Ref. Ares(2020)206669 - 14/01/2020
Answers to questions DG ENV on progress report enhanced enforcement strategy
1. Can you explain the further assessment of the physical checks of derogated farms, as in the
autumn update of the progress report an increasing trend of unacceptable findings is
noticed. Similar numbers of unacceptable findings (niet akkoord) are also provided in the physical
controls of the 2018 derogation report: 136 of 929 physical checks not acceptable. Can you
similarly clarify why in the 2018 derogation report the final conclusion is 0.2 % non-compliance
with the conditions (percentage niet-voldaan aan de voorwaarden).
Thank you for these questions, and the opportunity to provide additional information on the
functioning of the enhanced manure enforcement strategy and the reports regarding this
strategy.
To start with your last question to clarify the 0.2% non-compliance with the conditions in 2018.
The total amount of companies that applied a derogation (17.986) are all administratively
checked by RVO.nl. This resulted in 233 infringements (there can be more infringements on
one company). Besides, there are of course physical controls carried out by the NVWA. Of the
17.986 companies that applied for a derogation 929 were physically controlled. Initially 136
infringements were found (there can be more infringements on one company). Of these 136
infringements 84 were rectified or a warning was given. Of 52 infringements reports were sent
to RVO.nl. Of these 52 reports of the NVWA and the 233 initially established infringements
after administrative controls by RVO.nl 32 companies were definitively not in compliance and
their derogation was repealed, which is about 0.2% of the total amount of companies that
applied for a derogation. This information is provided on p.11-13 of the ‘Voortgangsrapportage
Handhaving en Uitvoering Mestbeleid 2018’.
Regarding your first question on the progress report of autumn 2019. The explanation about
the results of the administrative and physical controls of 2018 shows that the initial non-
compliance results do not necessarily imply a trend in the definitive non-compliance numbers,
while these companies still have the opportunity to rectify the situation for 2019 or there is
reason to only address the situation with a warning. However, the results will be monitored
closely, and if an increasing trend in non-compliance is determined further analysis may be
needed to address this issue.
2. Does the risk based approach (risicogerichte aanpak) take into account the type of farm and/or
the availability of land?
Yes, the type of farm and/or the availability of land are taken into account in the risk based
approach of the enhanced manure enforcement strategy.
As described in the risk based approach for administrative and physical controls RVO.nl and
NVWA (confidential document shared with the Commission for our meeting on 3 December
2019) RVO.nl and NVWA select certain types of companies. Regarding RVO.nl it is explained in
Blok B (p.2) that the risk targeted companies are companies with a derogation, intermediary
companies and companies in the three specific areas part of the enhanced manure enforcement
strategy. Regarding the NVWA it is presented under the heading ‘Risicogerichte aanpak fysieke
controles (NVWA)’ (p.5-8) that there is a risk based approach to target companies that have a
derogation, that are based in one of the three specific areas and intermediaries.
The risk based approach regarding companies that have a derogation targets inter alia pig
farms, farms with less than 25 acres of land, farms which have different small plots (less than
0,5 acre), companies that have only land on sandy soils, companies that had no derogation in
the previous year. Henceforth, especially the control of companies that have a derogation takes
into account the type of farm and the availability of land. The risk based approach for the three
specific areas (which areas are chosen based on the parameters availability of land, type of
soil, cultivation of maize and surplus of manure) targets companies on which an administrative
check shows possible irregularities.
3. It is explained that due to the judgement of the CBb, there have been delays in checks in pig
and poultry farming. If the type of farm, is not a criterion for the risk based approach, will
additional efforts be done on pig and poultry farms?
Due to the judgement of the CBb RVO.nl has become more transparent about their fines policy
and the levels of precision. Presently RVO.nl has restarted with all controls, which are also
directed at pig and poultry farms. At this moment about 100 enforcement investigations are
being carried out regarding pig farms.
Although the type of farm is not a criterion for the risk based approach, most pig and poultry
farms are located in the three areas on which the risk based approach is focused. Physical
controls of the NVWA take place in these areas according to the strategy.
4. In the tables: please explain business inspections and why these were not included in the
physical checks in 2019.
Physical business inspections take part in the last quarter of the year, while first data have to
be gathered and provided by RVO.nl in the first part of the year.
5. Please clarify the number of physical checks on non-derogated farms.
There are several types of physical checks which take place on non-derogated farms, such as
checks on the various components of the use of fertilizers decree (among others checks on the
timely sowing of a catch crop) and business inspections (checks regarding application
standards and production rights).
