5. Measures

Once pesticide pollution reachs surface waters and groundwater with effects on water quality, measures need to be carried out to improve water quality and reduce risks to human healts and the environment. The planning of measures to reduce pesticide pollution is carried out within the program of measures under the WFD as well as part of the National Action Plans for the implementation of the sustainable use of pesticide Directive. Furthermore, mitigation measures for the protection of water used for drinking water are part of the drinking water directive obligations. The following sections described types of measures under the different directives and present examples on the successful implementation to reduce pesticide pollution in waters and soil.

5.1.1. Measures under the Water Framework Directive

The planning of measures to improve water body status and to reach the environmental objectives is part of the river basin management planning under the WFD. Such measures are planned within the program of measures (PoM) for implementation during the current management cycle. Measures are distinguished between basic measures, which comprise the minimum waterbody protection and development requirements, already defined in existing directives, and supplementary measures. Supplementary measures are those measures designed and implemented in addition to the basic measures where they are necessary to achieve environmental objectives and comprise for example construction and rehabilitation projects, as well as legal, administrative or management instruments and training measures (BMU/UBA, 2016).

For the reporting of the planning of measures in the PoM, 25 Key Types of Measures (KTM) were defined (European Commission, 2016). Those KTM are measures that are expected to bring the substantial improvements to reach the objectives. One KTM comprise often more than one measure. The number of measures assigned to a specific KTM depends on national planning of measures.

In the Program of Measures (PoM) within the 2^nd RBMP under the Water Framework Directive, the Key Types of Measures (KTM) addressed directly or indirectly to pesticide reduction in surface waters and groundwater:

KTM 3:            Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture

KTM 12:          Advisory service for agriculture

KTM 13:          Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard- or buffer zones)

Based on the EU Commission consultation report (EC, 2019), the majority of Member States (21) ordered a total of 285 basic measures into KTM 3, six Member States ordered 25 measures into KTM 12, and 19 Member States ordered 243 basic measures into KTM 13 (Table 5.1). Between 15 and 16 Member States ordered 354 supplementary measures into these key types. In comparison to the total amount of basic measures (12 800), only 4% can be assigned to mitigation measures to reduce pesticide contamination; this is also valid for supplementary measures with only 3.5 %. Whereas “basic” measures are mandatory in all Member States, supplementary measures especially in agriculture are mostly applied on a voluntary basis.

Table 5.1 Overview of reported basic and supplementary measures for three key type measures assigned to reduce pesticide pollution in groundwater and surface water 

Source: EC, 2019

5.1.2. Measures under the Drinking Water Directive

In accordance with the Drinking Water Directive, Member States are obliged to implement mitigation measures in case of exceedances of the DWD listed substances. Furthermore, monitoring programmes including measurements in the catchment, risk assessments (e.g. drinking water safety plan), and finally treatment need to be done. The target value of the pesticides within the DWD is 0.1µg/l for any single pesticide substance or 0,5µg/l for the sum of all pesticides. In case of exceedances, the authorities are responsible to do research, what the source is, how to regulate it and stop the emission or discharge. In most cases, exceedances will be reduced by blending water sources or selecting other abstractions.

Protecting raw water is particularly important. Critical groundwater bodies need special attention from specific measures for drinking water. That cannot be the task of the competent authority or water suppliers alone. Rather, they need to cooperate with various stakeholders closely to a plan and implement measures in the catchment area. To protect drinking water against pollution from the catchment area, there must be well-integrated links between the DWD, the implementation of the water safety plan approach and the WFD (European Environment Agency 2016).

The EU project FAIRWAY under the HORIZON 2020 program deals with those challenges. The goals of the project with a duration from 2017 to 2021 and a funding budget of about 5 Million Euro is to review approaches for protection of drinking water resources against pollution by pesticides and nitrate, and to identify and further develop innovative measures and governance approaches for a more effective drinking water protection. The project partners are researchers, farm advisers and consultancies and is built on 13 case studies in 11 different EU countries FAIRWAY project (2019) [1].

[1] Project homepage: https://www.fairway-project.eu/

Three case studies, in Ireland, United Kingdom and the Netherlands focus on pesticide contamination in drinking water resources.

In the Derg catchment in Ireland, MCPA arising from spray drift on agricultural land threatens the drinking water resources. Within this catchment, a farm incentive scheme as a voluntary initiative was developed that goes beyond the requirements that already apply to farms in the context of the pesticide legislation, the EU Water Framework Directive, the Drinking Water Directive and other Regulations. In this scheme, several mitigation measures were included:

• Technical advice/ education
• Application of herbicides with weed lickers (automatoc weed detection and chemical application system)
• Development of a farm water safety plan
• Riparian buffer strips
• Fencing of riparian areas
• Herbicide substitution
• Biobeds (a pit filled with organic matter to avoid pesticide waste into soil and water)
• Stock fencing.

Furthermore, monitoring of water and soil is carried out. As the project is still ongoing, results of the effectiveness of the implemented measures are not yet available.

In the Anglian region of the UK, there was serious contamination in surface waters with metaldehyde, a molluscicide used against slugs in crops such as potatoes, oilseed rape and cereals. It is difficult to remove metaldehyde in water treatment, leading to challenges in the supply of drinking water. This case study focusses on the social science to reducing on-farm pesticide use, collecting comparable data in areas with metaldehyde challenges, and testing a new network engagement [1] between the included stakeholders FAIRWAY project (2019).

