EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2017) /10/2017 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Health and food audits and analysis DG(SANTE) FINAL REPORT OF A FACT-FINDING MISSION CARRIED OUT IN THE NETHERLANDS FROM 27 TO 31 MARCH 2017 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDES In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary This report describes the outcome of a fact finding mission in the Netherlands, carried out from 27 to 31 March 2017 as part of the published Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety programme for The objective of the mission was to investigate the implementation of measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides set out under Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and to identify common obstacles/difficulties encountered in the implementation of this Directive, as well as good practices. Although the National Action Plan (NAP) does not establish quantitative objectives, targets, measures or timetables, these are incorporated into a higher level policy document on sustainable plant protection. Through the adoption of such policy documents, the Netherlands initiated work towards achieving sustainability in agricultural production, including plant protection and the use of plant protection products (PPPs) more than 25 years ago. The Competent Authorities monitor the progress on an on-going basis and adjust policies, targets and measures based on experience. The NAP and the current policy document are being implemented through a shared partnership approach with the relevant social partners. Due to its unique setting with a high density of water courses, the priority focus in the Netherlands is on reducing impact of PPP use on water quality. Good progress is being made on all aspects of the Sustainable Use Directive and examples of good practice include the approach taken with regard to the authorisation of low risk PPPs, implementation of testing protocols for an extended range of pesticide application equipment and, the comprehensive system in place for waste management, where all relevant parties play a role. However, overall progress on the implementation of the NAP will not be formally evaluated by the Netherlands until Significant progress has been made with regard to development and implementation of a wide range of integrated pest management (IPM) measures. A set of different public and private tools are available to support decision making and facilitate farmers in PPP selection, with particular attention being paid to environmental impacts of PPPs. There was a common commitment among social partners to make further progress on the implementation of IPM and work is ongoing on a more system based approach to improve the resilience of crops and cropping systems. I

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Objectives and scope Legal Requirements Background Legal Context Previous Audit Series Country profile and Statistics Findings and Conclusions Relevant National Legislation Competent Authorities National Action Plan Training and certification of operators Information and Awareness raising Pesticide Application Equipment Aerial Spraying Water Protection Pesticide Use in Specific Areas Handling and Storage of Pesticides Integrated Pest Management Risk Indicators Main Obstacles and Difficulties Encountered in SUD Implementation Good Practices and Suggestions for Improvement of Implementation Overall Conclusions Closing Meeting...25 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation Bgb CA(s) CLM EQS ERPs EU EUR GD(s) GGDs GGDO HAIR IPM LTO MEA MIE MS(s) NAP NMI NVWA PAE PPP(s) Rgb RIVM SKL SUD VWS WFD Wgb Explanation The Plant Protection Products and Biocides Decree (Besluit gewasbescherming en biociden) Competent authority(ies) Centre for Agriculture and Environment Environmental Quality Standards Emissions Reduction Plans European Union Euros Green Deal(s) Community Health Centres Healthy growth, sustainable harvest ( Gezonde groei, duurzame oogst") Harmonised Environmental Indicators for Pesticide Risk Integrated pest management Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture Ministry of Economic Affairs Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Member State(s) National Action Plan Dutch Environmental Indicator for Pesticides The Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Safety Authority Pesticide Application Equipment Plant Protection Product(s) The Plant Protection Products and Biocides Regulation (Regeling gewasbescherming en biociden) National Institute of Public Health and the Environment Dutch Foundation for Quality Control of Agricultural Equipment Sustainable Use Directive Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport Water Framework Directive The Plant Protection Products and Biocides Act (Wet Gewasbescherming en biociden) III

5 1 INTRODUCTION The mission formed part of the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety planned programme for The mission took place from 27 to 31 March The mission team comprised two staff members from DG Health and Food Safety and one expert from a European Union (EU) Member State (MS). This fact-finding mission was carried out in agreement with the Competent Authority (CA). An opening meeting was held with the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MEA), the Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Safety Authority (NVWA), the Licensing Office (Bureau Erkenningen van de AOC Raad, hereinafter referred to as Bureau Erkenningen) and the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MIE). At this meeting, the mission team confirmed the objectives of, and itinerary for, the mission. 2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objectives of the mission were to: 1. Investigate the implementation of measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, as set out under Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, hereinafter referred to as the Sustainable Use Directive (SUD). 2. Identify main obstacles or difficulties encountered, as well as good practices with regard to the implementation of the SUD. Article 2 of the SUD states that it shall apply to pesticides that are defined as plant protection products (PPPs) under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and in keeping with this approach, all references to pesticides in this report also refer to PPPs. In pursuit of these objectives, meetings were held with MEA, NVWA and MIE at central level. Representatives of one of the Water Boards (operational at regional and/or local level) were met, as well as representatives of the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bureau Erkenningen and the Dutch Foundation for Quality Control of Agricultural Equipment (SKL). In addition, the mission team met representatives of the agrifood industry and visited one regular and one demonstration farm. The scope of the mission included relevant national legislation, the designation of relevant CAs, and the communication and co-operation within and between these CAs. The mission focused on Articles 4 to 15 of the SUD. 3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS This fact-finding mission was carried out in agreement with the CA. Relevant legislation and applicable standards are listed in Annex I. 1