These checks can also take place on derogated companies. It is not registered if these types of
checks take place on derogated or non-derogated companies. Companies with a co-
fermentation installation and pig farms (mostly non-derogated), are especially targeted in the
risk based approach.
6. Can you confirm by when the full capacity of controls, in collaboration with regional enforcement
partners were or will be installed, in De Peel / Gelderse Vallei / Twente.
In De Peel all risk factors (according to VHS manure chapter 4.1.1) are strongly present and
supervision capacity was available from the regional supervisors from the beginning. For that
reason, cooperation with the regional authorities has been intensified in that region from
autumn 2018. In addition, RVO.nl and the NVWA independently supervised risk-based
inspections during 2018 and 2019. Operational contacts have improved considerably. It was a
challenge to shape the cooperation legally so that better use could be made of each
organizations legal competences and the available data. The exchange of data must be in
accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation for legal proceedings. The exchange of
data will be formalized in the short term by the signing of an agreement. Full results of all
efforts are expected in 2020. To speed up this process LNV has financed extra staff for better
operations.
In De Gelderse Vallei, based on experiences with De Peel, cooperation was set up in 2019. Not
all risk factors apply as strongly in this region as in De Peel. The available capacity and thus
the number of joint inspections was limited in 2019, however a good basis has been laid for
joint action and the formal sharing of information in 2020. Here too, results are expected in
2020 following the preliminary work carried out. In the summer of 2020, the regional
governors together with LNV will evaluate the progress and discuss whether sufficient capacity
is available. The experience gained in formalizing the exchange of information at De Peel is
being used to sign an agreement in Gelderland as well. In addition, RVO.nl and the NVWA
independently supervised risk-based supervision during 2018 and 2019.
RVO.nl and the NVWA have independently supervised risk-based supervision in the Twente
region in 2018 and 2019. The cooperation with regional supervising organizations has lagged
behind because the relevant regional services have been reorganized. Agreements have been
reached with these services to intensify cooperation in 2020. Here too, use is made of the
experiences gained in other regions.
As stated in the update report autumn 2019, which has been sent to the European
Commission, the NVWA is presently recruiting 20 new inspectors. The goal is to train these new
inspectors and get them in the field for monitoring and enforcement of manure regulation in
accordance with the Enhanced Manure Enforcement as quickly as possible (2020) depending on
the availability of qualified applicants.
7. What is the total number of intermediary business. We understand that 69 and 56 of these
businesses were controlled respectively in 2018 and 2019?
There are 1.215 companies registered as intermediary businesses at RVO.nl. About 750 of
these companies are active with manure transport and respectively 69 in 2018 and 56 in the
first half of 2019 were controlled.
8. On the “checks not dependent on location (intermediary businesses)” can you further explain the
following statement in the report: Compared with 2018, the large difference in the field of manure
transport can be explained because all transport movements were classified as not dependent on
location in 2018, whereas in 2019 they were, by and large, classified within the various at-risk
areas.
In this update report on 2019 it is for the first time possible to categorize the transport
movements per risk area. This categorization is among others done in order to offer more
insight to the regional partners.
It is yet too early to draw conclusions on the total number of controls in 2019 and therefore
make the comparison with 2018. In 2019 the controls have been targeted more on those
companies under strengthened supervision, which may have an effect on the total number of
controls.
9. How are the controls of manure transport organised. Is it possible to provide figures about how
much manure transports take place by intermediary businesses from local areas. How much
manure is exported, representing how many transports?
The administrative controls carried out by RVO.nl are directed at the administrative obligations,
especially the complete and just submission.
The NVWA carries out two types of controls of manure transport. One type is a-select regarding
the company, while the inspector controls all transport movements of manure that come by at
a specific point on a road in a specific area. The other type is specifically targeted. The
inspector gets a GPS-signal of the departure of a manure transport of a company under
strengthened supervision (previous violations) and the inspector knows where the transport is
probably going and controls the transport.
Registered manure transports in 2018
Within the Netherlands
817.206
Export
102.620
Import
37.264
Total
957.091
10. On the registration of intermediate businesses in 2019, 18 applications were rejected, the
reasons is more strict controls on ‘single registrations’. Can this requirement be further explained?
Because there were signals that not all intermediary companies had a strictly separated
administration, the existing legal framework of articles 38-42 have been applied more strictly
in 2019. Article 38 defines that an intermediary must register the company separately. There
cannot be two separate companies if the particular company is as well a farm.
11. Please provide an overview of the timing of all control instruments that still need to be
installed, i.e. an update of Chapter 4.4 and Annex 3 to the enhanced enforcement strategy notified
in June 2018.
Document attached to this email.