— opportunities and challenges for better incorpora-tion of biodiversity into risk regulaincorpora-tion
The UBA has always regarded biodiversity as an integral part of the protection goals hitherto consi-dered and taken it into account as part of environ-mental risk assessments. When the new EU pesticide regulations came into force in late 2009 [14], the protection of biodiversity was introduced as an explicit target of risk regulation of plant protection substances. The UBA expects that this innovation will revive efforts made so far in terms of enshrin-ing biodiversity as a target in risk regulation, both within the authorisation process for individual plant protection products as well as with regard to protec-tion and compensaprotec-tion measures across the authori-sation procedures for single products.
One of the essential prerequisites is the formulation of suitable criteria in order to ‘translate’ the defini-tion of the protecdefini-tion goal of biodiversity into the every-day practice of risk regulation and to make compliance more feasible. With regard to the imple-mentation of other innovations in the EU regulation such as the ban on the authorisation of active sub-stances with particularly hazardous characteristics, it will also be necessary to revise and specify the existing stipulations. In future, it is intended to ban, on principle, any active substances which combine persistency, bioaccumulation potential as well as toxicity characteristics or are persistent organic pollutants (POP). This will also apply to substances that have to be classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or endocrine-disrupting substances. For the UBA it will be important to actively contribute to the spe-cification of these ‘cut-off’ criteria, and to carry out accompanying research projects.
The new EU regulation on plant protection products lays down the regulatory framework for the risk assessment and authorisation of plant protection products and their active substances, while the EU Framework Directive for sustainable use of pesticides really opens up a new perspective for tackling also those environmental problems which cannot be regulated by authorisation procedures alone. Under the framework directive, member states are obliged to create the necessary prerequisites for minimising the risks related to the use of plant protection pro-ducts, and to encourage the development and intro-duction of pest management methods with the least possible use of pesticides (in particular the practice of integrated pest management) as well as alterna-tive approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides.
The individual member states of the European Union are obliged to implement the objectives set in the framework directive by means of ‘National Action Plans’. Regarding the implementation of the National Action Plan, the UBA will see to it that action fields which are important for achieving the objectives set in the framework directives are named unambiguously and that ambitious targets are set in association with appropriate timeframes. Under the current agricultural conditions, with intensive farming still the dominant form of land use, a sustai-nable use of plant protection products is ruled out on environmental grounds. This conclusion is justi-fied on account of the evidence collected for direct and indirect impacts of plant protection products on natural habitats and their associated species commu-nities. Consequently, progress depends on whether ambitious measures can be agreed which can help to achieve the crucial objectives set in the regulatory FIG. 19
THE COMMON SPADEFOOT TOAD
Common spadefoot toads frequently colonise cultivated fields as their summer habitat, where, hidden underground during the day, they spend their nights
foraging on cultivated land. Apart from the loss of suitable spawning grounds, common spadefoot toads suffer from the relentless intensification of agriculture.
This process makes them particularly vulnerable to risks from the caustic effects of fertiliser salts and adverse
impacts of plant protection substances.
/ 37
Author:
Steffen Matezki, Section IV 1.3
REfERENCES:
1 Eurostat-Abfrage zu Inlandsabsatz von Pestiziden in EU unter http://epp.eurostat.
ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_
details/dataset?p_product_code=TAG00084 (last accessed: 28.05.2010)
2 Absatz der Pflanzenschutzmittel in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland; URL: http://
www.bvl.bund.de (last accessed: 28.05.2010) 3 Geiger, F. et al.: Persistent negative effects
of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland.
Basic and Applied Ecology, in press, 2010, available at: http://www.sofnet.org/ apps/
file.asp?Path=1&ID=6060&File=Geiger+et +al+2010+BAAE+online.pdf (last accessed 28.05.2010)
4 Umweltbundesamt (publ.): Probabilistische Bewertung des Umweltrisikos von Pflanzen-schutzmitteln – Umsetzung der georeferen-zierten probabilistischen Risikobewertung in den Vollzug des PflSchG – Pilotphase für den Expositionspfad ,Abdrift‘ ausgehend von Dauerkulturen (Förderkennzeichen 206 63 402), pp 173, UBA Text 47/2008, Dessau- Roßlau, 2009, available at: http://www.uba.
