'Agri Facts draws wrong conclusions from PBL report'

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) has responded to allegations made by the Agri Facts Foundation (STAF) about the deliberate manipulation of information about Dutch crop protection. STAF indicated on Monday that PBL is hiding crucial information in a report on crop protection. According to the PBL, this is not the case.

Main critique of STAF is that conclusions have been drawn on the basis of the 15 most polluted measuring points. PBL concludes from this that agricultural entrepreneurs are not achieving crop protection targets nationally. This while STAF itself draws the conclusion on the basis of all measuring points that farmers are more or less achieving the targets for ecological water quality.

The PBL registers a reaction that the statement that farmers have achieved the targets is incorrect, even if all measuring points are included. According to the planning office, STAF used the wrong method, in which the years 2013 and 2017 were compared. According to the PBL, this is too simplistic, because the comparison of data from individual years does not accurately reflect the trend.

In dry years the concentration of crop protection agents in the water is usually higher and in wet years lower, even if cultivation practice remains the same. It has therefore been agreed to determine the trend on the basis of a three-yearly moving average of the percentage of exceedances of the WFD standards.

Measuring points are representative
The PBL also states that 96 measuring points were used, which are representative of the national picture. PBL admits that these are measuring points in smaller waters, where generally more exceedances of standards are found. They are therefore still representative, because statements are made about the downward trend. And that trend appears to be the same as the trend in the dataset in which all measurement points are included.

While STAF stated that the PBL was hiding information by not mentioning that only the most polluted measuring points were used, the PBL says that it clearly stated that there are more locations where measurements are taken. However, the PBL has not included these in the assessment, because these measuring points are not standardized and measurements are not always carried out consistently. PBL did have it investigated whether the trend would be different if all these measuring points were included, but according to the agency, that is not the case.

STAF will respond
STAF also stated that the PBL would have used stricter assessment methods. However, the PBL responds that the methods prescribed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) have been applied. The Agri Facts Foundation will not stop at this and will analyze PBL's answer, responds chairman Jaap Haanstra.

Anne-Jan Doorn

Anne Jan Doorn is an arable expert at Boerenbusiness. He writes about the various arable farming markets and also focuses on the land and energy market.

aj.doorn@boerenbusiness. Nl

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.