Swot Analyse Van de Biologische Landbouw Met Kansen Voor Stimulering - Nl.en

Translated from Dutch to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.
com
SWOT analysis of organic farming with

incentive opportunities
A QuickScan for Policy
Chris Koopmans, Ilse Geijzendorffer, Leen Janmaat, Burret

Schurer, Joost Sleiderink, Jan de Wit and Jan-Paul Wagenaar
© 2021 Louis Bolk Institute
SWOT Analysis of Organic Farming with Opportunities

for Stimulation - A QuickScan for Policy
CJ Koopmans, IR Geijzendorffer, L. Janmaat, BLM

Schurer, JWM Sleiderink, J. de Wit and JP Wagenaar
Publication number: 2021-030 LbP
71 pages
This publication is available at

www.louisbolk.nl/publicaties
www.louisbolk.nl
info@louisbolk.nl
T 0343 523 860 Study

Kosterijland 3-5
3981 AJ Bunnik
@LouisBolk
Louis Bolk Institute: Research and advice to promote

sustainable agriculture, food and health
Preface
The House of Representatives has asked the government for organic farming
prominent place in the National Strategic Plan (NSP) of the Joint
Agricultural policy (CAP) (motion by de Groot/Boswijk, 20 May 2021). The develop-
CAP-NSP members are now in a decisive phase, choices of interventions, the
targets and required budget are expected in the coming months. bases for this
the GLB-NSP program team focuses on SWOT analyses, among other things. The information in the field of
however, organic agriculture is not sufficient to make decisions about the use of inter-
to be able to take agreements and budgets and thus to fulfill the request
of the Chamber.
In response to a question from LNV to researchers at the Louis Bolk Institute, in

an analysis of indicators of the organic sector in the Netherlands and a very short time
analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the sector and its
subsectors performed. These SWOTs and recommendations are based on knowledge from the literature and
brought the industry together. In particular we would like to thank Laurens Nuijten, Pipi Smits van Oyen,
Sybrand Bouma, Klaartje van Wijk, Harrie Jansen, Jeroen Neimeijer, Dick de Koning and Jorrit
Jonkers for their contributions and input of valuable knowledge about the sector.
Preface 3
4 SWOT Analysis of Organic Farming with Opportunities for Stimulation - A QuickScan for Policy
Contents
Preface 3
1 Introduction 6
2 Figures and trends in the organic sector 8

2.1 Smart Resilient Agriculture 8
2.2 Environment, biodiversity and climate 14
2.3 Broad rural development 24
2.4 Organic farming in the Netherlands compared to the EU 27
3 SWOT analyzes of the organic subsectors 30

3.1 Organic arable farming and outdoor vegetables 30
3.2 Organic cattle farming 34
3.3 Organic poultry and pig farming 39
3.4 Organic greenhouse horticulture 43
4 SWOT of the organic sector as a whole 47
5 Opportunities to stimulate the organic sector 53

5.1 Opportunities from the CAP NSP 53
5.2 General Odds 57
References 64
Attachment 1 Number of hectares of certified organic arable land per province

in 2020 69
Appendix 2 Number of hectares of certified organic horticultural land per

province in 2020 69
attachment 3 Number of hectares of certified organic grassland and

forage land per province in 2020 70
Appendix 4 Number of hectares of certified organic greenhouse horticulture land per

province in 2020 70
Annex 5 Outline of the new CAP 71
Contents 5
1 Introduction
The European Commission has also recently indicated in recommendations to the Netherlands
specific attention to the organic sector. At the moment there is in the Netherlands
no specific support for organic farming, while it is currently organic
production area at 4% (2020) is not large and lags behind European developments.
(EU average 8.5% of the area is organic in 2019). Most countries allow in the
have also seen considerable growth in recent years and explicitly support the organic sector with
the cap. This is in contrast to the situation in the Netherlands.
The aim of the European Commission is 25% organic area in the EU in 2030 (but not
per se at Member State level). Partly for this reason, the government recently indicated a national
establish a strategy for organic production and consumption. Part of

the national strategy is that an ambition level will be set for organic for the Netherlands
certain. These developments ensure that the
positioning and opportunities for organic farming within the NSP context and in
support in a general sense.
This in-depth study outlines what organic farming can contribute to

the sustainability goals of the CAP. The goals set within the CAP NSP
are distinguished as follows (nsp-toekomstglb.nl):
Smart resilient agriculture
A. A viable agricultural income and food security
B. Competitiveness
C. Position in the value chain
Environment, biodiversity and climate
D. Climate change and renewable energy

E. Efficient management of natural resources such as water, soil and air
F. Protection of Biodiversity
Broad rural development
G. Young farmers
H. Development in rural areas
I. Societal expectations regarding food and health, including what
concerns safe, nutritious and sustainable food, food waste and animal welfare.
In this study it has been decided to first discuss a number of facts about the organic sector
in line with the objectives of the CAP (Chapter 2). Because the
available indicators in many cases do not match the prescribed one on one
context indicators of the European Commission has been chosen available knowledge
especially to group them according to the goals as they can be within the CAP-NSP
to separate.
Chapter 3 focuses on the subsectors within organic agriculture. Here is

grouped according to arable farming and field vegetables, cattle farming, poultry and
pig farming and greenhouse horticulture. SWOTs have been prepared from the following
sub-questions:
a) To what extent can organic farming make a positive contribution (strength).

to the different CAP goals? (A to I)
b) What are the obstacles/shortcomings (weakness) to making this contribution and
how can the CAP-NSP help in this?
c) Where are there opportunities/external factors for growth of the organic sector? What are the
opportunities in certain areas of the sector?

d) What are the threats/obstacles for organic farming to achieve
a growth of the area?
Chapter 4 focuses on a SWOT for the organic sector as a whole. This has been looked at
into the background of organic farming in the Netherlands, its strengths and weaknesses,
the opportunities and threats to the growth of the sector and from the subsectors.
Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the opportunities for further stimulation of the

organic farming in the Netherlands. These opportunities are in line with the present SWOT'S
(chapters 3 and 4) but are, due to the complexity of the SWOTs and the availability
policy instruments, no exact translation of this.
With this quick scan, an image is sketched of the possibilities for the
stimulate the organic sector based on where the sector is now (SWOTs), and
taking into account the policy objectives of the CAP-NSP. That can then be done
contributed to the target of 25% organic area within the EU in 2030.
'Organic' is used in this study as a term for a method of preparing food

produce. The international (IFOAM) values 'health, ecology, fairness and care' form
the base (ifoam.bio; organicseurope.bio). This is how the organic sector aims to
contribute to the care of the environment, the climate, biodiversity, animals and people.
Introduction 7
2 Figures and trends in the organic sector
This chapter provides an overview of a number of facts surrounding the

organic sector. A classification is followed that is in line with the objectives of the
cap NSP. The facts form input for the SWOTs in the following chapters and will be
not analyzed in detail here. Comparisons with regular agriculture are in
some cases are included for the reader's convenience and are not intended to make a value judgement.
2.1 Smart Resilient Agriculture
a. A viable agricultural income and food security
The Dutch organic sector remains limited for the time being (about 4% of the cultivated land in
2020; CBS, 2021). For years, however, there has been growth in the number of companies and the area in the
most sectors. The graphs below show the development of the sector to
number of farms and by area. The number of organic-certified
companies grew to 1937 in 2020 (Figure 1). This was an area of 67124 ha
involved (Figure 2). The number of hectares in conversion fluctuates between the years, with
4668 ha in 2020 (Figure 3).
In absolute hectares, the vast majority of organic farmland consists of
grassland and forage crops, followed by arable land (Figure 4). In recent years
the arable and horticultural sector is growing faster than the livestock sector (CBS, 2021). Per
There are differences between provinces, for example Flevoland has the largest organic area (14%)
arable farming and horticultural hectares stand out (Appendix 1 and 2). Organic grassland and
fodder crops are mainly found in Friesland, followed by Flevoland (Appendix 3). It
acreage of greenhouse horticulture is limited at 158 ha and is spread over several provinces. The
growth of the organic agricultural area does not only come from new companies but
also of the existing companies that increase their acreage (Figures 1 and 2).
2,500
1,937
2,000 1,867
1,787
1,658 1,650 1,696
1,557
1,457 1,475
1,500
Number of
1,000
500
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
Figure 1. Number of organically certified farms in the Netherlands 2012-2020 (CBS, 2021).
80,000
70,000 67,124
63,200
59,214
60,000
52,910
48,631
50,000 45,857 45,970
Number of hectares
40,000 35,873
35,046
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
Figure 2. Number of hectares of certified organic agricultural land in the Netherlands (Eurostat, 2021; CBS,
2021).
7,000
6,299
6,000 5,719
4,868
5,000 4,595 4,668
Number of hectares
4,000
3,193 3,302 3,303

3,058
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
Figure 3. Number of hectares of organic farmland in the Netherlands in conversion 2012-2019 (Eurostat, 2021;
CBS, 2021).
Figures and trends of the organic sector 9

60,000
49,711
50,000
40,000
Number of hectares
30,000
20,000
14.191
10,000
3,064
158
0
Agriculture Horticulture open Greenhouse horticulture Grassland and
ground forage
Year
Figure 4. Number of hectares of organic farmland broken down by sector in 2020 (CBS, 2021).
In terms of income, organic dairy farms show a comparable income (actually

compensation of unpaid labor and capital) per year per unpaid year of work
than regular dairy farms (agrimatie.nl), with the exception of 2015 and 2016 when the
regular milk price was historically low (see Figure 5). Organic arable farms
have a higher income than regular arable farms (approximately 8,000 to
15,000€ per unpaid working year) but with 50% of the surface cultivated with
vegetables, they are also clearly different in terms of business structure (while the income of
regular open field vegetable farms is variable but only slightly lower). Information
of the other organic sectors does not appear to be available (agrimatie.nl).
Figure 5. Income from business per unpaid annual work unit (aje) in euros (source: agrimatie.nl).
b. Competitiveness
The competitiveness of organic has increased in the last decade. Products

are available in more places (especially supermarkets). The range is extensive though
eggs, fresh fruit and vegetables and dairy remain the most important product groups and the price difference between
regular and organic products decreases (van Galen et al., 2020). Most organic
products are bought in supermarkets (Table 1). Nevertheless, the share is organic in the
total food expenditure by consumers limited to more than 3%, ie 1608 million euros
2020 (Sustainable Food Monitor, 2020).
Table 1. Expenditure on organic food (source Sustainable Food Monitor, 2020)

A: Spending on organic food in the measured sales channels, divided over the products, in millions of euros.
Product group spending spending Development Market share Market share

(million euros) (million euros) spending (%), within within
2019 2020 2019-2020 product group product group
(%), 2019 (%), 2020
Potatoes, vegetables and 336 362 8 4 4
fruits
Bread, cereals, biscuits and pastries 152 149 -2 3 3
Eggs 91 90 -1 13 14
shelf-stable products, 240 259 8 2 3
composed meals and other
Coffee and tea 93 81 - 13 3 3

Fish 59 39 - 34 5 3
Meat and cold cuts 176 180 2 3 3
Dairy 254 264 4 4 4
Drinks 198 166 - 16 1 2
Power supply, unspecified 26 19 - 29 3 3
Total 1,624 1,608 -1 3 3
Source: data CBS, Wageningen Economic Research, Foodstep, Bionext; processing Wageningen Economic Research
B: Spending on organic food in the measured sales channels, divided over the type of sales channel, in millions of euros.
Sales channel spending spending Development Market share Market share

(million euros) (million euros) spending within within
2019 2020 (%), product group product group
2019-2020 (%), 2019 (%), 2020
Supermarkets 1020 1107 9% 3 3
Food service 277 145 - 48% 1 1
Specialty shops for sustainable 327 356 9% ~100 ~100
food
Total 1,624 1,608 -1 3 3
Source: data CBS/Wageningen Economic Research, Foodstep, Bionext; processing Wageningen Economic Research
C: Spending on organic food in the food service, divided over the sales channels, in millions of euros.
Sales channel in the food service 2019 2020 Development (%),
2019-2020
Catering (self and contract catering) 102 41 - 60
Convenience (cafeteria, lunchrooms) 39 25 - 34
Recreation (café, halls, beach, sports, recreation) 27 12 - 55
Points of sale 'on the go' (plane, train and car) 4 2 - 46
Restaurants and hotels 85 50 - 42
Healthcare institutions 21 15 - 30
Total 277 145 - 48
Source: Foodstep data; processing Wageningen Economic Research

Within spending on sustainable food, including storage, represents
Organic approx. 18% of expenditure. In 2020 there is a halving in turnover
organic products in the food service due to COVID-19. In the supermarkets are the
expenditure on organic increased (Table 1b). The increase is equal to the increase of the
total supermarket turnover in the corona year (+9%). As a total, the expenditures in the
measured channels, due to COVID-19, slightly decreased compared to 2019 (-€ 17
million, -1%; Table 1b) (Sustainable Food Monitor, 2020).
Consumers indicate that price difference is still the biggest obstacle to buying more
buy organic foodstuffs (Bionext, 2020).
Figure 6. Consumers (messengers) asked when they would buy organic food more often.
Source: Ruigrok 2020
c. Position in the value chain
The organic chain shows a varying picture of the number over the years
certified organic processors.
1,100
1,088
1,080
1,060
1,040 1,035
1,031
1,021
Number of
1,020
999
1,000 994 995 993
990
980
960
940
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
Figure 7. Number of certified organic processors in the Netherlands 2012-2020 (Eurostat, 2021).
The number of traders mainly shows a steadily growing trend.
Figure 8. Number of organically certified traders (ie wholesalers and retailers) in the Netherlands 2014-2020
(Eurostat, 2021).

