nitrogen and phosphate emissions.

But what goes into the horse
comes out again.

Horses are fed dry and lean hay that
hardly contains nitrogen or phosphates.

And a tiny amount of pellets with insig-
nificant nitrogen and phosphate levels.

But on paper
they emit lots of nitrogen and phosphates.

And that determines
the size of the plot of land you need...

whether you have to remove manure,
which is expensive.

And it determines the number of animals
you can keep. But it doesn't add up.

I'm not afraid to say out loud that the
standard should be 75 percent lower...

in case of horses at least, if not less.

But on paper they emit
loads of nitrogen and phosphates.

That is not true. It's incorrect.
Impossible.

The 1992 Habitats Directive
is out of my hands.

But I'm working on the EU Nature
Restoration Law, trying to stop it.

I placed 32 amendments here in Brussels.

In first place to reject
the EU Nature Restoration Law.

In case that doesn't succeed
I placed more amendments...

that every five years
this law should be approved by parliament.

So unlike the Habitats Directive we're
not stuck in an uncontrollable situation.

I think the EU Nature Restoration Law
should come back every five years...

and people should be able
to vote in favour or against it.

That way we won't be stuck with a law
we're having serious problems with.

I think farmers are by far the most
important countryside managers.

So you need them
to talk about this countryside.

They manage and maintain the area, so...

you can't do without them.
Absolutely not.

Moreover, you can't do without
the products they produce.

If we move towards circular agriculture...

we also move towards a different
economic model for agriculture.

That means farmers will start to sell
their produce more locally again.

And that means the regions
will again start to appreciate...

the products agriculture delivers.
And that's a model I believe in.

When it comes down
to nature conservation policy...

the Netherlands, together with Flanders,
has uniquely chosen for nitrogen-only.

That's complete bollocks.

And we have decided, ex cathedra,
that everything is nitrogen.

So nature policy is nitrogen policy,
and vice versa.

It's complete and utter nonsense.
We know it's nonsense, but...

Let me put it this way:
It's easy to calculate.

There's a thermostat called OPS.

You have a number of standards
called critical load values, and those...

are matched, and that's when people say
nature is recovering as nitrogen drops.

The way this policy is presented...

has nothing to do with reality.

However it doesn't mean, for the record...

it doesn't mean
that nitrogen has no effect on nature.

Farmers could ask the Minister
the question of: When are you...

When will you be satisfied?
What is the final goal?

But there is no answer to that question.
And politicians love this.

Mrs Van der Wal can tell you this: 'As
long as we spend those 25 billion euros...

and we buy out the farmers, thus having
reduced the nitrogen emissions...

I will have achieved my final goal.'

But Mrs Van der Wal,
what is it you've achieved exactly?

How can I see proof of that in nature?

You say the current situation is very bad.
According to you nature isn't doing well.

But once we have spent
the 25 billion euros...

what do you think we will have achieved
by then? What is the ultimate goal?

In my eyes, and I witness this
with climate and also with nitrogen...

politicians love it to have a final goal
that can't actually be measured.

But at that point they can say:
'I've pulled up my sleeves...

and have even thrown
25 billion euros at it...

in order to tackle
this terrible nitrogen problem.'

The government in all its financing
institutions gives direction...

in deciding who can get funding
and who doesn't.

It's not a question of names
that decides who gets what. It's about...

research directions
that are being pushed...

and holding back
research directions they don't want.

That way you can steer scientific
research in a particular direction.

Before you've spent one penny
you can decide...

which direction you want to promote,
like nitrogen research, for instance.

'And we don't want to find this in
scientific research, so they get nothing.'

Firstly you should note that our country
like many other European countries...

suffer greatly, so to speak...

under the utopian monster. This idea
that you can construct society...

top-down, at the pleasure of the ones
who are in power at that moment in time.

That's called utopian dialectic.
It's very simple.

First you present a problem:
Nature is going down.

That's the dystopia: drama and misery.
The dying forests from the 1970s.

'But we have a solution.
We have to get rid of the farmers.'

It's a classic dichotomy
that we have known for ages in Europe.

You present a disaster: 'If we don't
act now something will go very wrong.'

And the intervention is always
compelling, all-encompassing...

profound and thorough,
et cetera, et cetera.

That's the utopianism which we've been
suffering for ages as a society.

But we still keep going,
pushing this ideal forward.

We know the consequences all too well.
It's essentially destruction of society.

You demolish it by saying: 'This society
is wrong, we need to reconstruct it.'

But that's not how people work at all.

And thank goodness. People are social
beings who want to interact with others.

Nobody can tell you what you're doing is
wrong and you need to try something else.

But that's what we do,
like with the farmers.

Then they start throwing
important scientific studies around...

saying: 'If we do it like this
the Dutch agriculture will be amazing.'

But that agriculture only exists in your
head or your computer, but not in reality.

How do you know it's better?

Then they pull out a circus of studies,
but that agriculture still doesn't exist.

The agriculture we have now is the one
we have, and it's pretty good.

This is used often. It's system thinking
versus relationships among people.

We simply love systems, but at
the same time they can crush people.

AERIUS is causing
the nitrogen problem here.

The system needs to be maintained,
meaning AERIUS, because...

that's more important than the people
it crushes. That's what we're doing here.

And apparently
our parliament couldn't care less.

I've learned to think differently,
from different angles.

And that has taught me to fight back.

To fight back by showing
that there are alternatives.

By doing it differently,
and by explaining what you're doing.

Explain and show what you're doing.

That way of fighting, of going against
the grain always gives me energy.

When someone says
it's impossible, I tend to think...

I grew up with the saying:
Can't lies in a grave...

and Won't lies next to it.

We're going to try and change this...

and explain to people
how this society is doing.

To tell people how we're treating
our environment.

We can keep developing.
We can innovate. We can move forward.

Just like me and my business
switched from intensive...

to extensive farming and animal welfare.
It's possible.

But we need to talk about feasible times
and conversion periods.

The Minister wants to close down
3,000 farms and 30% less cattle.

About 10 % of arable land...

must be made available for nature,
housing, and recreation.

Downsizing farmers
has major consequences.

Food prices will rise considerably, and
after calamities food shortages loom.

The Dutch parliament is becoming aware
that nitrogen put us on the wrong track.

In March Pieter Omtzigt
presented a motion.

He wants the AERIUS tool
to be tested on reliability.

Until recently adopting such a motion
was unthinkable.

But this time there was a majority.