The recent ruling by the Council of State on the use of crop protection products in lily cultivation has caused quite a stir. The judge ruled that provinces must investigate more thoroughly the possible negative effects of crop protection products in lily cultivation on Natura 2000 areas. Jan Verschoor, general director of the industry organisation CropLife NL, believes that provinces are being assigned too complex a responsibility that is practically impossible to implement.
The ruling specifically focuses on lily cultivation. In this cultivation, crop protection products are used that are intended to contribute to the production of high-quality ornamental crops. Verschoor indicates when asked that it was not the provinces, but the Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (Ctgb) that was created precisely to assess the risks of the products objectively and scientifically. Assessing risks to humans, animals and the environment is their core task. "An independent substantive assessment cannot be expected from the provinces. They should be able to build on the scientific assessment of the Ctgb."
Consequences of lily cultivation
Growers do not have to stop using crop protection products immediately. In the case in question, the provinces have given lily growers in general a warning which they are now adhering to. This means that it is considered necessary for the provinces to reassess the specific situation per area. The responsibility for this therefore lies explicitly with the provinces. Verschoor believes that the possibility of entering into cooperation with the Ctgb should be considered. "This is the only way to arrive at a clear and substantiated assessment of the safety of using crop protection products in vulnerable natural areas."
Verschoor wonders to what extent all aspects of the Ctgb's assessment of nature have been addressed in this case. The Council of State did indeed look at the Ctgb's approval assessment, but their assessment in this case was apparently not considered sufficient. "We should trust institutions that weigh up all the risks. When a judgement is made that a product can be used safely (and the risks to humans, animals and the environment have been taken into account), this should be sufficient to enable the use of crop protection products around Natura 2000 areas", says Verschoor. According to him, it is almost impossible to demonstrate that a product has no effect.
Turning the case around
Verschoor believes that in this case, the matter should be reversed. "The question should rather be: if a substance were to have an effect, to what extent is that effect harmful to nature? At this point, the judge has assessed that the information provided is insufficient. The follow-up discussion should be about how it can be determined that possible negative effects are covered by the current risk assessment of the Ctgb. This is necessary to make the situation workable," Verschoor explains.