Regulations and certification
Organic farming must meet specific requirements, which are laid down in an EU
regulation. An organic farm is certified as a guarantee of organic
production. In the Netherlands it is fleshed out in more detail by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. In
By order of the Ministry, SKAL certifies the companies and monitors enforcement
of the laws and regulations. In addition to SKAL, the NVWA is responsible for enforcement. below
others with the supervision of the wrongful use of the organic label.
On January 1, 2022, the new EU organic regulation No. 2018/848 in effect

(www.skal.nl/en/legislation). This Regulation replaces the current Regulations No.
834/2007 and No. 889/2008. This includes a number of changes. The EU regulation
848/2018 describes organic production as follows: 'comprehensive system to
manage farms and produce food according to a method
that promote best environmental and climate action practices, a high level of biodiversity, the
conservation of natural resources and the application of strict standards to it

field of animal welfare and production and is geared to the needs of one
increasing number of consumers to products that are made with natural ingredients
substances and processes'. From the legal description of organic production (EU organic
regulation no. 2018/848) clearly shows that it is in line with the EU goals in the context of
the sustainability of the Common Agricultural Policy.
For clarification, the Organic Regulation No. 2018/848 also targets specific
named, such as (i) contributing to climate protection; (ii) maintain it
of the long-term fertility of the soil; (iii) Contribute to a high
level of biodiversity; (iv) contribute significantly to a non-toxic environment; (v)
contribute to high standards of animal welfare and in particular to compliance with the
species-specific behavioral needs of animals; (vi) Contributing to a high level of
biodiversity, in particular by using diverse plant genetic materials,
such as biological heterogeneous materials and suitable for biological production
organic varieties.
2.2 Environment, biodiversity and climate
d. Climate change and sustainable energy
Energy
Energy consumption and environmental impact can be expressed per hectare, but also per
production unit.
In organic farming systems, the use of energy is usually relatively efficient,

both on an area and production basis, although the benefits are smaller and
are more variable when expressed on the basis of tonnes of production (Lee et al., 2015; Lotter,
2003; Lynch et al., 2011, 2012; Meier et al., 2015; Sanders and Hess, 2019; Smith et al., 2015;
Stolze et al., 2000; Tuomisto et al., 2012). Diesel consumption may be higher on organic
farms due to an increased dependence on mechanical tillage and/or
weed control, however, the reduced use of chemical fertilizers can
plant protection products (whose production requires large amounts of (fossil) energy
need) to compensate for this (Smith et al., 2015; Gomiero et al., 2011; Meier et al., 2015;
Tuomisto et al., 2012). When regular companies also use fewer chemicals
using or adopting no-turn/no-till methods they can increase the energy efficiency of
approach organic farms (Clement et al., 1995).
Arable farming and field vegetable cultivation
Sukkel et al. (2007, 2010) report that organic arable farming on clay in the Netherlands
an average of about 28 GJ ha-1energy consumed (indirect and direct energy consumption

combined) and that for organic vegetable cultivation this averages 32 GJ ha-1is for
regular this is 42-43 GJ ha respectively-1and 36-38 GJ ha-1, depending on the use of
fertilizer or animal manure). The difference between regular and organic can be made per ton of product
however, disappear or turn in favor of the regular sector. In a follow-up study

Bos et al. (2014) report that organic arable farming and vegetable growing represent 10-30% respectively
and consume 40-50% more energy than regular farm-level cultivation. When
crops were compared in pairs in the organic fields
vegetable cultivation requires 9% and 43% more energy respectively than for the cultivation of the same
washed in a regular manner. Differences in energy consumption are very crop dependent
which means that the design of the building plan has a major influence on the total
energy consumption and the differences between regular and organic (Sukkel et al. 2007, 2010).
Cattle farming
Organic livestock systems are often energy efficient due to a high proportion
grass-clover in the cropping plan and a low purchase of feed concentrates (Smith et al.,
2015). Energy consumption in Germany was according to Haas et al., (2001) for organic
dairy farms average 5.9 GJ ha−1 or 1.2 GJ t−1milk (19.1 GJ ha−1and 2.7 GJ t−1milk
average for regular livestock farms).
A Dutch study showed that the direct energy consumption of organic milk
(0.96 GJ t−1'fat & protein corrected milk' (FPCM)) is higher than regular milk (0.6 GJ t−1
FPCM), but that the indirect energy consumption of organic milk is lower (organic
2.17 GJkt−1FPCM and regular 4.4 GJ t−1FPCM; Thomassen et al, 2008). As a result, the total
energy consumption 5.0 GJ t-1FPCM for regular dairy farming and 3.1 GJ t-1FPCM
for organic dairy farming. Another Dutch study on energy consumption
per kg milk determined that the total energy consumption per ton of milk on organic
dairy farms was between 4.4 and 5.5 GJ and on regular farms between 5.9 and 7.6
(Bos et al., 2014). It is clear that differences in assumptions in calculations can lead
to differing results.

Pigs and poultry
Organic egg production requires 20GJ of energy per kilo of eggs. 50% of this is on
cultivation and processing of raw materials for compound feed and 30% of the transport thereof.
Regular free-range and Freiland laying systems have an energy consumption of 10 to 15%
is higher (Bos and Dekker, 2010). Organic pig farms use less energy per year
hectares than regular pig farms (although validity of studies is not always optimal
is), but this is not clear per kg of production (Sukkel et al., 2007, 2010).
Greenhouse gas emissions
Because no artificial fertilizers are used, the N2O emissions from biological
agricultural systems on average lower than in regular systems (Gattinger et al. 2012;
Tuomisto et al., 2012; Skinner et al., 2014, 2019). Sanders and Heß (2019) found a 24%
lower nitrous oxide emissions for organic agriculture than for regular agriculture. Scialabba
and Müller-Lindenlauf (2010) estimate that a switch from regular agriculture to
organic farming, by stopping the use of artificial fertilizers a reduction of
can generate 20% greenhouse gas emissions; 10% due to reduced energy consumption for
fertilizer production and 10% through reduced emissions of N2Oh because of
the use in the field. However, when emissions are corrected for the lower
yield typical of organic farming systems, it appears that the N2O
emissions are on average higher per yield unit compared to conventional agriculture
(Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). Oleson et al. (2006) found a positive association between N-
surplus and N2O emissions and refer to studies that have shown that the N excess
is lower on average on organic farms.
Bos et al. (2014) found an increase in yield per kg for arable farming and vegetable cultivation
greenhouse gas emissions of 0-15% and 35-40% respectively for organic cultivation compared
from regular. However, they found reduced emissions per hectare in a previous study
from both CO2as N2O for both arable farming on clay and vegetables on sand (Bos et al., 2007).
However, Chiranda et al. (2010) found no difference in N2O emissions between regular and
organic wheat cultivation.
Cattle farming
In organic (dairy) farming, a reduction in CO2and N2Oh emissions

compensated by a higher CH4emissions per unit of production due to a
lower yield in biological systems (Haas et al., 2001). However, Bos et al. (2006) found
no increase in CH4emissions per ton of milk. Stolze et al. (2000) found, due to a lack
of evidence, no differences in N2O and CH4emissions. For farms
South Germany, Haas et al. (2001) calculated that intensive, extensive and biological
grassland systems respectively 9.4, 7.0 and 6.3 t CO2eq. ha-1emit only 1.3, 1.0 and 1.3 t
CO2eq. l-1milk. The energy consumption per ton of milk was therefore the same for organic and milk
intensive regular businesses. Bos et al. (2006, 2014) did find a reduction in the Netherlands
of 5-10% in greenhouse gas emissions on organic dairy farms compared to regular per
tonnes of milk, but an average decrease of 40% per hectare. The warming potential
of organic milk compared to regular milk is 104% per ton of milk in the Netherlands, 95%
in Sweden, 100% in Germany and 91% in Denmark. This is per hectare in the mentioned
countries 102%, 42%, 67% and 68% respectively (Sukkel et al., 2007, 2010).
Pig and poultry farming
A Dutch study that included Germany, Denmark and England in addition to the Netherlands
the study, concludes that the greenhouse gas emissions for regular pork per kg
between 3.5-3.7 kg CO2eq. but with organic meat between 4.0 and 5.0 kg CO2eq. per
kg meat (Kool et al. 2009). This is due to a lower feed conversion ratio, due to a higher
degree of freedom of movement and slower growth.
Organic laying hens emit less greenhouse gases per kg of eggs than regular free-range
and Freiland chickens, but higher than battery cage chickens, but the differences are small (Bos and
Decker, 2010).
Climate mitigation
Several meta-analyses have shown that the organic (carbon) matter content
is higher on average in organic agricultural soils compared to regular soils,
although there are also studies that do not provide convincing evidence for higher carbohydrate
dust levels in organic soils (Gattinger et al., 2012; Gomiero et al., 2011; Mondelaers
et al., 2009; Tuomisto et al., 2012). Gattinger et al. (2012) calculated that biological
soils have an average of 0.18% higher organic carbon contents, 3.5 t C ha-1Lake
and 0.45 t C ha-1j-1more than non-organic soils. although
the mechanisms for this could not be fully elucidated from this study, were
there are indications that C inputs and crop rotations were an important factor. Lefeld and
Fuhrer (2010) observed an increase in organic matter of 2.2% per year after conversion
from regular to organic, which was mainly due to an increase in supply
of organic fertilizer. When this factor was equal, there were no differences in it
organic carbon levels in organic and regular soils. Mader et al. (2002),
found an increase in carbon sequestration of 590 kg C ha-1year-1in biological
systems compared to regular ones. However, Sukkel et al. (2009) show that the organic
dust content decreases in both organic and regular soils, but that this decrease
is slower in organic soils. In the Thünen Report 65 (Sanders and Heß, 2019).
mentioned that the carbon content is relatively 10% and the organic matter content is relatively 26%
is higher in soils where organic farming is practiced than in regular soils

agriculture and 256 kg C ha annually-1additional storage.

Pulleman et al. (2003) report a higher organo-

nical substance content for organic arable farming (24 g kg-1) versus regular arable farming (15 g
kg-1). Over a wider range of soil types, according to van Diepeningen et al. (2006)
no difference in organic carbon levels between organic and regular soils,
probably because 50% of the regular farmers also used organic manure
and there was no difference in the use of green manures between the two types of agriculture
in this study.
Cattle farming
In a 22-year study by Pimentel (2006) on only one experimental farm (from the
Rodale Institute), biological management led to a soil organic matter content of
5.2% while regular management led to an organic matter content of 3.5%.
Climate adaptation
According to various studies, organic farming is more resistant to

climate change and therefore has a higher degree of yield stability over time
of climate extremes (Gomiero et al., 2012; Sciaballa and Muller-Lindenlauf, 2010). By a
higher organic matter content in organic soil, yields can be better maintained
be kept in times of drought, which is important as an increase in
extreme drought years are expected (Lotter et al., 2003b). Diversity also contributes
yield stability in biological systems. Organic farming systems can
however, they are also more susceptible to disease and pest outbreaks resulting in yield stability
may be limited compared to regular systems (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017).
e. Efficient management of natural resources such as water, soil and air
Water
Nitrogen leaching per unit of land is lower for organic farming, but there is a high one
variation due to a difference in management practices and may be higher per unit output
(Mondelaers et al., 2009; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017; Tuomisto et al., 2012; Reganold and
Watchman, 2016). Schader et al. (2012) state in a review of several studies that
nitrate leaching can be reduced by 40-64% by organic farming. Lower loss
zen can occur due to a lower input of nitrogen and a higher capacity of
the soil to fix nitrogen, but higher losses can occur when the
nitrogen mineralization and crop uptake are out of sync in organic
systems. For comparisons between regular and organic in terms of phosphate
losses do not exist enough data (Mondelaers et al., 2009; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017;
Tuomisto et al., 2012).
Organic soils have a higher organic matter content and good soil
structure, a high capacity to absorb and retain water (Lotter et al.,
2003b; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017; Sanders and Hess, 2019). However, too little is known
about differences in water use between regular and biological systems (Stolze et al., 2000).
Sanders and Heß (2019) do report that the run-off of water is 26% (median) lower in the
biological agriculture. Water quality also shows differences. Nitrate leaching is
already discussed above, reducing nitrate leaching also leads to a lower
risk of eutrophication of water bodies. Because there are much less pesticides and
veterinary medicines are used in organic farming, none is created either
risk of leaching of these substances into ground and surface water (Reganold et al
Watcher, 2016; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017; Sanders and Hess, 2019).
Arable farming and vegetable growing
From a comparison of regular farms from the national measurement network, the effects of manure policy and
organic companies Business registrations of organic companies (BIOM) show that the
nitrate concentrations in drains are on average higher on regular practice farms than
organic farms on clay soil, but that the size of the difference can vary per
years (Sukkel et al., 2007, 2011). Sukkel et al. (2007) do not give any values for sandy soil. on
At the Vredepeel experimental farm on sandy soil, organic cultivation does lead to less nitrate
drainage water than integrated regular cultivation, so that the difference with the average
the regular field is probably larger (Sukkel et al., 2011). They also report it
average nitrogen surplus on organic arable farms is roughly between 1.5 and
3 times as low as on regular farms between 1996 and 2000.
Sukkel et al. (2011) report that phosphate leaching probably does not differ between organic and
regular arable farming because of a comparable phosphate stock and surplus in the
soil.
Cattle farming
Dutch and Danish research shows that the nitrate content on organic
cattle farms is on average about 25% lower than on regular cattle farms
(Sukkel et al., 2007, 2011). This is because the surplus of nitrogen per hectare in the
soil on organic farms is lower and organic cattle farms have a higher N-
efficiency maintained in the field reducing the risk of leaching
compared to regular cattle farms.
The eutrophication potential per hectare, based on nitrate and phosphate equivalents per
functional unit (FE), is on organic dairy farms compared to regular ones
counterparts in the Netherlands 48%, in Sweden 50%, in Germany 26% and in Denmark 40%.
Per tonne of milk this is 49% in the Netherlands, 113% in Sweden, 37% in Germany and 37% in Denmark.
56% (Sukkel et al., 2007, 2011).

Due to a higher P surplus, the leaching of phosphate can be higher on regular
dairy farms than on organic, but differences are small and there are not enough

leaching concentration data are available to draw conclusions (Sukkel et al.,
2011).
Water consumption was between 1996 and 2000 for organic farms compared to
regular companies in the Business Information Network LEI comparable for tap water but there
several times less surface and groundwater was used for irrigation in the
organic dairy farming.
Poultry and pigs
In organic pig and poultry farming where the animals have a range, there can be considerable
point load of water quality occur due to a concentration of fertilizers in it
these unpaved outlets (Sukkel et al., 2007, 2011).
Soil
Several studies report increases in soil fertility through organic management

(Mäder et al., 2002; Stockdale et al., 2002; Gomiero et al., 2012). Organic matter contains the
largest N reserve and large P and S reserves in a soil and is higher in organic
bottoms. The soil life (including mycorrhizas, worms, nematodes, insects) is also
more active in organic soils, so that these nutrients are bound in organic matter
better released. In addition, organic matter also contributes to a
good soil structure, which can also promote the acquisition of water and nutrients.
Because of this, organic soils have a higher inherent fertility compared to
regular soils that are more dependent on the supply of mineral nutrients from
fertilizer (Stockdale et al., 2002). In an extensive review, Lotter (2003) shows that various
lling studies show that organic soils have a higher microbial biomass,
potentially mineralizable N, porosity, aggregate stability and lower leachability
nitrate, P and K. In addition, organic farming contributes less
water and wind erosion due to a higher level of soil cover when organic
apply systems of catch crops where regular farmers do not and by a
larger share of dormant crops in organic arable farming (Auerswald et al., 2003; Lotter,
2003). An improvement of the soil structure through biological management is also possible
contribute to a reduction in soil erosion (Reganold et al., 1987; Siegrist et al., 1998).
The above studies do not differentiate on the basis of sector, so no sector

binding statements can be made.
Sky
Arable farming and field vegetables
Organic farms in this sector use comparable amounts of animal manure

compared to regular counterparts, but make much less use of it
fertilizer. This should theoretically lower ammonia emissions, but this one
according to Sukkel and al. (2007, 2011) the claim cannot be substantiated with data from
actual measurements.
Cattle farming
The same applies to cattle farming; a comparable supply of animal manure, but
about 200 kg ha-1extra supply of fertilizer N on regular cattle farms. On base
of an ammonia volatilization of 2.5%, the ammonia emission would therefore be 5 kg ha-1
come out higher for regular cattle farms compared to organic (Sukkel et
al., 2007, 2011). Plomp and Migchels (2021) found specifically on the larger biological ones
dairy farms that the ammonia emission from the barn was 22% lower than at larger ones
common companies. The average emissions from manure application and grazing on the
organic FADN farms was 14.6 kg NH3 ha-1, compared to an average of 31.3 on the conventional one
BIN companies (-53%).
The acidification potential, or the emission of acidifying substances expressed in SO2-

equivalents, is equal in the Netherlands between organic and regular dairy farms (100%
based on area, 99% based on milk production), in Sweden this potential has run out
organic farms only 40% per hectare compared to regular dairy farms
and 89% per tonne of milk, in Germany 79% and 116% respectively and in Denmark
62% and 90% respectively (Sukkel et al., 2007, 2011).
Pigs and poultry
For organic poultry, the ammonia emissions per chicken are comparable between free
free range or laying hen farms, that the part of the free range directly around the house can provide
for peak load, but that this is relatively small compared to the stable emissions
(Aarnink et al., 2005a). However, measurements are very limited (Sukkel et al., 2007). The same applies
for pig farms; the run-out can also make a significant contribution to this
ammonia emissions. However, these can be limited when the manure is in the outdoor area
regularly removed. Based on limited data, the ammonia emissions of
organic pigs are higher than the standard that has applied to regular pigs since 2010,
but good comparisons between organic and regular commercial farms are missing (Aarnink
et al., 2005b; Sukkel et al., 2007, 2011).
f. Protection of biodiversity
One of the most studied impacts of organic farming is on the

