RBMP update Germany - 08 05 2018 · 2016, the German federal states adopt a rather pragmatic approach, knowing that a lot of legislation and measures are already in place. Yet, all

River Basin Management Updates 2018 – [email protected]

GERMANY Update March-May 2018 (released 10/5/2018)

CONTENT

Status of River Basin Management Plans .............................................................................................. 2

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Substances mentioned with regard to water contamination .............................................................. 3

River Basin Management Plans 2016-2021 ........................................................................................ 4

Baden-Württemberg ..................................................................................................................... 4

Bavaria .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Berlin............................................................................................................................................. 7

Brandenburg ................................................................................................................................. 7

Bremen ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Hamburg ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Hessen .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Lower Saxony ................................................................................................................................ 8

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ........................................................................................................... 8

North Rhine-Westphalia ................................................................................................................ 9

Rhineland-Palatinate ...................................................................................................................... 9

Saarland ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Saxony ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Saxony-Anhalt ............................................................................................................................. 11

Schleswig-Holstein ...................................................................................................................... 11

Thuringia ..................................................................................................................................... 12

National Action Plan to achieve Sustainable use of pesticides for the period 2013-2023 ................. 13

2

ECPA report on RBMPs in selected EU countries – May 2018 update - 20325

STATUS OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS

The 2nd round RBMPs were adopted on 22 December 2015. A first overview was provided to ECPA in August 2016. Since then, no new updates of the River Basin Management Documents in Germany have been released (Status March 2018).

In order to create an overview of what’s cooking in Germany, the current update focusses on achievements, planned or new measures at state (Länder) level, as well as on reported issues with regard to PPP water contamination. To produce the update, all relevant publicly available documents with regard to water contamination/water protection and PPP use have been retrieved and analyzed.

SUMMARY

Since the last update on the RBMPs for Germany in 2016 no new documents with regard to the RBMPs were released. Yet, this update for Germany had been requested earlier this year. Since no new RBMP documents were available (status March 2018), a more general research on “water protection” with regard to pesticides was conducted per federal state (Land). As to be expected from the last update in 2016, the German federal states adopt a rather pragmatic approach, knowing that a lot of legislation and measures are already in place. Yet, all relevant information publicly available covering existing and planned measures, within the scope of the RBMPs with regard to water protection/pesticides were retrieved and summarized here.

At federal state level, Baden-Württemberg ‘s main issue with regard to water contamination stems from fertilizers, not from pesticides. Yet, there are regular high peaks of isoproturon (typically in spring and autumn), causing a failure to reach good chemical status in the concerned water bodies. Drainage, erosion and elution are found to be the most important entry routes. However, sewage plants will be investigated too.

Hessen comes to the conclusion that contamination of surface water with plant protection products has steadily decreased over time. However, there is still a problem of diffuse contamination of groundwater, in terms of nitrates and plant protection products. Concrete measures are not mentioned, rather, Hessen refers to the National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern takes a the approach that most active substances cannot be removed from drinking water or only with a lot of difficulties. Hence, the 0,0005 mg/l threshold can only be observed if these substances did not get into groundwater at all.

20% of all surface water bodies in Rhineland-Palatinate are in bad chemical or ecological status because of – for example – exceedance of the EQS of Diflufenican. Farmers have three options to implement GAP with the use of plant protection products along water bodies: no use of PPPs requiring buffer zones, use of drift reduction equipment and establishment of buffer zones. In case voluntary measures do not suffice to achieve the goals, §33 of the State Water Law (Landeswassergesetz – LWG) provides that mandatory buffer zones are set.

The State of Saxony provides has its own approach to assess the likelihood that the source of water contamination stems from agriculture: In case the EQS is exceeded, the likelihood that the source of contamination stems from agriculture is evaluated based on the portion of agricultural surface. If more

3


than 30% of the catchment is agricultural surface, it is assumed that the source of contamination stems from agriculture.

