Integrating regulatory risk assessments, risk management and best management practices to achieve the water quality objectives of the European Union

Transcription

1 Integrating regulatory risk assessments, risk management and best management practices to achieve the water quality objectives of the European Union Richard Allen on behalf of ECPA s Advancing Intelligent Mitigation Team

2 The AIM Project Team and Collaborators Richard Allen (BCS) Matteo Balderacchi (Uni. Cattolica del S. Cuore, Piacenza) Colin Brown (University of York; FERA) Ettore Capri (Uni. Cattolica del S. Cuore, Piacenza) Peter Day (ECPA) Joe Dulka (Du Pont) Jeremy Dyson (Syngenta) Garey Fox (Oklahoma State University) Jean-Joël Gril (CEMAGREF) Christian Guyot (BCS) Evelyne Güsken (scibasics) Andreas Horn (BASF) Russell Jones (BCS) Volker Laabs (BASF) Neil Mackay (Du Pont) Julie Maillet-Mezeray (Arvalis) Paul Miller (TAG) Alexandre Morin (Arvalis) Rafael Muñoz-Carpena (University of Florida) Björn Röpke (BCS) Manfred Röttele (Better Decisions) George Sabbagh (BCS) Alison Sapiets (Syngenta) Marco Trevisan (Uni. Cattolica del S. Cuore, Piacenza) Birgit Zillgens (Du Pont)

3 Presentation Outline The need for action A multi-stakeholder approach Advancing Intelligent Mitigation Project Objectives Outcomes Next phase of ECPA activities TOPPS-Prowadis

4 A need for action: Three different EU legislations influence activities to improve water quality and impact multiple stakeholders Sustainable Use Directive Water Framework Directive Training Best Practice Buffer Zones EQS River Basin Management Plans Aquatic risk assessment 1107/2009 Product Use Mitigation The stakeholders Farmers & growers Water Resource Managers Crop Protection Industry Regulators General Public Politicians

5 Key stakeholders bring different knowledge, opinions and needs to the table

6 AIM Project Objectives Develop measures to reduce the potential for contamination of surface waters from diffuse sources, which can be demonstrated at farm and catchment scale where necessary and appropriate, could be implemented in regulatory decision making Broaden acceptance of effective spray drift and runoff/erosion mitigation measures Facilitate knowledge transfer and increase general understanding with regards to placement and practicality of implementation at the farm scale Begin the process of establishing a method for catchment diagnosis and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) for subsequent demonstration and dissemination, facilitating a broad implementation

7 Project broken down into a series of work packages based on conclusions from a 2008 stakeholder workshop Determine and summarize the key data and evaluations of the effectiveness of buffers in mitigating runoff. Support development of new methodology to evaluate existing data Develop a collection of tools and practices to reduce runoff and drift. Develop technical information as a basis for Catchment Diagnosis and BMPs Summarize existing spray drift reduction technology measures used in regulatory risk assessments Develop a format for use of this data in a demonstration project Develop proposals for the use of mitigation measures in regulatory decision making. Develop proposals for generic label language that support best practice and not constrain it.

8 AIM: Quantifying Buffer Efficiency Are vegetative buffers effective at reducing pesticide losses to surface water? Why does efficiency vary? What factors drive efficiency? Can we transfer this knowledge to: Advice (Best Management Practices)? Aquatic risk assessments and risk mitigation? Reichenberger, S., Bach, M., Skitschak, A., Frede, H.-G Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide inputs into ground- and surface water and their effectiveness; a review. Sci. Total Environ. 384, 1-35.

9 AIM: Quantifying Buffer Efficiency Key drivers hydrologic response of buffer at time of event (infiltration; sedimentation) & phase distribution of the chemical. VFSMOD-W can significantly improve prediction of pesticide trapping efficiency compared with models using only field slope and buffer width Can be used to assess the mitigation of vegetative buffer strips in risk assessments and to support buffer design in practice Sabbagh, G.J.; Fox, G.A.; Kamanzi, A.; Roepke, B.; Tang, J.Z. Effectiveness of vegetative filter strips in reducing pesticide loading: Quantifying pesticide trapping efficiency. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38 (2),

10 Assessment of Runoff Mitigation with VFSMOD-W Red Blue Green = no mitigation = 5m buffer = 10m buffer 74% reduction (10m buffer, to max peak)

