Dutch plant protection covenant aims at restoring public trust in horticulture
In an increasingly eco-conscious society, chances are that, sooner or later, the use of chemical plant protection products in ornamental plant production, regardless of the country, will be subject to political and societal scrutiny. In the Netherlands, an industry covenant is currently being negotiated to restore public trust in agriculture and horticulture. It is equally designed to provide farmers and growers with greater clarity and legal and financial certainty when adopting more biocontrols and innovative cultivation techniques.
In an increasingly eco-conscious society, chances are that, sooner or later, the use of chemical plant protection products in ornamental plant production, regardless of the country, will be subject to political and societal scrutiny. In the Netherlands, an industry covenant is currently being negotiated to restore public trust in agriculture and horticulture. It is equally designed to provide farmers and growers with greater clarity and legal and financial certainty when adopting more biocontrols and innovative cultivation techniques.
By Ron van der Ploeg
by Ron van der Ploeg
On 14 July, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature and seven industry organisations, including LTO Nederland, the Dutch Agriculture and Horticulture Association; horticultural network Greenports Nederland; arable farming organisation BO Akkerbouw; and young farmers’ and growers’ association NAJK, signed an outline covenant.
The hope is to pave the way for a binding framework that reduces the environmental impact of plant protection products while maintaining a competitive and economically viable agricultural and horticultural sector.
The covenant might reverse the growing fragmentation of plant protection policy across the country
Signatories to the outline covenant, signed on 14 July.
How does it work?
The covenant is a collaborative, voluntary understanding between the Dutch government, agricultural and horticultural organisations, supply chain partners including the Dutch Food Retail Association (CBL), and other stakeholders such as the Dutch Water Authorities (Unie van Waterschappen) and the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG).
Challenge and opportunity For growers, the covenant represents both an opportunity and a challenge. It promises greater legal certainty at a time when plant protection is increasingly subject to political and societal scrutiny. Yet it will also require the sector to accelerate the transition towards more resilient cultivation systems while reducing its reliance on conventional plant protection products.
Whether the covenant ultimately succeeds will depend less on the goodwill of its signatories than on their ability to balance environmental objectives with economic viability.
Much is at stake. Plant protection remains indispensable for safeguarding crops against pests, diseases and weeds. Without effective plant protection products, farmers and growers would struggle to produce reliable harvests or supply healthy, marketable plants.
At the same time, public expectations have changed dramatically. The media is full of emotionally charged information. People increasingly tend to float their ideas and opinions, presenting them as truth while being clueless about what they are talking about. A gap has formed between what people believe happens on a farm or inside a nursery and what is actually taking place.
Topics that drive most of the negative sentiments that consumers link with agriculture and horticulture include the use of chemical plant protection products and their impact on the environment and public health.
Graph 1. Sales of plant protection products rose in 2024 compared with 2023 but remained below the levels recorded between 2010 and 2022. The increase was linked to wet weather, which required more frequent fungicide treatments. Source: Statistics Netherlands (CBS).
Progress Meanwhile, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture stresses that since 2020, the agricultural and horticultural sectors have made progress in the uptake of integrated pest management (IPM) and alternative approaches or techniques to reduce dependence on pesticides.
This is reflected in the monitoring report for the Implementation Programme for the Future Vision on Crop Protection and the evaluation of the existing National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products (NAP).
According to the Dutch Agriculture Ministry, sales and use of chemical plant protection products have declined overall over the longer term, without compromising the competitiveness of the agricultural and horticultural sectors. Graphs 1 and 2 of the Dutch Statistics Office (CBS) illustrate this.
Policymakers have long sought to reduce the environmental footprint of chemical plant protection products, while advances in science have improved understanding of their potential impacts on water quality, biodiversity, public health and ecosystems.
The Netherlands also faces increasing pressure to meet the European Union’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) targets by 2027. Current projections indicate the country is not yet on course to achieve the required water quality standards for plant protection products. Concerns also persist over possible impacts on Natura 2000 nature reserves and on the health of farmers, nearby residents and rural communities.