6 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 LEGAL CONTEXT The SUD establishes a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and promoting the use of integrated pest management (IPM) and of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. Article 4 of the SUD requires MSs to adopt National Action Plans (NAPs) to set up quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use and to encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides. In addition, the NAPs shall also include indicators to monitor the use of plant protection products containing active substances of particular concern, especially if alternatives are available. In their NAPs, MSs shall describe how they will implement measures pursuant to Articles 5 to 15 of SUD. NAPs shall be reviewed at least every five years and any substantial changes shall be reported to the Commission without undue delay. 4.2 PREVIOUS AUDIT SERIES In the period January 2012 June 2014, an audit series was carried out, where the main focus was on official controls on the marketing and use of plant protection products (PPPs). Certain aspects related to the sustainable use of pesticides were covered by this audit series, including training and certification of PPP users, distributors and advisors; handling, storage and safe disposal of packages and remnants of PPPs; pesticide application equipment (PAE) and IPM. During this audit series, 19 MSs were visited from the three zones. (See overview report DG(SANTE)/ ) The most recent audit series in the area of pesticides was performed in the period January 2015 June 2016, which again focused on the control systems for the marketing and use of PPPs. In addition, certain SUD related aspects were covered, including IPM and aerial spraying. In 2015, seven MSs were visited, including the Netherlands. All seven MSs had taken a number of steps to ensure compliance with the SUD. Operator training programmes were in place. All MSs had published IPM guidelines and had established pest monitoring systems. Likewise, all had prohibited aerial spraying, with derogations granted in just three MSs. The forthcoming overview report will be published on the web-site of DG Health and Food Safety: COUNTRY PROFILE AND STATISTICS DG Health and Food Safety has published a country profile for the Netherlands, which may be found on the web-site of DG Health and Food Safety ( which summarises the control systems for food and feed, animal health and welfare, and plant health, and gives an overview on the implementation of recommendations of audit reports. 2

7 Total Utilisable Agricultural Area (UAA) in the Netherlands is hectares (ha), of which ha are dedicated to organic plant production, or % of the total UAA. With regard to open field production, cereals, feed crops and potatoes have the biggest share. Field production of flower bulbs is of a high importance, as these are high value crops. The statistics shows that the Netherlands produces around 60% of the world s supply of flower bulbs. Plant production under protected cultivation (glasshouses) includes mainly vegetables and flowers. According to statistics provided by the CAs, the Netherlands is the second biggest exporter of plants and plant products in the world. According to data provided by the CAs, PPPs containing 275 chemical active substances were authorised in the Netherlands in 2015, which was a slight increase compared to 2014 (272) and 2012 (269). At the same time, PPPs containing 25 non-chemical active substances were authorised for placing on the market and use (increasing from 20 in 2012). Data on PPP sales in the period shows that fungicides have the biggest share of the market (varying between 41 and 45 %), followed by herbicides and plant growth regulators, which have a similar share (between 23 and 30 %). Insecticides represent 2 3 % of the total PPP sales. Statistical data for 2012, provided by the CAs, show that there was a 30 % decrease in PPP use in greenhouse vegetable production compared to 1995, 11 % in fruit tree production, 7 % in vegetable open field production and 3 % in arable crops. However, the situation was the opposite in flower and flower bulb production, where PPP use increased by 12 %. Statistical data for 2012 show that PPP use was the highest in lilies (134.6 kg/ha), followed by roses (106.2 kg/ha). Among the six crops concerned, PPP use in gerbera was the lowest, but still high in volume (44.4 kg/ha). For comparison, the figures with regard to PPP use in other crops were the following: 26.3 kg/ha for fruit trees, 12.1 kg/ha for greenhouse vegetables, 7.4 kg/ha for arable crops and 4.1 kg/ha for field vegetables. 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 RELEVANT NATIONAL LEGISLATION Legal requirements Article 23 of Directive 2009/128/EC on transposition Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU Findings 1. The CA stated that the requirements of the Directive 2009/128/EC had been fully transposed in the Netherlands. Within the scope of the mission, the following national legislation is in place: The Plant Protection Products and Biocides Act (Wet Gewasbescherming en biociden (Wgb)); 3

8 The Plant Protection Products and Biocides Decree (Besluit gewasbescherming en biociden (Bgb)); The Plant Protection Products and Biocides Regulation (Regeling gewasbescherming en biociden (Rgb)); The Environmental Management Act; Environmental Management Activities Decree. 5.2 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Legal requirements Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2009/128/EC Findings 2. CAs within the scope of the mission have been designated and there is clear division of responsibilities. According to the NAP of the Netherlands, government bodies, the private sector and civil society organisations are jointly responsible for its implementation, although it is primarily the latter two groups on whom the achievement of goals and targets depends. The task of the Government is to oversee and stimulate proper implementation of the action plan. 3. The MEA is the CA for legislation and policy relating to PPPs and their use in agriculture. With regard to SUD related activities, the MEA is responsible for drafting, revising and overseeing (together with the MIE) the NAP implementation, training and certification of PPP operators, including supervision of Bureau Erkenningen and pesticide application equipment (PAE). The MEA is also in charge of granting emergency authorisations of PPPs. The Minister of Economic Affairs can grant derogations for aerial spraying. 4. The NVWA is the CA responsible for planning and conducting official controls on the marketing and use of PPPs, covering also the implementation of general principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) at user level. NVWA has also been designated as the supervisory authority for the implementation of the PAE inspection system. 5. Bureau Erkenningen is a legal entity with statutory tasks, which is responsible by Law for operation of the system for training and certification of operators. Bureau Erkenningen issues certificates of professional competence, maintains the register of certification holders, monitors the quality of training and supervises training providers. They are also obliged to report to the MAE, at the end of each calendar year, on its activities and the number of certificates granted and/or recognised. 6. The NVWA has contracted the SKL to operate the inspection system for PAE in the Netherlands. In addition, the SKL is the body certifying the testing stations and testing inspectors, as well as supervising bodies/organisations providing training to testing inspectors. Inspections are performed by about 170 certified testing stations spread over the whole country. 4

