Catching up with Michiel Klompenhouwer

Michiel, it’s been just over 18 months since we first interviewed you after taking the position of Director at Plantum. While not our only conversation in that period - as you are an active member in SeedNL’s Board of Directors and day-to-day activities in, for example, Egypt and India where the two of us collaborate -perhaps it is time we reflect on your journey thus far.

In our previous conversation, you mentioned that every day you were learning something new about the seed sector. Now that you've had eighteen months to get to know Plantum and its members, what do you see as the biggest opportunities, and the biggest challenges, for the sector in the years ahead?

After eighteen months at Plantum, my initial impression has only been reinforced: the seed sector has a major opportunity, and responsibility, to contribute to resilient food systems. As population growth, climate change and pressure on natural resources intensify, improved varieties and strong seed systems become increasingly important for safeguarding food production.

What has struck me the most is the complexity of the sector. Successful seed systems are not built by companies alone but depend on networks of public institutions, private companies, NGOs and local partners. Dutch breeding companies operate within these broader ecosystems, which have developed over decades and remain one of the Netherlands’ major strengths.

The greatest challenge, in my view, is time. Demand for food continues to rise while available land and natural resources become increasingly constrained. The urgency for adaptation to climate change and other pressures is accelerating. "Time is not on our side."

For Plantum, maintaining the Netherlands' strong international ecosystem is therefore essential. At the same time, the geopolitical landscape is changing. Dutch expertise can no longer assume a privileged position internationally, competition is fierce, and Plantum must work harder to position Dutch knowledge and companies in an increasingly competitive global environment. Nevertheless, food security remains a universal agenda that continues to provide opportunities for international engagement.

Back then, you also described public-private partnerships as "absolutely crucial" because they create the conditions for companies to invest sustainably in new markets. You recently visited Ethiopia as part of the evaluation of the Ethiopian Seed Partnership. What stood out most during that visit? And did seeing the partnership in practice reinforce your thinking, or has it changed your perspective on what makes a PPP successful?

Reflecting on my earlier enthusiasm for PPPs, I’ll admit that my understanding has become much broader and deeper. Rather than viewing PPPs as standalone instruments, I now see them as one component within a much larger approach of diplomatic, development and commercial engagement. Ethiopia illustrated how Dutch embassies, development programmes, NGOs and private companies collectively contribute to strengthening local agricultural systems, with regional opportunities.

My biggest insight from Ethiopia was recognising the extent to which Dutch-funded development activities also create indirect value for Dutch businesses. Development programmes frequently rely on Dutch knowledge, technology, genetics and other private-sector inputs, extending the economic impact well beyond the formal PPP projects themselves. This strengthened my conviction that the relationship is not simply one of aid supporting development, but genuinely one of aid and trade reinforcing each other.

The visit also highlighted the strategic importance of international engagement for Plantum itself. I see closer relationship with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as increasingly relevant because market development abroad depends not only on innovation policy back home but also on broader diplomatic and foreign policy engagements.

Importantly, feedback from participating companies was overwhelmingly positive. While financial support itself was not considered decisive, companies consistently reported that participation generated valuable market knowledge, new commercial insights and practical experience that could be applied elsewhere.

SeedNL authored a discussion paper on whether Dutch trade & aid interests genuinely align in seed sector development. From what you've seen, do PPPs succeed in strengthening both the commercial position of seed companies and broader development outcomes, or do tensions remain?

I believe that the Ethiopian experience demonstrates that development and commercial objectives are largely complementary. Development organisations increasingly need to demonstrate the economic value generated by their programmes, while many development initiatives already depend heavily on Dutch private-sector knowledge and products.

However, I also see room for much stronger coordination. During my visit, I noticed that different Dutch-funded projects are not always aware of what the other is doing. Project managers understandably focus on delivering their commitments, but perhaps the embassy or SeedNL could play a stronger role in connecting them to one another and to our members, giving a chance to all parties to benefit more from each other's work.

Honestly, I have encountered relatively few tensions between trade and development objectives in Ethiopia's horticultural sector, where Dutch companies are expanding markets without directly competing with major local players. The local and regional markets have ample opportunities. Where I expect it may be more difficult is in field crops, where Dutch companies are less involved and government plays a more active role in food security - trade-offs and concerns about government protection, domestic production and political sensitivities must be far more prominent.

I want to come back to that in a moment when we discuss the next generation of PPPs. But first, one of the recurring questions in our discussion paper is additionality: when is public funding genuinely catalytic, and when are we subsidising activities that companies might have undertaken anyway? How do you look at that question?

On whether public funding genuinely adds value, my assessment is clear: without the PPP in Ethiopia, the involvement of Dutch hybrids would have been significantly smaller. Several participating companies would likely not have entered the market at all, while others accelerated their activities considerably because of the partnership.

Therefore, I see the PPP not primarily as financial support, but as a mechanism for reducing uncertainty and encouraging companies to explore markets they would otherwise have considered too risky. Working together with Wageningen University & Research, their local entity in Ethiopia - SWR, other local partners, and fellow companies provided both confidence and practical support for entering a new market.

One lesson emerging from participants was that future programmes should encourage more interaction between participating companies. While the projects were largely organised bilaterally, companies expressed a desire for more opportunities to exchange experiences and learn collectively.

Reflecting on both the opportunities and challenges facing the seed sector that you mentioned at the start, and your reflections on Ethiopia, what would you like to see more of in future PPPs? How can they better strengthen the competitiveness of Dutch and local seed companies while at the same time delivering the societal outcomes that Dutch international development policy aims to achieve?

I see a few opportunities to strengthen the next generation of PPPs.

First, programmes should deliberately facilitate greater interaction and collective learning among participating companies while continuing to involve local distributors and supply-chain actors.

Second, I believe that PPPs could adopt a broader value-chain perspective by incorporating financial inclusion. Access to finance remains a major bottleneck for farmers purchasing improved seed, suggesting opportunities to involve financial institutions such as Invest International or local financial cooperatives alongside traditional technical partners.

Third, at a strategic level, future partnerships should help Dutch companies diversify both their markets and production locations. Climate change and geopolitical uncertainty mean that companies can no longer rely on a limited number of countries for production. PPPs can offer early insights into promising markets, while helping companies understand how governments and institutions operate and test new ways of working with partners. This can lay an important foundation for future growth, with trust and strong partnerships emerging as critical success factors. Over time, such engagement may also create opportunities to localise parts of seed production or broader supply chains. Given the long-term nature of breeding investments, this kind of strategic diversification is increasingly important for maintaining international competitiveness.

Overall, I am convinced that the value of PPPs extends well beyond individual projects. Their greatest contribution lies in reducing market-entry risks, strengthening international partnerships, connecting trade and development objectives, and helping companies build the long-term resilience needed to operate successfully in an increasingly uncertain world.