biodiversity. The benefits of organic farming on biodiversity are more apparent
arable farming than for livestock farming, but on average there is a 30% higher species diversity
achieved on organic farms and the abundance of organisms has increased on average
by 50% (Bengtsson et al., 2005). Sanders and Heß (2019) determined that on average 95%
more species were found on organic arable land. A range of studies late

see that for both flora (non-crop species) and fauna (from worms to butterflies and
birds) there are advantages to organic farming (Gomiero et al. 2011; Lotter, 2003). In
an extensive review by Bengtsson et al. (2005) shows that 53 of the 63 analyzed
studies have positive effects on species richness of organic farming
compared to non-organic farming. The effects did differ between taxa and between
landscapes. Birds, spiders, predatory insects, soil organisms and flora showed positive
effects under biological management, but non-predatory and pest insects are not. Also
the positive effects were most pronounced in plot- and field-scale studies, but
not on the scale of the whole farm when farms in a comparable
landscape matrix were matched. Some studies also show that
organic farms have a higher landscape diversity than regular farms
and more extensive crop rotation and use of intercropping and higher proportion
maintain semi-natural habitat and thus a higher diversity of habitat (Lotter
2003, Reganold and Wachter, 2016). Boutin et al. (2008) also names in seminatural
habitat structures have a higher biodiversity where compared to organic farms
regular. The effects of surrounding the complexity/diversity of surrounding land
can be very large for biodiversity at parcel level (Alebeek and Dekker, 2011).
In general, data from Dutch soil is limited (Alebeek en
Coverage, 2011). Alebeek and Dekker (2011) have reviewed the reviews of Hole et al. (2005) and
Bengtsson et al. (2005) summarized in the 2 tables below. The diversity is also on
agricultural crops and pet breeds higher on organic farms (Alebeek and Dekker,
2011). After 2011 there is no specific information on how organic scores in terms of
biodiversity within the Dutch context.
Table 2. Summary of numbers of comparative studies by species groups (Hole et al. (2005) in Alebeek and
Dekker (2011)
group positive negative variable/

effect effect no effect
birds 7 2
mammals 2
butterflies 1 1
beetles 13 5 3
other insects, mites, etc 7 1 2
spiders 7 3
plants 13 2
soil microorganisms 9 8
(earth)worms 7 2 4
Total 66 8 25
Table 3. Summary of numbers of studies on species richness and abundance (Bengtsson et al. (2005) in
Alebeek and Dekker, 2011).
species richness abundance
positive Total positive total

group studies studies studies studies
birds 3 3 12 12
invertebrates 21* 28
insects 29* 42
predatory insects 15 21 16* 21
ground beetles 10 13 9 12
non-robbers 6 7 13 21
pest species 3 7
spiders 4 7
plants 22* 22 7* 7
soil organisms 7 10 44* 49
earthworms 12* 13
microinvertebrates 6 7
fungi 7 8
microbial activity / biomass 7 8
total 53* 63 96* 117
Hole et al. (2005) show significant benefits of organic cultivation on field flora and that v
these differences are greater for broadleaf herbs than for grasses, and organic
farms are more likely to house rare or red-listed species. This same study reports
also higher species richness and/or abundance for soil bacteria, fungi, nematodes,
worms (not in all reviewed studies), non-plague butterflies, spiders and beetles. Sanders and
Heß (2019) found a 23% higher diversity in pollinating insects and a 26% higher
abundance. In the Netherlands, a higher diversity of mycorrhizal fungi was observed
found in organic crop soils than regular ones and it was shown that
this diversity increases with time since switching to organic (Verbruggen et al., 2010). In
another Dutch study by Kragten et al. (2011), were 2-4 times higher
earthworm numbers found in organic soils than regular ones. They found
in addition, no differences in total soil invertebrates, but significant positive ones
effects on spiders and carabid beetles and 70% higher numbers of flying insects.
Intensive tillage can reduce any positive impact of organic cultivation
destroy worms and different species/functional groups of beetles can
have differences in preference for organic land or regular land (Alebeek and Dekker,
2011). In addition, Hole et al. (2005) also mention benefits for various bird species and
small mammals. Sanders and Heß (2019) report a 35% increase in species diversity and 24%
higher abundance of farmland birds. These conclusions are most likely
apply less to vegetable cultivation than to arable farming (where the literature mainly focuses
focuses on) because of the cultivation intensity.

Cattle farming
The differences in arable flora biodiversity in grassland systems are less pronounced than those
in fields (Hole et al., 2005). In organically managed grasslands (perennial ryegrass).
In the Netherlands, however, a 30% higher plant diversity was observed (van Dobben
et al., 2019). With regard to worms in grassland, divided over 3 studies, one time
negative effect and twice no difference in worm numbers found (Hole et al., 2005).
Schouten et al. (2002) did find more earthworms on organic dairy farms
than regular in the Netherlands. In another Dutch study, the diversity of
fungivorous and bacterivorous nematodes higher in organic grasslands than regular ones
(Mulder et al., 2003). The insect life on organic manure flats is richer than that on
regular manure flats (Geiger et al, 2010). In Dutch studies, among the birds
only higher numbers of skylarks and lapwings have been observed on biological sites
companies, but not on survival (Kragten and de Snoo, 2008). Between the two types
farms compared in this study, there was no difference in non-crop habitat.
Pigs and poultry
Alebeek and Dekker (2011) report that they were unable to find any literature on this subject.
2.3 Broad rural development
g. Young farmers
Company heads
In 2008, 31% of Dutch agricultural companies had no successor, while the farm
head was 50 years or older (Stokkers et al, 2010). The percentage without a successor in the
organic farming is slightly lower. The vast majority of farm heads are male, 96%
in agriculture and horticulture. It is striking that the percentage of female successors is increasing and the
share of female farm heads is greater in organic farming than in regular farming. In front of
both organic and regular, small companies relatively more often have female heads
have. This age structure is fairly comparable with Belgium, Germany and Denmark
(Stokkers et al., 2010).
Stokkers et al. (2010) also describe the age structure of the heads of the farms
organic and regular agricultural sectors in the year 2008. On average, the
heads of farms in organic companies slightly younger than in total agriculture/horticulture. This concerns with
especially the 45 to 55-year-old class (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Percentage of the age distribution of farm heads in organic farming. Source: CBS Agricultural
Census, edited by LEI.
h. Development in rural areas
Diversification companies
Not only in terms of construction plan, but also in terms of business design, organic companies are more
diverse than regular farms. In 2008, almost half of the organic

companies also practice multifunctional agriculture. This partly concerns pieces of nature
keeping, a care branch or combinations of other services on the farm (Stokkers, 2010).
Organic farming generally provides 10% to 20% more labor than organic farming
regular agriculture (Berentsen and van Asseldonk, 2016), especially in arable and
horticulture. Figure 10 below shows the composition of employment per
farm type in organic agriculture compared to the total Dutch land- ands
horticulture. 'Foreign labour' is defined here as the labor performed by people from outside
the business is done. This may also include volunteers.
Figure 10. Composition of employment per farm type in organic agriculture compared to total
agriculture. Source: CBS Agricultural Census, edited by LEI.

i. Societal expectations regarding food and health, including safe, nutritious and
sustainable food, food waste and animal welfare.
Food and health
In a recent scientific review article by Vigar et al. (2020), the current state of
research on the added value of organic food for human
health viewed. They conclude that significant positive contributions have been found
in long-term studies on the reduction of: infertility, birth defects
gene, allergies, middle ear infection, preeclampsia, metabolic syndrome, high BMI and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
These are positive indications, however, Vigar et al. find it based on the current
research is still too early to conclude that organic food in its total always
positively contributes to health. It is stated that the importance of organic
nutrition is not so much about whether or not the composition differs in vitamins, antioxidants
dants or minerals. It is probably more important what is not in it, with organic there is
namely a lower chance of exposure to, for example, pesticide residues and antibiotics
tica-resistant bacteria.
Groot (2021) gives a literature review of the health effects of organic
diet compared to regular diet a number of findings that indicate that
organic food (i) no chemical-synthetic plant protection products and
contains less biocides; (ii) more antioxidants; (iii) fewer antibiotic resistant germs (iv)
in terms of composition more phenols and milk a more favorable fatty acid pattern and (v) indications for
a lower risk of certain conditions such as allergies. Whether these effects are a consequence
are from organic food, reduced levels of contaminants or the often other
However, the lifestyle of consumers is not entirely clear, or so the conclusion is.
Consumers of organic & veganism/ vegetarianism
There appears to be a strong relationship between consumers of organic products and vegetarians
nism/vegetarianism (Vigar et al. 2020). These consumers also eat a larger share
vegetable versus animal products. Regular consumers of organic food
are also more often female, health-conscious, physically active and better educated than them
peers.
Food waste
The amount of food wasted between 2008 and 2018 has remained about the same, according to the
Food Waste Monitor (2020). In 2017 Staps et al

primary sector examined. Most wastage occurs in cultivation due to the loss of crops
plants (10-15%). In addition, 5-10% is lost during the harvest. But 2% loss occurs
on during packaging. The biggest gains in terms of food waste fall in the
organic sector by improving cultivation and harvesting techniques.
Animal welfare
The organic livestock sector performs better on several aspects of animal welfare
than the regular sector (Ruis & Pinxterhuis, 2007). In organic (cattle) dairy farming,
pig farming and poultry farming, animals can display more natural behavior (Noise &
Pinxter House, 2007). This is related to more space in the stables and available outdoor space
and natural daylight. In general, these better conditions lead to more
opportunities for natural behaviour, less competition and less aggressive behaviour
between the animals. The same applies to organic goat farming (Ruis et al., 2009). The
organic sheep farming differs little from regular farming in terms of animal welfare;
both get ample grazing (Ruis et al., 2009).
The use of chemical medicines such as antibiotics is very limited

used in organic livestock farming. Preventing health problems in the
animals are therefore central. As a result, already resilient, or slower-growing,
varieties are selected, which generally leads to less susceptibility to disease (Noise &
Pinxter House, 2007). The better environment in which the animals live results in less mutual interaction
aggressiveness and subsequent injuries. However, the infection pressure is, among other things, because
the animals can go outside, higher than in the regular sector. In the organic sector
animals can live more comfortably because they have more freedom of movement and better
living conditions.
2.4 Organic farming in the Netherlands compared to the EU
In 2019, the average organic share, based on total agricultural area (ha)
in the 27 EU countries 8.5%. The Netherlands lags behind (place 22; Figure 11), with less
than 4% (Agridata). The area distribution between grassland and arable land is reasonably balanced
compared to other EU countries (Figure 12). Dutch consumer spending

of organic food ('retail sales' of €71 per person in 2019) also lag behind many
other EU countries (344, 174 and 144€ for Denmark, France and Germany respectively, Willer et
al., 2021), which is in line with the lagging share of organic in the total
acreage. In these countries, CAP funds are made available for extensification and/or
support switching. This may have played a role in the speed
increase in the organic area (Akkerwijzer, 2020).
Although existing for longer, the difference between the Netherlands and many other European ones
countries increased from around 2014: partly as a result of companies and supermarkets that in
responding increasingly to consumer concerns about the impact of the regular
agriculture and various incentive programs for the marketing of products from organic
Agriculture. For example, growth has accelerated in many other European countries
which is not visible in the Netherlands. Scientific analyzes and explanations of the
underlying causes for these differences do not seem to be available.

Although differences in available country statistics, comparisons and conclusions
make it difficult, the general trend is that the organic content in eggs and to a lesser extent
degree of fresh milk and fruit and vegetables is above average, while processed products (including cheese and
meat, but excluding baby food) lag behind the average share
biological of the total sales. The Dutch consumption pattern does not deviate clearly
of this trend (Willer et al., 2021). The lagging share of processed products
probably mainly has to do with the often highly specialized, large production
units for this and associated high costs for, among other things, transport and
logistics (including keeping organically produced by-products separate) and
chain dependency (both in terms of production of the many ingredients and in terms of sales).
In addition to a lower domestic consumption, the development of organic

agriculture in the Netherlands is also limited by the relatively very high land prices (Figure 13),
resulting in the often necessary extensification leading to high additional costs for land
leads. In organic arable farming and horticulture, the negative consequences of this high
land price can be partly offset by an intensification of the building plan with a
larger share of field vegetables, but this leads to, particularly in dairy farming
a strong increase in the cost price (Agrimatie.nl) that can hardly be recouped in
the international sales market. As a result, the share of organic dairy has been slightly exported
is very limited (<10%), in contrast to, for example, organic fruit and vegetables (20 to 70%)
and regular dairy.
Figure 11. Share of organic (certified and in conversion) as a percentage of the total agricultural area
(Eurostat: Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2020).
Figure 12. Share of organic area by arable farming, grassland and permanent crops compared to
other EU countries (Eurostat: Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2020).
Figure 13. Agricultural land prices in the EU (Eurostat: Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2020.)

3 SWOT analyzes of the organic subsectors
On the basis of the information from chapter 2, per subsector of organic agriculture
compiled a SWOT. These indicators have been supplemented with knowledge from experts in the field
field of the subdivision.

For each quadrant of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, it was examined how the
subsector scores on indicators and targets A to I from the CAP-NSP (Chapter 1).
In addition, a number of 'other' points are always mentioned if they are not covered by one
specific CAP-NSP target could be placed.
3.1 Organic arable farming and outdoor vegetables
Organic arable farming is a small sector, in 2020 about 2.8% of the total arable farming
acreage. The area of organic arable crops has fluctuated by approx
14780 ha in 2020 including the area in conversion. The area of arable vegetables
covers about 7017 ha in 2020 (including conversion; CBS, 2021) and with 11.0% of the area
more strongly represented. Horticulture in the open ground is about 3.6% with 3346 ha
in 2020 (incl. changeover, CBS, 2021). Appendices 1 and 2 give the hectares per province
the fully certified companies. The shares of the various crop groups within
organic farming are fairly constant. Organic farming is more common
marine clay soil, with Flevoland hosting a relatively large amount of organic arable land (15%)
(Dekking et al., 2020). The soil fertility in this province is naturally good and the
low weed pressure, two factors that promote organic cultivation and make it profitable.
In addition to potatoes, grains and onions, organic arable farms also grow a lot
other crops, especially vegetables, are grown. There are therefore many sales chains
affiliated, in addition to wholesale companies dealing exclusively in organic products
trade, there are also buyers who take both organic and regular products with them. Such is Agrico
an important buyer of organic potatoes, both consumption and seed potatoes.

The sales of the products differ per crop group, overall about 50% of the crop is sold
organic arable crops and vegetables exported. That shows that the
domestic demand lags behind production, which further expands due to this fact
is slowed down (Dekking et al., 2020).
Table 4. SWOT analysis of the organic arable farming and field vegetable sector. Points of attention are
classified according to the letters A to I and thus refer to the objectives of the CAP-NSP (Chapter 1).
Get well soon Weakness
- aEU trademark gives access to many - aExtra costs, in particular due to the
markets use of labour
- BEU brand gives a higher price, private aAvailability of sufficient labor during
labels usually offer extra €€ per kg of the growing season aSwitching takes
product two years and entails extra costs
- BNetworks and study groups for
knowledge exchange are available
- DCommitment to climate adaptation with the - BLower yields per ha (yield gap)
application of, among other things, organic
manure, extensive cultivation plan (resting crops), BHigh land prices give less room for
non-inversion tillage extensive management and
- DEnergy consumption per ha lower (than conversion
regular) - CProduct quality
- ESpacious construction plan with (positive) sometimes less/varying
effect on soil quality and less - D-
disease pressure - ELess room for adjustments (crop
EAnimal manure becomes raw material protection and fertilizers) F-
instead of residual flow, which reduces the -
use of fertilizer - G-
- FAttention to diverse landscape, - HAcceptance of sector in the region I-
landscape elements, ditch edge -
management, etc.
- G- Other
- H- - Knowledge and experience in practice are
- iAttention to food quality ifocus on not always available
- taste and experience - Innovation lags behind or little
research
- Extra administrative burden with regard
to certification
Opportunity Threat
- aBreeding aimed at robust and - aShortage of labor during the season

resistant varieties or increasing costs.
aInnovation in preventive measures to - BOutbreaks of diseases & pests such as
control disease & pests and phytophthora and downy mildew lead to
robotization for weed control crop failures.
- BLarger area required (land
- BBundling of products for a price/liquidity)
stronger market position - CDependence on retail leads to lower
- CCollaboration between companies and prices
processing (sales and market - CDependence on exports DDependence
preparation) on site - on non-biological inputs such as fertilizers
- DUse organic matter management (= intake of residues)
and C sequestration and use it as a
service - ENitrogen and phosphate imbalance
- E- under certain conditions
- FExpansion (more diverse) of crops - ELimited availability and price of
including parsnip, sweet permitted animal manure and
potato, etc. compost
- G- - FIncrease in area quickly leads to lower
- H- prices (supply and demand imbalance) G
- I- - Demands on quality (class) lead to the
use of resources (= spraying).
- H-
- iRisk of pollution from drift
Other Other
- Driving innovation - Organic is becoming too intensive, partly due
- Using robotics to high land prices (see B)
- Government: promoting market - Continued lobbying to allow invasive
management via VAT gene-level technologies in organic
breeding while this is at odds with the
philosophy behind the cultivation.
SWOT analyzes of the organic subsectors 31

Explanation
Get well soon
Organic farming is successful on farmland that is naturally fertile.