The German National Action Plan (NAP) on the sustainable use of pesticides makes it clear that a lot of legislation to protect water is already in place. The level of pollution of groundwater resulting from approved uses is relatively low and has not changed significantly over the years. The reason why sometimes PPPs and/or their metabolites are found in water are inappropriate uses. Other reasons include, for instance, inappropriate cleaning of sprayers. The NAP points out that reference should be made to possible entries from biocidal uses containing the same active substances as the ones used in PPPs. It is also found that small water bodies are particularly exposed to a variety of entries or to entries of point sources, if they are located in the catchment area of agricultural land treated with PPPs.

The plan reminds the reader that Member States have to take suitable measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water from PPPs. Measures can include buffer zones, drift reducing equipment and use restrictions and/or bans of certain products/substances. The particular responsibility of the Länder as regards the protection of the aquatic environment is emphasized by Article 22 of the Plant Protection Act (PflSchG). It is also stated that any target in terms of water protection must consider cohesion between the water protection law and the plant protection law. Non relevant metabolites must also be taken into account. One of the proposed measures is about replacing active substances that are dangerous to the aquatic environment by substances that are not and to set dates to phase out products containing these dangerous substances.

SUBSTANCES MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO WATER CONTAMINATION

Substance type Approval status (as in EU Pesticides database)

Clomazone HB Approved (31/10/2018) Desethylterbutinazin (Metabolite) - Diflufenican HB Approved (31/12/2018) Isoproturon HB Not approved Metazachlor + metabolites HB Approved (31/07/2021) Terbutylazin (TBA) HB Approved (31/12/2021)

Table 1 - Active substances mentioned in relation to water contamination and their status with regard to use in products on the market (substance having caused exceedances are marked red)

4


RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS 2016-2021

Baden-Württemberg For Baden-Württemberg, it was concluded that the main issue is not with plant protection products but rather with water contamination through fertilizers.

Indeed, and according to the currently available quality evaluation in line with the WFD for the second round of river basin management plans 2016-2021 there are two significant issues:

- Surface contamination through phosphates - Groundwater contamination through nitrates

However, in some surface waters (Kocher and Jagst area), Isoproturon was found several times at higher concentrations. Studies on entry routes revealed that contamination mostly happened through drainage, erosion and runoff.

Source: Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg

A report on the findings of Isoproturon explains that in 2008 there were ten authorized products containing the herbicidal active substance Isoproturon. These were used in barley, rye, wheat, triticale and/or ornamental trees. Water protection measures were similar for all products and uses.

For all products the following use conditions were given:

- Spray mixes and remnants would not reach water (NW468);

- No use/application on soils with more than 30% clay or less than carbon content of 1% (NG410, NG411);

- Its use on drained surfaces was not permitted, or only permitted in spring (NG405, NG408, general authorization).

With two of these provisions there were differences between the individual products or widths:

- A vegetated buffer zone of 10-20 m (depending on product/use) had to be observed between treated surfaces with a slope >2%, or, a sufficiently effective mean to catch product had to be in place. Only exception: direct or mulch seeding (NG402, NG404, NG409, NW706).

- Depending on product/application technique a buffer zone of 0-20 m must be observed (NW601, NW605, NW606).

In 2009 there were 8 products containing Isoproturon. In 2008-2009 Isoproturon was one of the products most sold (>1000 t in 2008 and 2009) and most often used. Uses outside agriculture are not known.

The report concludes that the main problem are concentration peaks that exceed the maximum acceptable concentration. Therefore, the good chemical status is not reached.

Isoproturon contamination in the Kocher Jagst area are solely due to agricultural uses. There are no other uses and the peaks appear when these products are used in autumn and spring.

5


Drainage, erosion /elution are found to be the most significant entry routes into water. It will be discussed how to prevent these entries into water (such as alternative active ingredients) and sewage plants will be investigated as a further potential entry route.

Source: Fundaufklärung Isoproturon. Abschlussbericht

Bavaria For Bavaria, the only relevant information on measures to protect water (yet not that new) that could be identified was the setting of buffer zones along water. Also, some active substance specific measures with regard to water protection were identified and listed her as an example of existing measures.

