The ecosystem of organic farming: finding room and direction to grow

There seem to be countless persistent assumptions about organic farming, senior economist Lan van Wassenaer discovered while researching measures to support the growth of organic farming in the Netherlands. They range from ‘organic is only for the alternative crowd’ to ‘consumers think organic food is too expensive’. How do you research a subject shaped by so many beliefs and competing interests?

Organic farming is not your usual research field. Why did you decide to explore it?

“Organic farming has been on the policy and research agenda for more than 30 years. I have followed developments from the sidelines for over twenty years now, sometimes through my work and sometimes in my personal life. Over coffee, my colleagues regularly debate the pros and cons of organic farming. Is organic the most sustainable form of agriculture? Can organic farming feed the world? Is regenerative agriculture even better than organic? Those are just a few examples. At home, I hear different anecdotes about organic farming and food, whether from the past, when organic was associated with the ‘woolly jumper’ stereotype, or from other countries where organic standards are not always applied as strictly. In short, I had read and heard enough to know that the subject kept resurfacing, and enough to realise that I had never really taken the time to study it properly. Organic farming simply was not my main area of research.

That changed when I took a deep dive into the subject for this recent study, published in a report in July 2026. The Dutch government’s ambition to increase the share of agricultural land under organic production to 15% by 2030 has accelerated policy development and increased the urgency for research. The question we were asked was clearly defined: which measures are most promising for further stimulating demand for Dutch organic products, in addition to the existing Action Plan? That gave us a clear framework to work within. The report focuses on two measures: procurement commitments by government and public institutions, also known as green public procurement, and procurement obligations for actors in the supply chain. Neither is a silver bullet. Both come with conditions, limitations and prerequisites that need to be met before they can work.”

What made this research so complicated?

“It was an intensive and very instructive process, involving many discussions, often critical ones, both within the research team and with stakeholders. One question kept coming back: are we actually asking the right question? Should we not first establish why we want 15% of agricultural land to be organic? As applied researchers, we do not always determine what is being researched. But we can point to the bigger questions and make clear where, because of practical limitations, we have to rely on assumptions.

I explored the subject much more deeply than I had during my twenty years of following it from the sidelines. Although I already knew quite a lot, I was still surprised several times along the way. It quickly became clear that there are not just two or three persistent misconceptions or assumptions. There seem to be hundreds of them. Assumptions about who an organic farmer is and what motivates them. About what is really stopping consumers from buying organic. About whether a procurement obligation solves a problem or merely shifts it elsewhere. Every question opened up another one, and every perspective, agronomic, economic, ethical, behavioural or policy-related, produced a slightly different answer.

The report has now been published. In a sense, it is no longer mine. But it is still interesting to look back and reflect on some of the assumptions and myths that could only be addressed to a limited extent in the report itself.”

Myth 1: There is one type of organic farmer

“The first assumption starts at the very beginning: the idea that ‘the organic farmer’ is a clearly recognisable, uniform type. Some farmers work according to the EU organic standard and, in the Netherlands, are certified by Skal. Their production is regulated and monitored and their products can be recognised by the organic logo. Other farmers follow organic or agroecological principles without being fully certified. This second group is not included in statistics on organic agricultural land, even though their practices may contribute to what the 15% ambition is ultimately trying to achieve. So does organic farming represent a particular niche? Or does focusing on certification risk making a broader shift in farming practices invisible?

Farmers’ motivations also differ. Some are intrinsically motivated and make choices based on their convictions about soil, animals and landscapes, sometimes even before there is a viable business case. Others convert because they see a market opportunity, such as a price premium or a niche market. Policies built around the motivations of the first group, emphasising values and ideals, may have little effect on the second group, which is more focused on the business case.

Conversion also requires a different knowledge base. Farmers need to manage soil fertility without synthetic fertilisers, control weeds mechanically and manage animal health without routine antibiotic use. It is a learning process, not simply a matter of removing one input. During the two-to-three-year conversion period, farmers already face many of the costs but cannot yet reap all the benefits.

And there is another group: farmers who feel they have little choice. Pressure from nitrogen policy, Water Framework Directive targets or a weakening business model in conventional agriculture may push them towards organic farming, or something close to it. Not necessarily because of conviction, but because of a lack of alternatives.”

Myth 2: Consumers need to change

“The second assumption may be the most persistent of all: that consumers are the key, and that they simply need to be informed and persuaded to eat more organic food. But should the government be telling people what they ought to eat? On what basis? And where should the boundary between policy and individual choice be drawn?