Young sea clay and silt (Flevoland, Zeeland, West Brabant and Groningen) are particularly suitable
for this cultivation system. The number is growing, particularly in regions where there are already many organic companies
changeover switches. This is related to the knowledge and experience available in the immediate
ving (annual conversion courses). By expanding the cultivation plan (several
crops) and biodiverse furnishing of companies compared to regular sector peers
space is created for nature and more specifically the (functional) agricultural biodiversity. Organic
management improves soil fertility and, in particular, strengthens soil life
(=biodiversity). Various crops and cultivations is also a form of risk spreading, one
a bad harvest is then compensated by a successful other crop. Organic
Arable farms are also more robust from an economic point of view. A well led
arable farming leads to profitable business operations. Due to a growing supply of
organic in supermarkets in particular, the sector can continue to grow. However, one remains
dependence on exports.
Weakness
Due to the increase in our own supply of organic products abroad, the
pressure on exports. In Germany and Switzerland, imports are only made when the
own organic product is no longer available. The growth of domestic sales is necessary
for further growth and development of organic arable farming and field vegetable
cultivation. Due to the use of mechanization, the consumption of fossil fuels is relatively high. One
transition to more sustainable sources (electric tractors) will reduce dependence

nen. Reducing energy consumption is a point of attention for the biological sector
sector. Expansion of the cultivation plan, multiple crops, requires extra organization (management
and sales) and sometimes investments. Fragmentation of the sales market requires extra care and attention
attention of the farmer to sell the product at reasonable prices.

The costs of switching or growing organically for two years at regular prices
selling costs money. This is an obstacle for arable farmers to take the step towards
to organic production. In the past, companies were supported with a
switching subsidy and contribution for control costs. These arrangements are no more
power.
Opportunity
More crops on the farm requires additional knowledge and skills from the entrepreneur. Through
cooperation (Biobrass) also arises in organic arable farming specialization, the

logistics are then well utilized. Small-scale cultivation and fragmentation quickly leads to
inefficiency. By joining forces and the product, processing and marketing

more efficient. Cooperation between arable farms brings opportunities for the
future. Bundling also leads to a stronger market position, which reduces the price level
can turn out more favourably.
Plant breeding is a key to successful cultivation. Careful breeding takes place

for organic cultivation (PPP Green Breeding) where resistance is very important.
Cooperation with breeding companies can lead to more suitable varieties for the
organic cultivation. Cooperation between companies and in the chain is a precondition for this
success, many organic entrepreneurs already work together and have experience in this.
Threat
In addition to the risk of outbreaks of diseases & pests (yield loss) also poses
weed control is a threat to organic arable farming and field vegetable
cultivation. Particularly in open crops such as onions, a lot of work is required to remove the weeds
to be removed manually. A lot of work leads to extra costs, as it always appears in practice
more difficult to find sufficiently qualified workers. Mechanization
(better and new techniques) and robotization can save labor. Research will
can play an important role in this. In addition to the cultivation technical side
dependence on exports is a threat. Especially when the organic area is in
other EU countries increases, the demand for Dutch organic products will decrease.
Thanks to a reliable supply and good quality, the Dutch product remains
attractive, but it requires a well-organized sales chain (= cooperation).
Organic arable farmers depend on regular inputs such as animal manure. In particular
residues of plant protection products creep into the organic farm via straw and manure
within. The consumer expects a 'clean' product. Tightening of the rules for
inputs can reduce these risks. A scandal involving contaminated organic products
presents a high risk of breakdown. In recent years, steps have been taken to improve the share
organic fertilizer (A fertilizers) in the sector.

Something similar happens in breeding. Despite the fact that the sector itself indicates that the integrity
is a starting point in organic breeding, argues a persistent lobby of

economic stakeholders in the EU to prevent the use of invasive
gene-level technologies in biological breeding. Something like that would be a
constitute a breach of the consumer's trust, who opt for 'natural'.

3.2 Organic cattle farming
Organic cattle farming mainly concerns dairy farms: approximately 500 farms
fully certified, being 2.9% of the total number of dairy farms (CBS, 2021).
In addition, there are 173 companies with beef production, which is 2.4% of the total number
beef farms, but with only 0.6% of the total number of beef animals. It is
mainly companies where beef is a sideline to milk production and to a lesser extent
degree of arable farming (average 45 animals per farm). The cattle become a big one
held on grounds with a (main or secondary) nature function (CBS, 2021). attachment 3
indicates the number of hectares of certified grassland and forage crops (can also be continued
such as farming). Netherlands-wide this is about 4.5% with
53503 ha (incl. conversion; CBS, 2021)
The dairy farms are relative with less than 1.4 Large Livestock Units per hectare
extensive. The milk production per animal (6800 kg per year) and per farm (580,000 kg) is also
relatively low compared to regular companies, which means that the share of organic in the
total milk production is only about 2% (www.agrimatie.nl). This milk is, by about 10
larger processors (in addition to EkoHolland, which supplies approximately half of the milk produced
supplies various factories, including FrieslandCampina, Rouveen and Weerribben) and

approximately 30 self-processors. For the most part, this means that the milk is produced within the Netherlands
sold, especially as fresh milk and to a lesser extent as yoghurt, cheese, butter, etc
Table 5. SWOT analysis of the organic cattle farming sector. Points of attention are classified
according to the letters A to I and thus refer to the objectives of the CAP-NSP (Chapter 1).
- aIFOAM principles are part of Organic - aLegislation and regulations make it

Farming. System and chain approach difficult to apply principles
Provide an excellent basis for goal - BCompetitiveness of organic dairy is
achievement disadvantaged by regulations/
- BGood image through, among other things, legislation that are aimed at intensive
less use of resources, diverse business
operations, lower production intensity and businesses
better animal welfare. Good assurance (SKAL/ - CRealized price does not
EU Bio, QLIP/Additional Norms (AN)) cover costs
- C95% of dairy and beef products are sold on - CSales of processed, added-value
the Dutch market. Demand is greater than products in particular are growing,
supply. Both strong but at a slow pace
connection between primary producers and - DOpportunities to CO2emissions per kg
processors as well as between players in the of product is limited EFertilizer
entire chain (AN, the Bioconnection, ikbenbio.) - legislation does not fit well with an
organic production system
- DGood results at area level (per ha.) - FAdded value for biodiversity is not
substantiated
- ESystem design based on cycle, - GCapital requirement for acquisition
manure is a value product; fertilizer compared to regular relatively high
unnecessary (land requirement / production
- ENitrogen emissions substantially lower than intensity per ha)
regular, higher share of grassland = more - H-
carbon sequestration.
- EAlmost all inputs are of biological origin. - iSocietal expectations are not always
100% in
- F(Functional) biodiversity is good, based accordance with reality
on system approach GAge structure of
- entrepreneurs better distributed
compared to regular
- H(IFOAM) principles promote integral
quality of life in rural areas.
- iImage, (IFOAM) principles and assurance
ensure that organic farming meets social
expectations
Other
- Completely organic
operational management/system agriculture
effective around buffer zone N2000, water
catchment areas and nature Antibiotic use
- and resistance less. Higher stakes genetically
- diverse
breeds/animals
- Lower production level = less pressure on
regional environmental aspects
Opportunity Threat
- aLaws and regulations related - aEntrepreneurs have to put in a

bioproduction system lot of effort or drop out
- BNeed to extensify agriculture due to climate - BThe position of the organic dairy sector is
and environmental pressure Insight that being eroded by intensification
systems, such as organic system agriculture, - CFurther growth of organic dairy farming
can be a solution is a challenge and can only be achieved
market driven. High land requirements
- CDrawing up a marketing plan in and costs are associated with both
collaboration with all parties in the chain, conversion and
specifically aimed at stimulating Dutch company acquisition is a
organic dairy and meat CAppropriate strong limiting factor
- instruments and remuneration system (D, E, - COrganic livestock farmers who use
F) COrganic in important representative an organic system are hindered by
- sections such as ZuivelNL/NZO market initiatives in the field of
sustainability (biodiversity monitor,
KLW KPI system)
- DIndividual means of settlement climate
tasking in agriculture; securing / using a - CDue to the low prices, an organic
higher share of grassland (CO2 farmer can hardly comply with the
sequestration). IFOAM principles and making an
- DApproach/accountability for emission reduction economic choice is obvious
different for organic than for regular: greenhouse (intensification)
gas emissions per ha - Cmany organic dairy processors have
promote both regular and organic milk, so organic
- THEAttention to knowledge & innovation with is not always the right choice
regard to sustainable energy that uses gets the attention it deserves D
natural resources - Stimulate to intensify EHigh costs /
resources and has no future shifting - bankruptcy
- FBio drops out, substantial
- ESupport value-product manure with contribution to goal achievement is
appropriate legislation and regulations missed
- FFocus on demonstrating an organic score - GBusiness takeover and succession
in the field of functional biodiversity, in a may be further limited by limitation
manner that takes organic system Business Takeover Scheme
agriculture into account. The same reward (Exemption)
system - HMissed opportunities due to
- GOpportunities for dual purpose land, generic policy, technical solutions
biopacht, and fiscal measures /

developing exemptions in the field of - iIncentive to intensify, based on
organic farming, etc. criteria and definitions of
- HIncorporate area-oriented policy sustainability terms (KPIs)
biologically, thereby contributing to
functional biodiversity, clean air, soil,
water, nature and, among other things
landscape. Eg. Bio lease, dual-purpose land;
allocate depreciated land under Private
Nature Management for organic agriculture
(with qualitative obligation)
- iExplain in your own context the

discrepancy between reality and
expectations, taking into account the
IFOAM principles
Other
- Livestock-arable farming cooperation
- Development of breeding/robust breeds
- Aiming for dual-purpose animals
Get well soon
Organic agriculture works as a system agriculture and uses the IFOAM

(www.ifoam.bio ) principles as a guideline. This is strongly anchored in cattle farming. The
Dutch organic cattle farming produces 95% for the Dutch market. The
dairy sector-wide non-statutory requirements (Additional Standards) are set up very innovatively
and are independently certified and guaranteed according to the top quality mark system.
Labor income on organic cattle farms is comparable, but certain
no higher than on regular companies. Most inputs are of organic origin. It
feed is largely produced locally (and at farm level), which has a positive effect
for the (nutrient) cycle. Nitrogen and phosphate emissions are, compared to the regular
livestock farming, substantially lower. Together with a minimal use of resources, a more
diverse business operations, generally lower production intensity and high animal welfare (standards)
does this make a positive contribution from organic agriculture with regard to climate,
biodiversity, cleaner water, air, soil, closing cycles, birds and habitats directive
etc. Partly because of this, the organic production system is very suitable for
area-oriented policy.
There is a high and close degree of organization throughout the entire chain, from grass to glass
there is a very strong connection between producer and customer, dairy processor, trade
and consumer. There is also representation within the Supplementary Standards group, de
Natuurweide, the BioHuis, the Bioverbinding, Ikbenbio, and also at Bio Nederland and
Bionext.
Weakness
Domestic sales are growing steadily. For example, limited

creation of biological variants of processed added value products
(e.g. out-of-home products, desserts) play a role. Valuation of ecosystem
services/biodiversity seems like a good option, but the contribution of organic dairy
companies on biodiversity has not been made sufficiently clear to date. This is in the
scope of a small sector to develop everything itself without substantial support.
Sustainability initiatives in the market are aimed at the majority. In doing so, the
organic dairy farming the current developments regarding the cycle guide and
biodiversity monitor as systems that focus on a few components, while biological
entrepreneurs focus on working on the total biological system.
Current laws and regulations regarding manure, for example, are not in line with organic farming
production system and costs entrepreneurs, while organic fertilizer plays an important role
value product in the organic sector for closing the cycle.
Another point for attention is that based on land requirement / production intensity per ha
the capital requirement for acquisition (and conversion) is relatively high while the income
comparable to conventional companies.
Opportunity
Organic cattle farming can make a major contribution to society

assignments. The sector can be supported in this by amendments to legislation
(manure) that facilitate and stimulate the organic production system. This contributes to it
realizing social goals, efficient organic management, the
limiting costs and driving demand-driven growth. Further support
Knowledge & Innovation is also important here.
In addition, organic farming can be a good match for goal achievement
area-oriented processes, for example on the extensification of production. Switchover
from conventional farms to organic automatically results in a shrinking herd
because more work needs to be done. Because organic companies much less
emit nitrogen than usual (Plomp and Migchels. 2021), this also makes a lasting contribution to
the nitrogen targets. Organic companies can 'ground dual purpose'
(nature/agriculture) fit well into business operations, subject to the conditions for use
fit with the organic system agriculture and are not imposed on the basis of only
nature management and calendar agriculture.
Organic cattle farming is ready to take steps in the market. Supermarket

Plus, for example, only sells private label basic dairy products organically and the expectation is
that this trend will continue. The sector would greatly benefit from the support of the
creation of a chain-wide organic dairy marketing plan in line with the IFOAM principles.
The focus is on involving the consumer in the organic ideology
element of.