9 7. The MIE is the CA for legislation and policy relating to non-agricultural uses of PPPs. Within the scope of the SUD, the MIE has responsibilities related to information and awareness raising, water protection, PPP use in specific areas, handling and storage of PPPs, their remnants and empty containers. With regard to surface water monitoring, the central CA is the Centre for Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat) at the MIE. The Centar for Water Management is responsible for national waters, such as the main rivers. In addition, 21 Water Boards operate at regional/local level. Drinking water monitoring is the responsibility of drinking water companies. 8. IPM is a joint responsibility of both leading Ministries, the MEA and the MIE. 9. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) is responsible for food safety related issues and public health policy, including exposure to PPPs. The RIVM at the VWS deals with ground water monitoring and drinking water companies also have involvement. 10. The main tool for the oversight, communication, co-operation within and between CAs, as well as with other relevant parties involved in the implementation of the SUD, is the Sustainable Plant Protection Platform ( Platform duurzame gewasbescherming ). Meetings take place four times a year. Another important instrument for co-operation between authorities and other relevant parties are the Green Deals (GDs), which are described in more depth below. On-going communication takes place on a regular basis via , phone, official mail and meetings. 5.3 NATIONAL ACTION PLAN Legal requirements Article 4 of Directive 2009/128/EC on National Action Plans Findings 11. The NAP of the Netherlands covers the period It does not set up quantitative objectives, targets, measures or timetables, but it contains some qualitative targets and, in particular, specific measures, most of which are related to the implementation of Articles 11 and 12 of the SUD. 12. The Netherlands, however, has incorporated the NAP into a broader policy document on sustainable plant protection, called Healthy growth, sustainable harvest ( Gezonde groei, duurzame oogst ) hereinafter referred to as the GGDO. The GGDO has a broader scope than the NAP and covers further issues and obligations, which do not fall within the scope of the SUD. The current GGDO is the third policy paper, and is being implemented between 2013 and This was adopted by the Parliament. The GGDO is the document identifying national targets, qualitative and quantitative objectives and deadlines for their implementation. The GGDO lists almost 100 different tasks aimed at achieving PPP sustainable use, including the bodies responsible for individual targets (either alone or in co-operation with other parties). 5

10 13. The first such policy paper was drafted and implemented in the 90-s and the second covered the period The final evaluation of the achievement of targets under the second policy paper demonstrated that there was a reduction of 85% in the calculated pesticide impact (see paragraphs 94, 95 and 96) in surface water (95 % planned) and similarly, a reduction of 75 % for drinking water (95% planned), compared to 1998, as well as a 70 % reduction (50 % planned) in the number of pesticide Maximum Residue Level exceedances in food placed on the market and 100 % of PPP professional users wearing personal protective equipment. In addition, the evaluation demonstrated that there was a reduction in the PPP use. 14. The current policy paper (GGDO) contains the following national targets: encouraging IPM implementation, improvement with regard to water quality, safety of operators, safety of residents and by-standers, improvement of PPP related responsibilities (education and knowledge, certification handling and storage, PAE inspections), limiting non-agricultural uses of PPPs, encouraging biodiversity, food safety (pesticide residues) and strengthening innovation and sustainability of plant production, including plant protection. One further target is to limit the import and transit of counterfeit and illegal PPPs, including sales via the Internet. 15. With regard to quantitative objectives set in the GGDO, most of these are related to water quality and water protection, including the following: Reduction of the exceedances of the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for pesticides in surface water by 50% in 2018 and by 90% in 2023; Reduction of the exceedances of drinking water standard (0,1 ug/l) at the abstraction locations by 50% in 2018 and by 95% in 2023; No EQS exceedances in surface water in 2027 (river basin management plans under Directive 2000/60/EC); No drinking water quality standards exceedances in 2027 (river basin management plans under Directive 2000/60/EC). 16. The CAs stated that the development of the NAP coincided with the integral review of Dutch plant protection policy and thus incorporates a series of recommendations from civil society organisations and the private sector, which were considered as a valuable input. The NAP objectives include promoting crop resilience, reduction of environmental emissions, strengthening the ecosystems and creating a climate in which entrepreneurship and innovation thrive. The Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture (LTO) has converted the NAP into sector plans. 17. The progress in NAP implementation is being monitored in several ways: By regular review of progress in the implementation of actions in the policy document GGDO (including the NAP) with relevant parties in the Sustainable Plant Protection Platform; By monitoring compliance with national legal requirements and obligations with regard to sustainable use of PPPs, performed by relevant CAs; 6