There are “regular” buffer zone requirements with regard to surface water and requirements in relation to fields with a slope. The only water bodies exempted from these rules are ditches that occasionally carry water.

To protect surface water PPPs may not be applied beyond any cropping area. Buffer zone requirements to protect water remain in place if there is a road between the cropping area and the water body. Buffer zones are always measured from the top of the bank and requirements are product-specific.

The drift reducing technology must only be used on the first 20 meters along the water body, or on the non-treated zone.

Until 1999 there were fixed buffer zones (e.g. 20m). From 2000-2001 flexible buffer zones were set, depending on “point system”, depending on vegetation, type of water body and application technique. Since 2002 buffer zones are set depending on drift reducing technology.

Source: Presentation from Jürgen Hufnagel.

There are other measures, based on active substance, such as (examples):

Herbicides with bentazone

NG407: “no use on soil of pure sand, slightly silty sand and slightly clay soil

NG315: “No use before 15th April”.

Herbicides with chloridazon

NG415:”No use on soil type groups 0-3 according to LUFA classification shallow sand, sand, clay sand, sandy silt, very sandy clay and clay silt.

Herbicides with glyphosate for late applications in cereals (siccation)

WA700:”A use is only permitted on parts of surfaces, where weeds hinder the harvest of the crop” (analogous translation)

Insecticide bate in maize and sugar beet

NH681:”no application of treated seed if wind speed >5 m/s”

Source: Bayrisches Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten.

6


Examples of consequences of use restrictions in Bavaria The following two examples deal with how issues with specific substances are handled. The first is about a recommendation to use alternative substances to avoid water contamination with TBA and the second one is about a “problem shift”, where the restriction of clomazone led to a increased use of metazachlor, which is much more problematic with regard to water.

1. Water protection with herbicide use in winter rape

Preventive groundwater protection

In May 2017 it was reported by the competent authority for agriculture that there is an increased risk of terbuthylazin (TBA) to getting into groundwater (thin protective soil layers; jurrassic carst area). This risk has been confirmed by corresponding findings in groundwater. In terms of approved active substances, TBA is the one that is most often found in groundwater. The metabolite desethylterbuthylazin is found even more often. There is a chemical similarity between TBA and atrazine or simazine.

There are currently 12 products (status May 2017) containing TBA; these are used in maize and one is used for weed control in minor crops lupines and sorghum millet.

The use of TBA containing herbicides is linked to the prevention of drift into surface water and in non-sprayed zones along the fields as well as to runoff prevention measures. Leaching into groundwater is prevented through the allowed application rate of TBA. The use instructions on the label state that the products should be not be used on sensitive soil types (sandy soils, carstic soils with thin top soil etc.).

The following other uses are recommended for maize cultures:

Products based on :

Dimethenamid-P Flufenacet Pendimenthalin Pethoxamid S-Metholachlor

In the area of the Jurassic Carst areas are marked where the use of TBA would represent a specifically high risk for groundwater and where it is recommended to not use TBA products at all.

Source: Bayrische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (19.5.2017)

2. More problems with metazachlor because of use restriction of Clomazone

In April 2016 the Bavarian Plant Protection Service reported that chemical weed control in winter rape implies usually soil herbicides with a high amount of active substance. Because of severe use restrictions with regard to Clomazone-herbicides uses have almost completely switched to Metazachlor-containing products. Metazachlor and its metabolites are an issue with regard to water. Substances that represent a general risk to contaminate water can not be approved and substances that have a n increased leaching

7


potential are only approved if they are used in extremely small amounts or if they have a very rapid degradation.

Metazachlor is now used on over 90% of rape fields in Bavaria. As a result, groundwater contamination has changed and has an impact on water body status. Therefore, action has to be taken with regard to sensitive rape fields in terms of water protection.