Encouraging monitoring of business operations and thus providing insight
of the score on functional biodiversity and cycles can contribute to further
strengthening the organic label. One way to do that is to support the organic sector
support in the development of an instrument that connects to the biological
production system.
Threat
Further growth of organic dairy farming is a challenge and will not benefit from one
conversion premium: this disrupts the market-driven structure that has been used. Potential
changeover switches often have a more intensive starting position than hitherto, which means that
land needs and costs become a more restrictive factor in conversion. Also
these types of companies are seen as a potential threat by the sector.
While the organic sector can only come into its own in fairly extensive
circumstances and working methods, state current laws and regulations, and market initiatives
that strive for sustainability, the organic sector an undesirable incentive, namely to
become more intensive. Organic dairy farmers are not hesitant to monitor
their business operations with regard to biodiversity and climate, but believe that the current ones
monitoring and reward systems do not fit well with their organic farming system!
The prospects for takeover are, despite a better distributed age structure in the
sector, not favorable.
3.3 Organic poultry and pig farming
Including companies in conversion, there are 187 companies with an average of 550 organic
pigs, which is 5.3% of the total number of pig farms (CBS, 2021). Among them are 92
farms with an average of 103 breeding sows and 169 farms with an average of 300 fattening pigs.
There are, including those in conversion, 227 farms with organic laying hens, which is 25% of the total
total number of farms with laying hens (CBS, 2021). An average of 16,600 per company
kept laying hens. In terms of broilers, there are 21 farms, 2.4% of the total number
farms with broilers (CBS, 2021). An average of 9000 per organic company
kept broilers. The exact area on which these animals are kept is shown
not separately reported by Statistics Netherlands.
Table 6. SWOT analysis of the organic poultry and pig farming sector. Points of attention are classified
according to the letters A to I and thus refer to the objectives of the CAP-NSP (Chapter 1).
- A- - aSmall sectors, especially for pigs, the

- BSales of basic products are good; yield price falls quickly with a slight
organic eggs have a strong market overproduction (NL or EU) BPoultry: large
position - part of production destined for export, in
- CGood balance in the pig chain due to the case of broilers (fillet) and pigs,
good agreements with buyers square value / market price is somewhat
- DStables based on natural ventilation, so dependent on the EU market BCost price
less energy consumption DBio has high due to many extras that organic
- deployed many solar panels on the roofs - provides
DLower emissions per farm due to fewer
- animals per farm; emission per pig is cf - C-
- DLegislation is aimed at common practice. DEmission
- per chicken could be improved
- EAlmost all inputs are of biological origin - EEmissions policy is usually targeted EPoint
- of attention: N and P point emissions in
- FRanges are very biodiverse due to no outdoor area (up to 5m from stable) high
harvesting and planting for shelter G – cf. with common
- Compared to dairy farming, the land - FLimited potential impact apart from running
requirement is relatively low, making out
takeover less complicated - G-
- H- - H-
- iAnimal welfare: conditions are - iRelatively high protein content in feed
clear and positive due to not using synthetic amino acids
- iCohesion between (bio)sectors.
- iUse less resources, good image; - iLimited availability of biological residual
walking out with animals in it is a good flows and by-products
calling card food industry
- iEmissions (see also E) and relatively
low dependence on land (foreign feed)
are an obstacle to image
Other
- Many strengths from the overarching Other
SWOT apply less to poultry and pigs - Realization of biological starting
material (young animals) and reduction
- Animal numbers per farm are of problems
significantly lower brooder beetle complex/expensive due
to complex chain

Opportunity Threat
- aMarket stimulation, demand driven B - aVulnerability in case of non-market-oriented

- Stimulate lower cost price, support growth
organic eg “hectare” premium per - BGrowing attention for veganism and
animal kept according to organic meat substitutes
requirements - BGrowth of market initiatives that focus
- BReimbursement of certification costs purely on (conventional) animal welfare C
(reduce cost price) - Pigs: partial dependence on EU square
- BGovernment and industry are committed to value
100% organic catering
- CMarketing plan aimed at consumer - DHousing systems: insufficient research,
perception, confidence in organic bio-aspect poorly filled in: stagnation of
- CMore 2theand 3thetype of eggs in the appreciation/improvement
NL processing industry - EEnvironmental impact on the soil close to the
bio products barn
- DHousing and management - FLegislation stands in the way of enrichment/
measures under development for use of free ranges in terms of cost-effectiveness
low-emission aimed at organic - G-
(separate Rav code) - H-
- ERelatively much (valuable and - iAnnual confinement obligation and
sought-after) solid manure; good for consequences for animal welfare,
the soil better use! Oh legislation marketing and animal health
- FEncouraging more planting free range

(including welfare, CO2 sequestration),
enriched free range is eligible for
reimbursement, just like
field margins), range = separate plot, raise
with RVO
- G-
- H-
- iFocus on increasing biological waste
streams and by-products
- iExample for animal welfare / health for
the rest of the sector; dual-purpose
planting range, seeF
Other
- Connecting more with arable farming to
exchange feed, straw and manure More
- vegetation free range ensures less
nutrient load in the soil
Explanation
Get well soon
Sales of the basic products, fresh consumption eggs, are going well. For pork
various covenants have been concluded with the retail / chain in recent decades
come. As a result, to a certain extent, farmgate prices are sufficiently secured. Both
organic poultry and pig sectors are limited land-bound (range), at the same time
a significant part of the companies seems to be based on a historical land position
farming/dairy farming. Land needs have limited influence on the

capital requirement for acquisition. In terms of emissions, the sectors score well for each company
(less intensive than regular), the higher proportion of solid manure is a valuable and through
agricultural popular product.
Over the last 20 years, substantial investments have been made in organic rearing of young animals and a
holding that takes into account the intervention decision. In 2021 the conditions /
basic principles for animal welfare are well secured and offer these perspectives for a
socially responsible farming. The attractive design of outlets for optimal
use by the animals and at the same time realizing an embellishment of the yard or
landscape has been positive for the image of farming. Finally, it is good to
point out that the strengths of other subsectors apply less strongly to the
intensive livestock farming.
Weakness
Three-quarters of the Dutch production of organic eggs for consumption is produced in the
abroad (Germany). Second kind of eggs are common to the

food industry. In the case of pork, this is more limited, but is
the square value of the whole animal depends on the European market. In particular, the
This makes the pig sector seem vulnerable, but this is also a problem for the poultry sector
point of interest. The sales/share of organic chicken meat is still very limited and insufficient
in the picture for industry, catering, food service and industrial kitchens. It will also be in this sector
valorization of the whole animal are important. The housing system in poultry and
pig branches is by definition open due to ventilation and access to the outdoor area. This asks
attention with regard to emission reduction, especially because laws and regulations are common
be plugged in. The run-out poses a risk of increased emissions (soil contamination)
of, among other things, phosphate within 5 meters of the barn. This effect may be exacerbated by
the increased average size of farms, especially in the poultry sector.

There is a risk of an outbreak of
bird flu. A large part of the feed comes from outside the company and has to be
specific amino acid requirement and the prohibition in bio of synthetic amino acids partly of
get further away. The distance factor has declined in recent decades, but is
still large compared to dairy farming.
Opportunity
Demand-driven stimulation of the market is important to focus on. In addition can

be used to reduce the cost price, for example by supporting
an organic 'hectare' premium per animal kept according to organic requirements or reimbursement
of certification costs. Government and business can help by deploying

on 100% organic catering. There is a great need for a marketing plan that also includes attention
for consumer perception and confidence in organic.
The poultry and pig sectors produce valuable manure that can be put to good use
in, for example, organic farming. Emissions per company are in order, but per animal is

there is room for improvement. That is why it is a bet on biologically-oriented laws
regulations and knowledge & innovation with regard to accommodation and
management measures promising and necessary. For example, you can check whether
a separate Rav code for biostal systems is possible. Also for the
overrun, targeted laws and regulations can contribute to further enrichment
and valorization of the outlet. Outdoors have a dual purpose function, in addition to animal welfare
capturing CO2, litter, nuts, fruit and wood, can be facilitated. You can look
become or run out, just like field margins, can get a separate parcel code (at RVO)
to qualify for reimbursement. It can also be used to enlarge
of the availability and use of biological waste streams and by-products and the
stimulating the use of 2nd and 3rd type eggs in the Dutch processing industry
industry. The aim is then to make a wider range of organic products available
to get. Finally, more targeted work can be done on cooperation with the sectors
arable farming and dairy farming in areas where feed, straw and manure are exchanged directly
can be used effectively.
Threat
Because a considerable part of the sales is destined for export, the market position of
vulnerable sectors. The relative scale of production sets the image of
the sector is under some pressure. A large share of egg production is exported.
At the same time, sales and competitiveness are under pressure due to the increasing
attention to and demand for plant-based products, which seems to be greater at
consumer groups that are also attracted to the organic product. Also the
growing market initiatives that mainly focus on animal welfare (e.g. Kipster,
but also supermarkets that focus on the sale of the Beter Leven Keurmerk meat).
a point of attention for the market position of the organic poultry and pig sector.
In various areas, the sectors are confronted with laws and regulations that are not
compatible with organic farming. If there is no room for bottlenecks in laws and regulations
regulations and there is no investment in knowledge & innovation in this respect
of low-emission housing systems, there is a risk that the sectors will not respond sufficiently
able to stabilize or reduce costs.
Possibilities for improving the cycle or increasing the share
regional feed are limited. High land prices and risk of damage to other land
bound organic sectors stand in the way of this.
Annual confinement obligation and consequences for animal welfare, marketing and animal health
are a long-term threat to business operations.
3.4 Organic greenhouse horticulture
Organic greenhouse horticulture is small (1.6% of the total area of greenhouse vegetables in 2020). This
corresponds to 1654 ha on farms that have switched or are in transition

(CBS, 2021). The number of farms and acreage has grown slightly over the past 5 years
(see appendix 4 for hectares per province).
The cultivation mainly consists of fruit vegetables (tomatoes, cucumber, bell pepper and
aubergine) and, on a smaller scale, leaf crops as intercropping. In addition to the heated
greenhouses, vegetables are grown in so-called cold greenhouses (unheated or with
gas burner). These greenhouses are often part of a larger farm with open ground
agriculture and vegetable growing. Short chain and care companies also grow vegetables in cold
greenhouses or tunnels. Furthermore, the Netherlands has several plant breeders whose product
planting material is also sold abroad. Organic cultivation takes place in the ground. This
constitutes both a strength and a weakness. A weakness because of intensive cultivation without spacious
crop rotation quickly leads to the build-up of soil-borne diseases and pests. In particular
root knot nematodes are common in greenhouse soil. Against this every now and then
steamed. The new EU regulation only allows soil steaming
for weed control.
The market is somewhat fragmented because several greenhouse growers (growers' association) take care of it themselves
for their sales. Agreements are made with wholesale companies in Germany,
Switzerland, UK, Belgium or other EU countries. For Dutch organic greenhouse horticulture
Spain is an important competitor. For this reason, greenhouse growers try so early
possible to make products from the heated greenhouse available during the year.
Table 7. SWOT analysis of the organic greenhouse horticulture sector. Points of attention are
classified according to the letters A to I and thus refer to the objectives of the CAP-NSP (Chapter 1).
- aProduction conditions aKnowledge of - aNumber of companies and hectares

- biological control BEU trademark gives limited
- access to many markets - aLower yields per ha (yield gap)
- BCollaboration within the sector CPrivate - BCost price due to the use of extra
- labels offer a higher price per kg of - labour BProduction intensity: Risk of
product diseases and pests
- CEntrepreneurship and qualities DMuch - CProduct quality
- use of compost with storage of carbon in sometimes less/varying
the soil - DMore energy per kg of product, equal
- ELittle residual waste to regular per hectare
- ESoil life contributes to control of some - DDependence on (fossil) energy
pests (supportive)
- FAttention to development of a resilient - E(Limited) crop rotation makes it more
system difficult for a resilient system EVery
- GEducation and knowledge level - limited number of main crops E
- H- - Nutrient efficiency per unit product
- iAttention to food quality iFocus on
- taste and experience - ELess room for adjustments (crop
protection and fertilizers)

- FRisk of diseases and pests (including
nematodes)
- FOpportunities for biodiversity and nature
in and around the greenhouse
- G
- HSubsector acceptance i
-
Other
- Innovation
Opportunity Threat
- A- - aHigh risk of outbreak of diseases and

- BLocal sales to (web) shops and pests with limited arsenal for control
consumers
- CInterest in organic product and - aProductivity lower than regular per
quality ha
- CDirect sales by growers association D - BUneven playing field on the (European)
- Piggybacking on energy innovations in the market due to differences in interpretation of
regular sector regulations
- ECircular agriculture vision is in line F- - BIntensity of production puts pressure
- on acceptance within the organic sector
- G-
- H- - CCompetition from imports from
- iIntensification and exchange with other (organic) southern countries
companies for the purpose of closing the cycle - DCost of energy
- iKnowledge exchange and innovations - DSector insufficiently accepts
with regular companies working method
- EStrict conditions and
Other regulations
- Knowledge development on cultivation, - ERegulations not very geared to organic
crops, disease and pest control, soil and greenhouse growers
fertilization - F-
- G-
- H-
- iGreenhouse horticulture does not fit in
sufficiently with the image and
expectations of organic production
Explanation
Get well soon
Organic greenhouse horticulture is characterized by entrepreneurs who are very conscious

opted for a more natural way of growing under glass. Because only in the ground
is grown, the production conditions are very different from the regular ones
greenhouse horticulture. Growing in soil has a positive image towards green consumers,
with less residual waste compared to cultivation in substrate. Development is central
of a resilient system that can withstand diseases and pests and leads to a stable
production. Many organic greenhouse growers are therefore equipped with modern greenhouses with
optimal climate control. This makes the crop less vulnerable to, in particular
fungi. By fertilizing with compost, there is enough CO until summer2present in the
greenhouse. Dosing with CO2, as usual in the usual sector, is then not necessary.
Entrepreneurs have a lot of knowledge. The sector formed the basis for the
biological control and developments in this continue because of regular diseases
and pests emerge that require natural control. It is intensive
knowledge exchange, partly because the group of entrepreneurs is limited and the challenges are great.
Weakness
Many organic greenhouse vegetables are sold abroad, due to the dependence on
these markets and competition from other EU countries is fierce. The difference in yield
regular greenhouse horticulture is relatively large for fruiting vegetables, estimated to be 25 to 30% lower.
Supermarkets in particular want tomatoes, cucumbers and bell peppers for low prices
offer consumers.
Energy consumption, expressed per kilo of product, is unfavorable compared to regular cultivation.
The energy consumption per surface area is comparable to regular cultivation. The difference
is due to the higher yields achieved in modern regular greenhouses.
The phasing out of Combined Heat and Power (natural gas) creates a need for CO2from the
industry, it is unclear whether CO2administration from sources other than CHP remains permitted.
The crop rotation is tight with the main crops of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers
and the production system susceptible to diseases and pests. So these can be a big one
have an impact on revenues and thus lead to large fluctuations in profit
and loss. The cultivation in the ground and the lower production volumes compared to the regular ones
cultivation also means that the efficiency of cultivation is regularly under discussion or question marks
be added to the environmental benefits of organic cultivation under glass.
Opportunity
The demand for organic products and, in particular, for an expansion of the range
of organic products, also out of season, the growth of the sector in the
hand. The environmental friendliness of cultivation without chemical synthetic crop protection
ming works in favor of the subsector. Because organic greenhouse horticulture is still in
is in its infancy, there are many opportunities for improvement in cultivation and the
chance that further knowledge building and innovations will lead to more stable production conditions
present, great. Together with more resilient varieties, expansion of the range and more
knowledge of disease and pest control, as well as fertilization in natural cultivation, is an opportunity
to attract more producers to organic production.
Threat
The relatively high energy consumption in organic cultivation poses a risk, the green consumer
ment will be shocked by the amount of energy that organic vegetables require, with
especially in the preseason. Soil-borne diseases and pests can lead to yield
reduction. New varieties and (resistant) rootstocks in particular can withstand the damage
prevent crops.

