The Return of Land Politics? Rethinking the Dutch Countryside (de Balie & Foodlog)

In Amsterdam’s renowned debate center De Balie, a packed audience recently gathered to explore a question that, though rarely asked directly, lies at the heart of many societal challenges in the Netherlands: Do we need to bring back land politics? This question framed the second evening in a trilogy of public discussions co-hosted by Foodlog and De Balie, aiming to uncover the deeper roots of the Dutch environmental and agricultural crisis.

Program director Kees Foekema set the tone by observing that many current issues—nitrogen emissions, biodiversity loss, water overload—are in fact symptoms of a more fundamental malaise: the disappearance of spatial planning, and the corrosive effects of runaway land prices. His central question—whether Dutch society is still capable of governing its territory—lingered over the entire discussion. Without structure, he warned, we risk descending into a disorganized and unjust landscape, where capital and influence determine what gets built, grown, or conserved.

One of the evening’s most striking insights came from ecologist Wouter van der Weijden, who presented a historical graph showing the evolution of key agricultural prices since 1955. Over time, the real prices of milk, fertilizers, and animal feed have steadily declined, while the cost of labor has increased modestly. But it was the price of land that truly stood out—skyrocketing by a factor of six. This steep inflation has pushed farmers into a corner: in order to remain competitive, they have had to scale up, cut labor costs through mechanization, and intensify production using synthetic fertilizers and concentrates. The environmental consequences—nitrate pollution, ammonia emissions, and a dramatic loss of biodiversity—are not anomalies but direct outcomes of this economic pressure.

Van der Weijden posed several difficult but necessary questions. Can we still imagine a return to small-scale, extensive farming? Are young farmers still able to buy land and build a future when prices exceed €200,000 per hectare in some regions like Flevoland? Does land-based agriculture have a viable future in the Netherlands, or will it slowly be pushed aside by market forces?

Expanding the scope of the conversation, agricultural economist Krijn Poppe, co-author of “Why Farmers Are Angry,”pointed out that the demand for land no longer comes just from farmers. Sectors such as renewable energy, infrastructure, housing, and even national defense are all competing for scarce land. While not all of this external demand has an immediate price impact across the entire country, it creates ripple effects. Farmers who receive high buyouts in one region can outbid others in another, pushing prices upward and putting local farmers at a disadvantage.

Poppen also highlighted the role of tax policy in exacerbating the issue. Generous tax exemptions on land transactions and capital gains from farmland sales encourage speculation. The land market, in short, has become a playground for financial capital rather than a mechanism to allocate land for food, ecology, or community use.

This situation creates what Poppen described as a “tight prison” of high land prices. Extensive and nature-inclusive farming becomes economically unviable. Young farmers and innovative projects are priced out of the market. The knock-on effects reach beyond agriculture—into housing, infrastructure, and public finance. The big question, she argued, is whether it is time to intervene and regulate land prices.

What could such intervention look like? A number of tools were discussed. Poppen mentioned tax reform, alongside mechanisms that redirect profits from, for instance, wind energy projects into sustainable land use rather than further intensification. She also referenced France’s SAFER system, in which a public land agency has the right of first refusal on land sales, enabling farmland to be made available to young and ecological farmers.

Former agriculture minister Cees Veerman brought a historical perspective to the debate, recalling how the Dutch government once had an active land policy. In 1977, the Dutch cabinet fell over a fundamental disagreement on how land should be valued during expropriation: market value or use value. Since then, he noted, several proposals to regulate the land market have failed. By the early 2010s, the prevailing political mood assumed that the Netherlands was “finished” in terms of planning, and that the market could handle the rest. The result was chaos—and a dramatic inflation of land prices.

Veerman has long argued for a national agricultural main structure, similar to the existing ecological main structure, where fertile soils are prioritized and protected for agriculture. Other areas, by contrast, could be zoned for alternative uses, with some form of compensation for affected farmers. This kind of spatial planning would offer clarity and stability, but would require political courage and social consensus.

Yet the path forward is anything but easy. Alex Datema, Director of Food & Agri at Rabobank and former chair of BoerenNatuur, acknowledged how emotionally and financially charged the topic of land ownership is. Many farmers calculate their retirement and inheritance plans based on today’s land values. Any restriction, however reasonable in public terms, may be experienced as a violation of personal rights. Datema also noted that the legal tools once available for structured land use—such as land consolidation laws—have been watered down or made voluntary.

Still, not all hope lies with national politics. A growing movement of civic and cooperative land initiatives is emerging. Daniëlle de Nie, founder of Aardpeer, presented a new model in which citizens invest in farmland through bonds, aiming not for high financial returns but for ecological benefits: living soils, clean water, and biodiversity. These initiatives demonstrate a rising social desire for systemic change.

De Nie also warned about a new form of land-use displacement: released farmland is increasingly bought up for high-yield crops or intensive use, crowding out extensive and ecological farming. The SAFER system, she argued, provides a blueprint for how public-private cooperation could keep land accessible to those who serve the common good.

From a youth perspective, Merel Straathof, from the Dutch Agricultural Youth Association (NJK), proposed a zoning model that distinguishes between three types of land: areas around vulnerable nature reserves for nature-inclusive farming; regular farmland under existing regulation; and a protected “agricultural main structure” where productive agriculture receives priority and is shielded from unnecessary spatial encroachment.

Throughout the evening, one essential question resurfaced again and again: Do we still want farmers in the Netherlands?And if yes, what kind of farming, and in what kind of landscape? The current policy climate, marked by uncertainty and conflicting signals, is failing to provide direction—especially for young farmers.

If Dutch society wishes to retain a vibrant agricultural sector, it must make deliberate choices. These include setting clear spatial frameworks, reforming the land market, and creating financial instruments that support sustainable land stewardship. Whether the future holds large-scale sustainable farming, smaller-scale nature-oriented agriculture, or a blend of both, one thing is clear: not all farmers can continue as before.

The evening closed with a call to action. While the parliamentary system may hesitate or delay, there is a growing momentum in civil society. Grassroots initiatives show that people are ready for a new conversation about land—one that prioritizes long-term values over short-term profit. The challenge now is to channel this energy, answer the fundamental questions, and build a more just and resilient future for both farmers and the landscape they shape.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit deheij.substack.com/subscribe