11 By monitoring trends using risk indicators established, which is the responsibility of the government (e.g. the level of pesticides in surface water; pesticide use). 18. The above mentioned tools serve the purpose of internal evaluation of NAP implementation and this information is not made available to the public or any other interested parties to a large extent. The first complete assessment will take place in 2018, as part of the mid-term evaluation of the GGDO. This assessment will be performed by an external, independent organisation. Based on this assessment, the NAP will be reviewed. This will take place in 2018, which is a delay of one year beyond the five-year deadline for review under the SUD. Conclusions on National Action Plan 19. Through the adoption of policy papers, the Netherlands initiated work towards achieving sustainability in agricultural production, including plant protection and PPP use more than 25 years ago, taking advantage of the existing knowledge and expertise, assessing the progress on an on-going basis and adjusting policies, targets and measures based on the progress made. 20. Although the NAP does not itself set quantitative targets, measures or timetables, these are incorporated in the higher level policy paper. The review of progress for the period planned to take place in 2018, however, will not take place within the fiveyear deadline set by the SUD. 5.4 TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION OF OPERATORS Legal Requirements Article 5 of Directive 2009/128/EC on training and certification Article 6 of Directive 2009/128/EC on pesticide sales Findings 21. National legal requirements have been in place since 1996 (which pre-dates the adoption of the SUD) regarding all operators who use, sell, buy or store PPPs to hold a certificate of competence. At present, the certification is also a requirement for advisors, who sell pesticides, as well as for both professional agricultural and non-agricultural PPP users. Certification is not compulsory for advisors who do not sell pesticides, nor for PPP nonprofessional users, but these may voluntarily receive training and obtain a certificate. The CA in charge stated that action had been undertaken to amend the Wgb, so as to include a legal obligation for the currently exempted category of advisors to be certified. This has already been agreed with the legal service of the MEA. 7

12 22. National legal requirements are in place for the withdrawal of certificates of competence as one possible sanction in case of violations (i.e. misuse of PPPs), as well as for mutual recognition of certificates issued in other MSs. 23. Operation of the system for training and certification of operators is the responsibility of Bureau Erkenningen. For the purposes of certification, operators must attend initial training. Certificates are valid for a period of five years. There are five types of certificates, for five different types of operators, as follows: Safety instructions: operators involved in simple, low risk tasks, who work under supervision and are not allowed to purchase PPPs; Safe handling of PPPs: staff involved in plant protection related activities, including PPP application, commissioned by others and under the condition that a person holding "decision making" certificate is either present or available on-site; this category of operators are allowed to purchase PPPs; Decision making: for users and advisors who also sell PPPs; Decision making, storage and distribution: for users and advisors selling PPPs, who also store and distribute PPPs; Storage and distribution: for staff selling and distributing PPPs. 24. Renewal of certificates requires participation in on-going training to acquire sufficient points to qualify for renewal. Otherwise, a new exam must be passed, if not enough points have been collected through attendance at training courses. There are many different sessions designed for all sectors. It is the personal choice of the operator what courses to take part in. One of the topics, which is compulsory for the renewal of certificates, is "Considering risks for residents". A training course could also involve a visit to IPM fields/demonstration farms/workshops and topics covering both agricultural and non-agricultural PPP uses. 25. Training providers are generally research institutes, education centres, advisory services, consultancy bureaus or PPP distributors. Their training programmes must be approved by Bureau Erkenningen and training content should cover the topics listed in Annex I to the SUD. In addition, Bureau Erkenningen should verify the quality of 10 % of the courses. A list of courses approved is published on their website. 26. According to data provided by the CAs, there are around 198 distributors in total, who hold a certificate and professional users, which represents 100 % for these two categories of operators. In addition, advisors were certified at the time of the mission (around 500 are these, who also sell PPPs and the balance covers private advisors, for whom there is currently no legal obligation to hold a certificate of competence but may select to do so). 27. PPP distributors must have sufficient staff in their employment holding a certificate of competence, who should be available at the time of sale, as required by Article 6 (1) of the SUD. They should provide information with regard to safe and proper use of PPPs, 8

13 health and environmental risks arising from pesticide use and instructions on risk management. PPPs authorised for professional use may be sold only to persons holding an appropriate certificate of competence and this is checked at the point of sale. 5.5 INFORMATION AND AWARENESS RAISING Legal Requirements Article 7 of Directive 2009/128/EC on information and awareness-raising Article 10 of Directive 2009/128/EC on information to the public Findings 28. The public is informed about pesticides and their uses by the government, and often by interest groups too, by means of awareness-raising campaigns and reports/articles in the press media. The main instruments used for awareness-raising are web-sites, including the web-site of the government: the website of the Environmental Organisation Milieu Centraal (publicly funded): and the web-portal which aims at sharing knowledge on weed control and plant protection without pesticides, both among individuals and professionals in nonagricultural sector. 29. One main tool used for awareness raising campaigns is the series of Green Deal agreements between the agricultural sector and the government. This is an instrument used by companies, other relevant organisations, local and regional governments and interest groups to work with the national government on green growth and social issues. Regarding plant protection related GDs, the following examples were provided by the Dutch CAs: green PPPs (GD 164), recreation (GD 188), sustainable use of PPPs on sport grounds (GD 189) and sustainable use of PPPs by non-professional users (GD 211). In the period , the main topic of awareness raising campaigns was minimising herbicide use in non- agricultural areas and, in particular, on hard surfaces (e.g. city pavements), which is considered as a problem for the abstraction of drinking water from surface water. 30. In the case of incidents with pesticides, where potential health risks cannot be excluded, such as the result of possible PPP misuse, the NVWA should inform the Community Health Centres (GGDs). The NVWA, together with the GGD, should decide what follow-up actions need to be taken, based on the evaluated risks of the pesticide incident. A system is in place for gathering information on pesticide acute poisoning incidents. In addition, systems are in place for gathering information on chronic poisoning development cases arising from PPP use. Important centres of expertise in the Netherlands include the national poisoning centre at the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands Nutrition Centre and Wageningen University and Research 9

