The signing of the Dutch Outline Covenant on Crop Protection marks a major milestone, but is certainly not the finish line, according to Adri Bom-Lemstra, president of Greenports Nederland and Glastuinbouw Nederland.

“It is still too early to congratulate ourselves,” says Adri Bom-Lemstra. “We have reached an intermediate stage. We consented that, after the summer, this agreement will be further worked out into sector-specific covenants. These will ultimately determine the targets the government will set for each sector regarding plant protection and water quality.”

Breaking the cycle of polarisation The president helped instigate the negotiations because she saw the public debate on plant protection products (PPPs) becoming increasingly polarised.

“There are legitimate concerns about the impact of PPPs on the environment and public health. The Dutch government had two options. It could simply impose new regulations, or it could work together with growers, industry and civil society to explore what goals are realistic and how they can be achieved. Fortunately, it chose the second approach.”

That is why she regrets that the environmental organisations Natuur & Milieu and LandschappenNL unexpectedly decided at the last minute not to sign the covenant.

“They say they want to remain involved in the discussions, but without committing themselves. I find that disappointing. To me, it feels like you rather want be able to initiate legal cases against growers and local government, and thus to continue to fuel the already heated debate in society, than taking action on the ground.”

Shared responsibility across the entire chain Bom-Lemstra says she very much enjoys supporting evidence-based decision-making and values constructive dialogues between government, industry, and civil society. She sees it also as her duty to ensure that responsibility does not rest solely with growers.

“You cannot set targets exclusively for growers and then punish them if those targets are not met. Growers depend on so many factors beyond their direct control, for instance, on the starter plants, irrigation water, the availability of biological PPPs, the approval of new biocontrols, the prices buyers are willing to pay, and ultimately consumers who are prepared to accept that a lettuce may occasionally contain an aphid or that a bouquet may have a small insect in it.”

For that reason, she believes every link in the supply chain shares responsibility. “If reducing environmental impact is our common objective, then every stakeholder holds a piece of that puzzle.”

In the context of shared responsibility, Bom-Lemstra believes there is a role for environmental organisations too. She notes, “I think it is fair to ask them to quit legal procedures and, for example, launch a positive campaign on the use of biocontrol in the sector instead.”

Ambition requires the right toolbox The Dutch greenhouse sector has set itself the ambition of producing crops entirely with green plant protection solutions by 2030.

“We set that ambition because it is the direction we want to move into. But wanting is not the same as being able to. You can only hold growers accountable for ambitious targets if they are provided with the right toolbox to achieve them. Growing greener requires the government to foster the authorisation and approval of biocontrols and low-risk PPPs.”

Legal certainty is essential Legal certainty will be one of the major issues in the next phase of the covenant.

“Growers need to know where they stand. If the government establishes rules based on sound scientific evidence, growers should be able to rely on those rules without constantly facing new legal challenges.” She is worried that scientific decisions made by the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (Ctgb) are increasingly being challenged in court.

“The Ctgb is one of the most respected authorisation authorities in Europe. If scientific assessments continue to be questioned through legal action, we risk undermining confidence in science itself.”

The president also warns that Europe is becoming less attractive for innovation in sustainable crop protection.

“The approval process for new biological and low-risk products takes far longer and is more expensive in Europe than in many other parts of the world. As a result, companies increasingly choose to launch their innovations elsewhere first.”

That trend, she says, is worrying because growers need access to innovative solutions if they are expected to reduce environmental impact. Growers cannot be expected to grow greener if the alternatives are simply not available.

Collaboration instead of unilateral regulation Despite the obstacles to overcome, she remains convinced that the covenant offers the best route forward.

“If we fail to work together, unilateral regulation imposed by government will be the alternative.”

At the same time, she urges policymakers to remain realistic by setting ‘doable’ timelines and catering for alternatives. In that, the government, the plant protection industry and Europe all have a role to play in making new technologies and sustainable plant protection solutions available.

“If a grower has done everything reasonably possible but no practical alternative yet exists, we should explore how to move forward jointly instead of immediately imposing penalties. That also provides growers with much-needed confidence.”

Frontrunner or teacher’s pet? Bom-Lemstra frequently meets with growers. She sees how they are committed to making progress every day. Meanwhile, she is very aware of growers arguing that the future of the industry’s sustainability depends on the use of harmonised standards, fair competition, and a government creating a level playing field where Dutch horticultural business can thrive and grow.

Despite the Netherlands often being seen as the “teacher’s pet” when implementing European legislation, Bom-Lemstra argues this should not be a disadvantage for Dutch growers.

At the same time, the Netherlands faces challenges unlike those of many other European countries. “We are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. Growers operate much closer to residential areas, schools and nature than, for example, in France. That requires a different approach. We should strive for a fair level playing field across Europe, but we also need room for solutions that reflect local circumstances.”

Noblesse oblige According to the president, Dutch greenhouse horticulture has earned its reputation through innovation. “We are able to produce high-quality crops on a very small area using minimal amounts of water and plant protection products. We are proud of that, but noblesse oblige; being a frontrunner also comes with responsibilities.”

Bom-Lemstra also calls for greater harmonisation of enforcement across the European Union.

“That is one of the topics for discussion after the summer break. Within the EU, authorisations and regulations vary from one member state to another, which means that Dutch growers sometimes face a competitive disadvantage. Stricter requirements are linked to societal expectations regarding the environment, public health and sustainability. The challenge is to strike the right balance: further reducing the environmental impact without putting Dutch growers at a disproportionate disadvantage. The responsibility for this lies not only with the growers, but also with public authorities and supply chain partners. So, a level playing field, yes, but complete uniformity is not always possible. Equal where possible, tailored where necessary. That makes things more complicated, but it is also the only practical way forward.”

Ultimately, that is what the covenant is all about. It is not about unwillingness. It is about creating the conditions that enable growers to achieve the joint goals. Only then will this covenant succeed.