[1] Detailed information under: https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/business/help-and-advice/working-with-farmers/slug-it-out/

In the Noord-Brabant case study of the Netherlands, 11 of the 39 abstraction sites for drinking water are impacted by pesticides. Here, a contract between farmers and the province is put in place including an agreement on reduced use of pesticides. The farmers implement measures, and they choose pesticides with low environmental impact using the ‘Environmental Yardstick for Pesticides’, and register their pesticide use. The municipalities have reduced their pesticide use to zero on hard surfaces and they aim for zero use in parks, sport pitches and golf areas FAIRWAY project 2019.

The developed of the ‘Environmental Yardstick for Pesticides’ [1] provides an overview of the environmental pressures generated by all crop protection agents permitted on the Dutch market. It enables the user to compare these agents and chooses the least harmful crop protection strategy. The Yardstick is also explained in a short and simple video on how to use and where to find the relevant information [2]. It can be downloaded as an App on smartphones and tablets. In the program, the user can include the specific pesticide resulting in a classification of risk for soil and water (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Example of a Yardstick for the use of pesticides in farmlands and municipalities

Note : EIP = Environmental Impact Points. Depends on the toxicity of a pesticide for aquatic organisms, and spray drift to watercourses depending on the application technique. Furthermore, factors like wind speed, wind direction, crop size, distance to the watercourse, temperature and atmospheric humidity play a part in the amount of drift.

Source: https://www.pesticideyardstick.eu/en/bereken-open-teelt.html

[1] Project homepage: https://www.pesticideyardstick.eu/

[2] Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCYYWumSQh4

5.1.3. Measures under the Directive for the sustainable use of pesticides

According to the Directive 128/2009/EC for the sustainable use of pesticides, European Member States had to develop National Action Plans (NAP). The Directive itself also builds on other legislation, like the requirements of the Water Framework Directive to protect surface waters and groundwater as well as protected areas for the use of drinking water.

The Directive includes specific chapters and articles, which are the basis for the development of the NAP including the conceptual framing of measures. This includes, for example training for professional users (e.g. certificates), special requirements for sales of pesticides, information and awareness raising. Especially the last two aspects have a high priority to inform the general public on the risks according to acute or chronic effects of pesticides (EU, 2009). Next to these aspects, inspection of equipment in use as well as specific practices and uses are mentioned. According to this, Article 11 of the Directive leads to Specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water. These measures shall support and be compatible with the Water Framework Directive:

• Measures giving preference to pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment.
• Measures giving preference to the most efficient application tech­niques.
• Use of mitigation measures which minimize the risk of off- site pollution caused by spray drift, drain-flow and run-off.

Reducing as far as possible or eliminating applications on or along roads, railway lines, very permeable surfaces or other infrastructure close to surface water or groundwater or on sealed surfaces with a high risk of run-off into surface water or sewage systems.

A screening of the implemented NAP of Member States shows a number of specific measures related to the above-mentioned requirements. Some of the specific measures given in the NAPs are [1]:

• Establishment of untreated buffer zones to protect surface waters
• Establishment of sanitary protection zones to protect drinking water, in which the use of pesticides is forbidden
• Increasing monitoring by water authorities and inspections
• Preservation of coastal vegetation during regular works to maintain watercourses
• Strict approval of pesticides
• Regional advisory service
• Research, e.g. Study of pesticide wash off in soils, establishment (spread) of cultivation mode and/or plant edges to prevent wash-off and soil erosion
• Establishment of a National Pesticides and Drinking Water Action Group
• Ban, prohibition or restriction in use of pesticides or stricter policy for the presence of pesticides in surface waters
• Implementing the use of herbivorous fish to limit aquatic plants in basins (Walloon fish farms)

Based on the EU overview report on the implementation of Member States measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (European Commission and Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety 2017), it is stated, that in the 28 Member States 500 000 samples of surface waters, groundwater and drinking water were annually analysed (in comparison to 80 000 food samples, which are tested for pesticide residues).

[1] All available NAPs were screened, and the most valuable types of measures listed. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/nap_en

Within the report, examples for an improved implementation of regulations, actions and measures - named as best practices - were analysed in six out of 28 Member States:

• Target setting: Denmark to reduce the pesticide load by 40 % by the end of 2015 compared with 2011. This target was met according to the Pesticides Load Indicator (PLI), which is based on sales data (Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark 2017). Germany plans a 20 % reduction in the environmental risks associated with pesticide use by 2018, and a 30 % reduction in risk by 2023.
• Restrictions and permissions: The Netherlands have pioneered the implementation of emissions reduction plans (ERPs). Where pesticides are detected in surface waters, the product authorization holders are obliged to draft and implement these plans to improve the situation. Sweden has a system of permits for pesticide use along roads, very permeable surfaces and sealed surfaces; this is also implemented in Germany.
• Buffer zones: Sweden requires a minimum buffer zone of 12 meters around wells used to abstract drinking water. In addition, sprayers cannot be filled or cleaned within 30 meters of water courses or wells. Denmark and Germany delineate buffer zones.

Information: The Netherlands developed a set of 17 factsheets outlining practical measures for reducing emissions of pesticides to surface water, which are publically available online.

The European Union Network for the implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) published a report, where measures and instruments used in Belgium (Flanders), England, Ireland, Netherlands, Scotland and Sweden to reduce pesticide residues in surface waters and groundwater were compared (Thorén, 2017). Measures were differentiated between legal obligations of Water Framework Directive, Drinking Water Directive, and measures under the Directive for the sustainable use of pesticides. Based on this, Belgium sets out several different measures with focus on restrictions in buffer zones, which are set at 2 to 30 meters depending on the size of the water as well as the land use in the area. England implements a Catchment sensitive farming programme, investigates impacts of agricultural practices and successes of measures as well as encourages good practice. This programme also links to grants for measures [1].

[1] Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/catchment-sensitive-farming-reduce-agricultural-water-pollution