14 Centre. Information on the number of chronic poisoning developments and poisoning incidents, linked to PPPs, is made publicly available at the following web-sites: ( ). 31. According to statistics provided by the CAs for the period , there was a total of 169 of acute poisoning incidents in 2015 (170 people involved), and this was a decrease in the numbers compared to the previous two years. The CAs clarified that statistical data on acute poisoning incidents is related only to patients of age of 18 and over; cases involving younger patients mostly concern accidents with PPPs for nonprofessional use. With regard to chronic poisoning, no statistical data is available because these are only reported sporadically. This information could be found in annual reports of the NIVC, which are also publicly available at: (NVIC)/Acute-vergiftigingen. 32. The NAP states that pesticide manufacturers, agricultural sector organisations and other relevant parties should promote good communication between farms and local residents. The aim is to increase mutual understanding between farmers, local residents and bystanders. Although there are no legal obligations for growers to inform persons who might be exposed to spray drift, they are encouraged to voluntarily inform local residents about PPP applications. In addition, "Considering risks for residents" is one of the topics/training compulsory courses for the renewal of certificates of competence. The private sector has developed a guideline for good neighbour practices. The following are some examples of flyers and brochures on this topic: Gewasbescherming-en-omwonenden-def-oktober-2013.pdf and In recent years, there have been concerns by both the general public and CAs about risks of pesticides for local residents and by-standers and, in particular, by residents of areas with a relatively high pesticide use, such as in the vicinity of the flower bulb fields or areas close to greenhouses. The GGDO states that risks to local residents and bystanders are excluded from the expert evaluations under the current system for PPP authorisation, based on the assumption that these were covered by monitoring of risks for users. It identifies, as indirect measures to lower the PPP impact on human health, switching to low-risk PPPs and applying drift reduction techniques. Following national and international debates, and due to the high public interest, one of the targets in the GGDO is to cover these aspects in the authorisation process. As a result, following also an opinion of the Health Council, a project has been launched (OBO-project) aiming to assess exposure of residents and by-standers. The evaluation is expected to be finalised as of More detailed information can be found at the following website: 10

15 5.6 PESTICIDE APPLICATION EQUIPMENT Legal Requirements Article 8 of Directive 2009/128/EC on PAE inspection Findings 34. National legal requirements are in place for testing of PAE. The Bgb provides for inspection of PAE following the requirements set in Article 8 (4) of and Annex II to Directive 2009/128/EC and, in particular, the EN-ISO standard. The Rgb (26/09/2007) sets the period of validity of PAE inspection certificates and intervals between inspections. This period is three years for boom sprayers over three meters and orchard blast sprayers, and six years for PAE units with a lower scale of use, including: low volume sprayers, granulate applicators, dusters, mechanical weed applicators and boom sprayers of three meters or less. Hand-held PAE and knapsack sprayers are exempted from inspection, in accordance with Article 8 (3) (b) of Directive 2009/128/EC. According to the CAs, seed treatment machinery is not subject to inspection because seed treatment is performed in specialised premises, for which different legislation applies. Therefore there is no need for additional inspections. 35. A system for obligatory PAE inspection has been in place since 1997, aiming to ensure that machinery is properly calibrated, reliable and safe for both operators and the environment. Until 2014, this has been a requirement for boom and orchard sprayers only. Obligatory inspections were then extended to other categories of machinery. For equipment, not covered by the EN-ISO 16122, testing protocols were developed and introduced by SKL. PAE testing is an aspect to be verified during official controls on the use of PPPs at farm level, performed by NVWA staff. 36. The SKL sets the requirements for and is in charge of the approval of testing stations. At the time of the mission, about 170 private testing stations were certified by the SKL. In order to be approved, the testing stations must have adequate testing equipment (in line with the SKL requirements), at least one certified testing operator per site and adequate testing facilities. To keep the skills of the testing operators up-to-date, they are obliged to attend a refresher training course every three years. The training provider is a specialised institute, which operates under the supervision of SKL. 37. Testing stations carry out PAE inspections, under the supervision of SKL. The SKL checks the quality of inspections, performed by private workshops, by re-testing about 250 randomly chosen PAE items per year, which represents approximately 5% of the total number of annual tests. 38. According to data provided by the CAs, PAE units had been inspected by the deadline of 26 November 2016, out of an estimated total of The CAs stated that most of the remaining PAE units are brand new machinery which will be subject to inspection after 26 November 2016, or three years after the purchase. 11