Users are called to be careful when using Metazachlor herbicides and to consider local soil or landscape properties. It is recommended to not use these herbicides in water protection and water catchment areas. The use should be minimized on areas sensitive in terms of groundwater. That is, on shallow, sandy or stony soils, in jurassic carst zones and in zones where groundwater bodies have been negatively categorized other products (not containing metazachlor) are to be used. Alternatively, uses of little dosage (<500 g/ha metazachlor) are to be used. Likewise, on normal zones where there is no particular leaching risk it makes sense to switch between products containing metazachlor and products without metazachlor in rape cultures; or to apply lesser dosages. The responsible and reduced use will ensure that the substance can remain on the market and prevent stricter use restrictions from the authorities.

The Bavarian Plant protection service supports the risk management via the development of herbicides without metazachlor and with reduced applications in rape. To replace metazachlor only two alternatives exist: pethoxamid and clomazone.

Source: LfL Pflanzenschutz (5.4.2016)

Berlin No specific or relevant information that would have contributed to this update could be identified.

Brandenburg Various documents and websites were scanned and revealed that mainly nitrates and fertilizer use in general are an issue. Plant Protection Products are not specifically mentioned.

Bremen No specific or relevant information that would have contributed to this update could be identified.

Hamburg No specific or relevant information that would have contributed to this update could be identified.

8


Hessen The “environmental evaluation” is the basis for the plan of measures 2015-2021. This evaluation states that pesticide contamination of surface water has decreased over the years. Compared to the first round of river basin management plans increased concentrations of active substances were found in 22 instead of 83 surface water bodies.

With regard to groundwater, diffuse contamination from agriculture (nitrates and PPPs) remain an issue (in 8 groundwater bodies that were contaminated with nitrates, PPPs also were found). In order to decrease PPP contamination technical measures as well as behavioral changes were implemented.

Source: Strategische Umweltprüfung zum Hessischen Maßnahmenprogramm 2015-2021 für die Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie (December 2015)

Program of measures from the river basin management plan 2015-2021 The program of measures does not contain specific measures with regard to plant protection products but refers to the National Action Plan on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

Source: Maßnahmenprogramm Hessen 2015-2021

Source: https://www.hlnug.de/themen/wasser/grundwasser/berichte/pflanzenschutzmittel-in-grund-und-oberflaechengewaessern.html

Lower Saxony The following measures (funded by the state) are conducted in Lower Saxony to protect water:

- AL22 Cultivation of winterhard crops that are cultivated between catch crops or undersowing - AL3 Controlled Uptake Long Term ammonium Nutrition (CULTAN) procedure with the

application of mineral fertilizers - AL5 No soil tillage after Maize cultivation - BV3 Organic farming - BS71 Erosion prevention buffer zones (“Erosionsschutzstreifen”) - BS72 Buffer zones along water bodies (along surface waters)

Source : Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern In December 2016 a document called “Explanations on a proposal to set water protection zones” was published. In that document it is stated that most PPP active substance can not be removed at all from drinking water or only with a lot of difficulties. The 0,0005 mg/l threshold can only be observed if these substances do not get into groundwater at all.

The use of PPPs within zones IIIA and IIIIB is permitted if the use instructions are observed. Within zone II, the use of PPPs is completely prohibited.

9


The aerial application of PPPs is allowed within zones IIIA and IIIB if authorized specifically (exceptional authorization given by the LALLF). The aerial spraying within the zone I is prohibited.

The setup or extension of horticulture companies is allowed within a zone IIIB if the laws on fertilizers and plant protection are followed. In zones II and IIIA the setup of horticulture companies is prohibited, because of the risk of PPPs or fertilizers leaching into groundwater. The reason is that here, PPPs are often not used as instructed.

The setup of tree nurseries, forestry plantations, hop, vegetable, fruit and ornamental cultivations is allowed in zones III A and IIIB if good agricultural practices are followed in terms of fertilizer and PPP application. The setup of the latter is not allowed in zone II.

The storage and filling of PPPs is allowed within zones IIIA and IIIB provided that appropriate safety measures are foreseen. Sprayers can be filled at the edge of the field at an appropriate place. Storage and filling of PPPs is not allowed within zone II.

