The
Netherlands pioneered the development of integrated farming systems (IFS),
Dutch specialists having compared conventional, integrated, and organic
farming systems for field crops (potatoes, sugar beets, wheat) on experimental
farms since 1979 (see PN 25 p9, September 1994). Experience thus gained
helped lay the groundwork for the government's 1990 Agricultural Structure
Memorandum, which mandated national conversion to sustainable agriculture. Now
Dutch IFS research has expanded to apples and field vegetables.
The new agricultural policy gives high priority to
environmental protection, particularly the reduction of pesticide and nitrogen
emissions into ground and surface water. Accordingly, the 1991 national
Multi-year Crop Protection Plan (MYCPP) mandated reduced dependence on
pesticides, a 50% decrease in total agricultural pesticide use (kg of active
ingredient), and the elimination of almost all pesticide emissions to the
environment by the year 2000. IFS technology—including: multi-functional
crop rotations (for pest and nutrient management); pest-resistant crop
cultivars supported by seed treatments; pest forecasting, field monitoring,
and reduced dosages to eliminate unnecessary pesticide use; mechanical weed
control supplemented by row application of herbicides; reduced N input and
balancing PK input/output; and the exclusion of persistent and mobile
pesticides—is contributing toward achieving these goals.
In particular, crop rotation and the deployment of Phytophthora
blight- and nematode-tolerant potato cultivars according to nematode
population and pathotype monitoring can eliminate the need for Dutch field
crop farmers to apply soil sterilants(1). MYCPP regulations restricting soil
sterilant application to once every four years on any given plot of land (once
every five years after the year 2000) have encouraged these alternative
practices. Together with other measures, such as hydroponic production and the
replacement of fumigation of growth substrate by steam sterilization in
greenhouses, they enabled a sharp reduction in soil sterilant use. As of 1994,
soil sterilant sales had dropped by 75%, compared to the average of annual
sales figures during the MYCPP's 1984-1988 baseline period. Since soil
sterilants accounted for half of the national pesticide market during
1984-1988, this has helped keep The Netherlands on schedule for a 50%
pesticide use reduction by the year 2000. The MYCPP's interim target of 30-35%
use reduction by 1995 appears to have been met(2).
Growers, tradespeople, and agro-industry are all
represented on crop-specific Advisory Committees that recommend strategy to
the National Council for Agricultural Research, which coordinates all
agricultural research in the Netherlands(3). However, of these stakeholders
only growers work with the Ministry of Agriculture in IFS development at farm
level. Under a 1990-93 Innovation Project, 38 volunteer field crop farmers,
with support from several research institutes and specially-trained extension
agents, adapted IFS to the diverse requirements of five distinct Dutch
production regions and evaluated integrated farming's agronomic,
environmental, and economic performance. In order to introduce IFS
simultaneously to the broader farming community, a network of 20 farmers study
groups (10-15 farmer members per group) were linked to the pilot farms and
intensive training courses were offered to extension agents, agriculture
teachers, and agribusinesses(4). From 1993, a three-year Arable Farming 2000
Project increased the number of pilot farms to 500.
IFS makes
economic sense
IFS economic results are similar to those of
conventional systems; on average, Innovation Project pilot farms generated
equal or slightly higher profits(5). Nevertheless, broader adoption of IFS has
been slow. Response to opportunities for study club participation and special
training offered under the Innovation Project was weaker than hoped,
especially before pilot farms had completed their successful demonstration of
IFS feasibility(6). Extension under the follow-on Arable Farming 2000 Project,
which involved greater participation of commercial advisors linked to input
suppliers, was more successful. A qualitative evaluation concluded that the
skills of individual farm advisors are the most important determinant of
extension results. Conversion to IFS has been found to require a radical
change in farming craftmanship(7).
Both technological and social factors appear to be
responsible for the lack of motivation shown by many extensionists and
farmers. Farmers may encounter practical difficulties in implementing IFS.
Mechanical weed control is hampered by wet ground, and raises the risk of wind
erosion and night frost in the northeastern part of the country where soils
are sandy(8). Similarly, Arable Farming 2000 participants cite problems with
crop rotations and land scarcity. Some cope by exchanging farm plots for a
growing season. Developing an economically optimal integrated farming system
for an individual farm usually involves experimentation over a span of several
years. Farm profitability can suffer during the transition.