16 39. An IT based system is used to register PAE inspection results and generate inspection reports. It is currently accessible only for SKL and testing stations, but not for CAs. Upon request and where necessary, data from the system is made available to the authorities. At present, CAs direct access is under discussion. 40. Representatives of NVWA stated that, in 2017, they are actively monitoring and enforcing the obligation for farmers to have their PAE inspected, in accordance with national and EU requirements. It was also stated that PAE inspection is an obligation in order to be granted certification under private schemes. In the Netherlands, most of the operators in the food and feed sector are certified under private schemes. 41. The CAs stated that PAE inspection certificates, issued in other MSs (mostly neighbouring countries), are recognised and certified PAE units may be used provided that those MSs follow the same requirements (Annex II to the SUD), and the time period since the last inspection is within the inspection interval applicable in the Netherlands. Conclusions on Pesticide Application Equipment 42. A comprehensive system is in place for the inspection of PAE, which also covers certification of testing stations and testing inspectors and includes clear rules for the supervision of testing stations. The availability and implementation of protocols, developed for machinery not covered by the EN-ISO standard, is considered a good practice, because these provide a good basis for a uniform approach to be followed for the inspection of relevant PAE units, including those with a lower scale of use. 5.7 AERIAL SPRAYING Legal Requirements Article 9 of Directive 2009/128/EC on aerial spraying Findings 43. National legislation is in place prohibiting aerial spraying of both PPPs and biocides. The Minister of Economic Affairs may grant derogations in emergency situations, in the context of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The Minister may lay down rules, by a Ministerial regulation, setting the conditions for aerial application of a PPP or a biocidal product. A request for derogation is only admissible if it can be demonstrated that it would pose less risk for humans and the environment. 44. According to data provided by the CAs, no derogations have been granted since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC ( ). It was stated by CAs that aerial spraying has not been a technique used by growers in the last 20 years. 12

17 5.8 WATER PROTECTION Legal Requirements Article 11 of Directive 2009/128/EC on specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water and relevant provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC Findings 45. There is a special focus on water protection in the Netherlands and the need for a special surface water policy stems from the location of the country (the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt river delta), as well as the high density of water courses ( km of ditches). 46. The evaluation of the second policy paper on sustainable plant protection demonstrated that, although there was progress (see Chapter 5.3 National Action Plan, paragraph 15), the results were not sufficient to achieve the water quality objectives under Directive 2000/60/EC, hereinafter referred to as the Water Framework Directive (WFD). 47. In the GGDO, with regard to water protection, three groups of measures are established: generic measures, based on national legal requirements in place and thus, are obligatory; pesticide specific measures, which are voluntary and research projects. 48. The generic measures include: monitoring the quality of surface water in an adequate manner, further optimising the monitoring network and developing a national monitoring network for pesticides (see use of screening method for problematic pesticides, determining trends in time, evaluating the progress and effectiveness of measures introduced. 49. For the purposes of annual monitoring, samples are taken at locations, including water abstraction points (nine in total in the Netherlands). Results from annual monitoring are entered by Water Boards and drinking water companies in a database, accessible via the above listed link, where data from 1997 until the present are available. The monitoring data show that in more than 50 % of the locations, EQS are exceeded for one or more active substances, and about 90 active substances are found to exceed EQS at one or more sampling locations. However, 20 active substances cause more than 90 % of the EQS exceedances, which are listed as the Top 20. This Top 20 list is valid for a period of three years, but based on monitoring results, it is up-dated on an annual basis. For the most problematic active substances, Emission Reduction Plans (ERPs) are drafted and implemented by the authorisation holders (more details are provided under paragraph 53 below). 50. With regard to drinking water, statistical data demonstrates that 10 % of 2015 samples exceed drinking water standards (the concentration of an individual pesticide exceeding the limit of 0.1 µg/l, or the total sum of concentrations of pesticides exceeding the limit of 0.5 µg/l, according to Directive 98/83/EC, Annex I). This is much lower compared to 2014 (30 % of samples with exceedances). 13

18 51. As part of the annual monitoring, a separate monitoring network is operational, covering 98 fixed locations to establish plausible links with seven specific crop groups. Samples for pesticide residues are taken six to twelve times a year. These samples are analysed for the most relevant or for all active substances for a specific crop group (usually between 100 and 200 active substances). The analytical scope may differ from one region to another, but it remains the same for a period of ten years, so that it is possible to identify trends and evaluate the effectiveness of measures introduced. 52. Analyses of official samples are performed in officially designated public and private laboratories. The laboratories are either accredited to ISO for analysis of pesticides in water or to other equivalent European or internationally recognised standards for analysis of pesticides in water. In the case of routine controls, all samples are analysed for the same scope covering about 100 active substances, which is a higher number compared to the list of priority substances under the WFD. In the case of targeted sampling (ad-hoc) the analytical scope could be limited. 53. In order to solve the above mentioned problems, different measures have been introduced aimed at achieving the targets identified in the GGDO (see Chapter 5.3 National Action Plan, paragraph 15). The measures implemented include the following: ERPs: In the case of regular EQS exceedances of pesticides in surface water identified based on monitoring data available, it is the responsibility of authorisation holders to draft and implement ERPs. At the time of the mission, eight ERPs are being implemented. The agreement between CAs and authorisation holders is to continue drafting three to four ERPs a year. These cover substances on the Top 20 list; this initiative is considered a good practice; PPPs containing hazardous priority substances, as defined in the WFD, are prohibited near surface water and groundwater; For closed water systems in glasshouse horticulture, purification techniques must be applied from 2018 or, if plan is in place for collective treatment, from 2021; The use of PPPs containing imidacloprid and thiacloprid in greenhouses is prohibited, unless water purification systems are used, or "0" emission achieved; this is stated in the authorisation conditions for PPPs, containing these active substances; Crop-free zones along water courses (0.5 to 1.5 m depending on the crop) are implemented; Reduction of spray drift to surface water by using technologies and/ or PAE. 54. A project was presented by one of the regional Water Boards (Clean Farmyards Clean Ditches), where intensive bulb production takes place (50 % of total production), which is considered as one of the problematic sectors regarding water quality. The project was carried out over a period of five years, where the main focus was on the top five problematic active substances (based on water monitoring data). The project was a joint initiative of the regional Water Board, the PPP industry (manufacturers and distributors) and the sector (Growers Association and growers). Examples of further projects include 14

