The amount of crop protection products in the streams and waterways in the Drentsche Aa area must be further reduced. Only then is robust and safe drinking water extraction from surface water possible. Since 2016, tests and methods have been running to reduce the amount of pesticides ending up in the water of the streams of the Drentsche Aa, but they are not yet working sufficiently.
The existing projects must be intensified. Not only by reducing the number of crop protection products, but also with different or more sustainable land use by agriculture. This is the conclusion of an advisory committee that investigated what more needs to be done to improve the water quality in the Drentsche Aa area.
The province, municipalities and water boards must do better enforcement and supervision, according to the committee. And the new Environmental Act gives the government much better instruments to say: we do that form of agriculture there and we don’t do that there. In addition, there should be a lobby to test crop protection products more widely for leaching from agricultural fields.
The water of the Drentsche Aa is used for public drinking water supply. The entire city of Groningen drinks the water. The water quality must therefore meet legally established quality standards. Between 2016 and 2022, the province of Drenthe, Hunze en Aa’s water board and Groningen Water Company worked on a voluntary basis with many farmers, companies and nature organizations on the Drentsche Aa Surface Water Extraction Implementation Program (UPDA).
The goal was to reduce the number of exceedances of standards for crop protection products at the intake point for drinking water preparation of Water Company Groningen (at De Punt, ed.) by 95 percent in 2023 compared to 2012.
Although the results showed a downward trend in the period 2012-2020, this objective was not achieved in 2021 and it was expected that this would not be achieved in subsequent years. The UPDA partners have therefore concluded that an additional strategy is needed and that is why a committee led by former deputy and former dike grapher Marga Kool and former Noordenveld councilor Henk Kosters set to work to investigate what else could be done. has to happen.
There is now a lot of measurement data available that shows an ‘uneven picture when it comes to the presence of crop protection products above the detection limit’. The results vary too much. But at the water intake point for drinking water extraction, about fifteen types of substances are often measured, including agricultural poisons used in bulb cultivation, beet cultivation and field vegetables. There are more measuring points in and just outside the Drentsche Aa area, of which the measuring point near Laaghalen scores worst for the presence of pesticides.
“There is convincing evidence that crop protection products leach and run off into surface water during heavy rain showers in the summer period. There are also indications that irrigation of drained agricultural fields during dry periods also causes a lot of leaching and runoff.” According to the committee, something must be done about this because climate change is causing more periods of drought and more heavy rainfall. Reduction of the spread of fertilizers is also necessary.
For example, other methods of removing weeds can help. And not just in agriculture. According to the committee, the measurement data show that the toxins are also found in built-up areas. Companies and residents must therefore also be encouraged to use other methods of weed and pest control.
According to Kosters, there should be a ‘risk safety net’ for farmers when it comes to reducing pesticides. He is thinking of some kind of fund or insurance. “For example, you can help a farmer not to spray preventively. If it turns out afterwards that there is a lower crop yield and the farmer has sprayed less, then such a farmer should be able to use the risk safety net.
The committee also concludes that the national authorization policy for crop protection products is inadequate. “A broad lobby to tighten the policy of the Board for the authorization of plant protection products (Ctgb) is necessary.” According to the committee, the substances must be tested much more widely before they are approved.
Other land use can also lead to less agricultural poison in surface water. For example, by designating or expanding spray-free zones. The province, farmers and site managers must jointly ensure guidance on the purchase and management of land.
With more sustainable land use, not only water quality, but also water quantity (quantity) can ultimately be better regulated. Consider retaining water in an area for longer.
The committee believes that the area projects should be continued. It is also important to keep all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, Kool warns. “If one farmer in the area doesn’t participate, he can undo the efforts of all his colleagues around him.”
As far as Kosters is concerned, all existing projects must be accelerated.
According to the committee, there is also an “imbalance between mandatory frameworks and voluntariness. Much has been made of voluntariness in recent years, but the results require clear and mandatory frameworks.” In other words: more rules.
The province, municipalities and water boards also make insufficient use of their legal instruments. Water legislation determines the quality of ground and surface water. Spatial planning determines under what conditions and where certain functions are possible. The committee believes that these instruments should be used better. The new Environmental Act also gives more powers and instruments to the province, the committee concludes.
And intensification of enforcement and supervision is necessary, which is currently too fragmented and its use is too limited.
The province must take control and that is what the Provincial Executive (GS) will do. GS will adopt the committee’s conclusions, but the province would first like to discuss the proposed measures with all partners in the area, according to deputy Willemien Meuwissen.