Against this backdrop, the covenant aims to create a comprehensive national framework that allows environmental progress without undermining the competitiveness of Dutch agriculture and horticulture.
How does it work?
The covenant is not a law, but a framework that sets out how the parties intend to work together to reduce the environmental impact of plant protection products (PPP) from now until 2040. What sets this initiative apart from previous schemes is that it is not only about making cultivation more sustainable, but also about strengthening public trust.
Graph 2. Use of plant protection products in Dutch agriculture, by application category. Source: Statistics Netherlands (CBS).
How does it work?
The covenant benefits include a possible reduction of regulatory pressure. Governments may be more willing to rely on voluntary action if an industry demonstrates measurable progress, potentially delaying or avoiding more prescriptive legislation.
Shared responsibility While the sector welcomes stronger national coordination, growers are equally determined that it takes two to tango, with responsibility shared rather than imposed unilaterally.
One grower’s proposal put forward during negotiations is the establishment of an independent Plant Protection Authority. The envisaged watchdog would monitor compliance with agreed water quality targets for both groundwater and surface water, while coordinating responses where environmental standards are exceeded. Importantly, growers favour addressing water quality issues through regional solutions rather than blanket national sanctions. Local circumstances often differ considerably, making targeted interventions more practical than one-size-fits-all measures.
Industry organisations also insist that every signatory to the covenant should be held accountable for delivering on its commitments.
Should agreed objectives not be achieved, they argue, signatories should return to the negotiating table to revise measures collectively, rather than placing responsibility solely on farmers and growers. The environmental ambitions themselves should remain intact, but the pathway towards achieving them may require adjustment as experience accumulates.
Tailoring agreements to sector-specific realities is therefore viewed as essential for maintaining both credibility and practicality.
Former politician and ChristenUnie member Gert-Jan Segers chairs the Dutch covenant on plant protection products.
Business perspective remains essential For many farmers and growers, environmental ambitions can only succeed if they are accompanied by a realistic business model. Just imagine a young farmer who has just started his large-scale business and who has taken on substantial debt. Every misstep in crop management can have huge financial consequences.
Calls have been made to establish a ‘risk transition fund’ that would compensate growers if trials with new crop protection methods result in crop failures or significant financial losses.
At the same time, farmers and growers continue to compete within the European single market and argue that they require a genuine level playing field.
Introducing substantially stricter Dutch requirements than those applied elsewhere in Europe could undermine competitiveness without necessarily delivering proportional environmental benefits.
The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture has earmarked €250 million to stimulate innovation in resilient cultivation systems.
Although widely welcomed, industry bodies maintain, rather unsurprisingly, that this amount falls short of what will ultimately be required.
How does it work?
The covenant envisages monitoring progress to determine whether the agreed measures are delivering. If the targets are not being met, additional measures may be considered. The agreement focuses on actually reducing environmental impact rather than usage (in kilograms). There are joint indicators and clear targets for 2030, 2035 and 2040.
One covenant, many sectors Although the covenant provides an overarching framework, implementation will differ substantially between sectors.
Following the outline covenant, detailed arrangements will be negotiated separately for individual subsectors. Uniform measures are considered unrealistic given the diversity within Dutch agriculture and horticulture.
Open-field arable farming faces highly variable weather conditions, differing soil types and seasonal disease pressures. Greenhouse production, by contrast, operates within tightly controlled environments where plant protection challenges, monitoring possibilities and available technologies differ considerably.
Beyond the negotiating table Even if the final covenant is successfully concluded, few expect it to end the increasingly polarised debate surrounding plant protection overnight.
Public concerns about pesticide use remain high, particularly among residents living near farmland. Environmental organisations continue to question whether current practices sufficiently protect biodiversity, water quality and public health.
For that reason, signatories believe the covenant should become more than an agreement between government and industry alone.
Once the final text has been completed, they hope it can serve as the starting point for a broader dialogue with society. Building trust among citizens, local communities and environmental stakeholders may prove just as important as achieving the technical targets contained within the agreement.