19 the following: Water ABC; Clean Water Brabant, currently extended to projects in other regions such as Clean Water Zeeland. 55. There are further initiatives to facilitate growers, such as: Toolbox emission reduction: this is a joint product initiated by the PPP industry and other interested parties, and developed by the Centre for Agriculture and Environment (CLM). It includes a set of 17 factsheets outlining practical measures for reducing emissions of pesticides to surface water, which are publicly available at Farmyard emission scan: this is an instrument allowing growers to identify critical points/sources of emission by replying to a web-based questionnaire; on-line access is based on subscription ( Environmental yardsticks: these facilitate growers to select PPPs with lower impact in surface water, non-target organisms, pollinators and operators; more details are provided below (Chapter 5.11 Integrated Pest management, paragraph 94). Conclusions on Water Protection 56. Due to the specific situation with regard to surface water in the Netherlands, special attention is paid to surface and drinking water quality. A well-established monitoring network is in place. The pesticide monitoring database is actively used to revise and adjust annual monitoring programmes, which is a constructive approach and serves as the basis for the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing system. 57. Specific projects in the area of water protection further contribute to achieving the national targets with regard to emission reduction and improvement of water quality due to the active involvement of all relevant parties, including growers and the industry. Participation in a range of projects allows for a better understanding of the problems and identification of effective solutions, translating research into practice. These all contribute to achieving the national targets in the area of water protection, and the approach seen is considered a good practice. 58. Tools and initiatives such as ERPs, Toolbox, Farmyard emission scan and environmental yardsticks further facilitate growers in the decision making and selection of PPPs, so that to reduce impact of PPPs in the environment and, in particular, in water. 5.9 PESTICIDE USE IN SPECIFIC AREAS Legal Requirements Article 12 of Directive 2009/128/EC on the reduction of pesticide use or risks in specific areas 15

20 Findings 59. In the Netherlands, the professional non-agricultural use of PPPs on hard surfaces is prohibited since May 2016, and since November 2017 for other non-agricultural areas. The national legislation, however, allows for exemptions based on the following criteria: safety or ecological reasons, or the lack of appropriate alternatives. At the time of the mission, exemptions were in place for sports and recreation grounds. 60. With regard to sports and recreation grounds, it is the responsibility of their managers to minimise PPP use before 2020 (GDs 188 and 189 mentioned above, paragraph 29). It is planned to introduce a prohibition of PPP use in these areas in Other restrictions apply for PPP use in protected areas, defined in the WFD (See Chapter 5.8 Water Protection, paragraph 53). In the case of conservation areas (as defined in Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC), PPP use is subject to prior approval. 61. The NAP states that it is the responsibility of the grower who applied PPPs to inform agricultural workers and others on the farm premises about fields that have been recently treated, as well as about the re-entry period. This practice was confirmed during the farm visits. 5.10HANDLING AND STORAGE OF PESTICIDES Legal Requirements Article 13 of Directive 2009/128/EC on handling and storage of pesticides and treatment of their packaging and remnants Findings 62. Legal requirements are in place for PPP storage facilities to be approved prior to becoming operational, depending on their size/capacity (below or above 400 kg storage capacity). Approval is the responsibility of provinces for storage facilities with capacity more than kg and of local authorities (municipalities) for premises with capacity between 400 and kg. 63. A system is in place for inspections in the post-approval period, including annual controls by municipal authorities on the premises to check storage conditions and inspections by NVWA, which focus on the PPP in stock, but also cover storage conditions. Certification of storage facilities is a legal obligation for large-scale facilities. Certification is granted by a private body and for maintenance of certification, annual inspections are performed. 64. A system has been in place for collection of empty packaging and PPP remnants since 1988, based on an agreement between government and PPP industry (the so-called STORL agreement), with the involvement of PPP industry and municipal authorities. Collection and disposal of PPP remnants and empty packaging is an obligation for PPP operators. For this purpose, collection centres are established in most of the municipalities, with a few exceptions, where collection is arranged at central level. 16