The farming community's attitude toward IFS appears to have
become more favourable. Whereas the Innovation Project farmer volunteers who
pioneered IFS were often regarded as lunatics, participants in Arable Farming
2000 say that they have fewer social problems than technological ones(9).
However, environmental values are still not motivating farmers to change their
agricultural practices significantly; indeed, IFS is often negatively
associated with resented restrictions imposed on growers by the MYCPP and
other environmental protection programmes(10).
Financial
and legislative support
An important problem is that IFS makes greater
management demands on growers and extensionists, including farm planning and
record-keeping, without necessarily bringing significant financial reward
(unless IFS is a stepping stone to organic production and the better farm-gate
prices it commands). The stronger encouragement of more sustainable farming
practices through supportive regulations and financial incentives is
considered to be essential. Accordingly, special IFS extension programmes are
subsidized. For instance, Arable Farming 2000 participants each receive about
$700 worth of reference materials, farm visits by extension staff, and study
group meetings. This cost reduction has increased farmer participation and
learning. Recent research found that IFS study group members who also sell
produce under a special environmentally-friendly label through their commodity
auctions are highly motivated and achieve the greatest reductions in the use
of pesticides and other inputs(11).
Following
the 'green' market
This opportunity to sell produce through auction or
retail programmes giving preference to grains, fruit, vegetables, and flowers
produced in an environmentally friendly fashion is an important new incentive
for Dutch growers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices. The chief
reward is preservation of their share of the increasingly competitive and
green European market. Sometimes growers receive a higher price for their
produce as well, and the study, discussion and feedback help them farm more
efficiently. These programmes have been multiplying since about 1990, and are
distinct from the long-standing marketing of organic foodstuffs. Whereas
organic certification and labelling requires complete avoidance of synthetic
fertilisers and pesticides, the new programmes demand detailed record-keeping
and verification showing limited use of those inputs, as well as the adoption
of additional measures that reduce nutrient and pollutant emissions, energy
use, and solid waste generation.
Downstream retailers who sell these auction products may
publicise their green wares in order to stimulate sales. The auctions
themselves have generally not advertised these programmes to consumers because
much of the produce they sell still does not qualify. However, there are
other, retail-level initiatives aimed at consumers, including special labels.
Each of these marketing initiatives has its own set of production guidelines,
which vary in scope, in pesticide choice, and in the amount of pesticide use
allowed. Some of them already meet or exceed MYCPP pesticide use reduction
standards for the year 2000. Guidelines are objective-oriented in that they
detail limits (e.g., the maximum allowable kg pesticide active ingredient/ha
for a given crop), but do not dictate exactly what methods farmers must use to
comply, unless there is reason to (such as prohibiting the application of
certain hazardous compounds). This approach is farmer-friendly, leaving
growers free to choose methods according to their individual priorities and
farm conditions. Keeping an array of options open to farmers is important
because Dutch farming is already highly regulated—for example, the average
greenhouse horticultural producer must cope with about 60 separate national,
provincial, local, and organisational regulations—and farmers resistance to
further controls is rising.
Consumers may well be confused by the numerous
environmentally friendly marketing programmes, and vague about exactly what
they are buying when they make a given purchase. The fact that all the fruit
and vegetable production guidelines are a matter of public record, and that
each of the programmes has stated its intention to raise production standards
continually as technology allows, may help compensate for problems with
consumer awareness on the demand side. There are additional disincentives for
consumers: some specially-labelled products cost slightly more than unlabelled
ones, and are not available in most shoppers regular food store or
supermarket.
Welcome for
IFS labels
The government and a significant portion of
environmental and sustainable agriculture activists in the Netherlands welcome
the marketing of foodstuffs labelled to reflect IFS and other environmentally
beneficial practices, in addition to the sale of more expensive organic
foodstuffs. Their rationale is based on the expectation that the market share
of organic agriculture, and therefore its total benefit to the environment,
will remain relatively limited. Products bearing environmentally friendly
labels and sold at a smaller price premium should draw far more consumers and
producers, promoting the desired large-scale shift toward sustainable
agriculture and securing greater environmental benefits(12).