Navigation
Notifications
Post a comment on the text below
The number of pesticides reported in surface waters ranges from fewer than 10 substances (Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland) to more than 100 substances (Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain). For groundwater, the lowest number of pesticides was reported from Austria (6) and the highest number from France (215).
Exceedance rates of more than 30% were reported in 16 out of 29 countries for surface waters and in one out of 22 countries for groundwater. High exceedance rates were mainly reported at monitoring sites in small and medium-sized rivers.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
AT GW: the reporting was limited to selected, most relevant pesticides
In the points below, I briefly summarize our expert comments regarding the comparability of the developed indicator on pesticides.
1) Our first observation is that while some countries reported only a few monitoring sites detecting pesticides (in the case of Hungary this number is 5), in the case of other countries this number can be hundreds or even thousands. This can be an obstacle to a professional comparison.
2) The next issue is the threshold: in the case of some pesticides, they are according to the well-known list 33/45, while in the case of others - as it is written - they are according to the RBSP. In the case of the latter, when comparing the results of RBMP2, approx. there were differences of two orders of magnitude between the data of the member states, we still remember it well.
3) We see the third problem in the extent of the exceedance: it does not matter to what extent the limit value is exceeded by the value measured at the given monitoring site. It might be useful to investigate further how many times the limit value is exceeded, and accordingly some categories could be established for it: e.g. creating double, triple, five-fold, ten-fold, or even larger exceedance intervals.
It would probably require a much more complex indicator to be free from the distortion factors listed above and to be truly suitable for comparison. However, we find it most important that a common threshold value be used, e.g. the EU level average of the RBSP thresholds used in the RBMP. In addition, of course, "the number of exceedances in relation to all tested pesticides" is also an important factor.
There is clear correlation between the number of pesticides monitored and the exceedance rates. Countries should be compared only on the base of the same list of pesticides (gw). How it's possible to compare the countries where zero pesticides were monitored with others monitoring more than 200 substances??