Market demand is not the same as individual consumer demand. A large share of demand is not decided at the supermarket checkout at all. It is shaped by institutional procurement policies, processing capacity and catering contracts. In many situations, people simply eat what is made available to them. If demand stimulation is reduced to changing consumer behaviour, policy focuses on the easiest part to measure while overlooking other points of intervention that may have a faster effect.

The assumption that price is the only, or even the main, barrier does not hold up either. People pay for meaning as well as for products. A compelling story, trust in the system behind a certification scheme and the experience surrounding food can all influence decisions. There is also an important distinction that is often blurred in policy. Willingness to pay tells us something about how much value someone places on a product. Affordability is about whether that person actually has the budget to pay for it. Measures aimed at increasing willingness to pay do not solve an affordability problem. Conversely, reducing the price does not automatically increase the value that people attach to a product.”

Myth 3: Making organic compulsory solves the problem

“The third assumption relates to an instrument that is often presented as the ultimate solution: if you require a minimum share of organic products in public procurement or food processing, demand will follow automatically. On paper, that sounds straightforward, provided there is a legal basis for doing so. In practice, however, such an obligation raises many questions. How do you ensure that the required volume actually comes from Dutch farms? How do you define ‘origin’ when there is no standard European definition? How do you ensure that the organic share remains traceable and reliable throughout a processing chain, particularly when products from different suppliers are mixed? Will domestic processing capacity and supply grow quickly enough to meet a procurement obligation, or will any shortfall simply be filled through imports?

An obligation that creates demand without ensuring that supply, processing capacity and farmers develop at the same pace may simply shift the problem rather than solve it. That is precisely the risk the government must consider when acting as a launching customer: becoming the first guaranteed buyer that helps a market develop, without the rest of the supply chain necessarily growing with it.”

Dutch_Photos / Shutterstock.com

There is a chicken-and-egg problem surrounding the supply and demand of organic products in the Netherlands, according to van Wassenaer.

Why are these assumptions a problem?

“When it comes to increasing organic production and consumption, there is no shortage of theories and proposed solutions. But when you try to examine the underlying Theory of Change, the explanation of how a measure is expected to lead to a desired outcome, you often find little more than assumptions or wishful thinking. Over time, one pattern became increasingly clear to me: almost every assumption in this debate arises because a complex, interconnected system is reduced to a single link. The farmer who supposedly does not want to or cannot change. The consumer who supposedly does not want to or cannot afford to pay. The government that simply needs to stimulate or regulate. None of those assumptions is necessarily wrong, but they are incomplete. They isolate one part of a system that can only function as a whole.

That realisation also changed the way I thought this subject should be approached. Rather than dealing with one question or assumption at a time, we need to look at the relationships between them. As the report explains, organic farming in the Netherlands faces a classic chicken-and-egg problem between supply and demand. Focusing only on production or only on consumption may even make the problem worse. Without sufficient supply, it is difficult to stimulate demand. Without sufficient demand, it is difficult to expand supply.”

So what might work?

“I see an ecosystem approach as the way forward. Farmers, consumers, supply chains, civil society organisations and policy should not be considered separately, but as parts of a system that continuously influence one another. If government wants to help steer that system, the first requirement is a clear vision for sustainability. Without a clear direction, measures such as procurement obligations remain isolated instruments without a shared objective.

What could come next? One option is a contract platform that helps bring supply and demand together, both now and in the future. It could connect parties before the supply or demand actually exists, allowing farmers and buyers to make agreements based on future contracts rather than only on existing volumes. Such a platform could also create space for products that are still in the conversion phase. Farmers who are in the process of converting to organic production could secure future buyers before their products qualify for full organic certification. That would reduce the financial risk of conversion and help break the chicken-and-egg dynamic.”

Van Wassenaer sees an ecosystem approach as the solution. If the government wants to steer this kind of approach, a clear vision for sustainability is required first and foremost.

What will you take away from this research?

“I look back on the project with mixed feelings. I am pleased that the report is finished and that the client can use it to move forward. At the same time, I regret that so many questions about the growth of organic agricultural land remain unanswered. I would have preferred to answer all of them.

One insight has stayed with me in particular: there is already a great deal of effort to stimulate organic farming, but growth also needs room, time and policy that is consistent, widely supported and clear. Once that direction is clear, it becomes much easier to identify measures that can genuinely be effective.”

Read the full report

van Wassenaer, L., Immink, V., Kremer, F., van Ruiten, C., & van Wonderen, D. (2026).
Stimulering van de vraag naar biologische landbouwproducten uit Nederland: analyse van twee kansrijke beleidsmaatregelen aanvullend op het Actieplan Groei van Biologische Productie en Consumptie

Contact us

Do you have a question about the research on measures to support the growth of organic farming or do you want to collaborate with us? Contact our expert