Periodic reporting on agricultural and horticultural policy

Dialogic has conducted a Periodic Report on agricultural policy for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security, and Nature (LVVN) covering the period 2019-2024. This Periodic Report focuses on the extent to which the policy has contributed to a resilient, sustainable, and safe functioning agricultural and food system. The evaluation assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy and the instruments employed. The evaluation focuses on article 21 of the LVVN budget and on the components of article 24 that support this policy area. The agricultural policy has a broad central objective. LVVN aims to achieve a resilient, sustainable, and safe functioning agricultural and food system that is internationally competitive, with a focus on animal welfare, careful use of natural resources, and efficient and high-quality utilization of yields and by-products. Within this central objective, eight sub-goals have been formulated:

1. Strengthening the competitiveness of sustainable agri-food chains.
2. Promotion of food security worldwide.
3. Ensuring food safety and quality.
4. Increasing societal appreciation of agriculture/food.
5. Sustainability of production and consumption (through circular agriculture).
6. Promotion of plant health.
7. Promotion of animal health.
8. Promotion of animal welfare.

To achieve these goals, the ministry employs an extensive policy mix. A total of 104 instruments have been identified, of which 46 are classified as stimulating (e.g. subsidies, guarantees, loans), 26 as normative (e.g. enforcement and oversight organizations), and 17 as knowledge dissemination (e.g. monitors). The remaining 15 instruments combine elements of the three aforementioned categories. Most instruments are primarily focused on the sub-goal of sustainability of production and consumption, both in number (38% of the total) and financial scope (46% of the total).

Effectiveness and efficiency

The report concludes that the effectiveness of the policy mix is predominantly present and demonstrable. The available evaluations provide an adequate basis for a positive, indicative statement regarding the policy's contribution. The policy mix primarily contributes to a resilient, sustainable, and safe functioning agricultural and food system that is internationally competitive and prioritises animal welfare. The contribution to the careful use of natural resources and the efficient and high-quality utilization of yields and by-products is more limited. The assessment of minor efficiency, the efficiency of instrument implementation, is predominantly positive. Many measures have relatively low implementation costs. The evaluation of major efficiency (the cost of an instrument in relation to the societal returns of that instrument) is moderately positive. However, the assessment varies by sub-goal. Major efficiency is positively rated for policies related to food safety and quality, plant health, animal health, and animal welfare. The picture is more mixed for the sub-goal of sustainability of production and consumption. This sub-goal encompasses a very broad and diverse set of instruments, making it challenging to determine how efficient the policy mix is as a whole. The assessment of policies aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of sustainable agri-food chains is negative. This is mainly due to two fiscal regulations, agricultural exemption and the reduced VAT rate for horticulture. These regulations have a significant budgetary impact and score negatively in terms of major efficiency.

Recommendations

Based on the evaluation, the report provides several recommendations. An essential recommendation is to reconsider, adjust, or abolish policy instruments with negative ratings for major efficiency. This can make the policy mix more efficient and may allow resources to be more effectively allocated to other challenges within agriculture and food production. Furthermore, the report suggests clarifying the relationship between the central objective and the sub-goals. Some sub-goals, such as global food security and societal appreciation for agriculture and food, are not clearly reflected in the overarching objective. Additionally, the role of LVVN in these sub-goals is relatively limited, or the range of instruments is limited. The report also highlights the importance of better indicators. Currently, indicators and target values are lacking for the central objective, and the coverage of indicators for the sub-goals is not complete. Improved indicators are necessary to monitor progress and effectiveness more effectively in the future. Finally, the report includes policy options for the upcoming period. For future evaluations, it is proposed to establish a clear evaluation framework, to ensure that evaluations of individual policy instruments align better with the next Periodic Report. Given the significant challenges facing the sector, the report advises considering whether freed-up resources can be reallocated to measures that contribute to the further development and sustainability of agriculture and horticulture.

Report and next steps

On 10 July 2026, the government responded to the periodic report on agricultural policy. The policy response can be read here. The full report and the infographic illustrating the outcomes of the periodic report can be found at the bottom of this post under the download button (next to the team).