Post a comment on the text below

Tackling pollution from pesticides, metals, and veterinary medicines

Contamination caused by chemical pollutants from agricultural activities is very varied and a major concern in many European countries (Chapter 3.1). The WFD requires the adoption of measures to control the discharges, emissions and losses of priority and priority hazardous substances into the aquatic environment. Emissions of priority substances should be reduced while emissions priority substances should be cessed or phased out. The list of priority and hazardous substances includes several pesticides and heavy metals, and pollution from veterinary products are an emerging concern. As pesticides and heavy metals are persistent in the environment and can bio-accumulate, it is essential that management is primarily about reducing or avoiding use altogether.

Regarding the management heavy metals from agriculture, threshold limits for key substances in sludge applied to agricultural land have been set by the Sewage Sludge Directive. Monitoring is required on the sludge and the receiving soil to take into account cumulative concentrations. The Directive bans the spreading of sewage sludge when the concentration of certain substances in the soil exceeds these values. In addition, the directive sets time restrictions for sludge application in order to provide protection against potential health risks from residual pathogens.

Reduction in the total amount of metals in sludge has been observed for regulated metals, with the largest decrease for cadmium, chrome and mercury (Fijalkowski et al., 2017). Member States have added other substances for control than those contained in the Directive, and implemented stricter limit values. However, improvements is warranted to achieve better environmental outcomes. For instance, total content may not be a reliable indicator to assess the availability and toxicity for living organisms (Fijalkowski et al., 2017). Furthermore, a wider spectrum may need to be monitored as sewage sludge contains organic and inorganic contaminants not yet regulated by law, such as many pharmaceuticals, personal care products, nanoparticles and pathogens (Fijalkowski et al., 2017). These issues are of relevance also for the reuse of wastewater in irrigated areas (Chapter 4.3.5).

Since 1991, EU action against pesticide pollution has gradually strengthened over the years, first by establishing greater control on the authorisation of active substances on the EU market, then by establishing provisions for the safe collection and disposal of waste, and more recently by targeting consumption levels. The use of pesticides is regulated through the Sustainable Use of Pesticide (SUP) Directive (EU, 2009a), which sets out a framework to achieve sustainable use. It promotes integrated pest management (IPM) (Box 4.4), and foresees mandatory inspection of pesticide application equipment, training of users, advisors and distributors of pesticides, prohibition of aerial spraying, limitation of pesticide use in sensitive areas, and mitigation of risks through improved spray technology and application of buffer zones, and proper management and cleaning of equipment after spraying.

At Member States level, national action plan must be developed to show how risks and impacts of pesticide use will be reduced. To date, measures have focused to date on establishing systems for the training and certification of operators, a range of measures for the safe handling and storage of pesticides, and technological improvements for the efficient spraying of pesticides (EC, 2020f). Initiatives exist on increasing awareness of IPM amongst farmers, such as the Lithuanian labelling system on pesticide, as well as its monitoring and reporting by farmers (ECA, 2020).

Progress in reducing pesticides use has nevertheless been very limited (Chapter 2). The Farm to Fork Strategy (EC, 2020c) and Biodiversity Strategy (2020) (EC, 2020d) have put renewed attention on pesticides use, and aim to reduce overall use and risk of chemical pesticides at European level by 50% and the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030. In addition, the Farm to Fork Strategy has set a goal to reduce overall EU sales of antimicrobials for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 50% by 2030. To achieve these ambitious objectives, significant changes in farm practices need to occur.

For example, implementation of IPM has been slow, with little evidence of widespread application by farmers (Lefebvre et al., 2015). Practical and measurable guidelines and criteria at farm level should be developed to improve monitoring of progress and increase awareness (ECA, 2020). Although farmers are required to apply IPM, they are not always required to keep records of how they applied it and there are weak penalties for non-compliance. Evidence also suggests that systemic change is required not only at farm level, but also across the actors of the whole value chain – including pesticide retailers, farm advisory bodies, and the food industry - to move away from existing standards and requirements locking farmers into current practices. This lack of broader value chain support was a major factor explaining the lack of progress in ambitious national policies, such as the First Ecophyto Plan in France (Guichard et al., 2017).

Full implementation of IPM principles of the SUD is necessary, but also other measures. The definition of non-chemical and low-risk plant protection product could be clarified, as is the recording and reporting in the use plant protection product at national and European level to better measure progress (ECA, 2020). Given the continuous emergence of new chemicals, methods of detections must be strengthened as are authorisation procedures supported by scientific evidence. Cumulative risks must be considered. Adoption of precision farming and further innovations in pesticide application techniques can also improve fertiliser use efficiency (Dean et al., 2011). More ambitious measures are also warranted, such as the use of quantitative reduction targets in pesticide use (Skevas et al., 2013) and the wider use of ambitious pesticides tax schemes (Pedersen et al., 2015; Böcker and Finger, 2016).