The Dutch government established a policy plan for sustainable crop protection. According to this policy plan, risks must be acceptable for humans and the environment, while maintaining the economic prospects for growers. The main goal of the Dutch policy document was to have no exceedances of water quality standards by 2010. We present an evaluation of this policy with regard to target achievement and lessons learned for the future. We will further identify the most successful risk reducing measures and the dominant sources of pesticide contamination.

1. 1
EFFECT OF PESTICIDE
REDUCTION STRATEGIES
ON SURFACE WATER
QUALITY IN THE
NETHERLANDS
Aaldrik Tiktak (PBL)
Martha van Eerdt (PBL)
Ton van der Linden (RIVM)

2. 2
Pesticide use is high in the Netherlands
 This poses high risks to human health and the environment

3. 3
Policies to reduce risks posed by pesticides
 Sustainable Crop Protection Plan (2004)
 Risks must be acceptable for humans and the environment
and the economic prospects must be maintained
 Main objective: no exceedance of water quality
standards by 2010
 Policy plan supported by legal instruments, e.g.
 Pesticide authorisation (EU and national)
 Water Pollution Act aimed at emission reduction
 European Directive for the Sustainable Use of
Pesticides (2009)
 Integrated Pest Management

4. 4
Legal obligations in Dutch Water Pollution Act
Width of buffer strip is 0.25 m (winter wheat) up to 1.50 m in potatoes

5. 5
Evaluation of Dutch policy plan in 2012
 Target achievement
 Contribution of measures and legal instruments to target
achievement
 Lessons learnt for the
Dutch implementation of the
Directive for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides

6. 6
The good news: Aquatic risk reduced by 85%
during evaluation period (1998-2010)
No further reduction
in field crops after 2004:
no further emission
reducing policies
Calculated with the NMI

7. 7
The bad news: water quality standard still
exceeded at 50% of monitoring locations
 Highest exceedance in regions
with flower bulbs, orchards
and greenhouses
 But also other land-uses pose
problems

8. 8
Confirmed by the model calculations
Graphs shows field-crops only!

9. 9
What are the most important emission pathways?

10. 10
Which emission pathways causes the highest
risk?
 Spray drift dominant despite low emission
 Risk related to peak concentration. Spray drift enters without water, so
no dilution and therefore high peaks
 Greenhouses: high risk per hectare, but area is small

11. 11
Which policies have contributed to risk reduction?
Authorisationa.o. IPM

12. 12
Lessons from evaluation
 Water quality standards still exceeded
 Emission reduction policies and pesticide authorisation have
contributed most to risk reduction
 Large differences between crops, so crop-specific approach
necessary
 The EU considers Integrated Crop Protection to
be the key instrument for further risk reduction
 WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL OF IPM
COMPARED TO OTHER MEASURES???

13. 13
What is Integrated Pest Management?
 A holistic approach to pest management that should lower
pesticide use, provide economic savings and protect the
environment consisting of the following steps:
1. Prevent pests
2. Monitor pests
3. Take action only when
necessary (apply
thresholds)
4. Select the most
appropriate control
strategy with pesticides
as the “last resort”

14. 14
Three types of measures evaluated for further
risk reducing potential
 Pest prevention
 Cultivation techniques
 Monitoring of pests
 Non-chemical methods
 Chemical methods
 Substitution of high risk pesticides by lower risk pesticides
 Best Available Techniques for spray drift reduction
 Extra wide crop-free buffer strips
IPM-measures aimed at
lowering pesticide use
Emission
reduction

15. 15
Emission reduction and substitution again most
successful
Additional emission
reducing measures
were not available

16. 16
Wye do IPM-measures hardly reduce the
aquatic risk?
 In a given crop many pests may occur. IPM-measures are
usually directed towards one or a few of these pests
 E.g. introduction of resistant apple varieties only avoids
6 of 30 annual pesticide applications in apples
 Lowering pesticide input may not always mean reducing the
risk to aquatic organisms
 E.g. straw mulching reduces herbicide sprayings but
herbicides have a low aquatic risk profile

17. 17
Many measures reduce the costs

18. 18
Many (but not all) growers already apply
IPM-measures

19. 19
Conclusions
 Aquatic risk can be reduced by an additional
 40-80% when using Best Available Techniques for drift
reduction
 10-80% when avoiding the use of high risk pesticides
 5-40% when using IPM-measures
 IPM-measures adopted by 60% of growers
 Cost an important, but not the only, incentive
 Expensive measures such as crop-free buffer strips
not adopted voluntarily
 Legislation needed
 Farmer payments
(greening the Common Agricultural Policy)

20. 20
THANKS FOR YOUR
ATTENTION