Source: Erläuterungen zum Muster einer Verordnung zur Festsetzung von Wasserschutzgebieten im Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. 28.12.2016

North Rhine-Westphalia The North Rhine-Westphalian program of measures 2016-2021 only states that “Specific measures to reduce diffuse PPP contamination include PPP use reduction in agriculture, reduction of erosion and runoff, reduction of nutrient runoff and nutrient contamination through drainage, buffer zones to reduce nutrient contamination.”

The document refers to the National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

Source: Maßnahmenprogramm 2016-2021 für die nordrheinwestfälischen Anteile von Rhein, Weser, Ems and Maas. (December 2015)

Rhineland-Palatinate In Rhineland-Palatinate measures to protect water from PPP contamination include buffer zones along water bodies.

It is stated that in Rhineland-Palatinate almost 20% of surface water bodies are in a bad chemical/ecological state (exceedances of the EQS, for instance for Diflufenican 0,009 𝜇g/l).

The implementation of Good Agricultural Practice in Rhineland-Palatinate requires a buffer zone of 1 m (from the bank).

10


Picture 1 - Bad practice along a water course

In order to prevent runoff, there must be a vegetated buffer zone between two treated areas with a slope of >2%. The protection potential must not be hampered through the use of machinery. The minimum width must be between 5 and 20 m. This buffer zone is not necessary if the PPP application happens in mulch or direct seeding (“Direktsaat”). Buffer zones are set per product and use of drift reduction equipment.

Farmers have three options to implement GAP with the use of PPPs along water bodies:

- No use of PPPs requiring buffer zones - Use of drift reduction equipment - Establishment of buffer zones

Source: Gewässerrandstreifen- Abstandsauflagen und Pflanzenschutz. Werner Beck, DLR Rheinhessen-Nahe-Hunsrück, Bad Kreuznach. 22 06 2016

The new state water law (Landeswassergesetz – LWG) is based on cooperation with agriculture. The objective is to achieve reduction of diffuse contamination through voluntary measures. In case these voluntary measures do not suffice to achieve the goals, §33 of that water law provides that mandatory buffer zones are set.

A buffer zone is measured form the top edge of the bank.

Saarland No specific (new) measures could be identified for Saarland.

11


Saxony The state of Saxony contributed to the program of measures in the Elbe and Oder catchment (Elbe and Oder 2016-2021). It is stated that if the EQS for a product is exceeded in surface water, the likelihood that the source of contamination stems from agriculture is evaluated based on the portion of agricultural surface. If more than 30% of the catchment is agricultural surface, it is assumed that the source of contamination stems from agriculture. Measures relating to good agricultural practice are in place to avoid water contamination and advice would be given to farmers to avoid such contamination.

Measures in agriculture to prevent nutrient and PPP entry into surface and groundwater are:

Reduction of runoff of erosion – reduction of entry of fine particles in water, nitrates and PPPs

Over-wintering stubbles

Auto-greening

Use of herb rich seed mixtures Seed mixtures of crops in different portions

Autogreening with rotational approach

Durable conservational tillage/direct seeding in autumn and spring Setup of vegetated buffer zones

Use of soil protecting production methods in feed crop production

Organic farming Seeding of catch crop

Undersown crops

Reduction of PPP entry into water

Nature friendly agriculture including PPP use reduction and directions on grown crops

Table 2 - Saxony's measures to reduce PPP contamination

Source: Sächsische Beiträge zu den Maßnahmenprogrammen Elbe und Oder. Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, und Geologie. Freistaat Sachsen. 2015

Saxony-Anhalt No specific (new) measures with regard to PPPs could be identified.

Schleswig-Holstein No specific measures could be identified in the referenced document. Only very general statements such as “PPP contamination of water is to be reduced” could be identified.

Source: Maßnahmenprogramm (gem Art 11 EG-WRRL bzw . § 82 WHG) FGE Eider. 2. Bewirtschaftungszeitraum 2016-2021

12


Schlei-Trave

Proposed measures are as general as stating that PPP contamination of water is to be reduced.

No specific measures could be identified in the referenced document.