de (last accessed: 28.05.2010)
5 Kubiak, R. et al.: A new GIS based approach for the assessment and management of environmental risks of plant protection, SETAC EUROPE: Göteborg, 2009 6 Kluser S.; Peduzzi P.: Global Pollinator
Decline: A Literature Review, UNEP/DEWA/
GRID-Europe: Switzerland, 2007, available at: http://www.grid.unep.ch (last accessed:
28.05.2010)
7 Hommen, U.: Auswertung der wichtigsten in Deutschland durchgeführten Monito-ringstudien zu Auswirkungen von Pflan-zenschutzmitteln auf Nichtzielorganismen,
Abschlussbericht zur Studie im Auftrag des BVL, Braunschweig, 2004, available at: http://www.bvl.bund.de (last accessed:
28.05.2010)
8 Liess M. et al.: Effects of pesticides in the field. Brussels (BE): Society of Environmen-tal Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p.
136, 2005
9 Umweltbundesamt (publ.): Die Arthropo-denfauna von grasigen Feldrainen (off crop) und die Konsequenzen für die Bewertung der Auswirkungen von Pflanzenschutz-mitteln auf den terrestrischen Bereich des Naturhaushaltes, Berlin, 2004, (UBA Text 10/04), p. 148 ff, available at: http://www.
uba.de (last accessed: 28.05.2010) 10 Hart, J. D., et al.: The relationship between
yellowhammer breeding performance, arthropod abundance and insecticide appli-cations on arable farmland. In: Journal of Applied Ecology, 43 (2006), No. 1, p. 81–91 11 Ewald, J. A.; Aebischer; N. J.: Pesticide use, avian food resources and bird densities in Sussex. Joint Nature Conservation Commit- tee, Report No 296, Peterborough, 1999 Ewald, J. A.; Aebischer; N. J.: Trends in Pesticide use and efficacy during 26 years of changing agriculture in Southern Eng-land. In: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 64 (2000), No 2, p. 493 – 529 12 Campbell, L. H., et al.: A review of indirect
effects of pesticides on birdsJoint, Nature Conservation Comitee, Peterborough, 1997 (JNCC Report 227)
13 Morris et al.: Indirect effects of pesticides on breeding yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella), Agriculture, Ecosystems & Envi-ronment, Vol. 106 (2005), No. 1, p. 1 – 16 14 Umweltbundesamt (publ.): Pressemitteilung
Nr. 92/2009 des Umweltbundesamtes, zur
Verabschiedung der Verordnung (EG) Nr.
1107/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Oktober 2009 über das Inverkehrbringen von Pflanzenschutz-mitteln und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinien 79/117/EWG und 91/414/EWG des Rates und der Richtlinie 2009/128/EG des Euro-päischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21.
Oktober 2009 über einen Aktionsrahmen der Gemeinschaft für die nachhaltige Ver-wendung von Pestiziden, URL: http://www.
uba.de (last accessed: 28.05.2010) 15 Bundesministerium für Umwelt,
Natur-schutz und Reaktorsicherheit: Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt, Berlin, 2007, verfügbar unter: http://www.bmu.de (last accessed: 28.05.2010)
16 Schulz, D.: Agrarpolitik der EU – Um-weltschutzanforderungen für die Jahre 2014 bis 2020 (CAP 2020), Dessau-Roßlau:
Umwelt- bundesamt (publ.), 2010, available at: http://www.uba.de (last accessed:
28.05.2010)
framework. Only with these measures will it be pos-sible to reduce the use of plant protection products and related risks. Not least, it is hoped that it will be possible to formulate a regulatory framework which will facilitate better compensation for environmen-tal impacts. Maintaining the status quo with regard to chemical plant protection would mean increasing further the risk of not achieving crucial targets set in the National Biodiversity Strategy [15]. These targets envisage that we safeguard and, better still, improve the biological diversity in our agricultural landscapes. Considering the current agricultural conditions, even a stronger promotion of ‘integrated pest management’ practices seems to be insufficient for achieving our targets. From the UBA’s point of view, a future National Action Plan (NAP) should therefore ensure sustainable use of plant protection
products; in particular, it should more strongly promote the conversion to ecologically sustaina-ble farming systems without, or at least with low input of, chemical pesticides. Furthermore, the NAP should enhance the ecological recovery potential of agricultural landscapes by creating an adequate proportion of ecologically valuable compensation set aside areas.
Of course, the necessary budgets have to be in place in order to be able to meet these demands. This could be achieved by tying the financial resources - available under the EU’s agricultural environment policy – more closely to the provision of ecological services to society as a whole. This approach might at last bring about more environmentally compati-ble forms of land use [16].
CEREAlS
Their production must not jeopardise the quality of our water.
/ 39