11 Spray drift reduction technology Operator awareness and availability of technology sporadic EU master BMPs leading to country-specific BMPs in all project countries languages Training for optimum sprayer set up and use of drift reducing technology Regulatory authority use in risk assessments varies throughout EU An inventory of officially accepted drift mitigation measures (and associated reduction rates) Proposals for a framework integrating SDRT into label language

12 Objective 1 Develop an inventory of officially accepted drift mitigation measures (and associated reduction rates) Implementation Online database containing the information available in various Member States

13 Objective 2 Provide summary of background information on the methodologies currently used in MS to classify the drift-reducing characteristics of application equipment Implementation Summary for each Member State on the methodologies used

14 Objective 3 Capture other pieces of useful information in the SDRT arena (e.g., interesting projects, points of contact, legal background documents) Implementation 2 level approach: - EU / international - MS level

15 Other functionalities - Comparison - Alert function - Exchange with other experts (forum, chat) - Events calendar

16 Label language that promotes Best Management Practice not constrain it! A discussion opener for mitigating runoff Specify locations where mitigation is necessary. This needs to be understandable to the grower and compatible with existing terminology. For Example: when the product is used on soils with a high potential for runoff and/or erosion by water Specify mitigation options but not prescriptive directions, instead pointing to other resources.adopt a combination of the following management practices: establish soil management practices that reduce erosion and increase infiltration of water into the soil profile. establish and maintain vegetative buffer strips to capture eroded sediment and infiltrate water leaving the treated field. avoid application when heavy rainfall leading to surface runoff is expected in the next 48 hours. Specify resources to diagnose vulnerable locations and learn about solutions: For further information on how to diagnose the risks of contamination at the farm and catchment scale and the use of Best Management Practices relevant for your location visit

17 Label language that promotes Best Management Practice not constrain it! A discussion opener for mitigating drift Generic advice on the need for spray calibration and set up pointing to BMPs established under Prowadis For Example: Do not contaminate water with the product or its container. Take extreme care to avoid drift onto crops (and non-target plants) outside the target area. Information on sprayer calibration.visit << for more information. Specific directions for implementing drift buffers To protect aquatic organisms respect an unsprayed buffer zone to surface water bodies downwind of the application as follows: Drift class of spraying equipment E D C B A Drift reduction efficiency 50-75% 75-90% 90-95% 95-99% >99% Buffer width Larger Small ISO

18 Catchment Diagnosis: Observations of Water Movement & Runoff Full Catchment Diagnosis Use ARVALIS field / plot method Classify runoff potential (soil permeability) based on soil water movement indicators Water Regime Non- Hydromorphic Hydromorphic Subsurface Drainage Status Undrained Tile Drained Capping Status Un-Capped Capped Subsoil Permeability Permeable Low Permeability Permeable Low Permeability Undrained Establish runoff & erosion maps at catchment scale, linking fields & plots to landscape factors Likely runoff / erosion directions + evidence Landscape factors reducing / increasing runoff Where runoff / erosion needs managing Go from upstream to downstream, preferably with farmers!

19 Catchment Diagnosis: Best Management Practices to Reduce Runoff & Its Impacts BMPs for Land Use Two Main Types of BMP Options Edge-of-Field In-Field BMPs for PPP Use Timing Placement Amount Other areas e.g. riparian zones

20 Implementation of knowledge, methods and tools through TOPPS network

21 TOPPS has strong recognition throughout stakeholder community TOPPS- Prowadis

22 TOPPS Prowadis targets the user

23 AIM: in conclusion.. Achieved its objectives as a project preparing the ground for the subsequent TOPPS-Prowadis demonstration and dissemination project We now can quantify the efficiency of vegetative buffer strips based on the key drivers: hydrologic response of buffer at time of event (infiltration; sedimentation) & phase distribution of the chemical The challenge is to convert knowledge into advice in the field Academic partners are now applying this knowledge in a tool to be integrated into FOCUS Step 4 surface water exposure assessments and to support buffer design in practice We are providing a searchable inventory of officially accepted drift reducing measures currently used in MS to aid the development of EU wide consistent drift mitigation measures for risk assessments and Best Management Practices We have developed a basis for diagnosing catchments the where, when and how to manage PPP loss via runoff.