Within organic agriculture as a whole, this subsector is relatively small. The intensity
of this means that regulations from the sector itself, or from outside, can lead to problems.
The different interpretations of European regulations in different countries are also possible
pose a threat to the Dutch subsector if other countries have more
flexible interpretations.
4 SWOT of the organic sector as a whole
The starting point for the SWOTs for the organic sector as a whole are the goals of
the CAP-NSP and the indicators for the organic sector from chapter 2. The SWOTs of
the subsectors from chapter 3 are hereby integrated in important points in the
analysis. The GLB-NSP goals to which it is affiliated are summarized:
Smart resilient agriculture
A. A viable agricultural income and food security
B. Competitiveness
C. Position in the value chain
Environment, biodiversity and climate
D. Climate change and renewable energy

E. Efficient management of natural resources such as water, soil and air
F. Protection of Biodiversity
Broad rural development
G. Young farmers
H. Development in rural areas
I. Societal expectations regarding food and health, including what
concerns safe, nutritious and sustainable food, food waste and animal welfare
Points of attention that only apply to a subsector are specified in the SWOTs
by subsector in chapter 3.
Table 8. SWOT analysis of the organic sector. Points of attention are classified according to the letters A
to I and thus refer to the objectives of the CAP-NSP.
- aIncreasing acreage and growing number of - aOperating costs are relatively high
companies - BPrice of organic product varies
- aBio can continue to produce input in the
event of a loss - BHigh dependence on external labor
- BSpending, especially in supermarkets, is during the growing season (weed
increasing control)
- BLargely level playing field for organic - CScale of the sector is relatively
within the EU small
- COften long-term chain relationships D - CGrowth is relatively slow
- Lower energy consumption per ha - DEnergy consumption per kg of product
- DLower greenhouse gas emissions per ha E is higher for some products
- No chemical-synthetic crop protection and - DGreenhouse gas emissions per
fertilizers kg product higher (not for milk)
- EVery limited emission to ground and - ENot all inputs are of biological origin
surface waters
- EHigher organic matter in the soil and - FScore on biodiversity and
'sustainable' soil management landscape for the Netherlands is not
- FHigher species richness and trend towards clear
higher landscape diversity in general - GAge structure of farm heads GAttention
- to organic in agricultural (vocational)
- GFarm heads slightly younger than education is relatively limited HOrganic
regular and relatively many female - requires more labour
heads
SWOT analyzes of the organic sector as a whole 47

- HRelatively high deployment of workers - iScientific substantiation of the
and 10-20% higher employment HPart of contribution of organic food to health
- the companies has various side branches,
short chain sales - iFood waste during cultivation due to
- iStrong regulation and score in animal plant failure (diseases & pests)
welfare and health;
- i'Clean products (hardly any
Other
contamination of bio product)
- iOrganic products fit into the trend of - Dutch applied research almost all
veganism/vegetarianism from before 2011 Funding for R&D is
- limited by scale and government
choice
Other
- Experiences with fewer inputs of importance - Knowledge and innovations specifically
to the regular sector as agriculture continues aimed at the organic sector are limited
to become more sustainable Average (varieties, inputs, machines, technology).
- reasonably good returns from companies - Attention and specific expertise of organic
in education is limited.
- Consumer pays higher price Mostly positive
- image and strong brand Independent and
- transparent control EU-aligned regulations
-
Opportunity Threat
- aExploit development of 'sustainable' - aSocially pointing out lower production

lease agreements BGrowth in the per ha
- number of points of sale, healthcare - aSingle-issue lease agreements BHigher
institutions and convenience - price level discourages consumers
- BCommunicate the benefits of organic
more clearly to consumers - BPrices (earning model) under pressure
- BRobotisation/precision agriculture to due to large supply and lagging demand
absorb part of the labor input (also possibly due to subsidies)
- CIn position to further develop short-chain - BAttention to 'own region'
sales product abroad
- CSustainable growth of the sector can act as - BDistinctiveness of the product,
a flywheel for position in the value chain insufficiently recognizable BDeclining
- availability of workers
- DProvide insight into the contribution to
climate objectives per ha according to - BOther quality marks such as Beter
international standards Leven and PlanetProof
- ESupport for closing cycles FProvide - CToo fast or too slow growth C
- insight into the contribution of organic - Insufficient knowledge among
companies to biodiversity switchers and newcomers CEffort and
- FEntering into cooperation with social and - quality control insufficient to prevent
nature organisations, including on land scandals
acquisition (lease)
- GPerspectives for the sector can - DOrganic per kg of product not always
bring successors more sustainable
- HDevelopment of side branches around - ERisk of contamination of biological
nature, care and other services products with residues ENatural inputs
- iScientifically based knowledge about 'health - can have unwanted effects or be
contribution' bio product iImproved harmful
cultivation techniques and harvesting
techniques are possible - EInsight into emissions under Dutch
combat food waste conditions unclear FContribution to
- biodiversity insufficiently substantiated,
transparent and quantified F
Other
Introduction of GMO in regular sector G
- Growing demand for organic products - A third of organic farms have no
- successor
- Governments and businesses switching to - GAbolition of the Business
organic catering (for example) Takeover Scheme HLimited
- visibility from 'regular' sectors,
- Develop different marketing
strategies representation and lobbying iRisk
- Increase in short chain regional sales - of failure if organic is not tastier
and healthier
- More foods in organic variant
Other
- Growing social demand for sustainable
production - High land prices limit extensive (organic)
- Positive attitude for combination with land use The development of the organic
green-blue services and measures from CAP - sector in the Netherlands lags behind that
of other European countries
- Support from Europe with Green deal,
Farm-to-Fork - Knowledge and innovation development
aimed at the sector lags behind
Explanation
Strengths
Viewed over several years, the organic sector is characterized by an increasing

acreage and also an increasing number of farms (Agriculture). On average, a reasonable to
achieved a good financial return, with lower yields per hectare, but the
selling price is higher compared to regular production (CBS, 2020). Review about
several years, there has been a growing demand from consumers, in particular the
spending in the supermarket is increasing (Monitor Sustainable Food, 2020).
The strong point of the organic sector is animal welfare and sustainability, which is reflected
comes in a low impact of the farms per ha on the environment compared to the
regular sector and a strictly regulated animal husbandry based on animal welfare
aspects. In particular, the exclusion of fertilizers and chemical-synthetic
crop protection products are distinctive and limit energy consumption and
risks of residues in the environment and products. Because companies cultivate in the ground and
the crops are also largely dependent on a fertile soil is a lot here
attention to and can often be referred to as sustainable soil management.
The attention paid to landscape management also makes it organic
companies often score well in the field of landscape management and biodiversity in the
general (section 2.2). Also measures such as the use of grass-clover instead of ryegrass alone,
or a broader cultivation plan (more diversity in crops that are grown).
to this. Organic farms are also more diverse in design (Stokkers, 2010).
side branches such as care, nature management, farm shop, etc.
The quality mark, which is laid down in regulations at European level and becomes independent
controlled contributes to the reliability of 'organic' and is also
worldwide (h)recognizes what is important for an export country like the Netherlands.

Weakness
Despite the growth of the sector, the scale (hectares) on which organic is used remains
produced in the Netherlands limited. Growth also remains variable between years and sectors.
The higher price of organic products, as well as a limited supply of
organic variants, cited by consumers as a reason not to buy more organic
products (Ruigrok, 2020 in Bionext, 2020). Although many consumers the word
biological, the question is to what extent the consumer has the knowledge what
this means and what benefits it can bring.
Weaknesses are experienced in the production of organic, including the fact that not all
inputs are of 100% organic origin (lack of organic fertilizer in arable farming
for example) and sometimes questions are raised about the environmental friendliness of the
natural inputs. The labor input on organic farms is higher than on regular farms
manual work associated with weed control, for example. This will be like
weakness, as a result of which the costs for companies are higher than usual.
Last year (2021), arable farmers plowed under onions due to a shortage
labor that must keep the crop clean of weeds.
Knowledge and innovation, specifically aimed at the organic sector, is limited. Mechanization and
robotization seems necessary for some sectors. This development is not going fast
enough. There is no labeled funding for knowledge and innovation development
for the organic sector. Also knowledge dissemination, for example via a portal such as Bioknowledge
largely missing. Applied research and stimulation from the government is after 2011
virtually absent.
At the various agricultural courses there is little or no attention for organic
Agriculture. Sometimes it is only possible for a full biological education or an internship at one
organic company. The lack of the possibility for a minor to 'te
snooping' on organic farming doesn't work in favor of a qualified one
business succession.
Opportunity
The growing demand for organic products is an important opportunity and driving factor
behind the organic sector. Commitment to more points of sale, where not only the
segment is served, but also care institutions, canteens, etc., stimulate growth. The
sector has opportunities for more sales in short chains, near nature reserves and cities.
Consumers also indicate a need for clearer communication about the
advantages of organic (Ruigrok, 2020 in Bionext, 2020). Make the contribution explicit
from organic to climate objectives, environmental impact and biodiversity is one of them
opportunity for consumers, but also for measures taken by companies
highlight green-blue services (based on valuation/payment).
There are also examples of companies that have strengthened their position in transitional and buffer areas,
for example towards nature areas, to be able to monetise. Search more and more
provinces, municipalities, estates and nature organizations to companies that have a
sustainable business operations at lower rent prices. The biological
regulation provides a framework for making agreements on this. The growing
social demand for sustainable production and the support it receives
coupled from Europe via the Green deal and the Farm-to-Fork strategy make that happen
opportunities for growth of the organic sector. It also ties in with the national
policy objectives for nature-inclusive and circular agriculture.
As a well-regulated and certified sector, land-based organic livestock
companies take advantage of the growing initiatives (from private and regional
government parties such as 'Land van Ons', terrain management organizations (TBOs) and the GOB)
to limit the costs of land for 'nature-inclusive farms'.

Such initiatives could be given a national variant or impulse through
extensification schemes and more specific attention and focus on organic.
Threat
The organic sector also depends on prices that make a profitable business
enable. A balance between supply and demand is a prerequisite for this. One too
great emphasis on increasing organic production through subsidies can quickly become one
imbalance between supply and demand. A stable and steady course
government policy is needed, with support aimed at multi-annual goals every
threats to the sector and stimulate growth.
Growing attention abroad for the 'own regional product' is in favour
Dutch organic producers pose a threat to various products there
depend on exports. In the Netherlands, awareness of the origin of the
products limited.
Distinctiveness of the products is important and a risk in the emergence of
several (often unclear) quality marks. Transparency in production and assurance in the
chain are essential to permanently explain a higher price level to the consumer.
Insufficient substantiation of the added value of organic and organic
products can have an inhibiting effect on the sector and lower social appreciation
putting pressure. Insight into the environmental contribution, biodiversity and quality (and health?) of the
products promotes transparency and thus the choice for organic. Resistance
against environmental and climate measures and doubts among parties and organizations about the necessity
A transition in agriculture can also put pressure on the organic sector. Thereby
may be the emphasis on lower yields per hectare, unproven health claims of
products, or insufficient scientific substantiation (body of evidence), is disadvantageous
to work. Finally, knowledge and innovation development can be specifically aimed at, and especially within
the context of the organic sector (and from the point of view of the organic farmer), further
stay behind. The low share of organic farming in the Netherlands compared to others

European countries can lead to the Dutch contribution to the total organic
market and development will come under further pressure.
Due to the land requirement associated with organic farming, the

relatively large capital requirement, which facilitates flexible financing of business succession or
impede takeover. The possible abolition of the Business Takeover Scheme will
complicate it even further.
5 Opportunities to stimulate the organic sector
5.1 Opportunities from the CAP NSP
In the current proposal for the new CAP NSP (Annex 5), the primary
producers of the organic agricultural support under the first pillar a full
basic premium and a silver or gold certificate through the “eco schemes” (measure 20).
Through the second pillar, farmers, including organic ones, can qualify for
compensation for nature purposes (ANLb), but only in specific regions. In addition
there are possibilities for this under the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS).
arrangements through which partnerships between farmers and other actors in the
agricultural sector and food chain can receive support for knowledge and
innovation development. The exact elaboration of this last point is still ongoing.
There are a number of additional recommendations for stimulating organic farming
to appoint:
Conditionality
1. Comply with SKAL certification. In the current CAP, SKAL certificates are sufficient
companies automatically comply with the greening requirements. In the CAP from 2023 is a
such exemption may not be guaranteed (source: CAP pilot sectoral construction
stones). This means that a company must demonstrate or indicate that it complies
to conditionality. This is not exactly the same as the current greening requirements, however
has been tightened here and there. The European Commission therefore speaks of one
aggravated conditionality.
It is recommended to keep SKAL-certified companies permanently automatic

comply with the conditionality and have this done via SKAL certification
to avoid additional administrative burdens in this respect.
'Eco scheme'
2. Organic farming automatically suffices. The 'eco scheme' consists of an optional

menu of measures on which you can earn points per measure and those points
must be distributed among all targets. Depending on the number of points you get
bronze, silver or gold and a certain additional allowance is provided. The biological
farming is an integrally sustainable farming method. That's the organic one
certified working method in the proposals as optional measure number 20
included with the option of a silver or gold certificate.
It is recommended to leave organic farms with automatic maximum

benefit from the 'eco-schemes' and distinguish them as a separate measure
Opportunities to stimulate the organic sector 53

with which the gold certificate can be obtained. This must be calculated
become that gold also yields more than the sum of the individual ones
points system.
Agricultural Nature and Landscape Management (ANLb).
3. Biological outside ANLb areas. Not all organic farms are located in areas
who qualify for the ANLb. The question is whether the Netherlands has the luxury
to focus on a number of regions for the conservation of protected nature.
Organic farming and other forms of sustainable farming provide additional
opportunities to maintain the current basic biodiversity throughout the Netherlands and
improve where possible. This opportunity is missed in the approach. Organic

(and also some non-organic companies) outside the restricted areas
extra potential to further develop biodiversity, because these companies are on
have a structural way of incorporating biodiversity into their business processes
integrated
It is recommended that the possibilities for broadening the ANLb be explored

studies involving organic companies (or clusters of companies) outside the
selected areas are eligible for reimbursements from the ANLb
with new organic packages.
4. Recognize and reward functional biodiversity. It would be analogous to the ANLb

companies can help if the use of 'functional biodiversity' and thus
related ecosystem services would be rewardable in the future. This is too much
think of sustainable management of soils, closed nutrient cycles and
herb-rich fields and buffer edges for insect populations. This includes biodiversity
not necessarily red list species, but it is crucial for a well-functioning
sustainable agriculture with well-functioning natural resilience.
Investigate how organic farms score in terms of biodiversity and how the
increasing the contribution of functional biodiversity but also rewarding it falls within
the ANLb, which would stimulate the use of such natural methods
could be.
Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS).
5. In the regulations surrounding the AKIS, cooperation between actors is central.

This is because organic companies are often scattered all over the country
need attention in the terms and conditions. In the industry have in it
past various, very successful collaborations that have taken place
contributed to innovations for the sector and beyond (Koopmans et al., 2011).
Provincial boundaries when filling in arrangements will enhance cooperation for organic
unnecessarily restrict companies. Organic farming contributes to
various dossiers (e.g. nitrogen, biodiversity, water quality, climate
robust crops). However, there is often a lack of an integrated vision and tender
implementation from the province or central government. This creates the risk that
sectoral policy instruments rather hinder the expansion of organic acreage

stand then support.
Organize the arrangements within AKIS in such a way that collaborations of organic
companies and actors are specifically mentioned and made possible and
not be unnecessarily restricted by regional (provincial) boundaries and others
(administrative) conditions.
6. Increasing the degree of organization of the food chain. The organic sector
is characterized by a great diversity of producers, processors and (retail)
merchants. One of the vulnerabilities in the current chain is that the various
links have limited contact with each other, which affects the (negotiating) position
of producers in the chain can come under pressure. The choice is also possible
one part of the chain have unintended or unwanted effects on another
place.
It is therefore recommended to investigate how the degree of organization of the

Dutch organic sector is currently and whether it should be strengthened
are aligned with the focus areas and pace within the subsectors.
7. Collaboration aimed at chain management. Cooperation in the chain is often one

long-term process, creating trust and directing. Directors in the chain can
play a role in this and ensure that opportunities are better utilized through cooperation.
Where the market for organic baby food is booming in a country like France,
this hardly gets off the ground in the Netherlands. A more national example is the
supply and demand of organic flower bulbs. Although the desire is there among actors
in the chain, this market (virtually) does not get off the ground.
Enable long-term chain management aimed at the development of

organic product flows that increase the (latent) demand for organic products and
stimulate supply and better align it with growth
organic product possible. The focus should be on long-term
preservation of the sector, the principles of the sector (www.ifoam.bio) and not just it
revenue model.

