Between Pressure and Perspective: Building a Future-Proof Agriculture

The transition to sustainable agriculture requires a united effort. ELAN is one of the organizations that, like the CDLT, is working toward a future-proof sector. Because one thing is certain: we cannot tackle this challenge alone.

In Friesland, farmers, administrators, and regional organizations collaborate within ELAN, a collective for agricultural nature management. In this capacity, Secretary Wout van Vulpen and Chair Grytsje van der Sluis speak daily with farmers about the realities, policies, and future of the sector. Those realities are challenging. Farmers want to move forward, but they’re operating within a system that’s causing friction. Regulations are piling up, goals are conflicting, and a clear direction is lacking. What does that mean for entrepreneurship on the farm? And what’s needed to truly make sustainable agriculture possible? In this conversation, they share their experiences, concerns, and perspectives on change.

Seeking balance in a complex system

Agriculture faces major challenges. From nitrogen and biodiversity to water quality and climate: the list of goals is long. Yet, according to ELAN, the biggest bottleneck lies not in a lack of solutions, but in the complexity of the system itself. There is no single problem—and therefore no single solution. Farmers differ greatly from one another, and so do the challenges they face. Approaches such as circular agriculture or nature-inclusive farming are valuable, but they also raise new questions. For instance, when is something truly sustainable? And what does “nature-inclusive” mean in practice? What is becoming increasingly clear to ELAN is the importance of land-based operations. Farms that can link their production to their own land have more opportunities to steer their operations. As soon as that link is missing, dependencies arise—for example, regarding feed and manure—that limit entrepreneurship. At the same time, practice shows that it is precisely this land-based approach that is under pressure.

Complexity also plays a role at the global level. International markets and differences in regulations create an uneven playing field. Farmers operate within increasingly strict frameworks, while that is not the case everywhere in the world. “We adhere to more and more rules, while other parties do not,” is the sentiment. That makes the discussion about sustainability complicated not only locally, but also internationally.

Complexity also plays a role at the global level. International markets and differences in regulations create an uneven playing field. Farmers operate within increasingly strict frameworks, while that is not the case everywhere in the world. “We adhere to more and more rules, while others do not,” is the sentiment. This makes the discussion about sustainability complicated not only locally but also internationally.

Whereas farmers used to be judged primarily on their craftsmanship, today’s work revolves largely around regulations. Deadlines, standards, and administrative obligations determine the scope for action. The sector has become entangled in a maze of rules in which farmers struggle to find their way. Moreover, this accumulation of policies leads to contradictions. Tools such as key performance indicators show that goals are not always achievable simultaneously. Those who score well in one area often fall short in another. The reality is that not everything can be done at once.

On top of that, policies change regularly. New administrations set different priorities, making long-term decisions uncertain. For farmers, who invest over years and sometimes generations, this is a fundamental problem. “Tell us what to do, and we’ll do it—but don’t keep changing the rules,” is a sentiment ELAN hears frequently in the field. The result is caution and growing distrust toward the government. The consequences of this system are becoming evident on the farm. Farmers are making choices that don’t always align with their own vision, but are necessary to remain economically viable. One example is the handling of manure and land use. Due to high costs and restrictions, farmers are looking for alternatives, such as temporarily using land for arable farming. This may work in practice, but it sometimes conflicts with goals related to grazing, soil quality, and biodiversity. In practice, this means that farmers make choices they do not actually want to make, but which are necessary to keep the business afloat. This also leads to unintended consequences at the policy level. When dairy farms disappear and grassland is converted to arable farming, this has consequences for water quality and CO₂ storage. As a result, policy sometimes risks achieving the opposite of what it intends.

Lack of a Regional Vision

A recurring issue is the lack of a clear regional vision. In regions surrounding Natura 2000 areas, businesses are disappearing, but the question of what should replace them remains unanswered. Will it be nature, agriculture, recreation, or housing? Without clear choices, fragmentation and uncertainty arise. Land becomes available and is often purchased by parties that can invest, which further drives upscaling. At the same time, that is not necessarily the direction being pursued in policy. According to ELAN, this calls for more leadership: clear frameworks and consistent decisions about what should happen to an area. Right now, many farmers feel as though changes are happening to them, rather than them being part of a well-thought-out course of action.

To make sustainable agriculture possible, a broader approach is needed. Not only must ecological goals be central, but also economic viability and social impact. This means that work must be done on a revenue model that goes beyond production alone. Side activities such as recreation or care can contribute to a future-proof business, provided there is room for them. At the same time, the responsibility for sustainability should not fall entirely on the farmer. It requires a joint effort by the government, the market, and society.

The Power of Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration

According to ELAN, the most promising developments stem from grassroots initiatives. Farmers possess a wealth of knowledge and experience, but that knowledge is not yet being shared sufficiently. Study groups, practical networks, and “living labs” offer opportunities to change this. In such environments, farmers learn from one another, experiment, and apply insights directly to their own farms. Success lies not only in the content but also in the social aspect: meeting one another, sharing experiences, and working together toward improvement. Change works best when it comes from the bottom up. When farmers themselves are part of the solution, support and momentum are created. Not because they have to, but because it works and offers practical value.

Finally, farmers play an important role in the broader rural community. Farmers contribute to the quality of life, social cohesion, and amenities in villages. When farms disappear, the consequences extend beyond agriculture alone. Agriculture is thus at a crossroads. The willingness to change is there, but it is held back by uncertainty and conflicting incentives. What is needed is direction: clear goals, consistent choices, and room for customization. With more leadership, trust, and cooperation, an agricultural system can emerge that is not only sustainable on paper but also works in practice. A system in which farmers can once again build their future, rather than constantly having to make adjustments.

At the CDLT, we believe the key lies in connection: between science and practice, and among stakeholders. Only by learning together and focusing on coherence can we create an agricultural system that is truly future-proof. This article was produced with the assistance of the ELAN collective.