Further Analysis of Presence of Residues and Impact of Plant
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
5(3257)257+(&200,66,212)(8523($1&20081,7,(6 7+('87&+0,1,675<)257+((19,5210(17 3266,%,/,7,(6)25)8785((&(19,5210(17$/32/,&< 213/$173527(&7,21352'8&76 3(6$3KDVH )857+(5$1$/<6,62135(6(1&(2)5(6,'8(6$1',03$&7 2)3/$173527(&7,21352'8&76,17+((8 352-(&76800$5<$1'5(3257 ),1$/5(3257 $SULO In accordance with the terms of reference of the European Commission, Dutch Ministry for the Environment (VROM) and Dutch Ministry of Agriculture (LNV) 6RLO6XUYH\$QG/DQG5HVHDUFK&HQWUH 66/5& and its project collaborators: Laboratoire de Science du Sol, INRA, France Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Germany Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene, Netherlands Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias, Spain The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden European Crop Protection Agency 3UHSDUHGE\ Soil Survey And Land Research Centre (SSLRC) and its project collaborators Cranfield University Shardlow Hall Shardlow Derby DE72 2GN UK. Tel: (+44) 1332 799000 Fax: (+44) 1332 799161 1 ',6&/$,0(5 This report cannot be taken as comprehensive review of plant protection product residues and their impacts on non-target organisms since it is based on pre-determined regions in selected EU countries. Budgetary and time constraints precluded investigation of further data sources and interpretation. This project report is intended to begin to address some of the issues and highlight deficiencies or areas of concern. Comments and suggestions for incorporation into the report are welcomed (by 31 July 1996) whilst the draft report is being considered by various organisations. The text identifies various ommissions which will be included in the final report. The final report will appear with spelling and grammar corrections together with colour maps and diagrams where approriate. No part of this draft report should be reproduced in any form as information is still subject to evaluation and checking. 2 $&.12:/('*(0(176 This report has been funded by DGXI, The Environment Directorate of the European Commission (DGXI) and The Dutch Ministry for the Environment (VROM). The authors acknowledge the helpful support of the Steering group. SSLRC acknowledges the contributions from the collaborating countries. Those key personnel and their institutes are listed below Dr Petra Günther, Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Germany Drs Marco Trevisan, Ettore Capri, Ms Laura Padovani, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy Drs Ton Van der Linden, Adi Cornelese, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene, Netherlands Dr Diego Gomez de Barreda, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias, Spain Dr Jenny Kreuger, Professor Nick Jarvis, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden Drs André Delmas, Brigette Remy, Ms. Nina van Zanen Laboratoire de Science du Sol, INRA, France Drs Andrée Carter, Colin Brown, Mrs Helen Glover, Mr Graham Beard, Ms Penny Siddons, Soil Survey and Land Research Centre, UK The authors are indebted to the European Crop Protection Agency who supported the work of the project through their representative Mr Dave Arnold, AgrEvo UK Ltd., and through the provision of confidential data from their member companies on pesticide fate and ecotoxicology. 3 &217(176 )857+(5$1$/<6,62135(6(1&(2)5(6,'8(6$1',03$&72)3/$173527(&7,21 352'8&76,17+((8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................5 1. BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................12 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE ...........................................................................................................................13 3. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................14 4. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................15 5. COUNTRY REPORTS.................................................................................................................................39 1$7,21$/29(59,(:)5$1&( 1$7,21$/29(59,(:*(50$1< 1$7,21$/29(59,(:,7$/< 1$7,21$/29(59,(:7+(1(7+(5/$1'6 1$7,21$/29(59,(:6:('(1 1$7,21$/29(59,(:8. 6. FURTHER RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................269 7. IMPACTS ON NON-TARGET ORGANISMS.........................................................................................299 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................302 4 3266,%,/,7,(6)25)8785((&(19,5210(17$/32/,&<213/$17 3527(&7,21352'8&76 )XUWKHUDQDO\VLVRQSUHVHQFHRIUHVLGXHVDQGLPSDFWRISODQWSURWHFWLRQ SURGXFWVLQWKH(8 (;(&87,9(6800$5< This report carries out further analysis on presence of residues and impact of plant protection products in the EU. It is the second of a number of sub-projects commissioned jointly by the Environment Directorate DGXI of the European Commission and the Dutch Ministry of the Environment within a programme investigating ‘Possibilities for Future EC Environmental Policy on Plant Protection Products’. Sub-project 1 investigated use patterns of plant protection products in EU farming and it was required that sub-project 2 carried out its investigations in the same regions and for the same crops. Experts from research institutes in seven countries were asked to collate information from the designated regions on pesticide usage, cropping, climate, soils, hydrogeology and monitoring data on the presence of plant protection products in soil, ground and surface waters and in sediments. Experts were also asked to identify any national, health or environmental quality standards for soils, water or sediments. Data from field monitoring studies which investigated the impact of plant protection products on non-target organisms were also requested. It was clear that detailed investigations could not take place for all active substances, so 12 representative pesticides where chosen on the basis of use, exclusivity to crop and known monitoring data for further investigations. Data from field monitoring studies on the impacts of plant protection products on non-target organisms in soil and water were known to be scarce following preliminary discussions with the collaborating country experts. The agrochemical industry was therefore approached via the European Crop Protection Agency (ECPA) and its members were able to provide relevant ecotoxicological data from laboratory studies. A scientific expert from ECPA also contributed to the provision of data and discussions at project meetings. The objectives of sub-project 2 were as follows: to provide a more detailed overview of monitoring data on pesticides in the environment related to use patterns; to describe qualitatively various routes of the emission of pesticides into the environment and their importance as well as to provide quantitative information on these emissions; to generate as far as possible data on effects of pesticide in the environment. If such data were only limited, reasons and its implications should be addressed; to make recommendations with priorities for future monitoring strategies designed to protect environment. 5 The specific objectives of sub-project 2 were only partially met and therefore the following sections summarise the main findings and the reasons why the objectives could not be fully achieved. 6FDOHRI6WXG\ 1.1 Studies to determine the presence and impact of plant protection products at the regional level are too large if the objective is to understand processes, quantify losses and determine potential impacts. Detailed studies at the field or catchment level are required to provide the necessary information. Upscaling from this detailed information, (using mathematical models for extrapolation of data, for example), to the regional or national level could possibly be achieved provided detailed information is available on pesticide usage, cropping, climate, soils, hydrogeology etc. 1.2 The process of collating the disperse or confidential data was more time consuming and demanding of resources than originally envisaged. This precluded the investigation of all regions chosen by sub-project 1 and prevented further analysis and investigation within the resources allocated. Consequently further evaluation of the collated data is necessary to derive maximum benefit from the investigations. 8VDJH'DWD 2.1 Plant protection products are rarely crop specific. In a given region they may be used on a variety of crops (or even used in non-cropped land situations) at different application rates and at different times of the year. Qualitative or quantitative assessments need to take into account the full usage spectrum across a number of years to incorporate crop rotations. This information was not available to the project. 2.2 Several countries reported detections of active substances arising from use in industrial applications, food processing and non-cropped land. These uses can potentially have more impact on non-target organisms as they originate from a point source and concentrations in discharges can be significantly higher than those originating from diffuse agricultural contamination. Spillages, washings and other misuses were also known to be