8. Effect monitoring. Transparency and monitoring of biological effects
agriculture is an essential part of understanding the sector, to understand it
to grow, to enable innovation and to develop the sector
stimulate. The necessary and suitable instruments for this, which are in line with the
wishes (IFOAM principles) and conditions of the organic sector is missing
resulting in insufficient insight into performance and opportunities for improvement
within the industry. Collaboration is necessary to achieve consensus here as well
instruments that are tailored to the sectors.
Make effect monitoring and development of underlying instruments, which

match the wishes and needs of the organic sector, possibly for
communication and transparency purposes and to review the benefits/limitations of
also to make organic transparent for consumers and the market.
9. Linking research, advice and practice. Explore how the collaboration between
applied research, advice and practice can be strengthened. A central hub for
practical knowledge about organic agriculture and food can be a stimulating factor
work, for example through the development of Bioknowledge. Also a close connection,
cooperation and exchange of this research with regular agriculture can continue
enabling intensive cross-fertilization of developments.
Support intensive knowledge exchange on multiple fronts between research,

advice and practice, taking into account the specific developments within
subdivisions.
10. Extra value creation in the chain. Organizing cooperation in the chain,
focused on adding extra value are crucial for creating more
diversity in consumer offerings. Can be thought of
stimulating non-statutory sets of requirements and additional private labels. Of
in Germany in particular, there are successful examples of this that show the growth of
enable the sector.
The development of these chains, in which the consumer or buyer is reached, is
often a time-intensive and therefore costly investment. This is often the case
about collaborations with a large number of producers, buyers and intermediaries
parties. While these collaborations, or their further development, are crucial
to guarantee the sustainable and pioneering character of the organic chain.
Support these collaborations in sustainable added value chains

arise within or around the organic sector, so that the costs for the
(further) development thereof cannot be fully borne by those who apply
deploy for this.
5.2 General Odds
More is needed to increase the area of organic agriculture in the Netherlands

switching companies, existing companies converting more land or existing ones
organic farms need to expand. Supply and demand must be in balance
to be. The previous analysis via SWOT'S offers a number of starting points for this.
Leaving the demand side to the market has not led to sufficient results in recent years
the desired growth. It therefore seems logical that the government should play a much more active role in this
will fulfill. Developments in Denmark and Austria in particular point to this

stimulation of the market can lead to an acceleration of growth (and thus the acreage).
(Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark, 2015; De Volkskrant, 2021).
At the same time, this study is an initial exploration and the possibilities for
stimulate the sector numerous. The suggestions below have therefore not been tested
completeness or (scientific) effectiveness within the Dutch context. Mead
because the cabinet has indicated a national strategy for organic production
and consumption, a distinction has been made between stimulation through the
demand side, the supply side and general knowledge and education.
For the demand side
1. The European Commission proposes a

budget of 23 million euros for within the European Union. This seems too restrictive
European ambition. In addition, the Court of Audit found in 2020 that the
The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality is not yet directing this, while the
organic agriculture as a good example of circular agriculture fits within the
current policy goals.
Formulate organic as a policy starting point for central and regional governments.
Organic is no longer an exception or niche, but it
policy starting point. Make optimal use of the schemes and budgets
that the EU has for this purpose and supplement this where necessary and desired.
2. Stimulating demand. Government canteens and organized events

could always serve organic products. Could be researched
whether and how the school fruit scheme can possibly also be involved in this.
The demand for organic products can be increased by the chain parties

further encourage and encourage cooperation in this area. Next
supermarket chains could also stimulate processors in particular in this regard
turn into. The share of organic in the food service in the Netherlands lags behind considerably
compared to the classic Retail channel (Bionext, 2020). The limited supply and the
lack of knowledge about organic products in the channel seem to be the main one
causes.
The joint public kitchens form a substantial market for local chains.
With the inclusion of minimum percentages for organic products
future tender orders, a government can directly contribute to the growth of
organic consumption, sector wide. By doing the right thing as a customer in this way
To give an example, this also offers the government tools to enter into dialogue with
suppliers and market parties of large private public kitchens. They can in the
agree concrete ambitions for the purchase of
biological products.
3. Organic campaign. The consumer plays a key role in the possibility of

farmers and producers to produce organic food. Without these
consumer it is impossible to continue to receive a premium for the production of
biological food. It is important for consumers that they know what the
characteristics of organic production and products. Supermarkets and canteens
could also opt for the customer and, for example, no common alternative
offer more for organic fresh products.
It is therefore recommended to play a more active role in consumer information

and contribute to an (umbrella) marketing plan that also fits
among the differences in subsectors, the familiarity of the European Organic
Enlarge label. This can be combined with an investigation into it
effect of the campaign in relation to consumer behavioral change.
4. Supermarkets. The supermarkets can demand from consumers strongly

influence consumer choices. So it matters a lot whether
regular product and organic are offered side by side or organic de
is any choice. The method of packaging also plays a major role for consumers.
Countries such as Denmark, Germany, Austria and Switzerland have shown that
supermarkets can do a lot to encourage consumers to choose organic. In
In the Netherlands, supermarkets often emphasize the price. Located in other countries
the emphasis on organic and products of national origin. Instead of the
responsibility for a sustainable product such as organic, especially with the
consumer, supermarkets can also do a lot themselves.
It is advised to talk to supermarkets about their
social responsibility for promoting the organic product.
Through concrete agreements, the supply of organic products can continue
up. Taking responsibility is the key to this for the government
parties can address.
For the supply side
5. Indicators and numbers. For the sector, full transparency is an opportunity that the position
in the value chain. The organic regulations focus on one
process approach, while large parts of the chain are focused on a product
approach. Partly for this reason, companies hardly participate in the recycling guide
and there is no insight and monitoring in the field of, for example, biodiversity to achieve a
to substantiate claims about company performance. In the absence of figures how the
organic agriculture scores on various indicators, the organic sector is difficult as
to distinguish a separate group and with that any profit can be made
would be difficult to understand for the environment in the Netherlands, for example.
Collection of indicators on how the organic sector contributes to various

indicators are needed to arrive at a well-considered incentive policy. Integration in
the SKAL certification prevents more systems for monitoring and
accountability side by side on the farmyard, evoking resistance and visibility
on the performance of the sector remains limited. It is important that these
monitoring and accountability system is based and in line with the principles
of organic farming (www.ifoam.bio).
6. Reduce administrative burden. Companies in the organic sector are struggling with
relatively high administrative burden. Not only must the
existing regulations, but also to European organic legislation
as entered in the Netherlands via SKAL. In addition, customers also often set requirements
provide extra administration and extra burdens for organic companies. With that
additional standards could also be further developed, which are now becoming
omitted because of the impact this has on the cost price.
The (mandatory) monitoring and administration associated with organic

certification could be alleviated by the cost of certification through a
to compensate or largely reimburse the government scheme in order to compensate for the extra
costs that the organic companies have to incur compared to a regular one
reduce business operations.

7. Cost of land. The costs for land are at extensive operating companies such as those
relatively higher in organic farming compared to regular farms. One
premium contribution to these additional costs for companies would be switching, new and
existing companies can help to opt for extensification with corresponding

environmental impact per hectare. It is expected that the extent of land use in the
livestock farming can be demonstrably guaranteed via, for example, the livestock density per
hectares. For arable farming, this requires further elaboration, but it is possible
to the existing plot registration of RVO to extensive from intensive
(per ha) can be distinguished.
It is recommended to start research and/or pilots into the possibilities of

the underlying problem, the pressure on the price of land (which has come loose in
of the economic value of the land for the farm), te
to lower.
8. Business Transfer. Extra attention is paid to the problem of business takeovers

necessary to support extensively operating companies such as organic. Also
here the companies have to deal with structurally higher costs compared to
companies that choose to work more intensively. Given the recommendation of the
Court of Audit to abolish the agricultural exemption can be considered
to design such an instrument exclusively as an incentive measure
for companies that work according to the principles of organic farming.
It is recommended to investigate how organic farming is safeguarded and

can be stimulated in the event of a business takeover, for example through a review of
the agricultural exemption and also outside the immediate family.
9. Long-Term Financing Fund. Conversion premiums for companies that

switching to organic farming are in the 90s in the Netherlands and recently
also used as an instrument in other European countries. These arrangements are coming
often to the benefit of companies' cash position. One drawback is that such
incentive often covers a period of 2-3 years during which companies incur additional costs
have to make. This means that a regulation does not do justice to the often higher ones
structural costs of organic farming. Also has such

scheme tends to yield additional agricultural products in segments where on
at that time may not be ahead of such a level of demand from the market.
In order to support organic farming, it is better to look for forms
of government contribution to a 'green' or 'bio' fund that enables banks to lower
financing costs for companies in the longer term. Important
in addition, such a fund is not a 'top-up' on the existing (expensive) financing
is designed by banks of companies but is based on the overall
corporate finance. Not only new financing of companies (where this
hardly helped) but also existing financing would then be out
such a fund should receive support so that banks are forced too
look structurally differently (more positively) at the financing of organic companies.
It is recommended to set up a fund with a long-term focus

financing of organic companies and as a stick behind the door for banks
otherwise against financing companies that want to work organically
look.
10. Tenancy Policy. The availability and price of land is often considered one of the
explanations why the growth of organic in the Netherlands is so far behind.
compared to the rest of Europe. The government is one of the largest tenants
in the country, and to date allocates leased land almost exclusively on the basis of the
highest bidder. Organic farmers, who, for example, do not use the
derogation, almost always fall by the wayside due to this system. In addition
many local governments often have the desire for a more sustainable
to implement a lease policy, but they do not have the knowledge and time to implement this independently
search or execute.
It is therefore recommended to investigate which barriers the Central Government

good business has to do that lead to the current system and these barriers
to dispel. In addition, guidelines should be drawn up for
smaller lessors to help set additional terms that match
in organic farming, such as preventing short-term land use.
Innovation, knowledge and education
11. National knowledge agenda for organic agriculture. Knowledge and innovation would be one
important role in the sector. Attention to solving sectoral

bottlenecks is important here. In addition to knowledge questions in production, there are also
knowledge questions in the valorisation and marketing of organic products

for example, could expand the sales market or find a better connection with
the consumption trend of healthier and fresher food. A separate question here is how
organic products can become accessible and affordable for everyone and
become less of a niche market.

An integrated knowledge and development agenda with a focus on
the national ambition for growth of the organic agricultural area. This can be one
support the acceleration of growth and further development of the sector. Here is
It is important that this research is set up from biological principles, the
consumer expectations and implementation is given within the organic
context.
12. Innovation pilots in practice. The SWOTs from the (sub)sectors show that there are major
there is a need for further development of the sector through innovations. Financing for
Partly due to its scale, however, R&D is limited and little focused on the sector itself or
stimulation or expansion of the area. Development of knowledge and innovation are
crucial to stimulate the sector, to allow it to take steps and to overcome barriers
changeovers and new entrants. Participatory development from
a demand-driven context in which organic and regular (conversion) companies
being involved is an appropriate set of instruments for this. This can take shape through pilots
in practice where applied research and companies work together on the

innovations in the sector. Management based on the demand of the subsectors and
potential changeover switches is important here. Multi-year commitment as well. In addition
must be designed scientifically in order to provide the necessary

to ensure justification.
It is recommended to aim for innovation pilots in which organic and

interested regular entrepreneurs with the applied research are working on
innovation in the sector and bottlenecks for expanding the organic area
to dispel. Examples on which the focus can be placed are breeding
for organic and resistant varieties, sustainable soil management within the context
of legislation, stimulation of biodiversity for underground and above ground
functional biodiversity, automation and robotization in arable farming and
vegetable cultivation and efficiency in the reuse of residual flows within the sector.
13. Changeover. An important knowledge question is whether with the current structure of the
agriculture, the environmental benefit is also achieved with an extra switch to organic
that is intended. In the absence of knowledge of the sector and its characteristics
changeover switches remains unclear whether they will contribute equally to environmental benefits per
hectares as existing companies.
It is recommended, in addition to extra monitoring and insight into the performance of the
current organic companies also follow the conversion companies and so on

understand their adjustments and contribution to different indicators.
14. Development of craftsmanship in education. Biology is in education
agriculture and specific knowledge and craftsmanship that is necessary for an ecological and
natural process, still in its infancy. This appears particularly in the bearing and
secondary vocational education, but also in higher education
hardly any specific knowledge about organic farming. Gets here
mainly taught general ecological knowledge. The recent digitization of
education, partly stimulated by the corona epidemic, seems to have opportunities here
offer.
It is recommended to set up cross-school digital modules around

organic farming and to stimulate and support this through cooperation of
education, experts from the field and knowledge institutions.