Source: Maßnahmenprogramm (gem. Art 11 EG-WRRL bzw. §82 WHG) FGE Schlei/Trave 2. Bewirtschatungszeitraum 2016-2021

Elbe

Proposed measures are as general as stating that PPP contamination of water is to be reduced.

No specific measures could be identified in the referenced document. Reference to the NAP is made.

Source: Maßnahmenplanung (gem. Art 11 EG-WRRL bzw. §82 WHG) im SH Anteil der FGE Elbe. 2. Bewirtschaftungszeitraum 2016-2021

Thuringia The Thuringia state authority for agriculture states the following with regard to water protection in the context of plant protection:

“In Thuringia about 60% of agricultural surface present a high risk of water erosion. Permanent soil cover for instance help reducing erosion. Measures to prevent/reduce erosion are:

- Minimization of period without soil cover through adapted crop rotation, catch crops and under sowing

- Mulching, strip-till, direct seeding (in particular in crops prone to erosion : Maize, sugar beet etc.)

- Permanent greening of threatened drainage channels - Shortening of slopes that are prone to erosion through adapted cropping (alternating crops that

are easily subject to erosion with crops that are less subjective to erosion), set up of erosion protection zones

- Optimization of cultivation (depending on slope/soil etc. preferring one crop over an other) - Avoidance of tractor lines that go down the slope (or making sure that these tractor lines are

greened) - Set up of buffer zones to protect water

Improvement of the soil’s capacity to deal with rain and improving infiltration capacity of soil through:

- Decreased soil tillage (no ploughing, no intense seed bed preparation), promotion of high humus content, increased root presence and micro fauna, ensure sufficient lime content, avoid top soil drying up

- Avoid soil compaction, increase/promote earthworm activities…

Source: Thüringer Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft

13


NATIONAL ACTION PLAN TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDES FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2023

The German National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products was released by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture in 2013. The plan states, on water:

For groundwater, the “Report on the Composition of Ground Water – Plant Protection Products – Reporting Period 2001-2008” issued by the LAWA (a joint Federal -Länder working group on water related issues), points out that from 1990 to 2008 there was a reduction in the quantity of water-body measuring points at which there was an infringement of the threshold value of 0.1 μg/l for plant protection products, as defined by the Drinking Water Directive. However, it should also be stated that the decline in instances of pollution of the groundwater is essentially attributable to declining numbers of findings of Atrazin, Desethylatrazin and a small number of other active substances and metabolites, the use of which has already been banned for years or even decades. The level of pollution of the groundwater resulting from approved plant protection products is relatively low and has not changed significantly over the whole period under consideration. “ and on possible entry routes of PPPs into water:

“The reason for entries of active substances used in plant protection products or their metabolites into the groundwater or surface water is often to be found in the products being used in applications that are inappropriate or not in accordance with their designated purpose, e.g. on hard surfaces outside agriculture. Other reasons include inappropriate cleaning of the sprayers, resulting in entries into water bodies and sewage works (entries from point sources). There are still gaps in knowledge regarding the extent and the relevance of entries of plant protection products sourced from applications that involve improper use, inconsistent with the product‘s designated purpose, on farmed or non- cropped land (e.g. paths and squares, railway lines, industrial facilities, airports).” And, last but not least, on other contamination sources outside agriculture:

“Reference should also be made to possible entries from the use of biocides containing active substances from plant protection products (e.g. herbicides in roofing felt or fungicides in paints applied to the exteriors of houses); these cannot yet be quantified more closely. “

The plan further notes that “pollution of water by active substances in plant protection products affect waters that have a large proportion of area under agricultural use in their catchment area. Pollution due to plant protection products is mainly the result of pathways from point sources, originating from municipal waste water treatment plants in rural areas. The substantial part of the pollution of water bodies by plant protection products is because there is still not enough compliance with existing regulations and recommendations, governing the emptying out of residues in the proper manner and the cleaning of the plant protection equipment. Other important entry sources include a variety of entries from agricultural areas due to spray drift and run-off after precipitation events, or via drainage.