21 65. In the process of authorisation, all PPPs are categorised with a logo defining the category for disposal (regular or hazardous waste). Rinsing obligation (<0.01% of content) is in place for growers, where and as indicated on the packaging. Growers are responsible and pay for regular waste, while the industry pays for hazardous waste, which is arranged through the above mentioned collection centres. According to data provided by the relevant CA, 68 % of the total quantity of PPP remnants were collected and safely disposed of in 2014, and this percentage increased to 98 % in As of 2013, brand new PAE units should have rinsing equipment integrated into the sprayer. Discharge to surface water or municipal sewers is prohibited and areas where pesticides are mixed may not, therefore, contain any means of drainage. Water used to clean spraying equipment internally may be discharged onto the plot where the PPPs had been applied, but not to surface water or the municipal sewers. According to CAs, the results of research into organic purification of waste water are promising. Conclusions on Handling and Storage of Pesticides 67. A comprehensive system has been established for handling and storage of PPPs and waste management, which covers all relevant aspects, including national legal provisions, PPP authorisation, storage approval and enforcement, and these all focus on health and safety and environmental issues. In these activities, central CAs, municipalities, the PPP industry and growers have shared responsibilities and financing. This approach is considered a good practice INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Legal Requirements Article 14 of Directive 2009/128/EC on IPM and Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Findings 68. The NAP encourages the categorisation of plant protection methods in terms of their economic and ecological effects and their impact on humans and the environment. The methods chosen should minimise adverse impacts. In recent years the Netherlands has invested in the development and dissemination of knowledge on IPM, through demonstration projects, advisory services, decision-support systems, training, websites and publications in farmers' journals. 69. Implementation of IPM general principles became an obligation for professional users since 01 January The NAP puts an emphasis on the broad dissemination of knowledge and methods, as well as continuing the development of new integrated methods. The CAs put in place, for instance, financial and fiscal incentives, certification, a link with the Common Agricultural Policy or statutory measures. 17

22 70. The evaluation of the previous policy paper on sustainable plant protection showed that measures had resulted in the availability of a larger number of alternative measures (on average, 40 per crop). According to the evaluation, the majority of these measures were well known by growers (around 90 %). The evaluation stated that application of these measures had increased, varying between 60 and 80 %, for individual measures. 71. The GGDO requires that growers should be trained on alternative plant protection measures and new methods, developed over the last 20 years, including the careful choice of plots for cultivation, crop rotation, soil conservation and promotion of soil health, thus reducing dependency on PPPs. To achieve this, the main focus in the period is on the following: Further encouraging of IPM implementation; Development of new integrated approaches; Phytosanitary policy. 72. Before 2015, all professional users were obliged to have plant protection plans (covering IPM), which was a condition under national legislation and, therefore, were subject to control during cross-compliance checks. In 2015, the plant protection plans were replaced by mandatory "plant protection monitors", where all IPM-measures (chemical and non-chemical) have to be recorded by the farmer. The NVWA staff check if the monitor is available and kept up-to-date during the growing season. However, as IPM is no longer a condition under national legislation, it is not currently checked during crosscompliance checks. 73. The plant protection monitor should be kept up to date during cultivation and completed within two months after the end of the growing season. Records kept are required to cover all IPM measures taken (Annex III of the SUD), including: crop rotation, use of resistant or tolerant planting material, including seeds, biological, physical and nonchemical methods, which must be given preference, selection of PPPs based on risks for environment and humans, monitoring of harmful organisms, use of warning and forecasting systems and resistance management. The plant protection monitor is meant to help growers to evaluate their IPM approach and adapt it for the following growing season, which is considered a good practice. As the plant protection monitor is a new instrument, its effectiveness is not known yet. Its evaluation will be part of the evaluation of the GGDO in Plant protection monitors are checked by NVWA staff during inspections at grower level. However, it is quite difficult to assess whether professional users have considered all alternative measures available to achieve low pesticide-input pest control. The reason for this is that IPM measures applied by growers may vary, depending on several factors, e.g. the crop, the pest, the region, the weather conditions and the interaction between all these. This was stated by the CAs to be a difficulty in the implementation of the SUD and, in particular, concluding on the level of implementation of IPM general principles. 18

23 75. In 2016, a survey was performed by the NVWA and results were evaluated. The main purpose of the survey was to gather information on the level of IPM implementation at farm level in the Netherlands and to get an insight with regard to limitations for its implementation, as well as to identify opportunities to improve. Sectors covered include arable crops, greenhouse vegetables and horticulture production, apples and pears, tulips and lilies, tree nurseries and mushrooms. IPM practices were covered in the survey, allowing to distinguish between growers applying advanced IPM and conventional growers. 76. The survey showed that, in general, IPM measures were used to a higher extent in greenhouse vegetable production and to a lesser extent in tulip production and arable crops. Results from the survey demonstrated that some IPM measures were not implemented to their full potential. 77. With regard to IPM general principles, the survey demonstrated that none of these is used to their full potential. One of the conclusions of the survey was that the plant protection monitor could be a tool for continuous monitoring of IPM implementation and subsequent improvement (See Figure 1 below). Figure 1. Level of implementation of IPM general principles; Source: 2016 survey 78. In the period , public and private research on IPM was on-going and IPM measures were introduced into practice by public and private demonstration farms through the Farming with Future demonstration project. It was highlighted by CAs that farmers are hesitant to apply alternative methods, if they face an unacceptably high risk to their economic viability in the case, these methods do not work. 79. As a result of the above mentioned evaluation, there was a transition to the so called Top sector approach. Research objectives included: resilient crops; resilient cropping systems; smart, innovative technologies; effective and sustainable crop protection measures and integration. 80. In the period , the "System Approach to Sustainable Plant Protection" project is on-going, aiming to resolve constraints with regard to IPM implementation. A series 19