Navigation
Notifications
Post a comment on the text below
Key messages
- Pesticides in surface and groundwaters are relevant to environmental quality, chemicals strategy for sustainability, Zero Pollution and agriculture assessments.
- This indicator focuses on pesticides[1] in rivers, lakes and groundwater based on measured concentrations[2] assessed against effect thresholds.
- 13 to 34% of all surface water monitoring sites showed threshold exceedances of pesticides in surface waters between 2013 to 2019. This was mainly caused by the insecticides imidacloprid and malathion, and the herbicides MCPA, metolachlor and metazachlor. These substances were approved for use in plant protection products during the monitoring period.
- The percentage of pesticides exceeding the groundwater quality standard was lower, at 3 to 17% of monitoring sites. In groundwater, exceedances were mainly caused by the herbicide atrazine and its metabolites. Atrazine was not approved for use in plant protection products during the monitoring period.
- Exceedance rates higher than 30% occurred in 15 out of 30 countries in surface waters, and in one out of 22 countries in groundwater. High exceedance rates were mainly related to monitoring sites in small and medium-sized rivers.
- No trends can be derived at this time, owing to e.g. variation in losses from the application of pesticides between years, or variation in the frequency of monitoring of pesticides in surface waters. For these reasons, between-year changes may not be significant.
[1] Pesticides include both active substances from plant protection products and biocides as well as their relevant metabolites.
[2] Data source: EEA Waterbase - Water Quality
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
Pre-face for all comments made by me: I make these comments on behalf of CropLife Europe.
We propose to make a separate assessment of the exceedance rates for pesticides in water bodies for
a) all measured substances (as done currently in the report)
and in addition
b) only measured substances with current approval of crop protection product(s) (active ingredient) of origin.
This would provide on the one hand a complete picture of water contamination with pesticides (assessment a), and on the other hand illustrate the part of the contamination, for which actions may still be possible and potentially needed (assessment b).
Pesticides in surface and groundwaters are relevant to human health (so not only from an environmental quality perspective) as well as these types of waters are the main raw water source for drinking water.
Once the results of this analysis will be published, they will likely get a lot of attention. My prediction is that the pesticide regulatory system will be challenged, which is not necessarily bad. However, I think it may be good to highlight that the adoption of the one-out-all-out approach ‘hides’ that for the vast majority of records, effect thresholds were not exceeded. If I interpret the dashboard correctly (very nice BTW), >99% of records were below the effect thresholds for both surface and groundwater (except surface water in 2015). Perhaps it would be appropriate to acknowledge this, in the key messages or somewhere else.
Metolachlor is not approved for use in PPPs, S-Metolachlor is, so text needs revision
"13 to 34% of all surface water" - suggest to give an average figure, as this range is so wide that it is difficult to give a clear message. "showed threshold exceedances of pesticides in surface waters between 2013 to 2019".
I suggest it would be more useful and accurate to state "One or more pesticides were detected above threshold values at X % of surface water monitoring sites each year between 2013 to 2019"
Same applies to groundwater with range of 3-17% - the messsage is clearer by giving a simgle average figure.
"The percentage of pesticides exceeding..." is incorrect - the % relates to monitoring sites. I suggest "Exceedances of or more pesticides were detected at X % of ground water monitoring sites each year between 2013 to 2019"
"owing to e.g. variation in losses from the application of pesticides between years" - the meaning is not clear. is there any evidence that losses vary between years?
"For these reasons, between-year changes may not be significant." If this is correct, the uncertainty around the % figures needs to be highlighted more prominently
Support the point raised by Alessio Ippolito - it is important to state clearly that 99% of PPPs are not found in water above threshold values/0.1ug/l
Suggest to mention Green Deal and F2F in the first line, given that these are mentioned later in the text
PiRLG1:
This used working method also shows that different compounds are used to show one sort of visualization. This means that although within the WFD reporting priority substances are shown differently than national targeted substances. The former representing chemical status and the latter ecological status.
It cannot be stated enough that only data from (official) reporting is used. This concerns data used for WFD reporting. This means a.o. that emerging compounds are not presented in the current report.
Usage of the lowest EQS for the latter mentioned substances can lead to a different judgement within this indicator (PiRLG1) / report when compared to WFD reporting. Is it possible to state in which case(s), which substances, this will be the case? In PiRLG3 a table is shown in which the MS with lowest EQS is mentioned.
Usage of the lowest EQS for the latter mentioned substances can lead to a different judgement within this report when compared to WFD reporting. Is it possible to state in which case(s), which substances, this will be the case? In PiRLG3 a table is shown in which the MS with lowest EQS is mentioned.
PiRLG2: Although using the lowest EQS could lead to different judgement(s) – see prior comment – I am charmed by the overview of substances of national relevancy.
PiRLG5: Within national legislation (in the Netherlands) also the sum of pesticides must not exceed a threshold value. Within the current report this is nog taken into account. Is it possible to use a sum of various pesticides to come up with a judgment of ‘sum parameters’?
Comment from German Federal State Schleswig-Holstein:
The indicator concept was tested with a dataset derived from the WFD monitoring of the German Federal State Schleswig-Holstein. The results were:
- Surface waters: EQS exceedances were found especially in small rivers with the herbicides Flufenacet and Diflufenican, followed by the herbicide Nicosulfuron and the insecticide / biocide Imidacloprid on top of a list of 10 pesticides. Flufenacet was found in bigger rivers too, but, due to dilution, no EQS exceedances have been detected.
- Groundwater: We acknowledge, that the indicator does not use “Non relevant Metabolites” since there is no agreed EU threshold. In Germany these metabolites are assessed with “Health Related Indication Values (HRIV)“ specialized for each metabolite. Exceedances of these threshold values for the non-relevant metabolites are the main causes of the poor status in the group of plant protection and degradation products.
We suggest that an INFO should be added which would inform the public/readers, that this indicator should not be compared with national classification due to differences in methodologies.
I agree to the previous comment that some info could be added already here that the indicator is not comparable to the national water classification under WFD.
It’s not easy to make a good indicator based on reported very heterogenious monitoring data -and without harmonized quality standards. Indicator tries give the overview of the situation and has to simplify the system. I think that the uncertainties related to data and method should be stated clearly already in the key messages.
In addition to the last point “No trends..”, it’s clear that neither countries can be compared (the other one having several monitoring sites in background areas and the other a few in risky areas). Perhaps this could be added to the text. Moreover, a new point could be added e.g. “The indicator demonstrates the need of EU wide harmonizing of limit values (including national RBSP EQS values)”.