Research results on the condition of small water bodies in agricultural landscapes (standing water bodies and flowing water bodies, catchment area < 10 km2) show that the concentrations of active substances of plant protection products in small water bodies exceed the level that is harmless to the environment and that, in many instances, a good chemical and ecological status has not yet been reached. As a basic principle, small water bodies are particularly exposed to a variety of entries or to entries from point

14


sources, if they are located in the catchment area of agricultural lands on which plant protection products are used. There are various reasons for the pollution in these water bodies at present,due to residues of plant protection products. There is no monitoring of small water bodies by public authorities. Because of the measurement network that would be necessary for this, it would go beyond the scope of the Water Framework Directive monitoring requirements and the possibilities and resources of the Länder for a public monitoring of water bodies.”

There have been for many years measures in place to avoid water contamination with pesticides. However, it seems that more far reaching measure are necessary to achieve good chemical and ecological status for our water bodies.

Legislation with regard to PPPs to protect the environment can be assumed to cover very possible potential entry route:

Figure 1 – Elements of the existing regulatory law on plant protection (copied from the German National Action Plan on the Sustainable use of PPPs 2013)

Source: German National Action Plan on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products 2013

15


Under point 4.6 on the protection of the aquatic environment and of drinking water, it is stated that the Member States have to take suitable measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies from PPPs. In particular “The measures include the preferential use of plant protection products containing active substances that are not declared to be of particular concern, that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment, and that contain no priority hazardous substances according to Article 16 (3) of Directive 2000/60/EC. “ Measures include buffer zones, use of drift reducing equipment and use restrictions and/or bans of certain products/substances. The particular responsibility of the Länder for protection of the aquatic environment is also emphasized in Article 22 of the Plant Protection Act (PflSchG).Measures to protect the aquatic environment are enshrined in the German water law under Article 12 of the Plant Protection Act (PflSchG).

This paragraph of the National Action plan makes it clear that existing legislation is in place to protect water from PPP contamination: “Moreover, already-existing regulations make comprehensive provision for protection of water bodies and the improvement of the ecological status of surface water and groundwater. With its Ordinance on Protection of Surface Waters (Oberflachengewa sserverordnung (Surface Water Ordinance); OgewV) of 20 July 2011, Germany implements the requirements stated in Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive: WFD) and in particular in Directive 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy (the Directive on Priority Substances or the Environmental Quality Standards Directive - EQSD, amending or repealing previous laws). Environmental quality standards for active substances in plant protection products are stated in the list of harmful substances specific to river areas that is designated for determining the ecological status of the surface waters (Surface Waters Ordinance (OgewV), Annex 5) and for determining the chemical status of the surface waters in the lists of Priority Substances (Surface Waters Ordinance (OgewV), Annex 7, Table 1), as well as for determining certain other harmful substances (Surface Waters Ordinance (OgewV), Annex 7, Table 2). “

The targets regarding protection of water bodies must consider cohesion between water protection law and plant protection law. Non relevant metabolites must also be taken into account.

Organic farming is seen to contribute to water protection by not using chemical synthetic pesticides. Moreover, a 30% risk reduction related to PPPs for the environment is to be achieved by 2023 and the use of PPPs must be limited to a strict minimum.

Also, it may be decided to create buffer zones that are permanently covered by vegetation, adjacent to waters in sensitive areas identified by hot-spot analyses. Regions with a high density of water bodies will be entitled to particular conditions. Legislative measures might be added here, in case the voluntary measures are not sufficient.

16


Table 3 – Targets, target quotas and timetable (from the German NAP 2013)

17


To protect the aquatic environment and drinking water, it must be ensured that, PPPs are used that are not dangerous for the aquatic environment ant that do not contain hazardous substances. The related measure is about identifying criteria for active substances of particular concern and to set quotas specific to active substances and dates for the use reduction of PPPs containing these substances.

Source: Nationaler Aktionsplan zur nachhaltigen Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. 2008

Source: National Action Plan on the Sustainable use of pesticides 2013