'Judge: use of pesticides without a permit is now taboo in the Nature Conservation Act'. That was the title of a press release that Milieudefensie issued this week. Does this statement have such far-reaching consequences for current Dutch agricultural practice that the nature activists suggest? However, the ruling of the Northern Netherlands District Court in Groningen - on which the press release is based - is a lot more nuanced, according to various parties.
The ruling of the Northern Netherlands court in Groningen - on which the press release is based - is, according to various parties, a lot more nuanced. The case revolves around lily cultivation near the Nature2000 area of the Holtingerveld in Drenthe. According to Milieudefensie, lily cultivation does not fall under normal (agricultural) use, but is a project for which a permit is required under the Nature Conservation Act (Wnb). Furthermore, Milieudefensie states that lily cultivation involves groundwater extraction, drainage, irrigation and excessive use of crop protection products.
Project or not?
The court agrees with Milieudefensie's reasoning that in this specific case the lily cultivation of the company in question is a project that requires a permit on the basis of the Wnb. This means that it must be investigated whether the project (lily cultivation) can have significant consequences for the Holtingerveld.
The defendant (Provincial Executive of the Province of Drenthe) has had a study carried out into the effects of the construction of drainage on a number of plots, which shows that the effect on the groundwater level in the nature reserve is nil. For the use of crop protection products, the Province relies on the admission assessment of the Ctgb and the Environmental Management Activities Decree to prevent unwanted spread.
According to the court, the obligation to investigate has not been fulfilled in this case. In other words: an authorization from the Ctgb alone is insufficient in this case to prove that the resources have no significant effects on the nature reserve and the Province should have assessed all plots that have been drained for the influence on the groundwater level in the Holtingerveld.
Additional research
The press judge of the Northern Netherlands court stated in an oral explanation that this ruling "only relates to this specific case and not to agricultural practice in a broader sense. Both parties can appeal against the ruling and the defendant can still come up with additional research/further substantiation which actually shows that lily cultivation around the Holtingerveld has no significant effects on the Holtingerveld."
According to Jo Ottenheim, responsible use and distribution manager at Nefyto, this court ruling may have consequences for the use of crop protection products on plots near Natura 2000 areas. But he does see opportunities for better substantiation as the court requests.
"In its ruling, the court only refers to the RIVM's report on Pesticides and Local Residents. Other studies, for example the RIVM's Health Outlook on Local Residents, have not been taken into account for the time being. This research shows that people who live in the vicinity of agricultural plots are no longer have health problems than people with no or few agricultural plots nearby. And the RIVM's conclusion about the exposure study ('the measurement results remained below the limit values') is also not reflected in the statement. Of actual exceedances of standards of substances in this nature reserve , in view of these reports, does not seem to be the case at all."
Legal trap
LTO Netherlands warns against a legal trap. "If the judicial reasoning is followed, then virtually every economic act requires a stack of reports and permits. This ruling turns the precautionary principle into a paralysis principle," LTO writes on the website. LTO will consult with the Ctgb, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Province of Drenthe about the potential impact of this case. LTO also investigates the possibilities, desirability and necessity of legal involvement in a possible appeal.
A spokesperson for the Milieudefensie Westerveld department said they support the press release. "The ruling leaves no room for doubt and we believe it also applies to a potato farmer in Zeeland."
The court's ruling is here to read.