References
Aarnink, AJA, Hol, JMG, Beurskens, AGC, & Wagemans, MJM (2005).
Ammonia emission and mineral load on the range of laying hens (No. 337).
Agrotechnology & Food Sciences Group.
Aarnink, AJA, Ivanova-Peneva, SG, Schouten, WGP, & Nijeboer, GM (2005).
Ammonia and mineral losses in organic pig farming: summary of the study (No. 344).
Agrotechnology & Food Sciences Group.
Agriculture - database
https://agrimatie.nl/ThemaResultaat.aspx?subpubID=2232&themaID=2267&indicatorID=2
013
https://agrimatie.nl/themaResultaat.aspx?subpubID=2232§orID=2243&themaID=226
7&indicatorID=2012
https://www.agrimatie.nl/themaResultaat.aspx?subpubID=2232§orID=2245&themaID
=2272&indicatorID=2046
https://agrimatie.nl/data/results agricultural and horticultural companies/profit and loss account
Agridata database
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/OrganicProduction.html ?
select=EU27_FLAG,1
Alebeek, FAN van, & Dekking, AJG (2011). Sustainability performance in the field
of Nature and Landscape: substudy of sustainability performance of Dutch organic agriculture.
Applied Plant & Environment Research, Business Unit Arable Farming, Green Space and Outdoor
Vegetables.
Auerswald, K., Kainz, M., & Fiener, P. (2003). Soil erosion potential of organic versus
conventional farming evaluated by USLE modeling of cropping statistics for agricultural
districts in Bavaria. Soil Use and Management, 19(4), 305-311.
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., & Weibull, AC (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on
biodiversity and abundance: a meta‐analysis. Journal of applied ecology, 42(2), 261-269.
Berkhout, P., Eweg, A., Jellema, A., van der Meulen, H., Venema, G. (2021). Analysis of the
agriculture and the rural area in the Netherlands: a SWOT analysis. Wageningen
Economic Research, Report 2021-075, Wageningen, 144 p.
Berkhout, P., Eweg, A., Jellema, A., van der Meulen, H., Venema, G. (2021). Analysis of the
agriculture and the rural area in the Netherlands: a SWOT analysis. Attachments.
Wageningen Economic Research, Report 2021-075, Wageningen, 164 p.
Berentsen, PBM, & Van Asseldonk, MAPM (2016). An empirical analysis of risk in
conventional and organic arabic farming in The Netherlands. European Journal of
Agronomy, 79, 100-106.
BioNext (2020). Trend report 2019. Developments in the organic sector. Ede. 34 pp.
Bos, JFFP, De Haan, JJ, & Sukkel, W. (2007). Energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and
carbon sequestration: comparing organic and conventional agriculture. Full report (No. 140).
Plant Research International.
Bos, JFFP, & Dekker, SEM (2010). Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in biological
fruit growing and poultry farming (No. 348). Plant Research International.
Bos, JF, de Haan, J., Sukkel, W., & Schils, RL (2014). Energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions in organic and conventional farming systems in the Netherlands. NJAS-
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 68, 61-70.
Boutin, C., Baril, A., & Martin, PA (2008). Plant diversity in crop fields and woody hedgerows
of organic and conventional farms in contrasting landscapes. Agriculture, ecosystems &
environment, 123(1-3), 185-193.
CBS (2021). Open data with activities of organic farms
https://opendata.cbs.nl/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83922ENG/table?ts=1631178087475
CBS (2021). Financial data, organic and non-organic companies
https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/84448ENG/table?ts=1627896283546
Clements, DR, Weise, SF, Brown, R., Stonehouse, DP, Hume, DJ, & Swanton, CJ
(1995). Energy analysis of tillage and herbicide inputs in alternative weed management
systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 52(2-3), 119-128.
Dekking, A., Jansma, JE, Janssens, B., & Smit, B., (2020). Organic farming in Flevoland.
Size of product flows. Wageningen UR, Wageningen, 43 p.
Diepeningen, AD van, de Vos, OJ, Korthals, GW, & van Bruggen, AH (2006). Effects or
organic versus conventional management on chemical and biological parameters in
agricultural soils. Applied soil ecology, 31(1-2), 120-135.
Dobben, HF van, Quik, C., Wamelink, GW, & Lantinga, EA (2019). Vegetation
composition of Lolium perenne-dominated grasslands under organic and conventional
farming. Basic and Applied Ecology, 36, 45-53.
Eurostat, 2020. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A., Buchmann, N., ... & Niggli, U.
(2012). Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 18226-18231.
Geiger, F., van der Lubbe, SC, Brunsting, AM, & de Snoo, GR (2010). Insect abundance
in cow dung pats of different farming systems. entomological messages, 70(4), 106-110.
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M.G. (2011). Environmental impact of different
agricultural management practices: conventional vs. organic agriculture. Critical reviews in plant
sciences, 30(1-2), 95-124.
Groot, M. (2021). Health effects of organic farming. Overview of literature since
2005. Wageningen Food Safety Research. WFSR Report 2021.004. Wageningen UR,
Wageningen, 28 p.
Haas, G., Wetterich, F., & Köpke, U. (2001). Comparing intensive, extended and organic
grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture,
ecosystems & environment, 83(1-2), 43-53.
Kool, A., Blonk, H., Ponsioen, T., Sukkel, W., Vermeer, HM, de Vries, JW, & Hoste, R. (2009).
Carbon footprints of conventional and organic pork: extensive summary: analysis of typical
production systems in the Netherlands, Denmark, England and Germany Blonk Milieu
Advies.
Koopmans, CJ, van Veluw, K., & Wijnands, FG (2011). Participatory development:
cooperation in a demand-driven context of organic farming. Wageningen UR and
Louis Bolk Institute, Report no. 2011-032 LbD. 68 pp.
Kragten, S., & de Snoo, GR (2008). Field-breeding birds on organic and conventional
arabic farms in the Netherlands. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 126(3-4), 270-274.
Kragten, S., Tamis, WL, Gertenaar, E., Ramiro, SM, van der Poll, RJ, Wang, J., & de Snoo,
GR (2011). Abundance of invertebrate prey for birds on organic and conventional arabic
farms in the Netherlands. Bird Conservation International, 21(1), 1-11.
Lee, KS, Choe, YC, & Park, SH (2015). Measuring the environmental effects of organic
farming: A meta-analysis of structural variables in empirical research. Journal of
Environmental Management, 162, 263-274.
Leifeld, J., & Fuhrer, J. (2010). Organic farming and soil carbon sequestration: what do we do
really know about the benefits?. Ambio, 39(8), 585-599.
Lotter, D. W., Seidel, R., & Liebhardt, W. (2003). The performance of organic and
conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, 18(3), 146-154.
References 65
Lynch, D. H., MacRae, R., & Martin, R. C. (2011). The carbon and global warming potential
impacts of organic farming: Does it have a significant role in an energy constrained world?.
Sustainability, 3(2), 322-362.
Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and
biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296(5573), 1694-1697.
Meier, MS, Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., & Stolze, M. (2015).
Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products–Are the differences
captured by life cycle assessment?. Journal of environmental management, 149, 193-208.
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark (2015). Organic Action Plan for
denmark. Working together for more organics. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of
Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark, 9 p.
Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). A meta‐analysis of the
differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. British food
journal 111(10): 1098-1119.
Sustainable Food Monitor (2020). Logatcheva, K. Wageningen Economic Research.
Wageningen, 17 p.
Mulder, C., De Zwart, D., Van Wijnen, HJ, Schouten, AJ, & Breure, AM (2003).
Observational and simulated evidence of ecological shifts within the soil nematode
community of agroecosystems under conventional and organic farming. Functional
Ecology, 516-525.
Nsp-toekomstglb.nl
Plomp, M., & Migchels, G. (2021). Quick scan nitrogen problem and biological
livestock farming: Possible contribution of the organic sector to solutions for ammonia problems
(No. 1306). Wageningen Livestock Research.
Pulleman, M., Jongmans, A., Marinissen, J., & Bouma, J. (2003). Effects of organic versus
conventional arabic farming on soil structure and organic matter dynamics in a marine loam in
the Netherlands. Soil Use and Management, 19(2), 157-165.
Reganold, JP, Elliott, LF, & Unger, YL (1987). Long-term effects of organic and
conventional farming on soil erosion. Nature, 330(6146), 370-372.
Reganold, JP, & Wachter, JM (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century.
Natureplants, 2(2), 1-8.
Ruis, M & Pinxterhuis JB (2007). Responsible and communicable arguments
organic products: animal welfare. Animal Sciences Group, Report 39, Wageningen, 78 p.https://
edepot.wur.nl/115912
Ruis M, Pinxterhuis I & Vrolijk M. (2009). Update welfare performance of organic livestock farming..
Livestock Research, Report 317, Wageningen UR, 90 p. https://edepot.wur.nl/139973
Sanders J, Heß J (eds) (2019) Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und
Gesellschaft .2. überarbeitete und ergänzte Aufl age. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von
Thünen-Institut, 398 p, Thuenen Rep 65, DOI:10.3220/REP1576488624000
Schader, C., Stolze, M., & Gattinger, A. (2012). Environmental performance of organic
farming. In Green technologies in food production and processing (pp. 183-210).
Springer, Boston, MA.
Schouten, AJ, Bloem, J., Didden, W., Keidel, H., & Rutgers, M. (2002). Soil biology
Indicator 1999. Ecological quality of grasslands on sandy soil at three categories of dairy farms.
RIVM report 607604003 2002/2003. Bilthoven, 107 p.
Scialabba, NEH, & Müller-Lindenlauf, M. (2010). Organic agriculture and climate change.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(2), 158-169.
Seufert, V., & Ramankutty, N. (2017). Many shades of gray—The context-dependent
performance of organic agriculture. Science Advances, 3(3), e1602638.
Siegrist, S., Schaub, D., Pfiffner, L., & Mäder, P. (1998). Does organic agriculture reduce soil
erodibility? The results of a long-term field study on loess in Switzerland. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 69(3), 253-264.
Skinner, C., Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Mäder, P., Flieβbach, A., Stolze, M., ... & Niggli, U. (2014).
Greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management—A
global meta-analysis. Science of the total environment, 468, 553-563.
Skinner, C., Gattinger, A., Krauss, M., Krause, H.M., Mayer, J., Van Der Heijden, M.G., &
Mader, P. (2019). The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas
emissions. Scientific reports, 9(1), 1-10.
Smith, L.G., Williams, A.G., & Pearce, B.D. (2015). The energy efficiency of organic
agriculture: A review. Renewable agriculture and Food systems, 30(3), 280-301.
Staps, S., Tromp, S., Axmann, H. & Janmaat, L., (2017). Efficient chain – Prevention of
residual flows. Louis Bolk Institute. Publ. No. 2019-004 LbP. 60 p.m
Stockdale, EA, Shepherd, MA, Fortune, S., & Cuttle, SP (2002). Soil fertility in organic
farming systems–fundamentally different?. Soil use and management, 18, 301-308.
Stokkers R., van der Meer R., Schoorlemmer, H., & Hendriks-Goossens, V. (2010). Successors
wanted for farming. LEI Report 2010-042. LEI, The Hague. 75 pp.
Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Häring, AM, & Dabbert, S. (2000). Environmental impacts of organic
farming in Europe. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart-Hohenheim.
Sukkel, W., Spruijt, J., Heijerman-Peppelman, G., & Vermeij, I. (2007). Responsible and
communicable arguments for organic products: environmental effects. Practical
Research Plant & Environment, Report no. 362, Wageningen 94 p.
Sukkel, W., van Geel, WCA, & De Haan, JJ (2009). Carbon sequestration in organic and
conventional managed soil in the Netherlands. 16thIFOAM Organic World Congress,
Modena, Italy June 16-20, 2008. https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/12300/1/12300.pdf
Sukkel, W. (2010). Sustainability performance in the field of Climate: substudy of
sustainability performance of Dutch organic agriculture. Applied Plant & Environment
Research, Business Unit Arable Farming, Green Space and Outdoor Vegetables., Wageningen
64 p.
Sukkel, W., van Wijk, CAP, & Vermeij, I. (2011). Sustainability performance in the field of
Environment: Substudy of sustainability performance of Dutch organic agriculture. Applied
Research Plant & Environment, Business Unit Arable Farming, Green Space and Outdoor
Vegetables, Wageningen 84 p.
Thomassen, MA, van Calker, KJ, Smits, MC, Iepema, GL, & de Boer, IJ (2008). Life
cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.
Agricultural systems, 96(1-3), 95-107.
Tuomisto, HL, Hodge, ID, Riordan, P., & Macdonald, DW (2012). Does organic farming
reduce environmental impacts?–A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of
environmental management, 112, 309-320.
Vigar, V., Myers, S., Oliver, C., Arellano, J., Robinson, S., & Leifert, C. (2020). A Systematic
Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit
on Human Health? Nutrients 202, 12(1), 7. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/1/7/htm
Verbruggen, E., Röling, WF, Gamper, HA, Kowalchuk, GA, Verhoef, HA, & van der
Heijden, M. G. (2010). Positive effects of organic farming on below‐ground mutualists: large‐
scale comparison of mycorrhizal fungal communities in agricultural soils. New Phytologist,
186(4), 968-979.
Willer, H., Travnicek, J., Meier, C., & Schlatter, B. (2021) The World of Organic Agriculture.
Statistics and Emerging Trends 2021. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL. IFOAM
Organics International, Frick, Switzerland, 340 p.
www.ifoam.bio
References 67
www.skal.nl/en/legislation
News articles
Agriculture: Organic food increasingly popular with consumers, 11-17-2020

https://agrimatie.nl/SectorResultaat.aspx?subpubID=2232§orID=2243&themaID=2810
Akkerwijzer, Switching to organic: don't be fooled by the costs, 23-01-2020
https://www.akkerwijzer.nl/artikel/233811-om Schakel-naar-bio-verkijk-je-niet-op-dekosten/
De Volkskrant (2021). Bio Master. Saturday, September 4, 2021 p10.
Attachment 1 Number of hectares of certified organic
arable land per province in 2020
8,000
7,309
7,000
6,000
5,000
Number of hectares
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,251
1,002
812 785
1,000 567 453 584 583
299 229 316
0
Figure B.1. Number of hectares of certified organic arable land per province in 2020 (according to CBS, 2021).
Appendix 2 Number of hectares of certified organic

horticultural land per province in 2020
1,400
1,159
1,200
1,000
Number of hectares
800
600
400 293
252 241 269 266
192
200 102 134
45 48 64
0
Figure B.2. Number of hectares of certified organic horticultural land per province in 2020 (based on CBS,
2021).
Attachments 69
attachment 3 Number of hectares of certified organic grassland
and forage land per province in 2020
10000
9000 8,649
8000
7000 6,246
Number of hectares
6000 5,583
5,056 4,940
5000
3948 4,089
4000 3,216 3,323
2,897
3000
2000
775 987
1000
0
Figure B 3. Number of hectares of certified organic grassland and forage crops per province in 2020
(based on CBS, 2021).
Appendix 4 Number of hectares of certified organic

greenhouse horticulture land per province in 2020
35
30 29
25 24
Number of hectares
20 18 18
17
15
15
12
10
7
6
5
5 4
3
Figure B.4. Number of hectares of certified organic greenhouse horticulture land per province in 2020 (based on CBS,
2021).
Annex 5 Outline of the new CAP
In short, the new CAP after 2021 consists of four steps divided into two
pillars (see Figure B.5.):
Figure B.5. Summary of the tools within the CAP-NSP
- Pillar 1 with the:
○ Basic premium (€ 240 per ha per year), subject to so-called conditionality

must be met that is closely in line with the current basic conditions. This one is
translated by the European Commission into 10 Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions
(GAEC). This is a list of GAEC targets that have been elaborated.

○ The “eco scheme” with a points system. Companies that meet the
conditionality can by taking some additional
measures are eligible for an additional fee, the so-called
“eco scheme”. The “eco-regulation” is a selection menu with several measures
that contribute to the goals of the environment, climate and biodiversity. The farmer has
the choice of several measures.

- Pillar 2 containing:
○ The collective Agricultural Nature and Landscape Management (ANLb): that is about
biodiversity, landscape, water quality, etc. Farmers can participate in this

in the so-called restricted areas: areas where those goals are promising.
○ Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Arrangements for training,
investments, innovation, etc. This is a collection of activities with which

entrepreneurs can be supported to try new things.
Attachments 71

Swot Analyse Van de Biologische Landbouw Met Kansen Voor Stimulering - Nl.en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Swot Analyse Van de Biologische Landbouw Met Kansen Voor Stimulering - Nl.en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translated from Dutch to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

SWOT analysis of organic farming with

Chris Koopmans, Ilse Geijzendorffer, Leen Janmaat, Burret

SWOT Analysis of Organic Farming with Opportunities

CJ Koopmans, IR Geijzendorffer, L. Janmaat, BLM

Publication number: 2021-030 LbP

This publication is available at

T 0343 523 860 Study

Louis Bolk Institute: Research and advice to promote

In response to a question from LNV to researchers at the Louis Bolk Institute, in

2 Figures and trends in the organic sector 8

3 SWOT analyzes of the organic subsectors 30

4 SWOT of the organic sector as a whole 47

5 Opportunities to stimulate the organic sector 53

Attachment 1 Number of hectares of certified organic arable land per province

Appendix 2 Number of hectares of certified organic horticultural land per

attachment 3 Number of hectares of certified organic grassland and

Appendix 4 Number of hectares of certified organic greenhouse horticulture land per

Annex 5 Outline of the new CAP 71

the cap. This is in contrast to the situation in the Netherlands.

establish a strategy for organic production and consumption. Part of

This in-depth study outlines what organic farming can contribute to

D. Climate change and renewable energy

Chapter 3 focuses on the subsectors within organic agriculture. Here is

a) To what extent can organic farming make a positive contribution (strength).

opportunities in certain areas of the sector?

Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the opportunities for further stimulation of the

'Organic' is used in this study as a term for a method of preparing food

This chapter provides an overview of a number of facts surrounding the

2.1 Smart Resilient Agriculture

a. A viable agricultural income and food security

3,193 3,302 3,303

Figures and trends of the organic sector 9

In terms of income, organic dairy farms show a comparable income (actually

The competitiveness of organic has increased in the last decade. Products

Table 1. Expenditure on organic food (source Sustainable Food Monitor, 2020)

Product group spending spending Development Market share Market share

Coffee and tea 93 81 - 13 3 3

Sales channel spending spending Development Market share Market share

Figures and trends of the organic sector 11

The number of traders mainly shows a steadily growing trend.

Figures and trends of the organic sector 13

On January 1, 2022, the new EU organic regulation No. 2018/848 in effect

conservation of natural resources and the application of strict standards to it

2.2 Environment, biodiversity and climate

d. Climate change and sustainable energy

In organic farming systems, the use of energy is usually relatively efficient,

Arable farming and field vegetable cultivation

an average of about 28 GJ ha-1energy consumed (indirect and direct energy consumption

however, disappear or turn in favor of the regular sector. In a follow-up study

Figures and trends of the organic sector 15

Greenhouse gas emissions

Arable farming and field vegetable cultivation

In organic (dairy) farming, a reduction in CO2and N2Oh emissions

Pig and poultry farming

is higher in soils where organic farming is practiced than in regular soils

Figures and trends of the organic sector 17

Pulleman et al. (2003) report a higher organo-

According to various studies, organic farming is more resistant to

may be limited compared to regular systems (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017).

e. Efficient management of natural resources such as water, soil and air

Arable farming and vegetable growing

56% (Sukkel et al., 2007, 2011).