Sustainable farming in Holland
Green labels and environmental yardsticks

Farmers are the main players in the development of a sustainable agriculture. The Centre for Agriculture and Environment (CLM) argues for a policy to help  farmers  reduce environmental problems caused by the use of pesticides. Jaap de Vries of CLM presents three approaches which are showing success in the Netherlands-rewards for positive results, crop protocols and a green label.

Environmental yardstick for pesticides
As the principal agents in agriculturally related environmental problems, farmers need indicators which demonstrate the impact of their actions. With this in mind, CLM has developed the Environmental Yardstick for Pesticides (EYP). Using the Yardstick,  farmers can compare the environmental effects of their pesticide use, and assess the progress they are making towards more environmentally sound crop protection.
    The Yardstick assigns Environmental Impact Points (EIPs) to each pesticide in terms of leaching into ground water, acute toxicity to aquatic organisms and the impact on soil organisms. The more points a pesticide receives, the greater its impact on the environment. The points are calculated using computer models describing the emission of pesticides into ground water, soil and surface water and their biodegradation. The effects on water and soil organisms are estimated by comparing the exposure concentration with toxicity data. The EIPs are assigned for a standard dosage of 1 kg/ha. If a different dosage is used, the number of points should be multiplied by the dosage applied.

'Reward for results'

In areas where ground water is protected, utility companies supplying drinking water are keen to reward farmers for not using pesticides, rather than spending large amounts of money removing them from the water source. 'Reward for Results' means farmers receive financial rewards for limiting the negative impacts on the environment which can be exerted by their farming activities. No specific measures are imposed or prohibited, and farmers themselves choose measures which can produce the largest possible environmental effect at the lowest possible economic cost. Compared with a means-oriented policy, Reward for Results' is fairer, more cost effective and offers greater incentive.
    The EYP is used to determine the amount of money that each farmer has earned from the 'Reward for Results' system. The quality level for pesticides in the upper ground water is the EU Drinking Water parameter (0.1 µg/litre for a single pesticide active ingredient and 0.5 µg/litre for all active ingredients). It is directly related to the EYP (at most 100 EIPs per active ingredient and 500 EIPs for all active ingredients).
    The 'Reward for Results' system, to be funded by the water companies, has been tested by farmer study groups. Over two years dairy farmers managed to reduce the number of EIPs for ground water on grassland and arable land by 95-99%. Arable farmers managed to reduce their score from an average of 5,000 EIPs to 2,300 EIPs: a 54% reduction. Further reductions in the EIP scores  are therefore needed. This will require other policy tools to reduce the EIP sufficiently to promote sufficient environmental benefit.
    The maximum payment a farmer can earn by achieving the standards of limited pesticide use is 150 guilders (£60) per hectare.

Crop protocols for environmentally sound products
Consumer concern about the impact of agriculture and horticulture on the environment has increased over the years. The Dutch government has responded by defining goals for sustainable agriculture in terms of targets which require a percentage reduction in the amount of pesticides use. Albert Heijn, the largest supermarket chain in the Netherlands, was one of the first agri-businesses to address this public concern. In 1989, Albert Heijn, took on CLM as consultants in order to help develop a strategy for farmers and growers to minimise their impact on the environment. A step-by-step approach is being adopted through an annual assessment of crop protocols. This will establish their feasibility and effectiveness, and they will be adapted, if necessary, to correspond to changing views and requirements. The contract with the supermarket provides an extra incentive for the growers to change their practices.
    In 1994, 2,300 ha of horticultural production met the standards for pesticides which have been set for general adoption by the year 2000. Albert Heijn hopes to ensure that all its suppliers of potatoes, vegetables, fruit and mushrooms grow their products according to the protocols. In future imported fruit and vegetables will be included.

Risk reduction through a green label
In the Netherlands, producers, industry and consumers have agreed goals for sustainable agriculture. A green label certification scheme called the Milieukeur  has been established with the backing of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries, based on criteria that offer quality produce upon which farmers and consumers can both agree. At present two private companies act as certifying agencies that are entirely separate from the trade and development aspects of the label. The certifiers are funded by a levy from the growers.
    The choice of pesticides used in the Milieukeur scheme is important because of potential effects on the environment. The growers therefore have a list of selected environmentally-benign pesticides, which have been chosen using the EYP. There is also a commitment to reduce by 50% (by weight) the amount of pesticides used compared with the 1984-1988 average (see box).

Usage figures-update
Dutch pesticide usage fell by 2.2% in 1995 to 10,923 tonnes. This means usage (by weight) has fallen by 45% compared with the mean annual level between 1984 and 1988. The Dutch multi-year crop protection plan  set an interim overall target of a 35% usage reduction on 1984-88 by 1995.
    The largest reduction has been for soil sterilants, used to control nematodes, which fell by 7% last year, according to Nefyto, the industry association.
    Fungicide use, on the other hand, rose by 3% during 1995, despite the launch of new low-dose products such as Shirlan (fluazinon) for use on flower bulbs and potatoes.
Source: Agrow, No. 262, 16 August 1996.

Potatoes: The Milieukeur label will be applied to a range of crops, including cereals (for bread), onions and open field vegetables. The potato label is at the most advanced stage of development and evaluation. In 1995, over 100 growers, in co-operation with trade organisations and the supermarket chain Schuitema, produced 20,000 tonnes of Milieukeur potatoes. They were grown on 600 ha, which represents 3% of the total potato area in the Netherlands. By 1996, the figure had risen to 4%.
    Milieukeur label growers now apply 70% less total pesticide use (by weight). This has been achieved by using lower  application volumes. They also use mechanical weeding, and the haulm (green vegetation) is no longer chemically killed-off. The choice of active ingredients has also changed. Metalaxyl, a fungicide used to control mildew, used to be the growers favourite. It is no longer applied because of its effects on the aquatic environment and its potential to leach into ground water sources. Cymoxanyl-based products are now used instead.

Conclusion
The Netherlands experience shows that payment for not using pesticides-'Reward for Results', crop protocols and environmentally sound products-are policy tools which effectively stimulate the farmer to chose those environmental measures that are in the interests of everybody-farmers, consumers, wildlife and the environment.

Jaap de Vries is a researcher and agronomic advisor for the Centre for Agriculture and Environment (CLM), PO Box 10015, 3505 AA, Utrecht, the Netherlands, Tel. +31 30 2441 301, Fax +31 30 2441 318. CLM is an NGO helping to promote sustainable agriculture in the interests of the farmer, consumer and the environment. The author acknowledges the assistance of his colleagues GA Pak, JAWA Reus and ST Buijze.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 33, September 1996, page 6]